The desktop metaphor was well suited to its era. However, advances in computing, IMHO, have made the metaphor non-optimal for our modern computing experience.
Really? Where is your computer on top of? Where do you store your hard copy documents? Unless the physical universe as we know it has changed, the desktop metaphor will always apply. Why? Because you live in the physical universe. The problem isn't the limitations of desktop metaphor, the problem is the stepping away from how we humans operate in the physical universe. If you inspect far enough you will discover that that which we disagree with here violates in some form or another how we operate in the physical universe.
For proof look no further then Expose. It's a natural operation. Everyone identifies with it. We all do it in the physical universe in some form or another.
"If this pane would behave the same as the playlist pane in iTunes and allow me to add and delete my own Aliases to folders. If that pane was mine and not pre-directorized by Apple, then you have me interested and using it."
I guess I am missing something. You can add anything to the pane. I have a company folder that has about 100 folders inside of it. I will put that company folder in the pane first thing.
I realize that arguing with gorverat is like talking to a brick wall, but I feel compelled to respond for posterity's sake :
Things change....
Yes they do. That is not the disagreement. The disagreement is that the new OS designers are evolving the Mac away from it's basic concept. OS X is AWSOME, I'll say that, but in some ways it's also destroying the Mac's concept. The true cause for this isn't because we now have viruses, multi-users and so on nor is it because the computer has evolved into some strange animal. Please, gives us some credit!
The truth is:
1) The new OS designers are ignoring basic fundamental human interface principals.
2) Apple is trying to be more like that other guy because he's getting all the attention. Sad!!!!!!
I guess I am missing something. You can add anything to the pane. I have a company folder that has about 100 folders inside of it. I will put that company folder in the pane first thing.
Awesome!! Can I delete the rest of the stuff there and replace it with my own? Can I put my entire HD there so I can see ALL my files? The one who's missing something is me because I haven't used it. OS X 10.6 here. I'm only going off screen shots and what people are saying about it here.
A folder shows the TRUE contents, it shows the real stuff inside, it should ALWAYS show the true contents of a folder otherwise you start getting into trouble.
What real stuff. The Finder is an abstracted representation, and a folder is an abstraction of a directory tree. Always has been, always will be. Whether or not its the correct abstraction is a matter of debate. Really, most people are now saavy enough about computers and the internet to understand the levels of abstraction necessary when dealing with computers. Realistically, if you were that worried or resistant to the irreality of computers, your poor head would explode everytime you fired up a browser. Real-life metaphors can strain and break, and when broken needs to be re-thought.
Quote:
I feel that this is what upsets people, when the OS starts hiding files from you. I agree 1000% that it's a very bad thing.
OS9 did the same thing, but to a lesser degree. Have an OS9 volume handy--open it with Norton Disk Editor, or some other utility, enjoy the surprise.
BTW, my computer sits on my lap most of time. And my hard copy...
Can I delete the rest of the stuff there and replace it with my own? Can I put my entire HD there so I can see ALL my files? The one who's missing something is me because I haven't used it. OS X 10.6 here.
Yes, beneath the drives under the drives. I guess you haven't seen many screenshots at all, then, because the hard drives are the *first* things listed in there. You have full access to the drives right there.
Yes, beneath the drives under the drives. I guess you haven't seen many screenshots at all, then, because the hard drives are the *first* things listed in there. You have full access to the drives right there.
Or did you mean something else?
And I suspect you're using 10.2.6, not 10.6.
Perhaps I've been getting the wrong picture. If it's a la iTunes, me like, me like it alot.
I'm certain you know very well what I meant. Let's not go looking for atoms.
cowerd is dead spot on.
The desktop your computer sits on...
... doesn't have many people working on it, I wager.
... can't have someone in the next office move things around it on you.
... can't show all the papers you have on it... *regardless* of how many papers you have on it.
The desktop is a *metaphor*. So is the folder. So is the hard drive as filing cabinet... these are all just abstract artificialities designed to try and make computers easier.
And sometimes they fall out of date, and become obsolescent, or worse, get shoved into a tiny little slot to make them fit something they were never intended for.
You'll just hurt yourself trying to maintain that fiction.
Computers are just moving electrons around. That's the only reality you've got going. All the rest is handwaving, abstraction, communally agreed upon fiction, and a good dose of sheer mass hallucination.
Desktop is hosed. Either fix it or fsck it. DMGs should open on the Desktop or every other volume in existence should not. Desktop used to be a nice metaphor for root, but at present its almost but not quite and Apple hasn't been bothered to fix the damn thing. Apple really needs a UI cop for OSX.
But my dear cowerd, DMGs do open on the desktop. In Panther, Disk Copy is in fact a background application!
The desktop is a folder. I see no reason why the desktop HAS TO BE root, unless you are a complete wanker like Bruce Togazanininini.
His spatial finder concept is having every finder object be representative of some part of the computer. A folder window IS that folder, etc. With his interface, the desktop is the root of the computer and you start from there.
However, I like to think that interfaces move forwards, and Apple/Mac users arn't trapped into a single way that stuff has to be done. The file system is now seperated from the interface. We have a file browser instead of a simple file system. In this way Apple should be able to explore whole new realms of possibilities, like live searching (assuming Apple ever gets around to decent metadata).
But if you want to be one of the "UI Nazis" *remembers the tabbed Safari thread from months back*, go right ahead.
... doesn't have many people working on it, I wager.
... can't have someone in the next office move things around it on you.
... can't show all the papers you have on it... *regardless* of how many papers you have on it.
I've always interpreted the desktop metaphor as mimicking "real world" operations. By that I mean, interacting with your computer as you would with physical objects rather than interacting with a computer via commands (non-object oriented) as was done pre-Mac days with DOS.
The Mac gave us objects we all could associate with, it revolutionized the computer by giving it this "real world" connection. To this day the boys at Microsoft still don't get this. In some ways the designers of Mac OS X don't either.
The physical universe has anchor points, a space has anchor points. A symbol does not, a command line doesn't either, a command line is a set of instructions, an idea. The challenge of the programer is to convert the instructions into something that has anchor points so It can be oriented in space. The closer the anchor points (objects) resemble the real world, the easier it is for people to get it and use.
Direct manipulation is the term you?re looking for iPeon. In the field of UI design and computer-human interaction, it refers to the representation of virtual data as real-world objects. In a direct manipulation interface, acting upon these virtual objects, in a real world manner, should have predictable results.
The reason for using this philosophy in interface design is that it enables people to accomplish their tasks by assisting them with familiar analogies. No body here will dispute this benefit.
Direct manipulation is closely linked to the concept of spatial orientation or spatial organization. By representing data as objects, a system can be constructed in which those objects have a readily discernable and user definable ?location?. Humans are quite good at remembering locations. This is typically done by memorizing location names, relative position to other locals, and visually defining landmarks. I don?t think that anyone is claiming that spatial organization and a spatial finder are bad.
However, this doesn?t necessarily mean that a spatial finder, the desktop metaphor, and direct manipulation are the pinnacle of interface design. There is still much room for improvement even if users stay the same.
As time progresses, I predict the optimal interface will need to rely less on imperfect yet specific metaphors like the virtual ?desktop?. Already, there is a generation of computer users who have no real world ?desktop? experience, a generation where the analogy has flipped. To them, the web is familiar and a manila folder is not. The virtual-desktop?s days are numbered.
No they are mapped to appear on the Desktop, however if you navigate to your Desktop folder they are not there. They mount root but are also mapped to the Desktop along with all other volumes if you so choose. Something's borked and Apple either fixes it or chucks the whole damn thing.
Quote:
The file system is now seperated from the interface. We have a file browser instead of a simple file system. In this way Apple should be able to explore whole new realms of possibilities, like live searching (assuming Apple ever gets around to decent metadata).
The file system is not yet seperated from the interface. When a fully integrated and data-rich file system gets implemented I'll be the first one in the happy line, until then Apple is mixing metaphors to the users detriment.
UI Cop != UI Nazi, unless you have some authority issues. You also writes purty for 14 year-old.
This is true for DMGs as well as all other kinds of volumes. The Desktop folder contains the files, while the actual desktop essentially links to volumes. Originally in the Public Beta there was zero appearence (except user-created aliases) of volumes on the desktop, but the user outcry was huge. Not that 99% of Mac OS X users actually use volumes on the desktop (with a file browser rather than a file system), it's just tradition. Religious tradition, which is the strongest kind, and Macintosh religion, also the strongest kind.
I agree with you that the Finder isn't ready yet, and Apple needs to implement decent metadata etc before it is finished in the sense that the "Platinum" Finder was a finished spatial Finder. However, I have no problem with Mac OS X possessing an unfinished browser/Finder right now, as long as development continues and we humble end users recieve a finished Finder in the near future.
I'm a bit older than 14 (in years), but based on what Jonathan posted earlier, I thought it was apt to mark an opinionated rant with my hurriedly photochopped funny.
Direct manipulation is still a very fundamental and important part of the user experience. I've been screaming 'til I'm blue in the face about this idea with regard to our up-and-coming CAD platform of the future here at work. You can't manipulate things in 3D space in the 3D views -- you have to use dialogs and "properties"/parametric controls in a separate window.
The metaphors have inherent limitations. We were looking at aoftware from AutoDesk called Architectural Studio, and it problem is that while all the tools and concepts are familiar, they inherit the limitations and problem the physical counterparts have. After all, our fodlers don't open up and look like folders, they're windows with scroll bars. Computers are good at copying things, might as well use that to some advantage, i.e., representing things in several places where most convenient. God knows I can never find anything on my desk when I need it.
For an instance of the direct manipulation gone haywire, see IBM's UI experiments from 90-95 or so... they had this huge push to make everything *as close to real life objects as possible*... and it was a massive failure.
Heck, look at the 'thumbwheel' volume control on QuickTime 4! *Real* audio units have them all the time, but they don't map well to a GUI. No one could figure out what the heck it was, even though if it had been on a Walkman, they would have known exactly what to do with it.
Calls for 'real world' style direct manipulation are ultimately going to have to give way as what we produce on the computer bypasses what we're limited to in the physical world.
Show me a pad of paper with a spellchecker, for instance. Does that mean that our spellchecker should emulate handing it off to a colleague or flunky, and try and emulate *that* 'interface' as closely as possible? Of course not. We can do better.
Likewise, we can do a better job of organizing information conceptually, based on *several* ways of viewing the data in a document, instead of just one based on filename and a specific location in a static hierarchy.
All I know is that from what I have seen of the new finder, it is the best that Apple has produced to date. I would expect that they have no intentions of letting it sit idle.
Maybe if I read a few more of these posts I will start to get a clue. Most likely, not.....
Comments
Originally posted by dfiler
The desktop metaphor was well suited to its era. However, advances in computing, IMHO, have made the metaphor non-optimal for our modern computing experience.
Really? Where is your computer on top of? Where do you store your hard copy documents? Unless the physical universe as we know it has changed, the desktop metaphor will always apply. Why? Because you live in the physical universe. The problem isn't the limitations of desktop metaphor, the problem is the stepping away from how we humans operate in the physical universe. If you inspect far enough you will discover that that which we disagree with here violates in some form or another how we operate in the physical universe.
For proof look no further then Expose. It's a natural operation. Everyone identifies with it. We all do it in the physical universe in some form or another.
"If this pane would behave the same as the playlist pane in iTunes and allow me to add and delete my own Aliases to folders. If that pane was mine and not pre-directorized by Apple, then you have me interested and using it."
I guess I am missing something. You can add anything to the pane. I have a company folder that has about 100 folders inside of it. I will put that company folder in the pane first thing.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
I realize that arguing with gorverat is like talking to a brick wall, but I feel compelled to respond for posterity's sake
Things change....
Yes they do. That is not the disagreement. The disagreement is that the new OS designers are evolving the Mac away from it's basic concept. OS X is AWSOME, I'll say that, but in some ways it's also destroying the Mac's concept. The true cause for this isn't because we now have viruses, multi-users and so on nor is it because the computer has evolved into some strange animal. Please, gives us some credit!
The truth is:
1) The new OS designers are ignoring basic fundamental human interface principals.
2) Apple is trying to be more like that other guy because he's getting all the attention. Sad!!!!!!
Originally posted by kcmac
I guess I am missing something. You can add anything to the pane. I have a company folder that has about 100 folders inside of it. I will put that company folder in the pane first thing.
Awesome!!
A folder shows the TRUE contents, it shows the real stuff inside, it should ALWAYS show the true contents of a folder otherwise you start getting into trouble.
What real stuff. The Finder is an abstracted representation, and a folder is an abstraction of a directory tree. Always has been, always will be. Whether or not its the correct abstraction is a matter of debate. Really, most people are now saavy enough about computers and the internet to understand the levels of abstraction necessary when dealing with computers. Realistically, if you were that worried or resistant to the irreality of computers, your poor head would explode everytime you fired up a browser. Real-life metaphors can strain and break, and when broken needs to be re-thought.
I feel that this is what upsets people, when the OS starts hiding files from you. I agree 1000% that it's a very bad thing.
OS9 did the same thing, but to a lesser degree. Have an OS9 volume handy--open it with Norton Disk Editor, or some other utility, enjoy the surprise.
BTW, my computer sits on my lap most of time. And my hard copy...
Originally posted by iPeon
Can I delete the rest of the stuff there and replace it with my own? Can I put my entire HD there so I can see ALL my files? The one who's missing something is me because I haven't used it. OS X 10.6 here.
Yes, beneath the drives under the drives. I guess you haven't seen many screenshots at all, then, because the hard drives are the *first* things listed in there. You have full access to the drives right there.
Or did you mean something else?
And I suspect you're using 10.2.6, not 10.6.
Originally posted by cowerd
What real stuff. The Finder...
I'm certain you know very well what I meant. Let's not go looking for atoms.
Originally posted by Brad
Yes, beneath the drives under the drives. I guess you haven't seen many screenshots at all, then, because the hard drives are the *first* things listed in there. You have full access to the drives right there.
Or did you mean something else?
And I suspect you're using 10.2.6, not 10.6.
Perhaps I've been getting the wrong picture.
Hummmm, er... yes, it's 10.2.6 not 10.6.
Here's one: Finder - a new-style window
Originally posted by iPeon
I'm certain you know very well what I meant. Let's not go looking for atoms.
cowerd is dead spot on.
The desktop your computer sits on...
... doesn't have many people working on it, I wager.
... can't have someone in the next office move things around it on you.
... can't show all the papers you have on it... *regardless* of how many papers you have on it.
The desktop is a *metaphor*. So is the folder. So is the hard drive as filing cabinet... these are all just abstract artificialities designed to try and make computers easier.
And sometimes they fall out of date, and become obsolescent, or worse, get shoved into a tiny little slot to make them fit something they were never intended for.
You'll just hurt yourself trying to maintain that fiction.
Computers are just moving electrons around. That's the only reality you've got going. All the rest is handwaving, abstraction, communally agreed upon fiction, and a good dose of sheer mass hallucination.
But my dear cowerd, DMGs do open on the desktop. In Panther, Disk Copy is in fact a background application!
The desktop is a folder. I see no reason why the desktop HAS TO BE root, unless you are a complete wanker like Bruce Togazanininini.
His spatial finder concept is having every finder object be representative of some part of the computer. A folder window IS that folder, etc. With his interface, the desktop is the root of the computer and you start from there.
However, I like to think that interfaces move forwards, and Apple/Mac users arn't trapped into a single way that stuff has to be done. The file system is now seperated from the interface. We have a file browser instead of a simple file system. In this way Apple should be able to explore whole new realms of possibilities, like live searching (assuming Apple ever gets around to decent metadata).
But if you want to be one of the "UI Nazis" *remembers the tabbed Safari thread from months back*, go right ahead.
Barto
Originally posted by Kickaha
cowerd is dead spot on.
The desktop your computer sits on...
... doesn't have many people working on it, I wager.
... can't have someone in the next office move things around it on you.
... can't show all the papers you have on it... *regardless* of how many papers you have on it.
I've always interpreted the desktop metaphor as mimicking "real world" operations. By that I mean, interacting with your computer as you would with physical objects rather than interacting with a computer via commands (non-object oriented) as was done pre-Mac days with DOS.
The Mac gave us objects we all could associate with, it revolutionized the computer by giving it this "real world" connection. To this day the boys at Microsoft still don't get this. In some ways the designers of Mac OS X don't either.
The physical universe has anchor points, a space has anchor points. A symbol does not, a command line doesn't either, a command line is a set of instructions, an idea. The challenge of the programer is to convert the instructions into something that has anchor points so It can be oriented in space. The closer the anchor points (objects) resemble the real world, the easier it is for people to get it and use.
Direct manipulation is the term you?re looking for iPeon. In the field of UI design and computer-human interaction, it refers to the representation of virtual data as real-world objects. In a direct manipulation interface, acting upon these virtual objects, in a real world manner, should have predictable results.
The reason for using this philosophy in interface design is that it enables people to accomplish their tasks by assisting them with familiar analogies. No body here will dispute this benefit.
Direct manipulation is closely linked to the concept of spatial orientation or spatial organization. By representing data as objects, a system can be constructed in which those objects have a readily discernable and user definable ?location?. Humans are quite good at remembering locations. This is typically done by memorizing location names, relative position to other locals, and visually defining landmarks. I don?t think that anyone is claiming that spatial organization and a spatial finder are bad.
However, this doesn?t necessarily mean that a spatial finder, the desktop metaphor, and direct manipulation are the pinnacle of interface design. There is still much room for improvement even if users stay the same.
As time progresses, I predict the optimal interface will need to rely less on imperfect yet specific metaphors like the virtual ?desktop?. Already, there is a generation of computer users who have no real world ?desktop? experience, a generation where the analogy has flipped. To them, the web is familiar and a manila folder is not. The virtual-desktop?s days are numbered.
But my dear cowerd, DMGs do open on the desktop.
No they are mapped to appear on the Desktop, however if you navigate to your Desktop folder they are not there. They mount root but are also mapped to the Desktop along with all other volumes if you so choose. Something's borked and Apple either fixes it or chucks the whole damn thing.
The file system is now seperated from the interface. We have a file browser instead of a simple file system. In this way Apple should be able to explore whole new realms of possibilities, like live searching (assuming Apple ever gets around to decent metadata).
The file system is not yet seperated from the interface. When a fully integrated and data-rich file system gets implemented I'll be the first one in the happy line, until then Apple is mixing metaphors to the users detriment.
UI Cop != UI Nazi, unless you have some authority issues. You also writes purty for 14 year-old.
I agree with you that the Finder isn't ready yet, and Apple needs to implement decent metadata etc before it is finished in the sense that the "Platinum" Finder was a finished spatial Finder. However, I have no problem with Mac OS X possessing an unfinished browser/Finder right now, as long as development continues and we humble end users recieve a finished Finder in the near future.
I'm a bit older than 14 (in years), but based on what Jonathan posted earlier, I thought it was apt to mark an opinionated rant with my hurriedly photochopped funny.
Barto
The metaphors have inherent limitations. We were looking at aoftware from AutoDesk called Architectural Studio, and it problem is that while all the tools and concepts are familiar, they inherit the limitations and problem the physical counterparts have. After all, our fodlers don't open up and look like folders, they're windows with scroll bars. Computers are good at copying things, might as well use that to some advantage, i.e., representing things in several places where most convenient. God knows I can never find anything on my desk when I need it.
Originally posted by dfiler
Hefty dose of pragmatism please!
Excellent post.
For an instance of the direct manipulation gone haywire, see IBM's UI experiments from 90-95 or so... they had this huge push to make everything *as close to real life objects as possible*... and it was a massive failure.
Heck, look at the 'thumbwheel' volume control on QuickTime 4! *Real* audio units have them all the time, but they don't map well to a GUI. No one could figure out what the heck it was, even though if it had been on a Walkman, they would have known exactly what to do with it.
Calls for 'real world' style direct manipulation are ultimately going to have to give way as what we produce on the computer bypasses what we're limited to in the physical world.
Show me a pad of paper with a spellchecker, for instance.
Likewise, we can do a better job of organizing information conceptually, based on *several* ways of viewing the data in a document, instead of just one based on filename and a specific location in a static hierarchy.
And the UI should reflect that.
All I know is that from what I have seen of the new finder, it is the best that Apple has produced to date. I would expect that they have no intentions of letting it sit idle.
Maybe if I read a few more of these posts I will start to get a clue. Most likely, not.....
Get away, scary OS 9 Amish people!
Originally posted by JLL
?? Move the scroll bar to the left.
Eh?
I should write a decent tutorial on moving your home folder around...it is quite easy (and doable with GUI.)