[veldmon]

Moving a file in Windows Explorer (Win 98, 2000, XP):

(fastest point-and-click method)

1. Navigate to folder with file-to-be-moved in it.
2. Right click file (brings up contextual menu).
3. Left click "cut" on contextual menu.
4. Navigate to new destination folder.
5. Right click on folder, or in folder.
6. Left click "paste" on contextual menu.

(done with only one Explorer window)



Moving a file in Finder (Icon view) (OS X):

(fastest point-and-click method)

1. Navigate to folder with file-to-be-moved in it.
2. Left click File menu.
3. Left click "New Finder Window".
4. In 2nd open Finder window, navigate to destination folder.
5. Adjust position of destination folder. (wasted time)
6. Adjust position of starting folder. (wasted time)
7. Drag file from starting folder to destination folder. (instead of simple mouse clicks, you have to constantly click,hold, & drag with mouse)

(required 2 Finder windows)




Cut/Paste paradigm explained (for ignorant/delusional Mac users):

- When you "cut" a file, the file itself is not physically removed from the hard drive and transfered to RAM.
- There is absolutely nothing "dangerous" that can happen to that file after you "cut" it. The file is still in the same folder even if you pull the cord to your computer before you are able "paste" the file.
- Unlike copy/paste, when you "paste" a file that has been "cut", the file itself is not moved on the physical hard drive, the only thing that changes is metadata about the file (its new folder location) for Windows.



Rebuttal to the clever:

- Yes, you can use one Finder window to copy a file, and then go back and delete the source file. That however does require the file data on the hard drive to be read and then written elsewhere (truly copied) (much, much slower)
- Yes, spring-loaded folders can alleviate the 2 Finder window requirement in some circumstances. Not so for complex file system navigation. Only works well when you don't have to move a file "up" in the hierarchy.



For the kneejerk reactionaries:

This has obviously been an excercise in futility in the eyes of those in the Mac community who are anal-retentive about the HIG (think inconsistency with brushed metal/aqua etc.) Well this was not written for you. It was written for the more pragmatic, some would say rational, Mac users.

I know the cut/paste concept is difficult for the blustering masses of Macheads that have never used, or refuse to see any good from, Windows. Just try and have an open mind like any good creative professional should have.

[Adam Betts]

Originally posted by veldmon:
For the kneejerk reactionaries:

This has obviously been an excercise in futility in the eyes of those in the Mac community who are anal-retentive about the HIG (think inconsistency with brushed metal/aqua etc.) Well this was not written for you. It was written for the more pragmatic, some would say rational, Mac users.

I know the cut/paste concept is difficult for the blustering masses of Macheads that have never used, or refuse to see any good from, Windows. Just try and have an open mind like any good creative professional should have.

For that comment alone, you're an idiot.

[veldmon]

Originally posted by Adam Betts:
For that comment alone, you're an idiot.

Beautiful. Attack the messenger and not the argument.

To be honest though, I expected that from you...

[Adam Betts]

Originally posted by veldmon:
Beautiful. Attack the messenger and not the argument.

Yeah, you're pretty ignorant too so it's not worth replying to your post. Many people who have read your previous posts will agree with me.

Originally posted by veldmon:
To be honest though, I expected that from you...

I feel honored that someone waited for my reply. Thanks

[alex_kac]

Originally posted by Adam Betts:
For that comment alone, you're an idiot.

Adam, I expected more from you. I usually agree with your posts and what you have to say and how you say it.

But the fact is - he's right.

[SYN]

Yes, spring-loaded folders can alleviate the 2 Finder window requirement in some circumstances. Not so for complex file system navigation. Only works well when you don't have to move a file "up" in the hierarchy.

Spring Loaded Folders, especially in column view, allow this to be *way* faster that Windows. One shouldn't even try to compare. And this is true for all circumstances, including going up in the hierarchy. And you don't have to adjust any windows, dropping to a window in the background brings it to the front immediately.

[Don Pickett]

Originally posted by veldmon:
Moving a file in Windows Explorer (Win 98, 2000, XP):

(fastest point-and-click method)

1. Navigate to folder with file-to-be-moved in it.
2. Right click file (brings up contextual menu).
3. Left click "cut" on contextual menu.
4. Navigate to new destination folder.
5. Right click on folder, or in folder.
6. Left click "paste" on contextual menu.

(done with only one Explorer window)

Moving a file in Finder, Column view (OS X):

(fastest point-and-click method)

1. Navigate to folder with file-to-be-moved in it.
2. Select file to be moved. Click and hold down.
3. Drag file to the top of the window, where you have customized your Toolbar.
4. Using Spring Loaded Folders, navigate through your folder structure.
5. Find destination folder.
6. Let go of the mouse.


Your ignorance of OS X is not our problem. I have customized my Toolbar and have never had a problem navigating any file structure.

Actually, for efficiency, nothing beats the Terminal.

[JKT]

Originally posted by veldmon:
Moving a file in Finder (Icon view) (OS X):

(fastest point-and-click method)

1. Navigate to folder with file-to-be-moved in it.
2. Left click File menu.
3. Left click "New Finder Window".
4. In 2nd open Finder window, navigate to destination folder.
5. Adjust position of destination folder. (wasted time)
6. Adjust position of starting folder. (wasted time)
7. Drag file from starting folder to destination folder. (instead of simple mouse clicks, you have to constantly click,hold, & drag with mouse)

(required 2 Finder windows)

Not going to let myself get dragged into this argument other than to say that this is plain wrong. Fastest mouse method is to use Spring-loaded folders which requires one or no windows to be open. Also, even if you do the above, there is absolutely no need to rearrange the position of the windows - just hover the dragged file over any visible portion of the background window and it is automatically brought to the front.

If you are going to do a comparison at least get the potential methodology correct.

Edit: also, you forget another way that is simple too - open your Finder window, drag file to Desktop, navigate to new location in Finder window, drag back from desktop. If that isn't as quick as and visually much more informative than your cut/paste method in Windows, I don't know what else could be.

[veldmon]

Originally posted by Adam Betts:
Yeah, you're pretty ignorant too so it's not worth replying to your post. Many people who have read your previous posts will agree with me.



Again with the "politics of personal destruction"...

So you must be saying that you agree with my assertion that Windows Explorer is a better tool than the Finder, at moving files.



I feel honored that someone waited for my reply. Thanks



Touche

[ApeInTheShell]

See: "Will Panther Allow..." for more exposure to us ignorant mac users. We sure are ignorant darnit!

[veldmon]

Originally posted by SYN:
Spring Loaded Folders, especially in column view, allow this to be *way* faster that Windows. One shouldn't even try to compare. And this is true for all circumstances, including going up in the hierarchy. And you don't have to adjust any windows, dropping to a window in the background brings it to the front immediately.

I tried to make it clear that I was only refering to Icon view. I will concede that Column view mixed with spring-loaded folders eliminates the need for two Finder windows when moving files. You still have to do the whole click, hold, and drag of the file to move it though, a downside in my opinion.

[veldmon]

Originally posted by Don Pickett:
Moving a file in Finder, Column view (OS X):

(fastest point-and-click method)

1. Navigate to folder with file-to-be-moved in it.
2. Select file to be moved. Click and hold down.
3. Drag file to the top of the window, where you have customized your Toolbar.
4. Using Spring Loaded Folders, navigate through your folder structure.
5. Find destination folder.
6. Let go of the mouse.


Your ignorance of OS X is not our problem. I have customized my Toolbar and have never had a problem navigating any file structure.

Actually, for efficiency, nothing beats the Terminal.

I would label what you have done a poweruser technique. I would suspect most average users don't bother to add folders to their Finder toolbar. You still have to drag the file to move it afterall. That is quite slower than just having to click "cut" and "paste" IMO.

Command-line is another matter...

[Don Pickett]

Originally posted by veldmon:
I would label what you have done a poweruser technique. I would suspect most average users don't bother to add folders to their Finder toolbar. You still have to drag the file to move it afterall. That is quite slower than just having to click "cut" and "paste" IMO.

Command-line is another matter...

Perhaps. However, in my teaching experience, I have found that students often get easily confused with "copy" and "paste" and how it applies to files and folders, so your method is liable to be confusing to normal users as well. This is why most people's computers are a mess.

[veldmon]

Originally posted by JKT:
Edit: also, you forget another way that is simple too - open your Finder window, drag file to Desktop, navigate to new location in Finder window, drag back from desktop. If that isn't as quick as and visually much more informative than your cut/paste method in Windows, I don't know what else could be.

Interesting technique. I hadn't thought of that before, may use it. I would still prefer to move files without having to drag them. I think the HIG (and implementation) is outdated in that regard. Why not add a "move" to the edit menu, and use it in the same way that Win Explorer does "cut"?

[Developer]

Originally posted by alexforsythe24:
I don't see why you say the metaphore doesn't work.

It is either very dangerous:

Originally posted by Diggory Laycock:
I can easily imagine a user selecting all of their home directory and accidentally pressing command-x.

or if implemented safer:

Originally posted by OptimusG4:
Actually in Windows, when you select cut, it just dims the icon and doesn't actually remove it until you select paste. I hit cut once on a zip disk and then ejected it, put it back in the drive, and the file was still there.

It behaves unlike any other copy/cut-paste operation. Now (the rule here is "if it doesn't look like a duck and doesn't quack like a duck, don't call it a duck.") this would be fine if it would be called "Collect items for move"/"Place collected items", but it sure doesn't fit the clipboard metaphor any more.

Also, and this is why already Copy of files in OS X breaks the clipboard metaphor, notice that Copy places a copy of the selection into the clipboard in the state of the time the Copy command was issued. Let's say you select the word "Steve" and copy it, then change that word to "Bill", you still expect the Paste command to paste the word "Steve" since that's the word you copied. Not so with files. If you copy a text file with the word "Steve", open the file, change the word to "Bill", save, then paste this file, you will paste files containing the word "Bill". Not what you copied. The metaphor is broken.

A much better way to copy/move files with using one window only would be a NeXT like Shelf. I assume removing a shortcut on the new left part of the new Finder just removes that file out of this shortcut part, but using a modifier key it could also be used as a shelf. Let's say command-drag for copying and command-option-drag for moving the file to a new destination.
Avoids all the problems with forcing moving files into the clipboard metaphor.

[CharlesS]

God, and they say Mac users are supposed to be arrogant... sheesh.

Oh well, here we go:

Originally posted by veldmon:
Cut/Paste paradigm explained (for ignorant/delusional Mac users):

- When you "cut" a file, the file itself is not physically removed from the hard drive and transfered to RAM.
- There is absolutely nothing "dangerous" that can happen to that file after you "cut" it. The file is still in the same folder even if you pull the cord to your computer before you are able "paste" the file.
- Unlike copy/paste, when you "paste" a file that has been "cut", the file itself is not moved on the physical hard drive, the only thing that changes is metadata about the file (its new folder location) for Windows.

You seem to be the one that is ignorant. You completely misrepresent the arguments of those who see the UI flaws associated with the cut-and-paste method of moving files.

Ironically enough, you have outlined the core problem with cut-and-paste yourself, in the section which I have quoted above. Namely:

1. Cut, copy, paste, and clear is a widely established paradigm which pervades almost all of modern computing. It works in almost every app that deals with data, and it has a very specific and strictly defined behavior, which every computer user understands:
   
   a. The Copy command makes a copy of something and puts it on the pasteboard.
   b. The Paste command makes a copy of the data on the pasteboard and writes it to the currently selected location.
   c. The Cut command copies something to the pasteboard, and then deletes it.
   d. The Clear command deletes something without copying it to the pasteboard.
   e. The data on the pasteboard is cleared when something else takes its place as a result of being Cut or Copied.
   f. The pasteboard is independent of the application, so these actions can be performed across applications seamlessly.
2. Upon these basic principles, a few other basic rules of usage follow:
   
   a. If I Copy something, I can then paste it repeatedly, producing as many copies of that data as I desire.
   b. Likewise, if I Cut something and then Paste it somewhere, I can continue to Paste it as many times as I please.
   c. If my hand is near the lower-left corner of the keyboard and I want to delete something quickly, I can use Cut to do so.
3. None of the above three things work in Windows Explorer. Additionally, your three examples above also are cases where cut-and-paste in Windows Explorer works completely differently from the way CnP works everywhere else in the system. There are infinitely many other cases as well - for example, what happens if I cut a file and then paste it into a Word document? - but the main point is that Windows Explorer brings interface inconsistency to a paradigm that otherwise works exactly the same way in every app (except for Excel, another offender, made by - guess who - Microsoft).
4. Inconsistent interfaces are extremely confusing to users. For a keen understanding of what sorts of things can be confusing, try to teach an 80-year-old how to use a computer. When I was teaching my (now departed) grandmother, she would always ask, in such situations, "why do I have to do it this way here, but that way there?" Consequently, she would always get mixed up, and perform the wrong action in the wrong application. Interface inconsistency is a bad thing. If it isn't truly cut and paste, it shouldn't be called "cut and paste". There would be no problem at all with WE's CnP implementation if it were named something else, but as it is, it is a poor example of interface design. You may think this is pedantic, but it's not. Inconsistent interfaces, along with buggy code, are the two reasons that the general populace tends to get frustrated with computers and to consider them too complicated to use. UI violations such as this are the bane of modern computing.

End of rant.

[edit: Developer beat me to it]

[veldmon]

Originally posted by Developer:
It is either very dangerous:
or if implemented safer:
It behaves unlike any other copy/cut-paste operation. Now (the rule here is "if it doesn't look like a duck and doesn't quack like a duck, don't call it a duck.") this would be fine if it would be called "Collect items for move"/"Place collected items", but it sure doesn't fit the clipboard metaphor any more.

Also, and this is why already Copy of files in OS X breaks the clipboard metaphor, notice that Copy places a copy of the selection into the clipboard in the state of the time the Copy command was issued. Let's say you select the word "Steve" and copy it, then change that word to "Bill", you still expect the Paste command to paste the word "Steve" since that's the word you copied. Not so with files. If you copy a text file with the word "Steve", open the file, change the word to "Bill", save, then paste this file, you will paste files containing the word "Bill". Not what you copied. The metaphor is broken.

A much better way to copy/move files with using one window only would be a NeXT like Shelf. I assume removing a shortcut on the new left part of the new Finder just removes that file out of this shortcut part, but using a modifier key it could also be used as a shelf. Let's say command-drag for copying and command-option-drag for moving the file to a new destination.
Avoids all the problems with forcing moving files into the clipboard metaphor.

I don't think your recycled quotes and answers are very relevent in this thread. Your sticking to the HIG or metaphors is blinding your perception, with all due respect of course.

It is most certainly not "dangerous". It makes perfect sense, without resorting to a NeXt shelf, if we drop the clipboard metaphor for files. Just leave that to text. Possibly a name change for "cut" and "paste" is in order, but the concept works great. Why not, maybe, "move", "here" or something, using the same technique Win explorer uses for "cut" and "paste".

[Chuckit]

Originally posted by veldmon:
It makes perfect sense, without resorting to a NeXt shelf, if we drop the clipboard metaphor for files.

"Resorting?" Why do we "resort" to the Shelf, while The Cut/Paste That Is Not Cut/Paste "makes perfect sense?"

Personally, I think your idea works best with the Shelf. Rather than Cut and Paste, you'd have an action to move files onto the Shelf and another to move them off. In this way, the Shelf becomes sort of a special pasteboard for files without being confused with an actual pasteboard or required to behave like one.

[Developer]

Originally posted by veldmon:
Your sticking to the HIG or metaphors is blinding your perception, with all due respect of course.

me: "It behaves unlike any other copy/cut-paste operation. Now [...] this would be fine if it would be called "Collect items for move"/"Place collected items"..."

you: " Possibly a name change for "cut" and "paste" is in order, but the concept works great. Why not, maybe, "move", "here" or something, using the same technique Win explorer uses for "cut" and "paste"."

As far as I can tell, we are saying the exact same thing. I mentioned the Shelf only because I believe it to be a logical extension. I didn't claim it's a necessary extension or even a replacement.

Note that none of the "anal-retentive kneejerk reactionary Macheads" like me argued against the functionality itself. We only argued against squeezing the functionality into the clipboard metaphor where it doesn't belong.

[veldmon]

Originally posted by Chuckit:
"Resorting?" Why do we "resort" to the Shelf, while The Cut/Paste That Is Not Cut/Paste "makes perfect sense?"

Personally, I think your idea works best with the Shelf. Rather than Cut and Paste, you'd have an action to move files onto the Shelf and another to move them off. In this way, the Shelf becomes sort of a special pasteboard for files without being confused with an actual pasteboard or required to behave like one.

I didn't mean to willy nilly dismiss the Shelf. It's a tad off-topic in some respects. Having never used NextStep(?), I don't know much about the Shelf. According to your description though, it does sound like it would be more Mac-like and just as efficient and functional as cut/paste for files.

[mrmister]

veldemon, maybe you should endeavor not to enter these discussions with such a massive chip on your shoulder.

[veldmon]

Originally posted by Developer:
Note that none of the "anal-retentive kneejerk reactionary Macheads" like me argued against the functionality itself. We only argued against squeezing the functionality into the clipboard metaphor where it doesn't belong.

Point taken. I completely agree with that position.

[veldmon]

Originally posted by mrmister:
veldemon, maybe you should endeavor not to enter these discussions with such a massive chip on your shoulder.

That's sure easy for an "elite member" to say.

I know these parts well, and I can tell you that it's not easy to be taken seriously if you don't have a few stars under your username.

Maybe you are displeased with my choice of the word "ignorance"? If that's the case, I meant that purely in its' technical sense: lacking knowledge of the way Windows Explorer handles the action of moving files.

But again, although the argument originated from the thoughts in my head, it's generally not appropriate to attack the author as opposed to his argument.

P.S. Please spell my name correctly if referenced further.

[Superchicken]

OK someone just said they don't drag files to the desktop when moving between two windows in OS X but instead always open two windows? Man that's weird I've always done that.

One thing you are forgetting is that, you really don't have to move things ALL that often, and personally I find if I'm moving things it's placing them into one folder and then possibly inside of more folders inside the folder. Rarely do I decide, I'm going to take my music, and move it into my graphics folder. If I put a file somewhere unless I just download it I'm going to put it where it belongs. I don't know if I'm a freak or something. But the idea of cutting files just sounds stupid. You cut and paste text or pixels, or vectors, or sound not folders or documents!

[Jan Van Boghout]

If you are so inclined to use context menus, why don't you just:

- Right-click the file and select Copy
- Command-Delete original file
- Go to destination folder
- Paste File

I prefer drag and drop through spring-loaded folders by far, but you might prefer the context menu route

[Lew]

Originally posted by veldmon:
That's sure easy for an "elite member" to say.

I know these parts well, and I can tell you that it's not easy to be taken seriously if you don't have a few stars under your username.

Maybe you are displeased with my choice of the word "ignorance"? If that's the case, I meant that purely in its' technical sense: lacking knowledge of the way Windows Explorer handles the action of moving files.

But again, although the argument originated from the thoughts in my head, it's generally not appropriate to attack the author as opposed to his argument.

P.S. Please spell my name correctly if referenced further.

I'd say the reaction is to do with more than the amount of stars under your name. Probably the fact that your entire post (including the thread title) is blatantly inflamatory, almost as if you wanted to be flamed.

(for ignorant/delusional Mac users)

For the kneejerk reactionaries:

This has obviously been an excercise in futility in the eyes of those in the Mac community who are anal-retentive about the HIG (think inconsistency with brushed metal/aqua etc.) Well this was not written for you. It was written for the more pragmatic, some would say rational, Mac users.

I know the cut/paste concept is difficult for the blustering masses of Macheads that have never used, or refuse to see any good from, Windows. Just try and have an open mind like any good creative professional should have.

[veldmon]

Originally posted by Mimizuku no Lew:
I'd say the reaction is to do with more than the amount of stars under your name. Probably the fact that your entire post (including the thread title) is blatantly inflamatory, almost as if you wanted to be flamed.

Hyper-sensitivity is not a trait I share with you I'm afraid.

Although I can see how my words might have ruffled a few feathers with some on this forum, I hardly see how I deserve the kind of disrespect you and others have shown me.

My logic is sound; my heart is pure. That is the only way I know how to respond to off-topic, vitriolic comments such as yours.

[Lew]

Originally posted by veldmon:
Hyper-sensitivity is not a trait I share with you I'm afraid.

Hyper-sensitivity? What a complete load of bollocks. Your post was rude, plain and simple. Learn some manners and you may get a better response.

Although I can see how my words might have ruffled a few feathers with some on this forum, I hardly see how I deserve the kind of disrespect you and others have shown me.

Now who's the one being hyper-sensitive? Please show me what disrespect I've shown you? I pointed out where you went wrong in your original flamebait post. Had you worded it like an adult then maybe you'd have received the answers you wanted (or maybe the ones you received were the ones you wanted).

My logic is sound; my heart is pure. That is the only way I know how to respond to off-topic, vitriolic comments such as yours.

Keep taking the medication.

[veldmon]

Originally posted by Mimizuku no Lew:
Hyper-sensitivity? What a complete load of bollocks. Your post was rude, plain and simple. Learn some manners and you may get a better response.

Off topic...

Now who's the one being hyper-sensitive? Please show me what disrespect I've shown you? I pointed out where you went wrong in your original flamebait post. Had you worded it like an adult then maybe you'd have received the answers you wanted (or maybe the ones you received were the ones you wanted).

Off topic...

Keep taking the medication.

Off topic...

I'm taking the discussion in a different direction because I can't debate the issue like a regular person.

True.

[Lew]

Originally posted by veldmon:
I'm taking the discussion in a different direction because I can't debate the issue like a regular person.

What's to debate? Try re-wording your original post in a mature manner that isn't full of flamebait and you may get the responses you're after.

[Eriamjh]

I believe the inclusion of cut/paste into Jaguar would be convenient for switchers.

I believe that cut/paste can be integrated into OSX without requiring licensing from Microsoft.

I believe that if the feature was in OSX, some people would not use it.

I believe that arguing about cut/paste has got to be the dummest thread about UIs I have ever encountered.

Aren't there more interesting things to discuss or is this forum dying for the release of Panther and the G5s?

[veldmon]

Originally posted by Mimizuku no Lew:
What's to debate? Try re-wording your original post in a mature manner that isn't full of flamebait and you may get the responses you're after.

A broken record that spews off topic drivel...

My post will stay as is. You can join the discussion whenever you come to grip with the reality that stares you in the face.

Do you even use OS X? You don't seem to be very knowledgeable about it, with all due respect.

[retroneo]

How dare you say we borrow yet another feature from Windows....

I was extremely upset to see Fast User Switching in Panther.

Stay down menus. On-screen Clock. Volume Menu Extra. Internet Connection Sharing. Built-in faxing. Journalling File System.

What's going on????

Sooner or later Mac OS X will be weeen doze XP....


Stop the decay of Mac OS NOW!!!

[Lew]

Originally posted by veldmon:
Do you even use OS X? You don't seem to be very knowledgeable about it, with all due respect.

Based on what, exactly?

[KeyLimePi]

Originally posted by Eriamjh:
I believe that arguing about cut/paste has got to be the dummest thread about UIs I have ever encountered.

Agreed. For the last four hours veldom has been arguring about the extra two seconds it takes to open and close one window. Obviously time management is not his biggest issue.

[veldmon]

I believe that arguing about cut/paste has got to be the dummest thread about UIs I have ever encountered.

Aren't there more interesting things to discuss or is this forum dying for the release of Panther and the G5s? [/B]

I really hate comments like this, no offense. The heart and soul of the Mac community is in the attention to detail we pay to every aspect of the GUI. It's what gives OS X its advantage over Windows (except for moving files).

[veldmon]

Originally posted by Mimizuku no Lew:
Based on what, exactly?

Based on your lack of content in this thread. I've seen nothing productive from your posts thus far.

I at least try to stay on topic while you badger me about my supposed character flaws.

[veldmon]

Originally posted by KeyLimePi:
Agreed. For the last four hours veldom has been arguring about the extra two seconds it takes to open and close one window. Obviously time management is not his biggest issue.

That same argument could be used to say that time management is my biggest issue.

Don't tell me there's another hater in this thread...

[Millennium]

Originally posted by veldmon:
- When you "cut" a file, the file itself is not physically removed from the hard drive and transfered to RAM.
- There is absolutely nothing "dangerous" that can happen to that file after you "cut" it. The file is still in the same folder even if you pull the cord to your computer before you are able "paste" the file.
- Unlike copy/paste, when you "paste" a file that has been "cut", the file itself is not moved on the physical hard drive, the only thing that changes is metadata about the file (its new folder location) for Windows.

That's nothing more than technical backend junk.

From a user-interface standpoint, using Cut on a file should be dangerous. That's how it works in every other context; it removes the object being Cut, and if you don't Paste it you lose it.

Now granted, this is rather inconvenient. Breaking Cut to make it safer is, as far as it goes, relatively wise. But if you have to break an interface to use it for something, then it's not an appropriate interface in the first place.

By the way, people have been talking about your nitpicking about the extra "two seconds" it takes to open a window. They are being charitable; opening a window takes far less than two seconds. Time management is important, but there's a point of diminishing returns, and you've hit it rather severely. Saving half a second on a file move is not going to make a remotely significant difference over the course of a day, unless we're talking about hundreds of file moves, and if you're moving hundreds of files by hand then you have greater problems to worry about.

[veldmon]

Originally posted by Millennium:
That's nothing more than technical backend junk.

From a user-interface standpoint, using Cut on a file should be dangerous. That's how it works in every other context; it removes the object being Cut, and if you don't Paste it you lose it.

Now granted, this is rather inconvenient. Breaking Cut to make it safer is, as far as it goes, relatively wise. But if you have to break an interface to use it for something, then it's not an appropriate interface in the first place.

By the way, people have been talking about your nitpicking about the extra "two seconds" it takes to open a window. They are being charitable; opening a window takes far less than two seconds. Time management is important, but there's a point of diminishing returns, and you've hit it rather severely. Saving half a second on a file move is not going to make a remotely significant difference over the course of a day, unless we're talking about hundreds of file moves, and if you're moving hundreds of files by hand then you have greater problems to worry about.

Not to be rude, but my previous comments have already answered your metaphor concern. The "cut" and "paste" could be renamed with something like "move" and "here", but keep the same functionality. This negates the need for a clipboard metaphor. If you are just criticizing the Windows implementation, then I agree that its metaphor is flawed.

However, I don't know about you, but I am newly convinced that the NeXT "Shelf" would be the best solution for file moving in OS X.

About nitpicking, I can only say that it is in my nature as a Mac adventurer to explore/analyze every last bit of the OS X interface.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by veldmon:
That's sure easy for an "elite member" to say.

I know these parts well, and I can tell you that it's not easy to be taken seriously if you don't have a few stars under your username.

Not quite: It's a lot easier for people to get away with vitriolic bullshit if they're well-known on the forum.

That may be part of your problem.

Originally posted by veldmon:
Maybe you are displeased with my choice of the word "ignorance"? If that's the case, I meant that purely in its' technical sense: lacking knowledge of the way Windows Explorer handles the action of moving files.

As you have found, a number of people disagreeing with you over the implementation of this "paradigm" - which in itself is interesting in the context of "ignorance", since the reason it's disputed in the first place is because it *BREAKS* the paradigm - quite a few people actually DO use Windows on a daily basis and know EXACTLY what you're talking about.

Assuming that their disagreement is out of "ignorance" and posing with this thread title and opening post is just Ass-King. For a smackdown.
</rant>


For the record, I'd like to see a similar kind of functionality, but before it's implemented the way it is in Windows, I'd rather see it left out entirely.

Because, as you say, it's the little details that make the Mac special.

And interface paradigm consistency is the biggest of all those little things.

cheers,

-s*

[Nonsuch]

Now this is some quality flamebait. I'm going to like this veldmon character.

[GENERAL_SMILEY]

I'm so glad somebody explained the cut paste thing it had been confusing me for years, I only hope in your next lesson you explain how to use a two button mouse.

Oh if you want a next shelf, get

Xshelf

Run without an icon, becomes an invaluable bit of the system.

[Ilja]

Can somebody explain me what a Next Shelf is?

[BuonRotto]

Someone needs a lesson in persuasive writing skills.

added:
NeXTstep Shelf is the top part of that image, just under the title bar. It works like a toolbar except instead of holding aliases, it holds proxies. This means that when you drag an item off it, the item doesn't disappear in a "poof," it lands wherever you drop it in the filesystem. You could also hold several items in one group icon (a hand with playing cards) and move them around as one object.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by Ilja:
Can somebody explain me what a Next Shelf is?

It was part of the NeXT GUI, sort of a staging area where you could stash a file or files you wanted to move. You would then navigate to the part of the file system you wanted to put the files, then pull them off the Shelf and into the correct folder.

[veldmon]

Originally posted by GENERAL_SMILEY:
I'm so glad somebody explained the cut paste thing it had been confusing me for years, I only hope in your next lesson you explain how to use a two button mouse.

I recognize blatant sarcasm without any difficulties. Yours appears to be quite flawed however. There are not constant posts in this forum about how clicking on the right mouse button can be "dangerous". or how it doesn't fit the keyboard metaphor.

[GENERAL_SMILEY]

Originally posted by veldmon:
I recognize blatant sarcasm without any difficulties. Yours appears to be quite flawed however. There are not constant posts in this forum about how clicking on the right mouse button can be "dangerous". or how it doesn't fit the keyboard metaphor.

Oh good so I don't need to use smilies then.

I still suggest people install Xshelf, it really will help, shift + apple + X moves things to the shelf (services menu shortcut) or you can simply drag them there; after that you can leave them there, add more things as separate items etc... Then when needed drag them off. It is freeware, try it you might think it even better than cut and paste.

(On a side note I've read a few articles saying two button mice were dangerous and confusing for new users, and I'm sure given enough time somebody will tell me that they conflict with some metaphor or HIG.)

[alexforsythe24]

Originally posted by veldmon:
Moving a file in Windows Explorer (Win 98, 2000, XP):

(fastest point-and-click method)

1. Navigate to folder with file-to-be-moved in it.
2. Right click file (brings up contextual menu).
3. Left click "cut" on contextual menu.
4. Navigate to new destination folder.
5. Right click on folder, or in folder.
6. Left click "paste" on contextual menu.

(done with only one Explorer window)



Moving a file in Finder (Icon view) (OS X):

(fastest point-and-click method)

1. Navigate to folder with file-to-be-moved in it.
2. Left click File menu.
3. Left click "New Finder Window".
4. In 2nd open Finder window, navigate to destination folder.
5. Adjust position of destination folder. (wasted time)
6. Adjust position of starting folder. (wasted time)
7. Drag file from starting folder to destination folder. (instead of simple mouse clicks, you have to constantly click,hold, & drag with mouse)

(required 2 Finder windows)




Cut/Paste paradigm explained (for ignorant/delusional Mac users):

- When you "cut" a file, the file itself is not physically removed from the hard drive and transfered to RAM.
- There is absolutely nothing "dangerous" that can happen to that file after you "cut" it. The file is still in the same folder even if you pull the cord to your computer before you are able "paste" the file.
- Unlike copy/paste, when you "paste" a file that has been "cut", the file itself is not moved on the physical hard drive, the only thing that changes is metadata about the file (its new folder location) for Windows.



Rebuttal to the clever:

- Yes, you can use one Finder window to copy a file, and then go back and delete the source file. That however does require the file data on the hard drive to be read and then written elsewhere (truly copied) (much, much slower)
- Yes, spring-loaded folders can alleviate the 2 Finder window requirement in some circumstances. Not so for complex file system navigation. Only works well when you don't have to move a file "up" in the hierarchy.



For the kneejerk reactionaries:

This has obviously been an excercise in futility in the eyes of those in the Mac community who are anal-retentive about the HIG (think inconsistency with brushed metal/aqua etc.) Well this was not written for you. It was written for the more pragmatic, some would say rational, Mac users.

I know the cut/paste concept is difficult for the blustering masses of Macheads that have never used, or refuse to see any good from, Windows. Just try and have an open mind like any good creative professional should have.

My original point was that I don't want to use the mouse ...
BTW I can't believe I got two threads started on this topic ...

But what I would like to do is navigate to a directory using column view. Select the files I want to move. "Cut" (or whatever term you want to use) them. Navigate to the new directory. And "Paste" (or whatever term you want to use) them.

I know, I know .. I can hear it already .. use the terminal, but I want to be able to do it in UI. I use a 2000 maching and a Sun Box all day. I like my lickable Aqua UI but I find using the mouse slows me down. Especially on my powerbook where 90% of the time I don't have an external mouse connected and have to use the trackpad.

[eevyl]

Originally posted by veldmon:
I would label what you have done a poweruser technique. I would suspect most average users don't bother to add folders to their Finder toolbar. You still have to drag the file to move it afterall. That is quite slower than just having to click "cut" and "paste" IMO.

Command-line is another matter...

Springloaded folders a poweruser technique?

Hehe you are the ignorant man.

The metaphor is just so right, grab and hold a document, navigate your folders and drop it when you arrive at the destination.

On the other side, push control-x to ¿cut? the document (oh it disappears!) and control-v to ¿paste? the document.

I know it works, but from a GUI design point of view, the cut/copy/paste paradigm for files is just plain stupid.