[Developer]

Originally posted by intastella:
I think this whole thing could be solved by Apple implementing a clear difference between the spacial view and browser view. Siracusa suggests having a "New Browser" command in the File menu. I tend to agree. If you had a browser view (Column view) and spacial view (Icon/List views) and just enforced the rules, no body would have a beef. It's just that Apple wants to do both at the same time and mix it all together, and that's where it gets messy.

Correct. You could have best of both worlds if they are separated correctly. But the Finder's toolbarless mode isn't really spatial mode what makes this mode pretty much useless.

[Don Pickett]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Those of us who started out as Macintosh users at System 7 or whathave you will never really come to terms with that as our main interface with the computer. To us the CLI (hence Column) type of browsing is only used for certain occations. Especially LARGE folders that change content frequently, big databases and such. Everywhere you'd use CLI you'd want to use the Column type of browsing. Now if you are just using your computer as a personal computer as most Mac users do then the spatial type of browsing is more effective. When you need thumbnail icons to be spread over a window to get a glance at what you have there or when you need to move a few files to another folder.. like most people do then spatial is the thing.Its visual representation of what is going on is very very important for people who don't use computers more than 2-3 hours a day.

Those people should have the option of a true spatial Finder. Like they did back in the 90s and 80s.

Speaking as someone who started out with Macs in 1984, and as someone who sits in front of a machine for 10 to 12 hours a day, I like the flexibility the OS X Finder gives me. As I've stated before in this thread, there are some places where I find the column view to be far superior than a spatial view. I find that I toggle back and forth between the two depending on what I'm doing. Each has its use.

The spatial metaphor is great when the hierarchy in question is only a few folders deep, as are most of the operations we perform at home. However, when dealing with deep, deep directory structures (15 or 20 levels) the column view is far superior � there is no need for me to keep multiple windows open so as not to get lost. I merely scroll back and forth along the column view.

As an aside: Wacom tablets and the column view are a match made in heaven. Scrolling back and forth with the pen has an intuitive feel you have to try to believe.

[Developer]

Originally posted by Gee4orce:
Browser view - brushed metal
Spacial view - Aqua

...seems a pretty clear distinction to me

The problem is that the Aqua mode is no real spatial mode. It's a spatial mode lookalike, but you can view one item in multiple windows.
The brushed metal view on the other hand inherited some behavior from a spatial Finder. For example when you unmount a volume from a brushed metal window (with the eject buttons in the sidebar) the window closes. This is typical spatial Finder behavior.

The two are not clearly separated.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Millennium:
That's part of the problem with the cult of spatiality.

Note that not all people who like spatial metaphors are members of 'the cult of spatiality'. To be a cult member, you have to decry all other options as inferior, with spatial metaphors being The One True Way. This appears to be Siracusa's stand, as well as many people who hate column view. It is fairly common for people to suggest that column view be completely removed from the Finder ('ditched' is another common term); that is the mark of a cultist.

Spatial metaphors served OS9 (and earlier versions) well, despite the fact that no real-world gains have ever been shown to come from it. However, other metaphors existed in other operating systems. Some were less useful, but some were better, and the Mac OS incorporated some of these as time went by (the first example being List view). Column view is nothing more than another example of this: a useful metaphor being incorporated into the OS. Why it has been the target of so much hatred, I cannot explain.

First off let me tell you that I find your reasoning to be very interesting most of the time. The rest it is at least reasonably founded. In this regard however you are just talking stupid. There is no 'cult' of spatial metaphors. There is nobody denying the usefulness of column view or browser view. In fact those two are pretty well established in OS X and Windows XP respectively.

By choosing to take your argument against spatial file browsing to such extremes you only seem like a part of a cult yourself. For instance I can't for the life of me see why you would choose to go against other people's opinions instead of accepting that people have a point. The spatial way WAS tried and tested and a heck of a lot of people liked it. There is no theory of this or that about what is good or bad about spatial vs. browser Finder that is making Siracusa and many other people such as myself WANT the old and tried SPATIAL Finder back!

There is no denying the usefulness of the column view as I wrote before, but that doesn't mean everything else (i.e. spatial) isn't worth using. On the contrary! Most normal users are far more comfortable with a spatial Finder. Those that deal with a huge amount of different files and big trees of folders would find the Column Finder more useful. Most people are just normal people however and the Column Finder is far to uncomfortable to deal with few files on a small scale than the Spatial Finder.

Note that normal people are those that don't know all that much about paths and don't see the metaphors as symbols but actual files! I understand both ways. Probably because I've been around computers since I was 6 years old. People who don't see files as metaphors in a path with a suffix don't feel comfortable with the Column Finder. The want the Spatial Finder. Even though I am comfortable with both I'd rather use the Spatial Finder and have the Column Finder as an option. This isn't the case today and I wish Apple would implement the Spatial Finder better in the OS X Finder. Their Column Finder is quite good and feature complete in comparison.

Bottom line is that most people who have used the Macintosh through the years want the Spatial Finder, they are comfortable with it and for them it is more convenient, faster and nicer than the Column Finder. That is why they chose Macintosh before Mac OS X.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Don Pickett:
Speaking as someone who started out with Macs in 1984, and as someone who sits in front of a machine for 10 to 12 hours a day, I like the flexibility the OS X Finder gives me. As I've stated before in this thread, there are some places where I find the column view to be far superior than a spatial view. I find that I toggle back and forth between the two depending on what I'm doing. Each has its use.

The spatial metaphor is great when the hierarchy in question is only a few folders deep, as are most of the operations we perform at home. However, when dealing with deep, deep directory structures (15 or 20 levels) the column view is far superior � there is no need for me to keep multiple windows open so as not to get lost. I merely scroll back and forth along the column view.

As an aside: Wacom tablets and the column view are a match made in heaven. Scrolling back and forth with the pen has an intuitive feel you have to try to believe.

The problem is that the Aqua mode is no real spatial mode. It's a spatial mode lookalike, but you can view one item in multiple windows.
The brushed metal view on the other hand inherited some behavior from a spatial Finder. For example when you unmount a volume from a brushed metal window (with the eject buttons in the sidebar) the window closes. This is typical spatial Finder behavior.

The two are not clearly separated.

I think this sums it up nicely.

Apple would do themselves and us a bloody favour to clean up their User Interface mess in OS X Finder.

[Millennium]

It should be noted, by the way, that even Path Finder's "spatial" mode breaks spatiality in the strictest sense, because it still allows the Desktop to be viewed in a window. That is a strict no-no under a true spatial metaphor, because the desktop must remain the conceptual root of the filesystem. There are basically four guidelines for strict spatiality, as defined by the Cult:

• There must be exactly one conceptual root of the filesystem, the start of everything filesystem-related. Most spatial metaphors call this the "Desktop", but theoretically another name could be used.
• You cannot have more than one window displaying the same folder, nor can you have more than one folder displayed in the same window. This is the famous "one-to-one correspondence" that the Cult is particularly insistent about.
• The Desktop cannot be displayed in a window. This is actually an extension of the previous rule, because the Desktop is already displayed at the root of the filemanager (not in any window).
• Windows and icons remember where you put them.

It is worth noting that only one of these four rules -the last one- is a feature. The other three are limitations. It does ensure some consistency, but it does so in such a way that certain useful features can never be developed. Column View, for example, could never be implemented on a spatial deaktop, because it inherently breaks the one-to-one metaphor.

That's what a spatial metaphor does: it is a set of limitations, not a set of features. Anything which does not conform rigidly to these limitations -no matter how useful it might be- is Evil, and must be excised. Such things cannot even be allowed as options, because that would imply that these limitations can be broken.

This is what happened with the spatial Finder of previous operating systems: it became too limiting. A need arose to evolve beyond it. Essentially, Apple took the red pill.

[Developer]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Anything which does not conform rigidly to these limitations -no matter how useful it might be- is Evil, and must be excised. Such things cannot even be allowed as options, because that would imply that these limitations can be broken.

Reread Siracusa's article at arstechnica. Don't put words in anybody's mout which nobody said.

[voodoo]

I'm using Path Finder now. I like it.

It does not allow you to see the Desktop as a folder if you use Path Finder in spatial mode. So you are wrong there Millennium. I is much closer to the old Finder's look and feel if you WANT to, that is it gives you the option to have it your way. I don't have to know how to use the computer, the computer can be set up the way I want. It is my computer.

There is no cult. Just users who want their Mac back. Path Finder seems to be and adequate solution until Apple fixes the Finder. We should have BOTH options and I don't need to be told by you that I don't want to have options. I do want options so my Mac works the way I want it to. I don't care for computers that don't work the way I want them to. I'd have bought Windows from Microsoft if that were the case.

So in Path Finder you can choose to have the Desktop as your root. Check one.

You can set Path Finder so it will never display the contents of one folder in more than one window. Check two.

You can set Path Finder so that the Desktop is never displayed in a window. Check three.

There it ends, unfortunately. Three out of four ain't bad though. Infinitely better than the OS X Finder since it fulfills none of the criteria you mentioned. A shame Path Finder doesn't remember window positions or sizes.

[Don Pickett]

The problem is that the Aqua mode is no real spatial mode. It's a spatial mode lookalike, but you can view one item in multiple windows.
The brushed metal view on the other hand inherited some behavior from a spatial Finder. For example when you unmount a volume from a brushed metal window (with the eject buttons in the sidebar) the window closes. This is typical spatial Finder behavior.

The two are not clearly separated.

This thread convinces me, once again, that some people have way too much time on their hands.

What some people seem to be unable to see is that the Finder is "spatial enough" for 99% of the people out there, including people, like me, who have years of hard core Mac (and other platform) experience under their belts. Arguing that there is only on proper way to present information is like any pedantic statement, applicable only within the solipsism of the person making the statement. I, for one, have never, ever found the icon view useful for anything. Some people, however, use it all the time.

[tooki]

Originally posted by Millennium:
That's what a spatial metaphor does: it is a set of limitations, not a set of features. Anything which does not conform rigidly to these limitations -no matter how useful it might be- is Evil, and must be excised. Such things cannot even be allowed as options, because that would imply that these limitations can be broken.

Fiddlesticks. You need to do some studying on current usability theory. Donald Norman (one of the principals of the Nielsen/Norman Group, the usability powerhouse) has a list of usability criteria, one of which is "Constraints". You're calling them limitations, attaching a negative connotation, but the fact is that no matter what you want to call a constraint, it's an important tool in making a device usable by preventing you from being able to take an incorrect action. Constraints also serve to prevent confusion -- having multiple windows representing the same folder confuses a lot of people.

Another of Norman's canons is Consistency -- things should behave in similar fashion. The OS X Finder is highly inconsistent: the folder view (you think) you selected may or may not be remembered, it feels like a crap shoot.

The other 4 canons are Visibility (function should be self-evident), Feedback (the interface should provide it properly), Mapping (controls should have a sensible relationship to the entity they control, e.g. putting knobs in the same arrangement as the devices they control so you know which one operates what), and Affordances (attributes added to an object that hint at how it should be operated when this isn't self-evident, e.g. the little diagonal lines in the corner of a Mac OS window that tell you it can be resized).

Elsewhere, Norman talks about mental models -- the way a person THINKS something works. I have noticed that, unlike with the Classic Finder, people have trouble creating a mental model of the OS X filesystem.

Read Donald Norman's famous book, "The Design Of Everyday Things".

The upshot is that current usability theory does not shine a good light on the OS X Finder, and bringing back a FULLY spatial Finder (one whose spatiality cannot be broken)* would make a huge step in the right direction.

tooki


*As I said before, I still think a browser view would be useful, either as a separate utility (the way that in OS 9 people used shareware file browsers for), or as a visually distinct mode.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by tooki:
Fiddlesticks. You need to do some studying on current usability theory. Donald Norman (one of the principals of the Nielsen/Norman Group, the usability powerhouse) has a list of usability criteria, one of which is "Constraints". You're calling them limitations, attaching a negative connotation, but the fact is that no matter what you want to call a constraint, it's an important tool in making a device usable by preventing you from being able to take an incorrect action. Constraints also serve to prevent confusion -- having multiple windows representing the same folder confuses a lot of people.

Who has it ever confused? Give me any real-world example, other than yourself. Show me a person who has been confused by a folder being shown in more than one timdow. Then show me a user who was confused more than once by this.

There seems to be this idea that the Mac interface -or any interface, for that matter- is "intuitive", that is, that complete newbiues somehow Just Know how it works. This is not true. Everything is learned, whether or not people like to admit it.

The fact is, UI limitations are never necessary; the goals of reducing incorrect behavior can always be accomplished by other means which do not limit future functionality. Besides which, why is it "incorrect" to have two windows displaying the same folder? It's just a folder, a space where files are stored; why should that not be viewable from two angles at once? This limitation does not make sense.

The other 4 canons are Visibility (function should be self-evident)...

I'll leave your misuse of the term 'self-evident' aside for a second; nothing in this world truly describes its own functionality. What Norman calls "Visibility" is really nothing more than an extension of consistency: a button in one app ought to resemble buttons in other apps. The OSX Finder does not violate this.

Feedback (the interface should provide it properly)

In other words, when the machine's state changes, some notification should be provided via the UI. The OSX Finder does not violate this.

Mapping (controls should have a sensible relationship to the entity they control, e.g. putting knobs in the same arrangement as the devices they control so you know which one operates what)

This works, as long as you have some sort of real-life device to model. What is the Finder supposed to model?

and Affordances (attributes added to an object that hint at how it should be operated when this isn't self-evident, e.g. the little diagonal lines in the corner of a Mac OS window that tell you it can be resized).

How does the Finder violate this?

Elsewhere, Norman talks about mental models -- the way a person THINKS something works. I have noticed that, unlike with the Classic Finder, people have trouble creating a mental model of the OS X filesystem.

The idea of "mental models" was discredited several years ago. It was a wonderful theory on paper, but it's been established that your typical end-user doesn't work that way.

As I said before, I still think a browser view would be useful, either as a separate utility (the way that in OS 9 people used shareware file browsers for), or as a visually distinct mode.

Sounds to me as though steps are actually being taken towards the "visually distinct mode", so you may well get your wish, [i]without[i] compromising the existing flexibility. You are not a cultist, and I never intended to claim that you were. But that doesn't mean there are no cultists.

[stew]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Besides which, why is it "incorrect" to have two windows displaying the same folder? It's just a folder, a space where files are stored; why should that not be viewable from two angles at once?

It would make sense if it was clear that this are in fact two views on the same folder. However, there's no way to tell if you are looking at two separate views on a folder called "home" or if there are two different folders called "home" you're viewing once each.

[Moonray]

Some of you guys here seem to have no better problems than this.
Have you ever complained that you can open the same webpage twice with a webbrowser? Or refused to work with a text editor that offers a split view for convenience?
Is it too difficult for you not to open the same twice if you don't want to see it twice?



-

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Moonray:
Some of you guys here seem to have no better problems than this.
Have you ever complained that you can open the same webpage twice with a webbrowser? Or refused to work with a text editor that offers a split view for convenience?
Is it too difficult for you not to open the same twice if you don't want to see it twice?



-

It is not the same with file hierachy!

Do you ever have to move icons between web pages in your browser??

No.

There are just about no similarities between the Finder and a text editor.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Millennium:
That's what a spatial metaphor does: it is a set of limitations, not a set of features. Anything which does not conform rigidly to these limitations -no matter how useful it might be- is Evil, and must be excised. Such things cannot even be allowed as options, because that would imply that these limitations can be broken

Ooookay. Who's in a cult here?? Chill Millennium. Restrictions are useful. Can you drive your car wherever you want?

No.

Roads are to drive cars on. Restrictions are useful and indeed necessary on so many levels.

[voodoo]

On topic: GNOME hasn't banned filebrowsing, but has given its users the feature to CHOOSE either Spatial File browsing or the Browser File browsing.

So much for your cult Millennium.

[Brass]

Seems like I only have to start a topic with the word "spatial" in the title to get a huge number of responses. I wonder.

Wouldn't want to actually voice my opinion on the topic though, for fear of getting flamed by both sides of the debate.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by lenox:
The lack of a true spatial finder has confused me, allowed my directories and files to become a cluttered mess similar to a *gasp* windows desktop, among many, many other ways it has impacted my workflow. I understand Jobs saying he doesn't want the user to be the 'janitor' for the filesystem, and that was his reason for moving away from a spatial finder. But guess what happens when you fire the janitor, say, in real life? Things start getting stinky and clogged pretty quickly. People like the option to organize things the way they want, especially mac users. It worked great in classic Mac OS. A well-organized machine was truly a beauty to navigate. Things made sense, not to mention the muscle memory that was built up. Sure, the initial impact on your workflow might arise, but you'll more than make up for it over time.

Garbage. That's your laziness, it's nothing to do with the "the lack of a true spatial Finder".

How hard is it, really? Click your damn home directory toolbar icon or something, and there you are, home! How difficult is it to organise things in there?

You're complaining for the sake of it.

[lookmark]

Wow, the debate rages on.

Originally posted by stew:
It would make sense if it was clear that this are in fact two views on the same folder. However, there's no way to tell if you are looking at two separate views on a folder called "home" or if there are two different folders called "home" you're viewing once each.

But the main difference between the OS X Finder and the OS 9 Finder is just that distinction -- a window is a "view" -- a window, really -- into your files, and not just the OS-9 definition of "a folder". Web browsing (not to mention increasingly complex, even labyrinthine directory structures) changed the way people viewed windows a great deal -- it's now the norm to see a window as just one "view"... and Apple updated the Finder accordingly. (Rather late, IMO, but better than never.)

By the way, I agree with all the hard-boiled spatialites that there's something very interesting and pleasing about the limitations imposed by a spatial Finder... I hope that Apple continues to work to get the Aqua, toolbar-less Finder better-behaved and more spatial than currently is. (Seems to me -- slightly wonky as this would be -- that a preference to "never show toolbar", and/or "toggle button affects all windows" would go a long way in achieving that...)

That said, I adore the flexibility of the current OS X Finder, with its lovely ability to flicker back and forth between browser and (mostly) spatial at a touch of a toggle button. And you'll tear column view from my cold, dead fingers.

[Moonray]

Originally posted by voodoo:
It is not the same with file hierachy!

Do you ever have to move icons between web pages in your browser??

No.

You probably try to move files to their own folder? Keep moving them, it's harmless.

Originally posted by voodoo:
There are just about no similarities between the Finder and a text editor.

Of course there are, the Finder shows me the files on my hd and a text editor shows me the text in a file, the Finder lets me move files around and a text editor lets me move and edit text.

-

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by Moonray:
Of course there are, the Finder shows me the files on my hd and a text editor shows me the text in a file, the Finder lets me move files around and a text editor lets me move and edit text.

-

Weak.

[Moonray]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
Weak.

Dumb.

-

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Moonray:
Of course there are, the Finder shows me the files on my hd and a text editor shows me the text in a file, the Finder lets me move files around and a text editor lets me move and edit text.

-

No really. Weak.

Text editors are not based on hierachy. There is no tree of items in a text document.

It just isn't comparable because it isn't nearly the same! Besides when you split the window in a word processor (like Word) you know you are seeing the SAME document. That is how it works. In the Finder you COULD be seeing the same folder OR not. No way of telling really. That is a problem.

Originally posted by Moonray:
You probably try to move files to their own folder? Keep moving them, it's harmless.

I don't understand this argument

I was saying that web browsers are only designed to view documents, not to interact with them. You view a web page you do not interact with the document that is the web page (the html).

The Finder is trying the same thing but adding a lot of file interaction. File manipulation between folders in ONE window only is damn difficult and confusing. Drag and drop is much more powerful in most cases. The one window column view relies on either a shelf like in NeXT or the copy/paste function of the Edit menu (which is really weird to use since cut/copy/paste was only for data WITHIN files not files themselves..)

You *can* drag and drop of course if you open another Finder window but that leads to clutter. Even MORE clutter than in the Spatial Finder because the Browser Finder windows take up more room and can display the same folder (so you can inadvertedly open many huge windows containing ~/Movies/ and clutter everything to death).

[voodoo]

Originally posted by lookmark:
Web browsing (not to mention increasingly complex, even labyrinthine directory structures) changed the way people viewed windows a great deal -- it's now the norm to see a window as just one "view"... and Apple updated the Finder accordingly. (Rather late, IMO, but better than never.)

I agree with everything in your post essentially but I wanted to highlight this.

The column/browser view became practical when the Mac OS became a UNIX derivative. There are indeed many things in the UNIX file hierarchy that are set up in a way that makes the Column Finder / CLI Terminal a useful thing - even more so than the spatial Finder.

That said it by no means of interpretation disqualifies the Spatial Finder as something useful. In fact it still is VERY useful. The Spatial Finder of OS X is little like what we had in OS 9 and earlier. There are many functions still missing that were very important to make the Spatial metaphor work. That when you toggle to Spatial Finder you can see the contents of the same folder in two seperate windows is one and that the Finder never remembers window sizes or positions is another. These are two fundamental functions of the Spatial finder that have to be functioning in order for it to make sense. I completely understand those people that don't understand what is so neat about the Spatial Finder looking at the incarnation of it in OS X today but that ISN'T the Spatial Finder. It is some twisted half assed incomplete version of it. I don't like it even and I'd still like a Spatial Finder, just not the one we have in OS X today! I'd like a real Spatial Finder like the one Apple Computer made and mastered. Thank you.

[Big Mac]

I am thankful that voodoo has been fighting the good fight for us. There always have been significant usability issues with the OS X Finder, Millennium. For those of us who rely on a spatial Finder, it's also going to be harder to function using OS X's Finder. It's not simply about one object having one view.

For me the most bothersome issue is the lack of consistency. If someone doesn't understand what I and others mean by inconsistency in the Finder, go read Siracusa's article now. The fact is, for some time I attempted to abolish the browser mode on my system. Whenever a new window would spawn as a browser, I would click the toolbar widget. And that's not because I hate browsers - I used to use Greg's Browser from time to time in OS 8! It's simply because it's very easy to alter (and therefore harm) your spatial display by using browser windows. When I use a browser, I'm not sure how that's going to affect my spatial display. Is it going to turn my normal spatial windows into browser windows next time? And since browser windows are larger, I have to resize them to view my content. That obviously will change the delicate spatial arrangement as well. These are things that drive me crazy. They definitely have an impact on my productivity, not to mention my sanity . It makes me want to rid the Finder of all browsers. Yet, I know that for certain operations I prefer to use a browser. I don't reject the concept out of spite, but it's simply too costly to use effectively in the Finder. I'm just writing this critique off the top of my head, so you should definitely see the methodical explanations given by Siracusa.

Those of us who have been griping about this since day one are not just nitpickers, nor do we have "too much time on our hands." Granted, many of us come from the Classic school. But that doesn't mean we're irrationally stuck in our ways, either. One of the salient characteristics of the Mac was the spatial Finder. It worked really well for us, and it isn't easy to part with. OS X does not provide a truly spatial Finder. It is, instead, a chimera produced by compromise, and that compromise is dysfunctional in certain respects. It's painfully clear that Apple's not going to budge, so I've been trying to like the Finder again. It's not going to be easy though. And the truly ironic thing is, it would be so very easy to fix the Finder by cleanly divorcing the two modes, as Sircusa suggests.

I am heartened by the information posted about PathFinder - I thought it was only a browser; now I'll give it another shot. Anyway, you may dismiss our opinion if you wish, but please don't be so arrogant as to presume that there's something wrong with us because we're not happy with the compromise Apple has made.

Edit: Apologies to John Siracusa for butchering his last name. . . oops

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Big Mac:
I am thankful that voodoo has been fighting the good fight for us. There always have been significant usability issues with the OS X Finder, Millennium.

I'm not saying there haven't been usability issues; of course there have been. Any fool can see that.

What I'm saying is that spatiality is vastly overrated, mostly by the people who invented the concept, and that the Finder's lack of it has become a scapegoat for all the Finder's current problems.

For me the most bothersome issue is the lack of consistency. If someone doesn't understand what I and others mean by inconsistency in the Finder, go read Syracuse's article now. The fact is, for some time I attempted to abolish the browser mode on my system. Whenever a new window would spawn as a browser, I would click the toolbar widget. And that's not because I hate browsers - I used to use Greg's Browser from time to time in OS 8! It's simply because it's very easy to alter (and therefore harm) your spatial display by using browser windows. When I use a browser, I'm not sure how that's going to affect my spatial display. Is it going to turn my normal spatial windows into browser windows next time? And since browser windows are larger, I have to resize them to view my content. That obviously will change the delicate spatial arrangement as well.

And why exactly is this "spatial display" so precious? What exactly do you gain, even if it's just sentimental value? How exactly does it help you? There have been theories of "mental models" in the past, but those theories have long since been debunked. What other benefit does it give you?

You have grown very attached to the spatial Finder of previous Mac operating systems. That is understandable. But it doesn't sound as though you have given the new way an adequate chance to work better for you; you've clammed up at the mere thought of having your precious spatial orientation taken away, bending over backwards to preserve as much of it as you can without giving any sincere effort to adaptation. That's what it sounds like, anyway. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm calling it like I see it.

I'm just writing this critique off the top of my head, so you should definitely see the methodical explanations given by Syracuse.

I've read Siracusa's article many times in the past. It's all theoretical, not backed up by a shred of real-world data. That wouldn't be so bad, except that the theory has been disproven for quite some time now.

That's the thing about OSX: If you look at the theories laid down in the AHIG, almost everything about it should be a terrible user interface. And yet, not only does it work, it works astonishingly well. It is the proof that the AHIGs were not, in fact, the One True Way that many Mac enthusiasts -myself included- had believed them to be for years. OS9 was not the alpha and omega of UI after all, contrary to what the AHIG-fundamentalists at thalo.net would have us believe. Neither is OSX. Neither is anything out there. UI (not just on the Mac, but in general) will continue to improve as the years go by, but going back to OS9's limitations will not be how it is achieved.

[Big Mac]

Originally posted by Millennium:
I'm not saying there haven't been usability issues; of course there have been. Any fool can see that.

If you do admit there are usability issues, then why are we arguing? You say spatial Finder arguments are overblown; I don't believe they are. Perhaps if you explain why you think the usability problems stemming from the lack of true spatiality are insignificant, then maybe we would be able to settle the argument. But at least we can all admit that there is a legitimate issue here. And could you elaborate your point about spatiality being "a scapegoat for the Finder's current problems"? I think the lack of a truly spatial Finder is the most significant problem, although I realize there are others (like spotty Metadata, for instance).

And why exactly is this "spatial display" so precious? What exactly do you gain, even if it's just sentimental value? How exactly does it help you? There have been theories of "mental models" in the past, but those theories have long since been debunked. What other benefit does it give you?

You have grown very attached to the spatial Finder of previous Mac operating systems. That is understandable. But it doesn't sound as though you have given the new way an adequate chance to work better for you; you've clammed up at the mere thought of having your precious spatial orientation taken away, bending over backwards to preserve as much of it as you can without giving any sincere effort to adaptation.

You may believe the usability testing has been debunked, but my experience tells me it is valid. The classic spatial Finder worked very well for many of us, and there was never any sufficient cause to cripple it and make the Mac faithful countenance that. Why does it work well? For a number of reasons, I believe. I like the fact that objects depicted have some correlation to the actual filesystem, even though I realize that isn't exactly the case. I like the fact that when I open a folder I'm truly working with that folder, and not some abstract view thereof. And I like the fact that I can customize the display of folders in a precise, orderly fashion, and that my preferred display will be maintained by the system predictably. The spatial Finder gave the user a considerable amount of control, and provided comforting consistency. The way the OS X Finder displays things is highly variable (inconsistent), and it's far too easy to alter ones display by using browser windows. In OS X, the control is gone and the consistency is gone.

But you're right - I have become very attached to the spatial Finder. Yet, my attachment to it is most assuredly not based on sentiment or routine alone. My regard for spatiality is obviously based on a combination of emotion and logic. But you must realize, I am trying to adapt, Millennium, and I've found it difficult. And the major problem is that you cannot successfully marry two incompatible filesystem representations. Trying to combine the two modes makes things difficult. It's not that the spatial Finder is inherently precious; it is a very useful and familiar tool. And, as I said before, I have nothing against browsing, although I do prefer spatiality. I would like to use both modes, but not in the same place at the same time. We need to divorce the modes; they just don't work well coupled.

UI (not just on the Mac, but in general) will continue to improve as the years go by, but going back to OS9's limitations will not be how it is achieved.

We all hope that the GUI - which is still fundamentally the 1984 GUI - will continue to improve, but do we really have cause to be confident? I love the OS X interface, but in many areas we've regressed. Spatiality is definitely one of them. I don't really see how you can be so certain that Apple's usability testing has been debunked. It seems as if you believe most points of divergence from the classic Mac OS have been improvements. So I really have to wonder the following:

Let's picture ourselves in an alternate dimension. MS Windows as a product does not exist. If Apple came up with a replacement for the Mac OS GUI that was identical to Windows XP, would you, Millennium, claim it was an improvement? Your visceral reaction has to be no, but something tells me you would think so.

[voodoo]

You are arguing against taste and choice Millennium.

I think I'd be correct to say that you are comfortable with the Browser Finder as you are with the Terminal CLI. I've wrote this before and I'll toss it forward again: The Browser Finder in OS X, Windows, most Linux GUIs like GNOME and KDE are GUI versions of the CLI. Browser Finder serves the exact same purpose as the CLI and has the same user limitations of the Terminal CLI. Every single practical problem with file management in the Terminal you find in the Browser Finder. I've found that the more I get to know the Terminal the more comfortable I get with the OS X 10.3 Finder. No small wonder, they are the same thing.

The CLI evolved if you will into a Browser file management. Microsoft found this incredibly neat and Browser file management is their file management philosophy of choice. I can tell you I never found that to be a very good way of browsing files. This was made common by the company that gave us Explorer (not the browser but the file browser) to manage huge trees of folders. They have no clue. They build their philosophy on the DOS CLI. Every graphical representation in their file system tries to be a GUI equivalent to the CLI. The browser file management is just that.

That is moving forward but it is no progress. Apple made the biggest progress back when they researched how people interacted with Macs. At first the Finder was only in one window. Every time you opened a folder it opened in the only window available. This was System 1 to something. And again in System 10. What Apple discovered was that people didn't think about files in the same way the programmers and system designers did. They didn't see file icons as graphical metaphors for a file in that path. People saw the metaphor as the file. They became indistinguishable in the eyes of the user. Custom icons, labels etc. highlight that way of thinking. As a response to people's reaction to the GUI Apple developed the Spatial Finder. Where very icon is for all intents and purposes the file and as such it can only exist in one place. That place is accessed by opening a window to it. Opeing the folder. Logically there can't be more than one window displaying the contents of one folder then because then the file is no longer an object but rather a metaphor for the actual file that is in path x. Everything falls apart.

Fortunately for the Spatial Finder, being able to open only one window for each folder is very convenient. The window size is remembered and as is its position so that it fits the contents of the folder, reduces clutter due to many windows open showing the same thing and makes it very easy to drag and drop between windows (hence folders).

The Spatial Finder is not a GUI representation of the CLI unlike the Browser Finder. It is in fact the Browser Finder evolved. In a nutshell. You may like it or you may not, but this way of interacting with a computer is so powerful that it brought the computer to the personal user on a level nobody had dared to dream of.

Do you really think it is a coincidence that the legacy of the Macintosh is 'the most user friendly computer'? You claim that many of the spatial UI concepts have been 'debunked' or whatever. Just looking at how people use their computers today, hear them talk about the Mac platform and seeing how after four years of the OS X (NeXT) Finder there is a strong pressure on Apple to bring back the old UI elements of OS 9 and earlier! That pretty much debunks your claims. Apple has had to back out on so many things. The Finder is moving more to become a Spatial Finder again, the Apple is at the upper left corner of the screen and triggers a menu, labels are back, one can choose not to be in a browser window, show info is available in the old way not only as an inspector.. the list goes on. Apple may well have wanted to leave all their ideas behind when OS X was created upon NeXT but a significant part of the users want the Spatial Mac OS!

[voodoo]

Good post there Big Mac

[Big Mac]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Good post there Big Mac

Right back at you, voodoo - your post was even better than mine!

[lookmark]

I respect the spatialites' arguments here -- it's probably due to their demands, not to mention Siracusa's li'l holy war, that the Aqua Finder in 10.3 exists as all -- but I'd like to point out a few things.

The idea that the CLI led to column-view is a misguided one. Yes, column view strongly emphasizes the of hierarchy of a file system (that's what makes it so damn useful for traversing one). But to say that the column view somehow is "command-line like" just feels like a put-down; in fact column view is much, much better than revealing a hierarchy than a command line *and* icon or even list view.

It's interesting to note that early designs of the Finder for System 1.0 toyed with a column view; the team decided it wasn't necessary at the time. That was when the OS was *extremely* simple, and people had far, far fewer files on their computer than people do today. That is just not the case today -- directories (completely apart from the Mac OS is now UNIX) are just overflowing with data, and the concept of "browsing" is the dominant metaphor. In this environment, purely spatial viewing just doesn't cut it.

IOW, column view isn't needed because your Home folder is tucked away in your Users folder. (I think that the Sidebar addresses that potentially bewildering UNIXism in a pretty smart way.) Column view is needed because it's a powerful tool.

It seems to me that the next direction in navigating files is using metadata to assist the user in navigation -- based on when, how, in what context, and who used the data. I'm interested in how a spatial environment can factor into this (though not yet quite convinced it's entirely relevant), but the more interesting question to me is how can a new Finder can work in a way that's transcendent. GNOME doesn't reveal much about such a direction, which is very likely what Apple is hard at work at right now...

[Moonray]

Originally posted by voodoo:
No really. Weak.

Text editors are not based on hierachy. There is no tree of items in a text document.

It just isn't comparable because it isn't nearly the same! Besides when you split the window in a word processor (like Word) you know you are seeing the SAME document. That is how it works. In the Finder you COULD be seeing the same folder OR not. No way of telling really. That is a problem.

I don't see it that way. You can view the same text twice using split view in a text editor and you can open and view the same folder twice in the Finder. As long as the Finder is interactive it would not open the same folder another time without an action of you first. And if you see the same folder twice it's not a bigger problem than looking in a mirror (well at least for me it isn't).

Originally posted by voodoo:
I don't understand this argument

I was saying that web browsers are only designed to view documents, not to interact with them. You view a web page you do not interact with the document that is the web page (the html).

Now there are interactive webpages, but that's another thing.

Originally posted by voodoo:
The Finder is trying the same thing but adding a lot of file interaction. File manipulation between folders in ONE window only is damn difficult and confusing. Drag and drop is much more powerful in most cases. The one window column view relies on either a shelf like in NeXT or the copy/paste function of the Edit menu (which is really weird to use since cut/copy/paste was only for data WITHIN files not files themselves..)

You *can* drag and drop of course if you open another Finder window but that leads to clutter. Even MORE clutter than in the Spatial Finder because the Browser Finder windows take up more room and can display the same folder (so you can inadvertedly open many huge windows containing ~/Movies/ and clutter everything to death).

Okay, that's how you organize things, maybe you want more a big shelf, divided and subdivided into sections where your files go and I want single folders or filing trays for different purposes that I like to open. I don't know if that metaphor is right but I think it goes into the right direction.

(Yes, I have five and more windows open and I love it. I just wish they had a leaner looking . My desk is clutt... ehh organized the same way ).

-

[SomeToast]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Photoshop opens the same file twice, it doesn't display the same file in two windows. i.e. you edit one of the two identical pics you opened and the other stays the same.

You can't open the same file twice in Photoshop. You can take an opened file and make a new window for it... or a dozen. Any changes made in any of the windows are reflected in all other open windows, since they're merely different views of the same document. Very handy for working zoomed in and seeing the big picture at 100% simultaneously.

Just wanted to clear that up.

[JCS]

Spatial metaphors served OS9 (and earlier versions) well, despite the fact that no real-world gains have ever been shown to come from it. However, other metaphors existed in other operating systems. Some were less useful, but some were better, and the Mac OS incorporated some of these as time went by (the first example being List view). Column view is nothing more than another example of this: a useful metaphor being incorporated into the OS. Why it has been the target of so much hatred, I cannot explain

Sure you can, although doing so might undercut your convenient "spatial cult" labeling scheme It's pretty simple: everyone likes new, useful features, all other things being equal. But the new browser-style features in the OS X Finder were added at the cost of the pre-existing spatial style of usage. So of course people who liked the Finder that'd been using for the past decade or so got all hot and bothered. Add some cool new features to an application, fine. Add them in a way that compromises my favorite features from past versions of that app, not so fine. I don't think it's very hard to understand.

Furthermore, I don't think there's any reason both styles can't co-exist happily (although the OS X Finder has certainly managed to avoid that solution). And as anyone who has read what I've written should know, I'm certainly not an advocate of the total removal of browser-style features from the Finder. In fact, just the opposite is true. I think the Finder's browser-style features are depressingly timid and I applaud the efforts of the (pretty much browser-style, sorry voodoo) Path Finder development team in this area. If I had my druthers, the Finder would have a lot more powerful and extensive browser-style features.

I can understand the inclination of some people to lump me in with the most vociferous browser-style/column-view haters since they so often reference selected parts of what I've written. But please, resist the urge, because that's not me If you feel like letting off anti-spatial steam, a better route is to entirely dismiss it because it's "old" or "unable to handle today's complex file systems" or whatever your favorite old saw is ("whiners!" :-) Of course, then you'll be the exact counterpart to the vehement column-view hater, but that's your choice...

Oh, and BTW, regarding this thread's subject line: GNOME (Nautilus, really) most certainly did not "ban" the browser style of navigation. That was the style that Nautilus started out with, and although Nautilus is only a scant few years old (as opposed to the 16 year-old classic Mac OS Finder), the developers never even considered removing the existing browser-style interface. Instead, they added a spatial interface to Nautilus. Whether they managed to do so in a way that does not compromise either style, I don't know (I have not used GNOME 2.6 yet), but the important point is that they correctly recognized that it's not an "either/or" proposition, and they respected their installed base.

[Link]

I'm actually surprised the 10.3 doesn't have it correctly implemented as an option. Windows does so this is just odd.

I definately prefer the browser navigation but to those who want spatial as an option, I hope you guys get it...

It's a shame that even if you do, you'll probably have to pay $129 to get it

[tooki]

Originally posted by Millennium:

Originally posted by tooki:
Fiddlesticks. You need to do some studying on current usability theory. Donald Norman (one of the principals of the Nielsen/Norman Group, the usability powerhouse) has a list of usability criteria, one of which is "Constraints". You're calling them limitations, attaching a negative connotation, but the fact is that no matter what you want to call a constraint, it's an important tool in making a device usable by preventing you from being able to take an incorrect action. Constraints also serve to prevent confusion -- having multiple windows representing the same folder confuses a lot of people.

1) Who has it ever confused? Give me any real-world example, other than yourself. Show me a person who has been confused by a folder being shown in more than one timdow. Then show me a user who was confused more than once by this.

2) There seems to be this idea that the Mac interface -or any interface, for that matter- is "intuitive", that is, that complete newbiues somehow Just Know how it works. This is not true. Everything is learned, whether or not people like to admit it.

3) The fact is, UI limitations are never necessary; the goals of reducing incorrect behavior can always be accomplished by other means which do not limit future functionality. Besides which, why is it "incorrect" to have two windows displaying the same folder? It's just a folder, a space where files are stored; why should that not be viewable from two angles at once? This limitation does not make sense.

The other 4 canons are Visibility (function should be self-evident)...

4) I'll leave your misuse of the term 'self-evident' aside for a second; nothing in this world truly describes its own functionality. What Norman calls "Visibility" is really nothing more than an extension of consistency: a button in one app ought to resemble buttons in other apps. The OSX Finder does not violate this.

Feedback (the interface should provide it properly)

5) In other words, when the machine's state changes, some notification should be provided via the UI. The OSX Finder does not violate this.

Mapping (controls should have a sensible relationship to the entity they control, e.g. putting knobs in the same arrangement as the devices they control so you know which one operates what)

6) This works, as long as you have some sort of real-life device to model. What is the Finder supposed to model?

and Affordances (attributes added to an object that hint at how it should be operated when this isn't self-evident, e.g. the little diagonal lines in the corner of a Mac OS window that tell you it can be resized).

7) How does the Finder violate this?

Elsewhere, Norman talks about mental models -- the way a person THINKS something works. I have noticed that, unlike with the Classic Finder, people have trouble creating a mental model of the OS X filesystem.

8) The idea of "mental models" was discredited several years ago. It was a wonderful theory on paper, but it's been established that your typical end-user doesn't work that way.

As I said before, I still think a browser view would be useful, either as a separate utility (the way that in OS 9 people used shareware file browsers for), or as a visually distinct mode.

9) Sounds to me as though steps are actually being taken towards the "visually distinct mode", so you may well get your wish, without compromising the existing flexibility. You are not a cultist, and I never intended to claim that you were. But that doesn't mean there are no cultists.

Damn, you are so confused it's not even funny! :-P

I numbered your paragraphs so I can respond without typing zillions of QUOTE tags.

1) I've done end-user support, and seen tons of people befuddled by, when you click on the "Show in Finder" buttons in Safari, it opens a window (!) named "Desktop" that duplicates the desktop. And similar things. People DO get confused.

A real-life example? A good friend of mine who is a long-time Mac user (he bought an original Macintosh 128K from the first shipment of Macs ever sent to the Washington DC area). He's not a real computer geek, but is proficient enough in using the machine without tons of help, including installing things, etc. He never had trouble with OS 9 and earlier, but has been having difficulty learning how OS X "thinks". One of the things he noted first was that OS X's Finder allowed two windows of the same thing.

2) Lots of learning is done by exploration, and an interface should make obvious how something works. For example, a wheel invites rotation.

3) Constraints (don't call them limitations, that has a negative spin!) are absolutely essential!!!! Simplest example of constraints: grayed-out commands. They prevent you from choosing an option that wouldn't work at the moment. You shouldn't want to do anything a constraint prevents you from doing (that is, if you knew how to operate the device/interface perfectly, it's something you would only do by mistake); the constraint is there to prevent you from making mistakes.

Cars nowadays have constraints (installed for safety): you can't move the shifter out of park unless you press the brake. Moving the shifter to R with the brake off could be a rather costly or fatal mistake. You can't pull out the keys (the usual step before exiting the vehicle) until you've put the car in park -- again, to prevent costly or fatal mistakes.

4) Don't talk about usability till you've studied it. Visibility means that a device/control's function should be self-evident. THAT means that it inspires you to operate it correctly: you press a button, turn a knurled knob, pull a handle, etc. It is NOT an extension of consistency. The latter means that things operate similarly, so you don't have to re-learn. Visibility means that you are inspired to correctly operate a device/control that you have never seen before.

5, 6, 7) I NEVER claimed that the Finder violated the other 4 canons -- I was just listing them for completeness' sake.

8) Mental models most decidedly have not been discredited. It's not a "way to work", it's the assumption people make about how a given thing works. It's not a conscious thing, normally. For example, many people turn their furnace thermostat to a high temperature when winter starts because their mistaken mental model tells them that turning it higher should make it heat faster.

I know for a fact that some users have trouble forming a mental model of how OS X is organized because I have had people tell me exactly that, and told me that they had no such troubles with classic Mac OS.

tooki

[tooki]

Originally posted by voodoo:
At first the Finder was only in one window. Every time you opened a folder it opened in the only window available. This was System 1 to something.

That is patently untrue. Finder 1.1 (and its very-short-lived predecessor 1.0) absolutely let you open multiple windows. (Even the Lisa, which was designed years before, let you do that.) In fact, System 1 through System 6 are astoundingly similar in most respects (optically, you can hardly tell 1-6 apart).

System 1.0 used a bizarre method to copy files from one disk to another: you dragged the file to be copied to a virtual "Alternate Disk", and then from there to the destination disk. Then they figured out a more intuitive method (the one that survived through Mac OS 9) which they put into Finder 1.1, which was released very soon after 1.0.

Creating new folders was similarly bizarre: there was an ever-present "Empty Folder" that you renamed when you needed a new folder. Then, a new "Empty Folder" would appear. This was later replaced with the "New Folder" command in the File menu.

What IS true about System 1 is that you couldn't run multiple applications at once. When you double-clicked on an application, even the Finder quit. Later versions of the System Software added the MultiFinder, which let you run multiple apps at once. System 7 made MultiFinder standard. With System 7, the Mac System Software started growing at a startling pace, adding thousands of features over the course of a decade, ending with 9.2.2.

tooki

[voodoo]

Oh ok. I must have been confusing System 1 Finder with the GEM in the ST. <shrug>

[lenox]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Who has it ever confused? Give me any real-world example, other than yourself. Show me a person who has been confused by a folder being shown in more than one timdow. Then show me a user who was confused more than once by this.

Me. Maybe you missed my last post. I've been working with macs forever, in both a professional and personal setting, and I held onto os 9 for as long as humanly possible because I knew os x would slow me down in terms of usability. Also, please stop referencing this nonexistant cult. People who don't particularly share your views can't automatically be lumped into a group. It's not always "us vs. them". If this 'cult' you guys speak of truly existed, would they even be using os x? Would they even be having this discussion with you?

[lenox]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
Garbage. That's your laziness, it's nothing to do with the "the lack of a true spatial Finder".

How hard is it, really? Click your damn home directory toolbar icon or something, and there you are, home! How difficult is it to organise things in there?

You're complaining for the sake of it.

Laziness? I think you are missing the entire reason for my post. It's the opposite of laziness that allows me to work well in a spatial finder, because I am allowed to organize things in a physical analogy. Don't be so hasty to discredit others, just because their views differ from yours. If I am 'complaining for the sake of it', then what are you doing?

Defaming for the sake of it? Take some valium. I never told you know to use your Finder.

[weezie]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Photoshop opens the same file twice, it doesn't display the same file in two windows. i.e. you edit one of the two identical pics you opened and the other stays the same.

Actually, this is incorrect. Photoshop opens two views of the same file, the same pixels if you will. Any change made in one window is mirrored in the other. This is the whole point of the feature as it allows you to be zoomed tight in one window for pixel poking while having another window open to view the changes your making at "actual" size.

I'm an interface designer and a mac user of 16 years now. I used to be a spatial metaphor fascist and used to give my coworkers tirades about this when OSX came out. Then, when 10.2 was released and I actually started to us it daily for real work, I changed my mind very quickly. The column view is incredibly powerful and effecient. Yes, it does complicate the interface, which can lead to confusion, but I think the power and flexibility it gives me far outweigh the few moments when I have to do double take to create a clear mental model of the file heirarchy due to having the same content displayed in multiple windows (this does happen, and is a valid critique that spatial proponents make. However, I don't think it is important enough to cripple the interface by forcing everything into the spatial metaphor).

The problem I have with OSX's model is the option to have both metaphors working at the same time. I think it would be better to have a system wide preference setting that would toggle between full spatial mode (where you can't see the same content in two windows no matter what you do) and the browser model. You get one or the other all the time until this setting is changed.

I still think the spatial metaphor is many times easier for beginners and stronly visual people to grok and feel comfortable with -- it empowers users by making them feel that they can control the computer with little knowledge of how it actually works. It's the reason I got into macs in the first place. On a windows machine I could never close my eyes and "see" the structure of hard drive and it's contents like I could on a mac because I'm such a visual person. I couldn't quite get the relationship between, say, the desktop and the My Documents folder, whereas on the mac I just got it without thinking about it. I knew "where" everything was in relationship to everything else. At first I didn't care about how the computer worked, as long as I could illustrate on it. Times and skill levels change however and I'm now far more productive with the column browser and multiple access points to file directories (especially with big network volumes as mentioned by someone earlier).

<soapbox>
The point of all this rambling is that I relate to and understand the spatial proponents point of view, but I also think they need to realize that as with all life, there is no "one true way" and any attempt to force one on a population of individuals is oppression. There are as many different use cases as there are users. Give us choice! (a clear choice would be better however, and OSX is not quite there yet in this regard)
</soapbox>

[Boondoggle]

But seriously folks, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

This thread has pretty much proved that if Apple had implemented a purely spacial Finder just about the same number of people would have been dissaponted.

At least we don't ( well, except Tog and a few others ) have piles...


Personally I haven't found the new Finder particulary difficult or confusing. Just different.
Well maybe networking is a bit confusing...

I've used Macs since OS7.1

bd

[Developer]

Originally posted by JCS:
Oh, and BTW, regarding this thread's subject line: GNOME (Nautilus, really) most certainly did not "ban" the browser style of navigation.

I apologize for not being politically correct. It should read "GNOME disables browser like file navigation".

[Moonray]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Oh ok. I must have been confusing System 1 Finder with the GEM in the ST. <shrug>

The Atari ST had always more and resizable windows though their number was limited to four first, later the GEM version for PCs got crippled to two fixed-size windows because Apple had sued Digital Research successfully (but after they sold it to Atari so they could still use the flexibility and Apple for some reason did or could not care about that).

It's interesting to think how things had evolved if Digital Research hadn't ended that conflict with Apple by restricting GEM's functionality. There was probably no Windows today.

-

[JCS]

It should read "GNOME disables browser like file navigation".

It's not "disabled" either. It's there and fully functional.

[gunnar]

I think the difference between people that like the spatial finder and those that like the column view of OS X is based on the number of files they work with and the depth of their directories. Most everyone who has only a few files and not more than 2 levels of folders is going to want a spatial finder because it's easier to remember where everything is by its location. Once you get beyond a medium amount of files, or 4 levels of hierarchy, a spatial finder becomes a hindrance because you just can't conceive of that many variables in a real-life proximity type way.

Take this example: I have a web site that has 7 levels from its index page to its deepest page. In a spatial finder I open all 7 windows to get to see the deepest file. If I want to move that file to any of the previous seven (let's say 3 deep) then I have to physically manage all the open windows and choose the right one. That's a lot of screen clutter and a lot of the time you're going to drop the file on the wrong window. This gets exponentially more difficult if you have multiple sets of windows open, folders with the same names, desktop clutter etc. The column view in OS X essentially lets you see the relation between levels in a quasi spatial way, i.e. you can see all the folders grouped together, but they're still distinct. Compare this to the Windows explorer with the directory tree and you get no spatial connotations at all. You have to read all those little folder titles and the hierarchy is vertical and horizontal. Very disorienting.

I think the cure for OS X is to simply incorporate more spatial cues into the column view. The GUI is still too large. The sidebar is a step backwards and the behaviour from window to window is too variable. It needs to work like a "machine" in that it has a predictable set of behaviour and "feels" consistent. It's basically a "grouping machine" that should let you go where you want with some UI elements. The current incarnation is just too plasticky and distant feeling.

[JCS]

gunnar, you might want to look at this thread

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by lenox:
Laziness? I think you are missing the entire reason for my post. It's the opposite of laziness that allows me to work well in a spatial finder, because I am allowed to organize things in a physical analogy. Don't be so hasty to discredit others, just because their views differ from yours. If I am 'complaining for the sake of it', then what are you doing?

Defaming for the sake of it? Take some valium. I never told you know to use your Finder.

Fair enough - so explain to me how a spatial Finder has such a massive influence on your ability to "organise" your files?

[Link]

I think more of the morons in this thread would have been happier if OS X looked like this:

http://www.applefritter.com/ui/aux/images/cmdo-ls.gif

Too many legacy humpers. if you want OS 9 USE OS 9, I'm tired of the "OOOHH It's too plasticky! It doesn't have spatial navigation, it doesn't look platinum, it doesn't have an apple menu.. I hate the dock, unix is useless to me, I hate aqua" crap.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by Link:
I think more of the morons in this thread would have been happier if OS X looked like this:

http://www.applefritter.com/ui/aux/images/cmdo-ls.gif

Too many legacy humpers. if you want OS 9 USE OS 9, I'm tired of the "OOOHH It's too plasticky! It doesn't have spatial navigation, it doesn't look platinum, it doesn't have an apple menu.. I hate the dock, unix is useless to me, I hate aqua" crap.

That's just silly. Have you even read this thread at all? I don't think you comprehend the discussion.