Oh my. I guess it's my fault for not explaining exactly what these do and what they are for. I mean hell, poor Kim Kap Sol is running in circles like a turkey with it's head cut off. =\\
1: The only reason I named them "Piles" were because of the fact that the icons are stored in a dynamically -rendered- pile.
2: The content would not be dynamic. It would be created, maintained, etc by the user, just as you would the dock.
3: The Piles would be created when you drag one or more applications from the finder or dock onto another application in the dock. It would then prompt you to name the pile (Such as "Games"). Simple as that.
4: Just like the dock, you can rearrange the contents by dragging them around, remove them by dragging them off, etc. The size of the icons would be consistent with the size of the icons in the dock. (No separate resize bar)
Okay... Does everyone get it? What this is, is a practical means of organization in the dock. Here are a few examples of other ways this could be used:
1: A Microsoft Office Pile.
2: An Adobe Pile.
3: An iLife Pile.
4: An Internet Pile.
5: A developer Pile.
6: A Games Pile.
I heard the argument that a folder in the bottom/right of the dock would do the same thing I am proposing.
Well it's not true. First off you are pulling WindowServ into the mess, which is why, often, right clicking something in the dock may take anywhere from 2 to 3 seconds to appear.
Second, you actually have to edit the file structure on your computer in order to get the things you want all in the same folder, whether you do this with alias' or not.
Third, when you finally manage to find what you are looking for in the folder, what happens? OH gee, it gets added to the dock anyway. If the point is to keep the dock organized and clutter-free, I don't see any reason for this.
---
As a last point, the animation wouldn't be very resource demanding. They are only 128x128 images. Unlike, say, minimizing a window. (Which would also take longer, to boot)
Because a file needs a definite place to be stored that. Sure, you could create multiple softlinks to it to accomplish this, but then there would *still* have to be one *real* location of the file, and that *can't* be inside any of such dynamic containers.
You can, for example, have the two dynamic containers "Christmas Photos" and "2003 Photos". There would be an overlap of items in there: photos from Christmas 2003. Because of that, those files can physically exist in *neither* place, and must be in an entirely seperate directory. Which also means that, by removing "2003 Photos", i don't destroy any actual data.
And therein lies a huge difference to folders.
I see your point. But lets face it, dynamic piles could have the same overlap of items also. They'd have the exact same problems you explained above. So, please explain more as to why piles are so fantastic.
What you're talking about is spatial vs non-spatial. Of course, once people can wrap their heads around the fact that a file can exist in multiple places but all link to one file on the HD then dynamic piles and dynamic folders could start existing.
[B]I see your point. But lets face it, dynamic piles could have the same overlap of items also.
Quite indeed: I was *talking* about piles. I called them "dynamic containers" to avoid calling them A) an ordinary folder (from which they can be distinguished in several ways) or a pile (which is a term you disagree with).
Yes, overlap of items is part of the *concept* of piles/dynamic folders/smart folders/whatever.
Quote:
They'd have the exact same problems you explained above. So, please explain more as to why piles are so fantastic.
They aren't. They solve, however, a problem that the desktop metaphor copied from our kids' rooms: just like those are never clean, so aren't our hard drives' home directories and desktops, unless you really *take your time* and tidy them up manually.
This is *not* necessary with piles. Leave the file system as messy as you want. It will slow the system down, but it will hardly slow *you* down, because you don't have to care about the hierarchy any more.
Quite indeed: I was *talking* about piles. I called them "dynamic containers" to avoid calling them A) an ordinary folder (from which they can be distinguished in several ways) or a pile (which is a term you disagree with).
Yes, overlap of items is part of the *concept* of piles/dynamic folders/smart folders/whatever.
They aren't. They solve, however, a problem that the desktop metaphor copied from our kids' rooms: just like those are never clean, so aren't our hard drives' home directories and desktops, unless you really *take your time* and tidy them up manually.
This is *not* necessary with piles. Leave the file system as messy as you want. It will slow the system down, but it will hardly slow *you* down, because you don't have to care about the hierarchy any more.
Well then what's the big problem? You're accusing me of not understanding the difference between piles and smart-folders. There is no difference. People would just have to get accustomed to a non-spatial layout.
You've been telling me since the beginning that folders are part of a spatial construct of the filesystem and that they represent some sort of physical hierarchy. This is true and not true.
Multiple instances of a single folder can exist in OS X. Look no further than repeating "New Finder Window" a couple times (non-spatial). You delete one instance and that folder is gone (spatial). If piles are allowed to act this way, why couldn't dynamic folders become untied with physical hierarchy? Apple has sure created a stir with non-spatial organization but in the end it might be one of the only way to allow a powerful organization tool for large amounts of data.
Piles, my friend, can be as spatial and as non-spatial as a folder. Telling me that folders are tied to a filesystem is as ludicrous as telling me that piles aren't. It's all up to Apple to decide whether deleting a folder, a pile or a smart-folder as I've come to call dynamic folders (thanks iTunes. \ ) deletes a physical file on the HD or not.
Xidius, nice implementation. I've mocked up a similar idea (not quite as nicely) some time ago as "dock groups". Your mock-up looks quite good, and useful...
One nice potential ability for a Dock grouping could be to display its contained icons in a grid, or wedge, instead of a straight line, if the contents are large and it's appropriate to do so.
Anyway, I think the debate here -- which IMO incidentally sort of, but doesn't completely, relate to the mockup, as the mockup completely sidesteps the issue by having these "piles" in the Dock -- is about whether it's necessary to have a new UI element to show the user that a file is dynamic generated link or really "there."
In iTunes, you can create a playlist and then delete songs off a playlist, w/o of course deleting your original song. iTunes makes the distinction depending on what group you're in?if you delete a song from the Library, it asks if you want to Trash the file. Delete from a playlist, no question. Works pretty well?easy to grasp, with a minimum of confusion.
So, what should the Finder do, when smart folders are introduced (be it Tiger or 10.5)? Is a new UI element (such as Piles) needed? Or can the current metaphor of folders, and "smart folders" carried over from iTunes and other iApps, do the trick? My strong suspicion is the latter is sufficient, and the groundwork has been laid out quite on purpose.
Incidentally, MS is wrestling with this in interesting ways with this in Longhorn, with its metadata-savvy WinFS, and have introduced the idea of "stacks" (see middle of the page). These stacks don't replace dynamic folders, but are a view option complementing them, and a way to visually adjust metadata. I suspect actually that if Apple does introduce its own version of piles, or stacks, they will go down a similar route.
Well then what's the big problem? You're accusing me of not understanding the difference between piles and smart-folders. There is no difference. People would just have to get accustomed to a non-spatial layout.
No, I've been trying to tell you that "smart folders" might not be a well-chosen name for piles, because they have *more* properties than just being "smart" (i.e. dynamically-created).
No, I've been trying to tell you that "smart folders" might not be a well-chosen name for piles, because they have *more* properties than just being "smart" (i.e. dynamically-created).
A well if the name was all we were quarreling about, then I've been wasting a lot of time.
Who is going to input meta data like that anyway? And who wants their information like that being sent around the internet? I know people got really pissed when they learned that in Word doc's it had info about you on documents you made. Although I am in favor of adding meta data that is freely available (like your Name which one could get from a Rendezvous buddy list) like date and time... but who wants to spend time inputting keywords?
I wonder if there could be some way to look through the document and pick out keywords that were in other documents, or looking in the document and recognizing it is a letter or an essay, that would be very nifty, although privacy people would go crazy over it.
I would love to see the option to list all your folders in the your home folder (sans Library, Public, and Sites) into a database that you could create playlists and smart playlists from (*just like iTunes!*). The file would still be in the old hierarchy, but the way you would interact with them would be entirely different. When you want to send the playlist, it would copy it into a temp folder that would work just like a folder was dragged into Mail.app
i think the point now is that the current folder technique of organtization has some severe limitations.
first, it requires you to think of your possible silos of information well in advance (which never works... eventually you come across a project or files that do not logically fit any of the folders you initially made). in order to do that, you must make the topmost level as generic as possible (see ANY "documents" folder as an example).
now, what happens when you have a file that logically fits TWO OR MORE organizational methods? your choices are now either make multiple copies and hope you can sync them correctly without ever syncing the wrong way and losing data, or you start making aliases/shortcuts to and fro. usually, people just stick with making some generic folders, hoping they anticipate all their organizational categories ahead of time, and then start adding on extra categories over time as stuff doesn't "fit" the original model. and this doesn't even BEGIN to touch the issue of what you do when there are multiple copies of files floating around in the in-boxes of different people's e-mail clients.
the ONLY way to organize all this is via meta-data, and it's been gathered on your machine for a while, though in less sophisticated forms, such as when you index a directory for "find by content" or mac os x's completely overlooked "summarize" service. yes, the meta-data has to come from somewhere. either hand-composed by the user, or compiled throug some nifty summarizing algorithm to figure out the high points. smart folders/stacks/piles are a way of creating meeting points for that data, not the files themselves.
Looking at the Meta Data that is usable and obtainable easily the list starts to get shorter and shorter. I am going to assume here we are talking about documents, which is what the Finder mainly consumes itself with, as iPhoto and iTunes are already out there (and I suspect QT Player will evolve into a media player)
Data Size most of the time has no significance (unless that can be translated into number of pages) .
Author would be a usable metadata.
Creation and Modification dates would be nice.
of course TITLE would be there.
Keywords would be best, but how easily would getting keywords be?
Metadata, at the moment, is much easier to get for Music files. Music files are a certain length (it cannot be double spaced and font-size changed and still retain it's original content, like a document could) and Genres (Keywords) are much easier to come by for music. Many pieces of metadata that we love to use for our Smart Playlists in iTunes (such as ratings) don't apply that well to Documents.
Right now, I am working on essays for science class. So, I file it under Work<Science and possibly once more under "essays" or "finals." There, already, I could use the metadata of typing in work, science, and then two third level keywords of "essays" or "finals" that would apply to Work, Science, and other subjects. (Maybe I have already predesignate "finals" as a keyword that automatically is assigned to all "Work" documents between two weeks in May) . I, as the average user, do not want to invest all that time into just saving ONE DOCUMENT. The problem arises then of how to look through a document and find out what is general about different pieces of writing that keeps them all in one keyword.
The system would eventually, somehow, be able to automatically assign keywords and present them to the user as the document is being saved, and the user can just click OK with just a quick glance. And if something is wrong, the search field and the improved Get Info Box would not be far away. The computer just needs to use the best damn Junk Mail filter system and apply to your documents. Figure out what makes one essay "biology" and the other "anatomy," and then those are put into the "Recent Work" Smart Folder.
Just look at iTunes for a great way to organize files, and hope that Apple can manage to apply to documents without 1. frustrating novice users, 2. annoying power users.
PS, thank you for giving the chance to procrastinate on doing my science essay.
A nice metaphor for this all would be a Card Catalog. You have your card catalog, with books filed away in many different places for easier finding, and once you find the card, it is very easy to get the book. Also, maybe you have a list of books that you know where they are already, so you don't need the card catalog.
The list of books is a regular folder/playlist and the card catalog are your smart folders/smart playlists.
Anyway, I think the debate here -- which IMO incidentally sort of, but doesn't completely, relate to the mockup, as the mockup completely sidesteps the issue by having these "piles" in the Dock -- is about whether it's necessary to have a new UI element to show the user that a file is dynamic generated link or really "there."
In iTunes, you can create a playlist and then delete songs off a playlist, w/o of course deleting your original song. iTunes makes the distinction depending on what group you're in?if you delete a song from the Library, it asks if you want to Trash the file. Delete from a playlist, no question. Works pretty well?easy to grasp, with a minimum of confusion...
Thank you Hobbes for thoroughly insightful answering and the aero link you've posted too.
I believe that the success of the entire Macos is deeply rooted with the spatial folder concept. everyone who does play a bit with the macos grasps it almost immediately (well i spare the details)
And everyone who is playing with "iTunes" almost instantly understand the concept of "playlist", --> items which exist temporarily, just in order to organize media content. And so will "smart folders" do.
I believe the addition of "smart folders" will be a huge leap regarding the finder experience. Everyone will understand that instantly - and no, it has nothing to do with the distinction between "spatial and non-spatial layout". Piles are only one way to visually represent smart folders.
A nice metaphor for this all would be a Card Catalog. You have your card catalog, with books filed away in many different places for easier finding, and once you find the card, it is very easy to get the book. Also, maybe you have a list of books that you know where they are already, so you don't need the card catalog.
What's a card catalog?
Keep saying stuff like that and you'll seem old really soon. Many libraries trashed their card catalogs in the 90's.
I appreciate a healthy discussion of interface evolution, revolution, or coup. With the ever increasing amount of information stored on a typical user's computer, it becomes increasingly difficult to manage storage in a purely spatial manner. iTunes recognized this and implemented a custom solution outside of the filesystem.
I suspect that Apple is hard at work, trying to come up with a more abstracted solution. If done properly, it could do to file management in general, what iTunes has done for music file management. Generalized solutions like this are incredibly difficult to do properly. In fact, I could see this as having as much influence on computing workflow as did the desktop metaphor. Procede with caution.
Comments
1: The only reason I named them "Piles" were because of the fact that the icons are stored in a dynamically -rendered- pile.
2: The content would not be dynamic. It would be created, maintained, etc by the user, just as you would the dock.
3: The Piles would be created when you drag one or more applications from the finder or dock onto another application in the dock. It would then prompt you to name the pile (Such as "Games"). Simple as that.
4: Just like the dock, you can rearrange the contents by dragging them around, remove them by dragging them off, etc. The size of the icons would be consistent with the size of the icons in the dock. (No separate resize bar)
Okay... Does everyone get it? What this is, is a practical means of organization in the dock. Here are a few examples of other ways this could be used:
1: A Microsoft Office Pile.
2: An Adobe Pile.
3: An iLife Pile.
4: An Internet Pile.
5: A developer Pile.
6: A Games Pile.
I heard the argument that a folder in the bottom/right of the dock would do the same thing I am proposing.
Well it's not true. First off you are pulling WindowServ into the mess, which is why, often, right clicking something in the dock may take anywhere from 2 to 3 seconds to appear.
Second, you actually have to edit the file structure on your computer in order to get the things you want all in the same folder, whether you do this with alias' or not.
Third, when you finally manage to find what you are looking for in the folder, what happens? OH gee, it gets added to the dock anyway. If the point is to keep the dock organized and clutter-free, I don't see any reason for this.
---
As a last point, the animation wouldn't be very resource demanding. They are only 128x128 images. Unlike, say, minimizing a window. (Which would also take longer, to boot)
- Xidius
Originally posted by Chucker
Because a file needs a definite place to be stored that. Sure, you could create multiple softlinks to it to accomplish this, but then there would *still* have to be one *real* location of the file, and that *can't* be inside any of such dynamic containers.
You can, for example, have the two dynamic containers "Christmas Photos" and "2003 Photos". There would be an overlap of items in there: photos from Christmas 2003. Because of that, those files can physically exist in *neither* place, and must be in an entirely seperate directory. Which also means that, by removing "2003 Photos", i don't destroy any actual data.
And therein lies a huge difference to folders.
I see your point. But lets face it, dynamic piles could have the same overlap of items also. They'd have the exact same problems you explained above. So, please explain more as to why piles are so fantastic.
What you're talking about is spatial vs non-spatial. Of course, once people can wrap their heads around the fact that a file can exist in multiple places but all link to one file on the HD then dynamic piles and dynamic folders could start existing.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
[B]I see your point. But lets face it, dynamic piles could have the same overlap of items also.
Quite indeed: I was *talking* about piles. I called them "dynamic containers" to avoid calling them A) an ordinary folder (from which they can be distinguished in several ways) or
Yes, overlap of items is part of the *concept* of piles/dynamic folders/smart folders/whatever.
They'd have the exact same problems you explained above. So, please explain more as to why piles are so fantastic.
They aren't. They solve, however, a problem that the desktop metaphor copied from our kids' rooms: just like those are never clean, so aren't our hard drives' home directories and desktops, unless you really *take your time* and tidy them up manually.
This is *not* necessary with piles. Leave the file system as messy as you want. It will slow the system down, but it will hardly slow *you* down, because you don't have to care about the hierarchy any more.
Originally posted by Chucker
Quite indeed: I was *talking* about piles. I called them "dynamic containers" to avoid calling them A) an ordinary folder (from which they can be distinguished in several ways) or
Yes, overlap of items is part of the *concept* of piles/dynamic folders/smart folders/whatever.
They aren't. They solve, however, a problem that the desktop metaphor copied from our kids' rooms: just like those are never clean, so aren't our hard drives' home directories and desktops, unless you really *take your time* and tidy them up manually.
This is *not* necessary with piles. Leave the file system as messy as you want. It will slow the system down, but it will hardly slow *you* down, because you don't have to care about the hierarchy any more.
Well then what's the big problem? You're accusing me of not understanding the difference between piles and smart-folders. There is no difference. People would just have to get accustomed to a non-spatial layout.
You've been telling me since the beginning that folders are part of a spatial construct of the filesystem and that they represent some sort of physical hierarchy. This is true and not true.
Multiple instances of a single folder can exist in OS X. Look no further than repeating "New Finder Window" a couple times (non-spatial). You delete one instance and that folder is gone (spatial). If piles are allowed to act this way, why couldn't dynamic folders become untied with physical hierarchy? Apple has sure created a stir with non-spatial organization but in the end it might be one of the only way to allow a powerful organization tool for large amounts of data.
Piles, my friend, can be as spatial and as non-spatial as a folder. Telling me that folders are tied to a filesystem is as ludicrous as telling me that piles aren't. It's all up to Apple to decide whether deleting a folder, a pile or a smart-folder as I've come to call dynamic folders (thanks iTunes.
One nice potential ability for a Dock grouping could be to display its contained icons in a grid, or wedge, instead of a straight line, if the contents are large and it's appropriate to do so.
Anyway, I think the debate here -- which IMO incidentally sort of, but doesn't completely, relate to the mockup, as the mockup completely sidesteps the issue by having these "piles" in the Dock -- is about whether it's necessary to have a new UI element to show the user that a file is dynamic generated link or really "there."
In iTunes, you can create a playlist and then delete songs off a playlist, w/o of course deleting your original song. iTunes makes the distinction depending on what group you're in?if you delete a song from the Library, it asks if you want to Trash the file. Delete from a playlist, no question. Works pretty well?easy to grasp, with a minimum of confusion.
So, what should the Finder do, when smart folders are introduced (be it Tiger or 10.5)? Is a new UI element (such as Piles) needed? Or can the current metaphor of folders, and "smart folders" carried over from iTunes and other iApps, do the trick? My strong suspicion is the latter is sufficient, and the groundwork has been laid out quite on purpose.
Incidentally, MS is wrestling with this in interesting ways with this in Longhorn, with its metadata-savvy WinFS, and have introduced the idea of "stacks" (see middle of the page). These stacks don't replace dynamic folders, but are a view option complementing them, and a way to visually adjust metadata. I suspect actually that if Apple does introduce its own version of piles, or stacks, they will go down a similar route.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Well then what's the big problem? You're accusing me of not understanding the difference between piles and smart-folders. There is no difference. People would just have to get accustomed to a non-spatial layout.
No, I've been trying to tell you that "smart folders" might not be a well-chosen name for piles, because they have *more* properties than just being "smart" (i.e. dynamically-created).
Originally posted by Chucker
No, I've been trying to tell you that "smart folders" might not be a well-chosen name for piles, because they have *more* properties than just being "smart" (i.e. dynamically-created).
A well if the name was all we were quarreling about, then I've been wasting a lot of time.
I don't care how it's called.
I wonder if there could be some way to look through the document and pick out keywords that were in other documents, or looking in the document and recognizing it is a letter or an essay, that would be very nifty, although privacy people would go crazy over it.
I would love to see the option to list all your folders in the your home folder (sans Library, Public, and Sites) into a database that you could create playlists and smart playlists from (*just like iTunes!*). The file would still be in the old hierarchy, but the way you would interact with them would be entirely different. When you want to send the playlist, it would copy it into a temp folder that would work just like a folder was dragged into Mail.app
first, it requires you to think of your possible silos of information well in advance (which never works... eventually you come across a project or files that do not logically fit any of the folders you initially made). in order to do that, you must make the topmost level as generic as possible (see ANY "documents" folder as an example).
now, what happens when you have a file that logically fits TWO OR MORE organizational methods? your choices are now either make multiple copies and hope you can sync them correctly without ever syncing the wrong way and losing data, or you start making aliases/shortcuts to and fro. usually, people just stick with making some generic folders, hoping they anticipate all their organizational categories ahead of time, and then start adding on extra categories over time as stuff doesn't "fit" the original model. and this doesn't even BEGIN to touch the issue of what you do when there are multiple copies of files floating around in the in-boxes of different people's e-mail clients.
the ONLY way to organize all this is via meta-data, and it's been gathered on your machine for a while, though in less sophisticated forms, such as when you index a directory for "find by content" or mac os x's completely overlooked "summarize" service. yes, the meta-data has to come from somewhere. either hand-composed by the user, or compiled throug some nifty summarizing algorithm to figure out the high points. smart folders/stacks/piles are a way of creating meeting points for that data, not the files themselves.
anyway, i'm rambling...
Data Size most of the time has no significance (unless that can be translated into number of pages) .
Author would be a usable metadata.
Creation and Modification dates would be nice.
of course TITLE would be there.
Keywords would be best, but how easily would getting keywords be?
Metadata, at the moment, is much easier to get for Music files. Music files are a certain length (it cannot be double spaced and font-size changed and still retain it's original content, like a document could) and Genres (Keywords) are much easier to come by for music. Many pieces of metadata that we love to use for our Smart Playlists in iTunes (such as ratings) don't apply that well to Documents.
Right now, I am working on essays for science class. So, I file it under Work<Science and possibly once more under "essays" or "finals." There, already, I could use the metadata of typing in work, science, and then two third level keywords of "essays" or "finals" that would apply to Work, Science, and other subjects. (Maybe I have already predesignate "finals" as a keyword that automatically is assigned to all "Work" documents between two weeks in May) . I, as the average user, do not want to invest all that time into just saving ONE DOCUMENT. The problem arises then of how to look through a document and find out what is general about different pieces of writing that keeps them all in one keyword.
The system would eventually, somehow, be able to automatically assign keywords and present them to the user as the document is being saved, and the user can just click OK with just a quick glance. And if something is wrong, the search field and the improved Get Info Box would not be far away. The computer just needs to use the best damn Junk Mail filter system and apply to your documents. Figure out what makes one essay "biology" and the other "anatomy," and then those are put into the "Recent Work" Smart Folder.
Just look at iTunes for a great way to organize files, and hope that Apple can manage to apply to documents without 1. frustrating novice users, 2. annoying power users.
PS, thank you for giving the chance to procrastinate on doing my science essay.
The list of books is a regular folder/playlist and the card catalog are your smart folders/smart playlists.
I just laid out my whole idea in great detail on my blog , so please read taht.
Originally posted by Hobbes
Anyway, I think the debate here -- which IMO incidentally sort of, but doesn't completely, relate to the mockup, as the mockup completely sidesteps the issue by having these "piles" in the Dock -- is about whether it's necessary to have a new UI element to show the user that a file is dynamic generated link or really "there."
In iTunes, you can create a playlist and then delete songs off a playlist, w/o of course deleting your original song. iTunes makes the distinction depending on what group you're in?if you delete a song from the Library, it asks if you want to Trash the file. Delete from a playlist, no question. Works pretty well?easy to grasp, with a minimum of confusion...
Thank you Hobbes for thoroughly insightful answering and the aero link you've posted too.
I believe that the success of the entire Macos is deeply rooted with the spatial folder concept. everyone who does play a bit with the macos grasps it almost immediately (well i spare the details
And everyone who is playing with "iTunes" almost instantly understand the concept of "playlist", --> items which exist temporarily, just in order to organize media content. And so will "smart folders" do.
I believe the addition of "smart folders" will be a huge leap regarding the finder experience. Everyone will understand that instantly - and no, it has nothing to do with the distinction between "spatial and non-spatial layout". Piles are only one way to visually represent smart folders.
Sorry for beeing somewhat repetitive.
m2cents
Originally posted by Nebagakid
A nice metaphor for this all would be a Card Catalog. You have your card catalog, with books filed away in many different places for easier finding, and once you find the card, it is very easy to get the book. Also, maybe you have a list of books that you know where they are already, so you don't need the card catalog.
What's a card catalog?
Keep saying stuff like that and you'll seem old really soon.
I appreciate a healthy discussion of interface evolution, revolution, or coup. With the ever increasing amount of information stored on a typical user's computer, it becomes increasingly difficult to manage storage in a purely spatial manner. iTunes recognized this and implemented a custom solution outside of the filesystem.
I suspect that Apple is hard at work, trying to come up with a more abstracted solution. If done properly, it could do to file management in general, what iTunes has done for music file management. Generalized solutions like this are incredibly difficult to do properly. In fact, I could see this as having as much influence on computing workflow as did the desktop metaphor. Procede with caution.