[moki]

I stumbled upon this by accident... quite interesting.

from: http://www.ingenuitysoftware.com/products/ifile.html

.....

Without divulging too many details, we are working on an information assistant to work alongside the Macintosh Finder. It has been over seventeen years since Bruce Horn created the first Finder, and a lot has changed since then.

While the Finder's basic design is clearly still viable--witness Microsoft's desktop interface, based on Finder concepts, and the usability and relative scalability of the existing Finder--it still was designed with 400K floppies and small numbers of files in mind. We believe that the Finder could use some help in managing the huge new volumes of information that pour onto everybody's desktop.

Our solution for this is iFile. iFile uses patent-pending technologies and user interface innovations to bring mountains of information under control. We think that our new approach will make finding your information faster, more convenient, and more intuitive, and of course, more fun! We think that it will be well worth the wait; we are striving to create a product that you won't be able to live without. To do that, we need to hear from you.

Although the product is functionally complete and in alpha test, we would still like to solicit comments and suggestions. Please provide us with your opinions via our on-line survey. Your comments and suggestions are important to us and we hope to incorporate your great ideas into iFile.

We've been thinking about information management issues for many years, but there is no substitute for hearing about your experience! Please let us know via the survey, or send any suggestions and comments to suggest@ingenuitysoftware.com.

Thanks!

[Gul Banana]

It's certainly very interesting; the survey, though, seems a bit.. outdated. A lot of it doesn't seem to quite apply to OS X...
*checks the News page*
Oh dear. The last update, the one saying that iFile is functionally complete, was in 2000. January 2000.

[sadie]

So they're working in an area we all know needs help, and want our suggestions... but they don't actually tell us anything?

[bruce.horn]

Andrew, I started iFile quite a while ago and did have a version finished in mid-1999. Due to various circumstances I dropped the project, mainly to focus my efforts on a new company (Marketocracy; maybe you heard our interview on NPR last week, or saw Good Morning America yesterday? ;-)) After seeing OSX I decided it would be worth resurrecting iFile and will be releasing a version this fall now that Marketocracy is up and running.

iFile is a modular desktop that is based on the concept of continuous search. It supports metadata (similar to the BeOS file system, which I actually had never seen until after developing iFile) and will be familiar to Finder users, as you might expect. There are quite a few interesting new features that I think people will really find useful.

I haven't updated the website for quite a while, as folks have noted; I definitely need to get things organized on that front.

I'll post here when there is a public alpha available.

Bruce Horn

[KaptainKaya]

Originally posted by bruce.horn:
Andrew, I started iFile quite a while ago and did have a version finished in mid-1999. Due to various circumstances I dropped the project, mainly to focus my efforts on a new company (Marketocracy; maybe you heard our interview on NPR last week, or saw Good Morning America yesterday? ;-)) After seeing OSX I decided it would be worth resurrecting iFile and will be releasing a version this fall now that Marketocracy is up and running.

iFile is a modular desktop that is based on the concept of continuous search. It supports metadata (similar to the BeOS file system, which I actually had never seen until after developing iFile) and will be familiar to Finder users, as you might expect. There are quite a few interesting new features that I think people will really find useful.

I haven't updated the website for quite a while, as folks have noted; I definitely need to get things organized on that front.

I'll post here when there is a public alpha available.

Bruce Horn

Good to hear! I will definitely be one of the first to try this out!

[Rickster]

iFile is a modular desktop that is based on the concept of continuous search.

Sounds like one of the forgotten promises of Copland... cool.

[krove]

Originally posted by bruce.horn:
iFile is a modular desktop that is based on the concept of continuous search.

Not having ever used BeOS, can someone elaborate on continuous search?

Certainly is intriguing...

[CreamyAcorn]

Hmm, perhaps something along the lines smart playlists?

Smart Playlists is definitely a concept I'd love to see extend out into other areas. Perhaps smart mailboxes in Mail, or smart folders in the Finder. The possiblities are endless, and i hope Apple themselves grab hold of the opportunities to really further the Finder.

[Rickster]

Not having ever used BeOS, can someone elaborate on continuous search?

Yeah, think iTunes 3 and its Smart Playlists, but with files and folders. Instead of a search being something that happens once, you've got little folder-like icons that open into regular Finder windows which collect files and folders according to previously specified criteria. Like "all Photoshop files owned by me and modified within the last week", or "640 MB of stuff from my home folder that I've touched between 1/1/2001 and 1/1/2002", or "all applications in all subfolders of my Games folder" (drop that last one in the Dock for an instant shortcut menu, no messy hierarchy full of README's and baseq3's and such).

Apple advertised something like this as a planned feature of the old Copland OS project in 1994 or so, but it was never realized. BeOS did something similar, which worked exceptionally well thanks to its ability to deal with arbitrary metadata attached to files.

[ratlater]

Originally posted by Rickster:


Yeah, think iTunes 3 and its Smart Playlists, but with files and folders. Instead of a search being something that happens once, you've got little folder-like icons that open into regular Finder windows which collect files and folders according to previously specified criteria. Like "all Photoshop files owned by me and modified within the last week", or "640 MB of stuff from my home folder that I've touched between 1/1/2001 and 1/1/2002", or "all applications in all subfolders of my Games folder" (drop that last one in the Dock for an instant shortcut menu, no messy hierarchy full of README's and baseq3's and such).

Apple advertised something like this as a planned feature of the old Copland OS project in 1994 or so, but it was never realized. BeOS did something similar, which worked exceptionally well thanks to its ability to deal with arbitrary metadata attached to files.

Wow, that sounds awesome. I really hope Apple uses Giompolo (I murdered his name) to write a great new file system so they can implement something like that in a future version. Drool...


-matt

[bruce.horn]

Originally posted by Rickster:

...
Apple advertised something like this as a planned feature of the old Copland OS project in 1994 or so, but it was never realized. BeOS did something similar, which worked exceptionally well thanks to its ability to deal with arbitrary metadata attached to files.

I actually was consulting with Apple in their advanced technology group, and wrote a comprehensive paper for them about future development of the Finder. Some of the ideas have been realized but many have not.

Bruce

[dr. zoidberg]

hehe wow... ambrosia's el presidente, rick from omni group and bruce horn contributing in one sole thread at macnn.... i´m stoked

[sadie]

dr. zoidberg emoted:
ambrosia's el presidente, rick from omni group and bruce horn contributing in one sole thread at macnn.... i´m stoked

I know how you feel. Whee! Me get private message form Bruce Horn!

*ahem* I'm back, and i'm thoroughly grown up and responsible.

bruce.horn pointed out
I actually was consulting with Apple in their advanced technology group, and wrote a comprehensive paper for them about future development of the Finder. Some of the ideas have been realized but many have not.

Perhaps you could tell us, just how open is Apple to all these visionary ideas that we float around? Are they actually working on the things we imagine them working on? Are great developments happening somewhere inside Fortress Cupertino? Or do they just wish we'd go away and let them be as Windows-compatible as possible?

[bruce.horn]

Originally posted by sadie:

...Perhaps you could tell us, just how open is Apple to all these visionary ideas that we float around? Are they actually working on the things we imagine them working on? Are great developments happening somewhere inside Fortress Cupertino? Or do they just wish we'd go away and let them be as Windows-compatible as possible?

I don't know myself. I was in ATG back in the old days (1994-1995) when I wrote that paper. I think they have a lot to work on before they start doing revolutionary things, but I am certain that Steve has big plans for the future. Unix is a double-edged sword--on one hand the Mac will always be handcuffed by the various limitations imposed by the OS structure, but on the other hand a lot of new University research is done on Unix.

A friend said yesterday that we are already seeing the benefits of Apple's move to Unix, in that Apple is making major new releases several times a year. That would never be possible with (say) Windows.

Bruce

[SteveJobs]

A serious question that probably concerns most of us:
Do you think that Apple will be able to change that structure so they are able to make everything _really_ intuitive as it should be (if you read that book from Jef Raskin, you will know that no current OS is actually intuitive)?

It is obvious that Apple has many options currently, but what will they actually do in the future? (Besides adopting open standards to make the mac a digital hub)

Steve

[bruce.horn]

Originally posted by SteveJobs:
A serious question that probably concerns most of us:
Do you think that Apple will be able to change that structure so they are able to make everything _really_ intuitive as it should be (if you read that book from Jef Raskin, you will know that no current OS is actually intuitive)?

It is obvious that Apple has many options currently, but what will they actually do in the future? (Besides adopting open standards to make the mac a digital hub)

Steve

I agree that no OS is actually intuitive, but also think that there is no such thing really. There are OS's that have well thought-out models (I would like to think that the original MacOS was such an OS) but there will always be a learning curve. The question is, what is the smallest amount of knowledge needed to predict how you might do a given function in the OS? If you have a lot of special cases (my friend Dave Every calls it "stupid knowledge") then it is not intuitive. If it is consistent and predictable, then it is "intuitive".

There is no silver bullet, just good design.

I don't know where Apple is going, but I don't mind helping them by providing some new options for direction

Bruce

[frawgz]

Am I alone in hoping Apple brings Mr. Horn here back into their fold along with some other Apple veterans who have already returned? It sounds like there could be some synergy between iFile and whatever work the BeFS engineer is doing.

[Big Mac]

I have to echo the sentiments of frawgz - Apple would greatly benefit from Mr. Horn's presence once again. I'm so glad he's decided to share his insight with the forums.

[Nathan Adams]

I've been wondering for a while why Apple does not make moves to rehire people like you Bruce, and others, like those who founded the AIG.
Although I think Apple has made some good changes to the interface with os x to make things more intuitive (sheets being a great example), I'm sure other things that they neglected would have surely been adressed by people like yourself, and I can't understand why Apple would not try and get people who have large knowledge in how to do things properly aren't even hired as consultants.

[Sven G]

One thing that I don't understand that much in Apple's (still quite Classic-like) Finder approach is why they don't want to include web browsing into the Finder (like Explorer, Konqueror, etc. on other platforms): that wouldn't certainly mean to "make the OS a web page", as many people fear - it could only be of benefit to the users, especially the new/"uneducated" ones! I really hope that Apple has hired Hyatt (the former main Chimera developer) to give us some more modular "Finder & (i)Web" integration. The risk with a too NeXT-ish approach is that there will be far too many, "fragmented" and relatively unrelated apps ("Services" integration isn't really enough from a perception-of-unity point of view, IMO), while there could be a much more unified user experience with a more truly modular approach - or is this too "un-Mac-like"...? Just my 2 (euro)cents...

[MacGorilla]

Steve has said that the Internet will be seperate from the OS, that is, no web browser integrated. I personally ditest web browser driven file management, like Konquerer; it's too much overhead for such an operation.

When I use KDE 3, to simply browse my Home directory requires that Konqueror be fired up. No thanks!

[Spirit_VW]

Originally posted by Sven G:
One thing that I don't understand that much in Apple's (still quite Classic-like) Finder approach is why they don't want to include web browsing into the Finder (like Explorer, Konqueror, etc. on other platforms): that wouldn't certainly mean to "make the OS a web page", as many people fear - it could only be of benefit to the users, especially the new/"uneducated" ones! I really hope that Apple has hired Hyatt (the former main Chimera developer) to give us some more modular "Finder & (i)Web" integration. The risk with a too NeXT-ish approach is that there will be far too many, "fragmented" and relatively unrelated apps ("Services" integration isn't really enough from a perception-of-unity point of view, IMO), while there could be a much more unified user experience with a more truly modular approach - or is this too "un-Mac-like"...? Just my 2 (euro)cents...

I'm going to have to say "ick." I've never cared for the idea of making the file organizing app a Web browser at the same time. Web browsers and file organizers are designed for two very different things. As far a new users go, well - boot up any new Mac, and there's the big blue Internet Explorer "E" in the Dock. Put the cursor over it and it says "Internet Explorer." I don't really think this is that hard for newbies.

No offense meant, or anything - I'm just saying that I think it's a bad idea.

[Sven G]

I just meant that "browsing" *any* kind of documents, at any level, should be a far more *transparent* process for the user: having an independent app for every "big" task is, IMO, rather confusing in the long run, and probably also adds some redundancy. Essentially, what I envisage is a "return" to some new form of OpenDoc-like, truly modular and also BeOS/database-like architecture. Perhaps it isn't so clear in my explanation, but I would prefer, instead of tens of essentially self-contained "iApps", a more shared (OS) foundation on which the various application functionalities are truly plugin-like modules. One of the really confusing things for new users are things like "to do this you must use this application, to do this other thing that application", etc.: the whole interaction with the computer should be more document- and task-based, at least in "basic" mode ("get stuff done" as transparently as possible).

As for the "heavy" Konqueror launch time, that's certainly an issue (especially in OS X) - but the concept of having one integrated environment in which to perform all the basic document tasks is a good one, IMHO (even if the web browser metaphore shouldn't take over everything, of course). Ideally, the basic user shouldn't even have to deal with concepts like "applications", etc., which are obvious to advanced users, but mean almost nothing to whom only wants to get stuff done.

With 10.2 there will be at least 3 Apple semi-browser-like apps: the Finder (with the added "Forward" button: good!), Sherlock 3, and the Help Viewer; if we - hypothetically - add to this a new Apple-branded Chimera clone (see Hyatt), there will be 4 (!) different implementations of browsing in OS X (and even more if we also count Mail, Address Book, iPhoto, etc. as document-managing apps) - *way* too redundant! There should indeed be some form of foundation "cleanup" and real modular integration, sooner or later...

[Drizzt]

Originally posted by SteveJobs:
A serious question that probably concerns most of us:
Do you think that Apple will be able to change that structure so they are able to make everything _really_ intuitive as it should be (if you read that book from Jef Raskin, you will know that no current OS is actually intuitive)?

It is obvious that Apple has many options currently, but what will they actually do in the future? (Besides adopting open standards to make the mac a digital hub)

Steve

The only "intuitive" interface is you mother's breast. After that, everything as been learned
-- Bruce Ediger, bediger@teal.csn.org, in comp.os.linux.misc, talking about GUIs

(Lookup "intuitive" in a dictionnary if you want to understand)

[Spirit_VW]

Originally posted by Sven G:
I just meant that "browsing" *any* kind of documents, at any level, should be a far more *transparent* process for the user: having an independent app for every "big" task is, IMO, rather confusing in the long run, and probably also adds some redundancy. Essentially, what I envisage is a "return" to some new form of OpenDoc-like, truly modular and also BeOS/database-like architecture. Perhaps it isn't so clear in my explanation, but I would prefer, instead of tens of essentially self-contained "iApps", a more shared (OS) foundation on which the various application functionalities are truly plugin-like modules. One of the really confusing things for new users are things like "to do this you must use this application, to do this other thing that application", etc.: the whole interaction with the computer should be more document- and task-based, at least in "basic" mode ("get stuff done" as transparently as possible).

As for the "heavy" Konqueror launch time, that's certainly an issue (especially in OS X) - but the concept of having one integrated environment in which to perform all the basic document tasks is a good one, IMHO (even if the web browser metaphore shouldn't take over everything, of course). Ideally, the basic user shouldn't even have to deal with concepts like "applications", etc., which are obvious to advanced users, but mean almost nothing to whom only wants to get stuff done.

With 10.2 there will be at least 3 Apple semi-browser-like apps: the Finder (with the added "Forward" button: good!), Sherlock 3, and the Help Viewer; if we - hypothetically - add to this a new Apple-branded Chimera clone (see Hyatt), there will be 4 (!) different implementations of browsing in OS X (and even more if we also count Mail, Address Book, iPhoto, etc. as document-managing apps) - *way* too redundant! There should indeed be some form of foundation "cleanup" and real modular integration, sooner or later...

I don't really see how having the Finder, Sherlock, and Help Viewer is redundant - each does totally different things. The Finder manages your files and folders. Sherlock is a front-end to various Web services. Help Viewer is, well, a help viewer. They're not related in many ways other than being OS X apps and sharing a few basic buttons. Go ahead and add in, say, a Web browser, Mail, Address Book, iPhoto, etc. etc. if you want, but that's still not redundant. The browser views web pages. Mail handles your e-mail (do you really want to do e-mail in the Finder)? Address Book, your Vcards. iPhoto helps you organize, *edit and share* your digital photos (not just browse them).

My point is, each one of these apps is built to do a specific thing, and do it well. If you wanted to get rid of the "redundancy" of these apps, say the Finder, Sherlock, and Help Viewer as your examples - well, let's think about that. You'd have a Finder that handles your local and remote files and folders, is a front end to Web services like yellow pages, stocks, package tracking, and movie times, AND lets you search through all your help files.

The phrase "Jack of all trades, master of none" comes to mind.

[Sven G]

Hmmm... No, I don't want a monolithic Finder that does everything (that's why I was talking about *modular* integration!) - I'd rather want something like this:

http://developer.apple.com/techpubs/...c/opendoc.html

http://www.iam.unibe.ch/~scg/Researc...s/opendoc.html

I definitely think that Apple should try to revive OpenDoc in some form in the near future: this is also tightly related to the many topics that there have been on this forum about new, more "modern" forms of user interface, BTW...

[SteveJobs]

Hmm, there was a discussion on a German OS X mailing list about exactly that some time ago. Someone had noticed that Apple seemed to try to pull everyone away from the finder to the appropriate applications. The iApps show that in a wonderful way:
Rather than putting all the functionality of iTunes and iPhoto in the Finder (since both are very important for organization), the apps handle MP3s (or audio files in general) and photos. Yet, iTunes and iPhoto handle the documents way more elegant than a really powerful and improved Finder ever could do.

Personally, I think that this is a really good thing. Especially since one can write a better finder (SNAX is a good beginning) and replace the Finder as we know it with this

Steve

[Developer]

Originally posted by SteveJobs:
Hmm, there was a discussion on a German OS X mailing list about exactly that some time ago. Someone had noticed that Apple seemed to try to pull everyone away from the finder to the appropriate applications. The iApps show that in a wonderful way.

This is a heavily application centric way. It works well for stuff like a music library where you don't want to mix document types, but if you work on documents/projects that mix document types it would be heavily unpractical to have to uses multiple 'special purpose Finders' to organize such documents/projects.

[jwblase]

Isn't this what Frameworks are supposed to be for in OS X? If an app wants to use an HTML renderer (for an email or web page) it makes a call to the appropriate Framework stored in the OS. The problem being: Who's making the best Framework, and who's going to use it?

It makes no sense to have 6 different companies (Omni, MS, iCab, Apple, Mozilla, Opera, etc...) write their own HTML engine Framework if each time it is called it needs different instructions.

I suppose one could install all such Frameworks and hope that developers write appropriate apps that make good use of them.

Seperate applications are a great idea. The thing that developers need to work on is the Appearance of integration. Apple is doing that very well with its suite of iApps. Each app has it's own purpose, but appears to work perfectly with each other. In reality, they are each doing their own thing, even if they do do somethings redundantly (like HTML rendering)

JB