I can't really comment on your suggestions. I don't know what solution is in the offing, but I suspect it has more to do with the iOS approach than the metaphor-driven UI that we've now been using for over 25 years, and over that time, making steadily more complicated and incomprehensible.
Sure, the Windows Desktop is even more abused since its purpose is even more enigmatic than on the Mac. In my teaching I've found that the Desktop is grasped relatively easily (which is why it's abused) but the Finder and its multiple representations of files and paths are very poorly understood, and difficult to explain. I alway try, but it quickly turns into eyes-glaze-over time. You can tell when your students aren't getting why they need to know something.
I suspect you're right in that some sort of hierarchies will probably always be needed and fortunately hierarchies are conceptually familiar to human beings (we tend to organize information in our brains this way). The trick for the UI designer is to tap more directly into a heuristic method of organization that doesn't depend on adapting a metaphor.
I hope Apple has a room in a basement somewhere on their campus where their human engineers get to experiment with all sorts of crazy UI ideas. Like I said at the top of this thread, I want to get blown away again -- not just see the next iteration of the same old, flawed ideas.
That's difficult to believe. My bet is that you use the Finder multiple times each time that you are one your Mac. The fact that you don't know that you are using it is testimony to its strengths.
The Finder is the tool to allow you to go through your files and mut ove them from one location to another? Yea, I hardly use it unless I am in school. Unless your talking about telling my files to go into my download folder (or now my school folder), then yea I use it quite a bit. But why would I look for something when I can use spotlight to search for what I download, and now I don't even have to do that -- I have my download folder right there in the stacks (and I NEVER delete those files ... unless i have to). And again, if you consider using Stacks as part of Finder -- then I do use Finder when I download something. Because, to be honest, I use my computer for internet. Thats it. I don't play games, I don't use photshop. So I would say I don't use Finder very often. But when I am in school, I do move things around, put them/copy them into my Drop box. So in those cases, I use my Finder.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
The main issue is the complexity, particularly in the variety of very different ways it represents the same thing. One clear way is better than five weak (or dissonant) ways. I think I explained this in another post, but I believe you've helped me make my point on this. Most users from my experience don't even know that Cover Flow even exists, and really the only reason it does exist is that it was borrowed from iTunes, where it served a very different purpose. As useful as it can be in the Finder, it's really a kludge, made necessary by the fundamental lack of clarity of the Finder itself. Comparisons to Windows Explorer don't give me any comfort. I expect Apple to be better at solving these human interface issues than Microsoft.
The second issue is the desktop metaphor, which as I also mentioned above, has been worn thin by over-extension. The iOS does not rely on metaphor, which I think is a step in the right direction.
As I said, the single largest challenge I have found teaching the Mac is teaching the Finder. Just try mentioning the Finder to an average unsophisticated Mac user and see how many even know that it exists, let alone its functions, or why it's an application. Just look at how many people throw everything on the Desktop because the file system is difficult to comprehend. I know this will bring out the condescending comments, but this is reality. It can be done better so it should be done better.
I see. I guess I didn't know/think of that. Thanks!
You don't for example get an area where a music track, a book, a podcast etc are all grouped together if they are from the same people.
Yes you do, you can use smart playlist. I entered in ?everybody? under the name criteria and got the TV show ?Everybody Hates Chris? as well as a song called ?everybody wake up?. Adding ?everybody? to album titles (of the same smart playlist) gave me the album ?everybody else is doing it so why can?t we?.
?you can create collections in the Finder too. They have smart folders and you can attach spotlight tags to files and have the smart folder group them.?
Well no collections are totally different then smart folders. Collections are like regular folders. The only difference between collections and regular folders is that collects are free of a hierarchy. It is important to point out that Apple also played around with this idea as well. When demoing the Leopard beta Steve showed how you could randomly grab files from the Finder and group them into a stack (This feature was taken out before the Leopard gold master shipped.) If I remember correctly he grabbed files from different folders and put them into a single grouping as a stack. Another example of a hierarchy free grouping. Bento also uses collections.
?Nobody uses them (smart folders) though because they are more complex.?
I use them every single day. They are much simpler way of finding files. For an example I can say show InDesign files from the last month and it will give me nearly all the files I am currently working on. Using regular folders is more complex because I would have to navigate through some 10 or 20 folders to find the files that are all grouped together with in that one smart folder. Because I have filtered it by InDesign files only the search results don?t end up with too many different results.
Do you browse by tags or search for tags?
Both, in programs like Leap or Yep I browse by using tag clouds. I use searching by tags in every tag based program.
Do you use a 3rd party app for this?
Leap, Yep, Paperless, LittleSnapper, MacJournal, Lightroom, and probably several others that I am not thinking of right now.
Could you at least briefly tell me whats wrong with Finder?
If you spend any amount of time tagging files in different programs you begin to realize how much more efficient tagging and smart folders are then folder hierarchies like the finder. Many files just end up getting lost in a folder hierarchy that wouldn't have gotten lost if someone did a good job tagging them.
I agree that a single window view would be better than what they have. IMO they should use the iTunes setup where the browser part would become column view and the bottom part can be switched between list view and icon view
This is what I think they should do to incorporate the iPhoto, iTunes into a finder like program. Right now in the finder when you hold down option-command-spacebar and click the plus icon on the search bar you get a drop down menu that lets you switch between viewing different kinds of files (Images, movies, presentations etc.) When you selection an option such as photos it shows you all your photos.
I think it would be really handy if when you selected photos the interface would switch over to the iphoto interface with all the photo specific features. Since the finder and iPhoto share the same basic interface this wouldn't be a difficult thing to pull off. You know how in Windows XP you would click on a photo and the sidebar would give you one or two photo specific options? Imagine if you could have all your your basic photo tasks available to you right there without leaving the general file searching program! When you would change the filter bar to music you wouldn?t just see the music files but you would have access to your music features. Choosing the fonts filter would bring up fontbook?s interface etc.
When you want to go back to search for all files click the minus button to clear the images filter and go back to the general file searching interface. Perhaps there could be a hide button for the filter bar so that it wouldn?t be taking up space if you wanted to use that space for something else.
If you spend any amount of time tagging files in different programs you begin to realize how much more efficient tagging and smart folders are then folder hierarchies like the finder. Many files just end up getting lost in a folder hierarchy that wouldn't have gotten lost if someone did a good job tagging them.
It appears that you and your friend Macintosh_Next like to spend a lot of time typing information about your files. One of the things that I notice about Windows refugees is that they have poor organization skills. No matter which OS you use, you need to develop a filing system that you understand and then use it.
Collections are like regular folders. The only difference between collections and regular folders is that collects are free of a hierarchy.
When you say "free of a hierarchy" it sound like it's a burden but the alternative is a flat list of one-level deep collections. At some point in time, that structure won't work the more collections you make and the non-linearity is going to cause problems with files common to multiple collections. Inevitably you will have duplicate files for separate projects but name them the same so when you browse tags, you get hundreds if not thousands of files with the same name.
You also lose out on spatial referencing - very often I will have a collection of say 200 folders and I can't remember any of the names that get me to the content but I can remember that the content was near the middle of the group of 200 folders so I can narrow it down quickly. You can certainly get close to this with tags but you still need to rely on remembering how you tagged files to get to the right ones because different groups of tags give different result sets.
It's like if you have a bunch of keys and you colour code them. Ideally you'd remember which key is which but when you get 30 or more keys on a chain, you use spatial referencing to help you figure out which key works in a given situation. I think both a hierarchy and a non-linear tag system have advantages and one should supplement the other. The question is do you use a fixed hierarchy as your primary system and supplement it with non-linear tags or use a tag system and supplement it with hierarchical tags (either nested tags or specific tags that list the hierarchy to which they belong)?
Say you use the latter and you try to add a unique tag identifier to a file based on a hierarchy, you'd have to prevent another file having that same tag so you are no better off than using the former system (the one we have now) where tags supplement hierarchy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pik80
When demoing the Leopard beta Steve showed how you could randomly grab files from the Finder and group them into a stack (This feature was taken out before the Leopard gold master shipped.) If I remember correctly he grabbed files from different folders and put them into a single grouping as a stack.
I prefer this implementation of stacks but I guess they thought it would be confusing mixing the downloads folder stack with draggable stacks or something. I would prefer if they made stacks like this though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pik80
For an example I can say show InDesign files from the last month and it will give me nearly all the files I am currently working on.
But how many people would need access to a certain type of file from multiple projects at the same time as part of the daily routine? Mostly people choose a single project to work on because often programs will only allow you to open one project file at a time. Nobody seems to have a problem using a hierarchy and haven't for 3 decades until the sheer amount of files required advanced groupings but I don't think it should be the default system. I think people will be confused by the duplication simply because it doesn't happen in real-life.
The duplication I mean is that collection A can contain file X and so can collection B. Computer illiterate people will assume that if a file is both in A and B that the one in B is a duplicate and should be deleted if they don't want it to be in there not knowing that it will also be deleted from collection A. They would then have to distinguish between removing a tag and deleting a file.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pik80
Also do you group project files this way?
All the time.
How do you arrange the files in your filesystem? They won't be in a pile presumably but in some form of hierarchy as well as tagged. Does this hierarchy limit you to the point where you'd have to throw it out and use tags as your main system or do you get by ok with supplementing the hierarchy with tags?
It appears that you and your friend Macintosh_Next like to spend a lot of time typing information about your files. One of the things that I notice about Windows refugees is that they have poor organization skills. No matter which OS you use, you need to develop a filing system that you understand and then use it.
You would only have to create a filing system if you have many files to file. My point is, when I am not in school, I don't NEED to file anything. Why would I? I might download something, but that automatically goes to my download folder. I didn't have to choose that, at least not in Snow Leopard. This is why I hardly use Finder. Of course, now that I am in school again, I do move files around, I do save things (I have a "School" folder for all my e-books, and created a stack so I can access those quickly). As you can see, I do use the Finder now. But when I wasn't in school, why would I use it if all I do is go to web sites like AppleInsider.com?
You would only have to create a filing system if you have many files to file. My point is, when I am not in school, I don't NEED to file anything. Why would I? I might download something, but that automatically goes to my download folder. I didn't have to choose that, at least not in Snow Leopard. This is why I hardly use Finder. Of course, now that I am in school again, I do move files around, I do save things (I have a "School" folder for all my e-books, and created a stack so I can access those quickly). As you can see, I do use the Finder now. But when I wasn't in school, why would I use it if all I do is go to web sites like AppleInsider.com?
What is this fixation with you and school? Since joining this forum, I have read some silly complaints. However, "being forced" to use your Mac at home the same way that you use it at school is unique among the complaints posted here.
. Inevitably you will have duplicate files for separate projects but name them the same so when you browse tags, you get hundreds if not thousands of files with the same name.
Marvin from the how you talk it sounds like you haven?t spent any time using tags. There is nothing wrong with having several different files with the same tag, that is how tags work. The more files that have a particular name the bigger the tag name gets in the tag cloud. I would advise that you spend some time with the software I mentioned previously so that you can understand the tagging concept.
While it is certainly true that a particular tag can give you hundreds or even thousands of results applying multiple tags would reduce the number of results greatly. For an example I live around the general Seattle Area so I have a lot of files tagged ?Seattle? but I can also select a tag ?summer time? and would then get about a fourth as many results. Then I could apply another tag like ?nephew? and ?parents? to dramatically hone in on exactly what I am searching for. I guess that is why when I hear you say things like I can easily search through 200 folders I am scratching my head.
?It's like if you have a bunch of keys and you colour code them??
You don?t have to search by colour coding though I think that is an option in the finder and Lightroom but it is not a requirement.
?But how many people would need access to a certain type of file from multiple projects at the same time as part of the daily routine?
Maybe you don?t but a lot of people need this. At a given point in time I have maybe 15-30 documents open at a time.
I want to go back and talk about webpages that you mentioned a while back. Webpages don?t require the people browsing to search though folder hierarchies at all yet it doesn?t seem to cause any of the problems that you are talking about. If I can search the web without folder hierarchies why can?t I search my own hard drive that way? Earlier on you talked about searching through your clothing drawer to find things. However your drawers don?t have drawers within drawers within drawers. Your drawers only go one drawer deep. Therefore you can have folders that only go one level deep.
Also you talked about that you would have to make tag hierarchies, this isn?t really true. You can if you want to put it is not required.
Unfortunately I have to rely on folder hierarchies today because Apple doesn?t provide hardly any tagged solutions in the finder at all. That goes for applying tags as well as searching tags. However I do apply tags with in Leap/Yep that show up in the finder with a spotlight search. I generally think Apple?s efforts at incorporating tagging into their software as been incredibly weak. I don?t know why that is. I happen to be typing this on someone else?s Windows 7 computer and even Microsoft has tagging built into the Explorer. It?s not my favorite implementation but at least they have something.
While it is certainly true that a particular tag can give you hundreds or even thousands of results applying multiple tags would reduce the number of results greatly.
I have experimented with the tag system with one of the apps you mentioned a while ago and it works well for image collections. The issue is not the number of results but the uniqueness of the results. It would for example be acceptable to give two different files an identical set of tags so how do you tell them apart without opening each one of them? Images have thumbnails of course but files are trickier.
I like the tag system and would like to see Apple implement one, I just think it should supplement hierarchical systems and not replace them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pik80
I guess that is why when I hear you say things like I can easily search through 200 folders I am scratching my head.
No, what I was referring to there was not remembering the tag names you'd used to get to a particular result set. Spatial referencing = knowing where something is vs how it is described. In a non-linear tag system objects have no location, only a description. There's no column view with a tag system for example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pik80
Maybe you don?t but a lot of people need this. At a given point in time I have maybe 15-30 documents open at a time.
Do you have 15-30 separate projects open at a given time though? I often have a number of documents open in different apps but generally only 2-3 projects at a given time, which I can manage with a hierarchy.
You can't replace the current system with tags because every app written today relies on hierarchy so if they break it at a fundamental level, everybody has to change their apps or they have to map the system calls into a tag system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pik80
Webpages don?t require the people browsing to search though folder hierarchies at all
You search by tags and browse by hierarchy, which is what we do on the desktop already. Google is an index like the Spotlight index but websites themselves are on standard filesystems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pik80
Your drawers only go one drawer deep. Therefore you can have folders that only go one level deep.
I don't have 100,000 pairs of socks though and they're all black so it's not difficult to manage in one drawer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pik80
Unfortunately I have to rely on folder hierarchies today because Apple doesn?t provide hardly any tagged solutions in the finder at all..
The Spotlight comments implementation is quite weak and a tag system certainly would work much better. I think for it to be effective though, they need to take it out of the info panel because it's not a heavily used panel. It needs to go somewhere in the Finder window that can be made always visible.
I agree with you entirely that their metadata system needs an overhaul. I just don't think it should replace a fixed hierarchy.
What is this fixation with you and school? Since joining this forum, I have read some silly complaints. However, "being forced" to use your Mac at home the same way that you use it at school is unique among the complaints posted here.
If I worked at a job that made it where I had to read PDF's and write word doc's and make presentations, I would be using that as an example. My fixation on school is the fact I AM in college (University of Phoenix Online) where I download my e books and have to upload files. And all I am trying to do is tell you why I don't use the Finder, unless I am in school, because I use my Mac most of the time for internet. So, it might be unique because maybe I am the only one here who only uses the internet on their Mac and when in school then use it to, of course, do their homework. Then I would be the only one here with this situation.
Or would you rather me make up a reason that I don't use the Finder when I am not in school? OK, here it goes. I don't use the Finder because the Finder doesn't exist on my Mac. There ya go! New made up reason
I have experimented with the tag system with one of the apps you mentioned a while ago and it works well for image collections.
Can you tell me what the app was? If I know what you are familiar with I can do a better job explaining things.
?It would for example be acceptable to give two different files an identical set of tags so how do you tell them apart without opening each one of them??
You would do the same thing you do know which is use cover flow with it?s 500 pixels plus icons to see them. If that still isn?t large enough (which I think about 80% of the time it would be) you also have the option of using quick look which you can bring up right away with a quick stroke of the keyboard.
?Images have thumbnails of course but files are trickier.?
I browse text files like this all the time. It isn?t tricky at all. I use Mariner Software?s Paperless to store receipt?s, tax forms, medical information etc. that are all text files. Paperless uses tags in replace of folder hierarchy.
?I was referring to there was not remembering the tag names you'd used to get to a particular result set?
You don?t have to remember them as they are all listed for you with in the application. For an example Lightroom lists them at the sidebar on the right when you are in library mode. Just scroll though the list and start typing in keywords that pertain to what you are looking for. If you can?t remember what you are looking for I would recommend that you launch Apple?s Thesaurus to help you find words that you might have saved the tag as or just scroll through the tag list like I mentioned above.
?Do you have 15-30 separate projects open at a given time though??
Yes I would say that I have at least 15 projects open a lot of the time. Sometimes I client will come in my office and want to run through all the current projects that I am working on which is a lot.
?You can't replace the current system with tags because every app written today relies on hierarchy so if they break it at a fundamental level, everybody has to change their apps or they have to map the system calls into a tag system.?
But by that logic (don?t change anything because developers would have to rewrite their software) Apple would never put out another operating system upgrade again! Every operating system upgrade requires developers to update their software for the new system.
?websites themselves are on standard filesystems.?
Right, not quite to the same extent as on the desktop but yes sometimes they function similarly to a standard filesystem. About a year ago AppleInsider had an article talking about how they were think of rethinking the way Safari worked so that you wouldn?t browse by these back and forward buttons but rather by the different subject matter that you were browsing. Check out the article ?Apple patent hints at future Safari navigational interface?
?I don't have 100,000 pairs of socks though and they're all black so it's not difficult to manage in one drawer.?
There is no need to exaggerate. How many completely identical files do you really have? I might have two versions of the same image. Say an image at high resolution that I use for print and an image an low resolution that I use on the web. In this case I would tag one ?high res? and the other ?low res?. This way I wouldn?t even have to open the images up to see which is higher resolution.
?I think for it to be effective though, they need to take it out of the info panel because it's not a heavily used panel.?
Putting it in the save as dialog would make a huge amount of sense. The collapsed Save as dialog is so minimal, only a naming field entry and a drop down menu as to where you would save your file. There is plenty of room to use for tagging there.
I can't work out why there is all this hate about the Finder; I haven't had any problems with it when I've used it - sure it is simple but why would you want something needlessly more complex than that? you'd end up having the mess that is Explorer which is a nightmare for anyone other than those of us who know what we're doing. Can some things be tweaked? sure but I don't think there needs to be the bath thrown out with the bath water as some here are demanding.
I can't work out why there is all this hate about the Finder.
It can be very difficult to find files in the finder. Using tags and smart folders is very easy. If one solution works a lot better than another the difficult solution should go I believe.
It can be very difficult to find files in the finder. ....
This is true if you choose non-descriptive file names and if you organize your files poorly or not at all. I am at a loss to see how tags can be of much help in either event. If you lack the skills to properly name your files, then where do you get the skills to type in useful tags?
This is true if you choose non-descriptive file names and if you organize your files poorly or not at all. I am at a loss to see how tags can be of much help in either event. If you lack the skills to properly name your files, then where do you get the skills to type in useful tags?
When you name a file you have only one name to give it and you better memorize that name because that is the only way to find it. With tags you can have as many names as you want to help you find the file, 10, 15, 20 doesn't matter. The more tags the greater your chances of finding it. With only one file the smaller your chances. Using just file naming requires you to remember thousands of files. This is not about being disorganized it's about not having powerful enough tools to name and search for files, power that the finder lacks.
You also lose out on spatial referencing - very often I will have a collection of say 200 folders and I can't remember any of the names that get me to the content but I can remember that the content was near the middle of the group of 200 folders so I can narrow it down quickly.
I was thinking about this quote that you said earlier and something occurred to me. If you can't remember the name of the different folders then how to you know that a folder is located somewhere in the middle of a group of folders? To me it seems that if you know something is in the middle you know that by where the first letter of the word is located in the alphabet. If you forgot what the title of the project is how would you know where the folder is alphabetically? And also what about folders that are inside of those 200 folders? Alphabetical order won't help you there. In this case you would not only have to know the the alphabetical order but also the folder path inside of every single one of those 200 folders. I am confused by this logic. To me this seems difficult to do it this way no matter how well you organize your folders.
Can you tell me what the app was? If I know what you are familiar with I can do a better job explaining things.
I'm sure it was Leap I used. Like I say, it worked well and I could see it being useful integrated into the Finder and the core services but not a hierarchy replacement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pik80
You would do the same thing you do know which is use cover flow with it?s 500 pixels plus icons to see them. If that still isn?t large enough (which I think about 80% of the time it would be) you also have the option of using quick look which you can bring up right away with a quick stroke of the keyboard.
Right but a fixed location means you don't have to look at the contents as the file has a unique location.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pik80
You don?t have to remember them as they are all listed for you with in the application.
What happens when you get too many tags? Right now, the tag system works fine because it's new but consider the idea of replacing your entire filesystem hierarchy. Think how many tags you'd need to recreate that structure and they'd all be in one big list.
If it was applied to just user's content it might work but it really just works well for media. I reckon it would be a bit of nightmare for a software developer as computer programs generally rely very heavily on a rigid hierarchy and it's impossible to tell the program what the hierarchy is if either it doesn't exist or you have no way of seeing it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pik80
Every operating system upgrade requires developers to update their software for the new system.
Not really - the proposal would be worse than the Intel switch because developers would have to rewrite code, which mostly wasn't necessary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pik80
Right, not quite to the same extent as on the desktop but yes sometimes they function similarly to a standard filesystem. About a year ago AppleInsider had an article talking about how they were think of rethinking the way Safari worked so that you wouldn?t browse by these back and forward buttons but rather by the different subject matter that you were browsing. Check out the article ?Apple patent hints at future Safari navigational interface?
Again though, that's adding tag functionality while leaving the hierarchy in place. The filesystem on a server is identical to a desktop so a website structure is rigid. Whatever Safari would do is a supplement to it.
What could happen is that the hierarchy remains but is never visible to the end user. That system would work as that's how iPhoto works although you can access the structure it creates internally by opening the iPhoto library.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pik80
How many completely identical files do you really have? I might have two versions of the same image. Say an image at high resolution that I use for print and an image an low resolution that I use on the web. In this case I would tag one ?high res? and the other ?low res?. This way I wouldn?t even have to open the images up to see which is higher resolution.
This wasn't referring to the identical filename issue but the idea of having one-level deep folders. A filesystem can have in the order of 1 million files. A user can easily have 100,000 non-sytem files - I have more than that myself. If the groups you make are of 100 files each, it's only 1000 tags to deal with which is probably manageable but if they average 20 files per folder/groups then you are talking about 5000 tags that would all show in a flat list.
These wouldn't be user-created after the tag system was in place as it would take too long to do that all over again but over the years, people have built up huge collections of files and folders. I did a quick count of mine and I get nearly 4000 folders without system folders. It's true that a tag system can translate these but I don't want to see a list of 4000 tags every time I want to find one of those groups.
The way the list would work of course is that the tags with the highest file count appear first so you don't have to go through all of them but it would essentially flatten an images directory to one level with all child folder tags shown at once, which can still be thousands of tags. It's not a problem narrowing it down to what you want as long as you know what you called it, otherwise you are sifting through the huge numbers of tags.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pik80
If you can't remember the name of the different folders then how to you know that a folder is located somewhere in the middle of a group of folders?
If I'm looking for an image and I remember what the image looked like but I have no idea at all what I named it because I haven't gotten round to tagging it properly, how do I find it? What I do is the same thing I do when I lose my keys - check where the last place I visited that I knew where it was. If I use a tag system, the only way I can go back to where I was is to remember the tags (out of 4000 tags) that I selected to get to that result set e.g did I pick vacations + 2008 + beaches and browse near the middle or did I pick voyeur + nudist + teen. With a fixed hierarchy, I can figure out where I was much more readily.
When you name a file you have only one name to give it and you better memorize that name because that is the only way to find it. With tags you can have as many names as you want to help you find the file, 10, 15, 20 doesn't matter. The more tags the greater your chances of finding it. With only one file the smaller your chances. Using just file naming requires you to remember thousands of files. This is not about being disorganized it's about not having powerful enough tools to name and search for files, power that the finder lacks.
Which is a load of crap; choose names that are descriptive and to the point - I swear when I fix peoples computers up they have the most fucking ridiculous names for their files and they don't even get close to describing what is in the file itself. Maybe what you should be focusing on is instead of big elaborate tags and stuff you learn how to give your files meaningful names that can succinctly describe what is in the file or fail to organise their files in such a way that the file is stored in a meaningful location. Its interesting that these same people who whine about the complexity of computers are able to organise a filing cabinet with no problems but when it comes to organising their files on a computer all those practical skills are some how forgotten.
Comments
Sure, the Windows Desktop is even more abused since its purpose is even more enigmatic than on the Mac. In my teaching I've found that the Desktop is grasped relatively easily (which is why it's abused) but the Finder and its multiple representations of files and paths are very poorly understood, and difficult to explain. I alway try, but it quickly turns into eyes-glaze-over time. You can tell when your students aren't getting why they need to know something.
I suspect you're right in that some sort of hierarchies will probably always be needed and fortunately hierarchies are conceptually familiar to human beings (we tend to organize information in our brains this way). The trick for the UI designer is to tap more directly into a heuristic method of organization that doesn't depend on adapting a metaphor.
I hope Apple has a room in a basement somewhere on their campus where their human engineers get to experiment with all sorts of crazy UI ideas. Like I said at the top of this thread, I want to get blown away again -- not just see the next iteration of the same old, flawed ideas.
That's difficult to believe. My bet is that you use the Finder multiple times each time that you are one your Mac. The fact that you don't know that you are using it is testimony to its strengths.
The Finder is the tool to allow you to go through your files and mut ove them from one location to another? Yea, I hardly use it unless I am in school. Unless your talking about telling my files to go into my download folder (or now my school folder), then yea I use it quite a bit. But why would I look for something when I can use spotlight to search for what I download, and now I don't even have to do that -- I have my download folder right there in the stacks (and I NEVER delete those files ... unless i have to). And again, if you consider using Stacks as part of Finder -- then I do use Finder when I download something. Because, to be honest, I use my computer for internet. Thats it. I don't play games, I don't use photshop. So I would say I don't use Finder very often. But when I am in school, I do move things around, put them/copy them into my Drop box. So in those cases, I use my Finder.
The main issue is the complexity, particularly in the variety of very different ways it represents the same thing. One clear way is better than five weak (or dissonant) ways. I think I explained this in another post, but I believe you've helped me make my point on this. Most users from my experience don't even know that Cover Flow even exists, and really the only reason it does exist is that it was borrowed from iTunes, where it served a very different purpose. As useful as it can be in the Finder, it's really a kludge, made necessary by the fundamental lack of clarity of the Finder itself. Comparisons to Windows Explorer don't give me any comfort. I expect Apple to be better at solving these human interface issues than Microsoft.
The second issue is the desktop metaphor, which as I also mentioned above, has been worn thin by over-extension. The iOS does not rely on metaphor, which I think is a step in the right direction.
As I said, the single largest challenge I have found teaching the Mac is teaching the Finder. Just try mentioning the Finder to an average unsophisticated Mac user and see how many even know that it exists, let alone its functions, or why it's an application. Just look at how many people throw everything on the Desktop because the file system is difficult to comprehend. I know this will bring out the condescending comments, but this is reality. It can be done better so it should be done better.
I see. I guess I didn't know/think of that. Thanks!
You don't for example get an area where a music track, a book, a podcast etc are all grouped together if they are from the same people.
Yes you do, you can use smart playlist. I entered in ?everybody? under the name criteria and got the TV show ?Everybody Hates Chris? as well as a song called ?everybody wake up?. Adding ?everybody? to album titles (of the same smart playlist) gave me the album ?everybody else is doing it so why can?t we?.
?you can create collections in the Finder too. They have smart folders and you can attach spotlight tags to files and have the smart folder group them.?
Well no collections are totally different then smart folders. Collections are like regular folders. The only difference between collections and regular folders is that collects are free of a hierarchy. It is important to point out that Apple also played around with this idea as well. When demoing the Leopard beta Steve showed how you could randomly grab files from the Finder and group them into a stack (This feature was taken out before the Leopard gold master shipped.) If I remember correctly he grabbed files from different folders and put them into a single grouping as a stack. Another example of a hierarchy free grouping. Bento also uses collections.
?Nobody uses them (smart folders) though because they are more complex.?
I use them every single day. They are much simpler way of finding files. For an example I can say show InDesign files from the last month and it will give me nearly all the files I am currently working on. Using regular folders is more complex because I would have to navigate through some 10 or 20 folders to find the files that are all grouped together with in that one smart folder. Because I have filtered it by InDesign files only the search results don?t end up with too many different results.
Do you browse by tags or search for tags?
Both, in programs like Leap or Yep I browse by using tag clouds. I use searching by tags in every tag based program.
Do you use a 3rd party app for this?
Leap, Yep, Paperless, LittleSnapper, MacJournal, Lightroom, and probably several others that I am not thinking of right now.
Also do you group project files this way?
All the time.
Could you at least briefly tell me whats wrong with Finder?
If you spend any amount of time tagging files in different programs you begin to realize how much more efficient tagging and smart folders are then folder hierarchies like the finder. Many files just end up getting lost in a folder hierarchy that wouldn't have gotten lost if someone did a good job tagging them.
I agree that a single window view would be better than what they have. IMO they should use the iTunes setup where the browser part would become column view and the bottom part can be switched between list view and icon view
This is what I think they should do to incorporate the iPhoto, iTunes into a finder like program. Right now in the finder when you hold down option-command-spacebar and click the plus icon on the search bar you get a drop down menu that lets you switch between viewing different kinds of files (Images, movies, presentations etc.) When you selection an option such as photos it shows you all your photos.
I think it would be really handy if when you selected photos the interface would switch over to the iphoto interface with all the photo specific features. Since the finder and iPhoto share the same basic interface this wouldn't be a difficult thing to pull off. You know how in Windows XP you would click on a photo and the sidebar would give you one or two photo specific options? Imagine if you could have all your your basic photo tasks available to you right there without leaving the general file searching program! When you would change the filter bar to music you wouldn?t just see the music files but you would have access to your music features. Choosing the fonts filter would bring up fontbook?s interface etc.
When you want to go back to search for all files click the minus button to clear the images filter and go back to the general file searching interface. Perhaps there could be a hide button for the filter bar so that it wouldn?t be taking up space if you wanted to use that space for something else.
If you spend any amount of time tagging files in different programs you begin to realize how much more efficient tagging and smart folders are then folder hierarchies like the finder. Many files just end up getting lost in a folder hierarchy that wouldn't have gotten lost if someone did a good job tagging them.
It appears that you and your friend Macintosh_Next like to spend a lot of time typing information about your files. One of the things that I notice about Windows refugees is that they have poor organization skills. No matter which OS you use, you need to develop a filing system that you understand and then use it.
Yes you do, you can use smart playlist.
Collections are like regular folders. The only difference between collections and regular folders is that collects are free of a hierarchy.
When you say "free of a hierarchy" it sound like it's a burden but the alternative is a flat list of one-level deep collections. At some point in time, that structure won't work the more collections you make and the non-linearity is going to cause problems with files common to multiple collections. Inevitably you will have duplicate files for separate projects but name them the same so when you browse tags, you get hundreds if not thousands of files with the same name.
You also lose out on spatial referencing - very often I will have a collection of say 200 folders and I can't remember any of the names that get me to the content but I can remember that the content was near the middle of the group of 200 folders so I can narrow it down quickly. You can certainly get close to this with tags but you still need to rely on remembering how you tagged files to get to the right ones because different groups of tags give different result sets.
It's like if you have a bunch of keys and you colour code them. Ideally you'd remember which key is which but when you get 30 or more keys on a chain, you use spatial referencing to help you figure out which key works in a given situation. I think both a hierarchy and a non-linear tag system have advantages and one should supplement the other. The question is do you use a fixed hierarchy as your primary system and supplement it with non-linear tags or use a tag system and supplement it with hierarchical tags (either nested tags or specific tags that list the hierarchy to which they belong)?
Say you use the latter and you try to add a unique tag identifier to a file based on a hierarchy, you'd have to prevent another file having that same tag so you are no better off than using the former system (the one we have now) where tags supplement hierarchy.
When demoing the Leopard beta Steve showed how you could randomly grab files from the Finder and group them into a stack (This feature was taken out before the Leopard gold master shipped.) If I remember correctly he grabbed files from different folders and put them into a single grouping as a stack.
I prefer this implementation of stacks but I guess they thought it would be confusing mixing the downloads folder stack with draggable stacks or something. I would prefer if they made stacks like this though.
For an example I can say show InDesign files from the last month and it will give me nearly all the files I am currently working on.
But how many people would need access to a certain type of file from multiple projects at the same time as part of the daily routine? Mostly people choose a single project to work on because often programs will only allow you to open one project file at a time. Nobody seems to have a problem using a hierarchy and haven't for 3 decades until the sheer amount of files required advanced groupings but I don't think it should be the default system. I think people will be confused by the duplication simply because it doesn't happen in real-life.
The duplication I mean is that collection A can contain file X and so can collection B. Computer illiterate people will assume that if a file is both in A and B that the one in B is a duplicate and should be deleted if they don't want it to be in there not knowing that it will also be deleted from collection A. They would then have to distinguish between removing a tag and deleting a file.
Also do you group project files this way?
All the time.
How do you arrange the files in your filesystem? They won't be in a pile presumably but in some form of hierarchy as well as tagged. Does this hierarchy limit you to the point where you'd have to throw it out and use tags as your main system or do you get by ok with supplementing the hierarchy with tags?
It appears that you and your friend Macintosh_Next like to spend a lot of time typing information about your files. One of the things that I notice about Windows refugees is that they have poor organization skills. No matter which OS you use, you need to develop a filing system that you understand and then use it.
You would only have to create a filing system if you have many files to file. My point is, when I am not in school, I don't NEED to file anything. Why would I? I might download something, but that automatically goes to my download folder. I didn't have to choose that, at least not in Snow Leopard. This is why I hardly use Finder. Of course, now that I am in school again, I do move files around, I do save things (I have a "School" folder for all my e-books, and created a stack so I can access those quickly). As you can see, I do use the Finder now. But when I wasn't in school, why would I use it if all I do is go to web sites like AppleInsider.com?
You would only have to create a filing system if you have many files to file. My point is, when I am not in school, I don't NEED to file anything. Why would I? I might download something, but that automatically goes to my download folder. I didn't have to choose that, at least not in Snow Leopard. This is why I hardly use Finder. Of course, now that I am in school again, I do move files around, I do save things (I have a "School" folder for all my e-books, and created a stack so I can access those quickly). As you can see, I do use the Finder now. But when I wasn't in school, why would I use it if all I do is go to web sites like AppleInsider.com?
What is this fixation with you and school? Since joining this forum, I have read some silly complaints. However, "being forced" to use your Mac at home the same way that you use it at school is unique among the complaints posted here.
. Inevitably you will have duplicate files for separate projects but name them the same so when you browse tags, you get hundreds if not thousands of files with the same name.
Marvin from the how you talk it sounds like you haven?t spent any time using tags. There is nothing wrong with having several different files with the same tag, that is how tags work. The more files that have a particular name the bigger the tag name gets in the tag cloud. I would advise that you spend some time with the software I mentioned previously so that you can understand the tagging concept.
While it is certainly true that a particular tag can give you hundreds or even thousands of results applying multiple tags would reduce the number of results greatly. For an example I live around the general Seattle Area so I have a lot of files tagged ?Seattle? but I can also select a tag ?summer time? and would then get about a fourth as many results. Then I could apply another tag like ?nephew? and ?parents? to dramatically hone in on exactly what I am searching for. I guess that is why when I hear you say things like I can easily search through 200 folders I am scratching my head.
?It's like if you have a bunch of keys and you colour code them??
You don?t have to search by colour coding though I think that is an option in the finder and Lightroom but it is not a requirement.
?But how many people would need access to a certain type of file from multiple projects at the same time as part of the daily routine?
Maybe you don?t but a lot of people need this. At a given point in time I have maybe 15-30 documents open at a time.
I want to go back and talk about webpages that you mentioned a while back. Webpages don?t require the people browsing to search though folder hierarchies at all yet it doesn?t seem to cause any of the problems that you are talking about. If I can search the web without folder hierarchies why can?t I search my own hard drive that way? Earlier on you talked about searching through your clothing drawer to find things. However your drawers don?t have drawers within drawers within drawers. Your drawers only go one drawer deep. Therefore you can have folders that only go one level deep.
Also you talked about that you would have to make tag hierarchies, this isn?t really true. You can if you want to put it is not required.
Unfortunately I have to rely on folder hierarchies today because Apple doesn?t provide hardly any tagged solutions in the finder at all. That goes for applying tags as well as searching tags. However I do apply tags with in Leap/Yep that show up in the finder with a spotlight search. I generally think Apple?s efforts at incorporating tagging into their software as been incredibly weak. I don?t know why that is. I happen to be typing this on someone else?s Windows 7 computer and even Microsoft has tagging built into the Explorer. It?s not my favorite implementation but at least they have something.
While it is certainly true that a particular tag can give you hundreds or even thousands of results applying multiple tags would reduce the number of results greatly.
I have experimented with the tag system with one of the apps you mentioned a while ago and it works well for image collections. The issue is not the number of results but the uniqueness of the results. It would for example be acceptable to give two different files an identical set of tags so how do you tell them apart without opening each one of them? Images have thumbnails of course but files are trickier.
I like the tag system and would like to see Apple implement one, I just think it should supplement hierarchical systems and not replace them.
I guess that is why when I hear you say things like I can easily search through 200 folders I am scratching my head.
No, what I was referring to there was not remembering the tag names you'd used to get to a particular result set. Spatial referencing = knowing where something is vs how it is described. In a non-linear tag system objects have no location, only a description. There's no column view with a tag system for example.
Maybe you don?t but a lot of people need this. At a given point in time I have maybe 15-30 documents open at a time.
Do you have 15-30 separate projects open at a given time though? I often have a number of documents open in different apps but generally only 2-3 projects at a given time, which I can manage with a hierarchy.
You can't replace the current system with tags because every app written today relies on hierarchy so if they break it at a fundamental level, everybody has to change their apps or they have to map the system calls into a tag system.
Webpages don?t require the people browsing to search though folder hierarchies at all
You search by tags and browse by hierarchy, which is what we do on the desktop already. Google is an index like the Spotlight index but websites themselves are on standard filesystems.
Your drawers only go one drawer deep. Therefore you can have folders that only go one level deep.
I don't have 100,000 pairs of socks though and they're all black so it's not difficult to manage in one drawer.
Unfortunately I have to rely on folder hierarchies today because Apple doesn?t provide hardly any tagged solutions in the finder at all..
The Spotlight comments implementation is quite weak and a tag system certainly would work much better. I think for it to be effective though, they need to take it out of the info panel because it's not a heavily used panel. It needs to go somewhere in the Finder window that can be made always visible.
I agree with you entirely that their metadata system needs an overhaul. I just don't think it should replace a fixed hierarchy.
What is this fixation with you and school? Since joining this forum, I have read some silly complaints. However, "being forced" to use your Mac at home the same way that you use it at school is unique among the complaints posted here.
If I worked at a job that made it where I had to read PDF's and write word doc's and make presentations, I would be using that as an example. My fixation on school is the fact I AM in college (University of Phoenix Online) where I download my e books and have to upload files. And all I am trying to do is tell you why I don't use the Finder, unless I am in school, because I use my Mac most of the time for internet. So, it might be unique because maybe I am the only one here who only uses the internet on their Mac and when in school then use it to, of course, do their homework. Then I would be the only one here with this situation.
Or would you rather me make up a reason that I don't use the Finder when I am not in school? OK, here it goes. I don't use the Finder because the Finder doesn't exist on my Mac. There ya go! New made up reason
I have experimented with the tag system with one of the apps you mentioned a while ago and it works well for image collections.
Can you tell me what the app was? If I know what you are familiar with I can do a better job explaining things.
?It would for example be acceptable to give two different files an identical set of tags so how do you tell them apart without opening each one of them??
You would do the same thing you do know which is use cover flow with it?s 500 pixels plus icons to see them. If that still isn?t large enough (which I think about 80% of the time it would be) you also have the option of using quick look which you can bring up right away with a quick stroke of the keyboard.
?Images have thumbnails of course but files are trickier.?
I browse text files like this all the time. It isn?t tricky at all. I use Mariner Software?s Paperless to store receipt?s, tax forms, medical information etc. that are all text files. Paperless uses tags in replace of folder hierarchy.
?I was referring to there was not remembering the tag names you'd used to get to a particular result set?
You don?t have to remember them as they are all listed for you with in the application. For an example Lightroom lists them at the sidebar on the right when you are in library mode. Just scroll though the list and start typing in keywords that pertain to what you are looking for. If you can?t remember what you are looking for I would recommend that you launch Apple?s Thesaurus to help you find words that you might have saved the tag as or just scroll through the tag list like I mentioned above.
?Do you have 15-30 separate projects open at a given time though??
Yes I would say that I have at least 15 projects open a lot of the time. Sometimes I client will come in my office and want to run through all the current projects that I am working on which is a lot.
?You can't replace the current system with tags because every app written today relies on hierarchy so if they break it at a fundamental level, everybody has to change their apps or they have to map the system calls into a tag system.?
But by that logic (don?t change anything because developers would have to rewrite their software) Apple would never put out another operating system upgrade again! Every operating system upgrade requires developers to update their software for the new system.
?websites themselves are on standard filesystems.?
Right, not quite to the same extent as on the desktop but yes sometimes they function similarly to a standard filesystem. About a year ago AppleInsider had an article talking about how they were think of rethinking the way Safari worked so that you wouldn?t browse by these back and forward buttons but rather by the different subject matter that you were browsing. Check out the article ?Apple patent hints at future Safari navigational interface?
?I don't have 100,000 pairs of socks though and they're all black so it's not difficult to manage in one drawer.?
There is no need to exaggerate. How many completely identical files do you really have? I might have two versions of the same image. Say an image at high resolution that I use for print and an image an low resolution that I use on the web. In this case I would tag one ?high res? and the other ?low res?. This way I wouldn?t even have to open the images up to see which is higher resolution.
?I think for it to be effective though, they need to take it out of the info panel because it's not a heavily used panel.?
Putting it in the save as dialog would make a huge amount of sense. The collapsed Save as dialog is so minimal, only a naming field entry and a drop down menu as to where you would save your file. There is plenty of room to use for tagging there.
I can't work out why there is all this hate about the Finder.
It can be very difficult to find files in the finder. Using tags and smart folders is very easy. If one solution works a lot better than another the difficult solution should go I believe.
It can be very difficult to find files in the finder. ....
This is true if you choose non-descriptive file names and if you organize your files poorly or not at all. I am at a loss to see how tags can be of much help in either event. If you lack the skills to properly name your files, then where do you get the skills to type in useful tags?
This is true if you choose non-descriptive file names and if you organize your files poorly or not at all. I am at a loss to see how tags can be of much help in either event. If you lack the skills to properly name your files, then where do you get the skills to type in useful tags?
When you name a file you have only one name to give it and you better memorize that name because that is the only way to find it. With tags you can have as many names as you want to help you find the file, 10, 15, 20 doesn't matter. The more tags the greater your chances of finding it. With only one file the smaller your chances. Using just file naming requires you to remember thousands of files. This is not about being disorganized it's about not having powerful enough tools to name and search for files, power that the finder lacks.
You also lose out on spatial referencing - very often I will have a collection of say 200 folders and I can't remember any of the names that get me to the content but I can remember that the content was near the middle of the group of 200 folders so I can narrow it down quickly.
I was thinking about this quote that you said earlier and something occurred to me. If you can't remember the name of the different folders then how to you know that a folder is located somewhere in the middle of a group of folders? To me it seems that if you know something is in the middle you know that by where the first letter of the word is located in the alphabet. If you forgot what the title of the project is how would you know where the folder is alphabetically? And also what about folders that are inside of those 200 folders? Alphabetical order won't help you there. In this case you would not only have to know the the alphabetical order but also the folder path inside of every single one of those 200 folders. I am confused by this logic. To me this seems difficult to do it this way no matter how well you organize your folders.
Can you tell me what the app was? If I know what you are familiar with I can do a better job explaining things.
I'm sure it was Leap I used. Like I say, it worked well and I could see it being useful integrated into the Finder and the core services but not a hierarchy replacement.
You would do the same thing you do know which is use cover flow with it?s 500 pixels plus icons to see them. If that still isn?t large enough (which I think about 80% of the time it would be) you also have the option of using quick look which you can bring up right away with a quick stroke of the keyboard.
Right but a fixed location means you don't have to look at the contents as the file has a unique location.
You don?t have to remember them as they are all listed for you with in the application.
What happens when you get too many tags? Right now, the tag system works fine because it's new but consider the idea of replacing your entire filesystem hierarchy. Think how many tags you'd need to recreate that structure and they'd all be in one big list.
If it was applied to just user's content it might work but it really just works well for media. I reckon it would be a bit of nightmare for a software developer as computer programs generally rely very heavily on a rigid hierarchy and it's impossible to tell the program what the hierarchy is if either it doesn't exist or you have no way of seeing it.
Every operating system upgrade requires developers to update their software for the new system.
Not really - the proposal would be worse than the Intel switch because developers would have to rewrite code, which mostly wasn't necessary.
Right, not quite to the same extent as on the desktop but yes sometimes they function similarly to a standard filesystem. About a year ago AppleInsider had an article talking about how they were think of rethinking the way Safari worked so that you wouldn?t browse by these back and forward buttons but rather by the different subject matter that you were browsing. Check out the article ?Apple patent hints at future Safari navigational interface?
Again though, that's adding tag functionality while leaving the hierarchy in place. The filesystem on a server is identical to a desktop so a website structure is rigid. Whatever Safari would do is a supplement to it.
What could happen is that the hierarchy remains but is never visible to the end user. That system would work as that's how iPhoto works although you can access the structure it creates internally by opening the iPhoto library.
How many completely identical files do you really have? I might have two versions of the same image. Say an image at high resolution that I use for print and an image an low resolution that I use on the web. In this case I would tag one ?high res? and the other ?low res?. This way I wouldn?t even have to open the images up to see which is higher resolution.
This wasn't referring to the identical filename issue but the idea of having one-level deep folders. A filesystem can have in the order of 1 million files. A user can easily have 100,000 non-sytem files - I have more than that myself. If the groups you make are of 100 files each, it's only 1000 tags to deal with which is probably manageable but if they average 20 files per folder/groups then you are talking about 5000 tags that would all show in a flat list.
These wouldn't be user-created after the tag system was in place as it would take too long to do that all over again but over the years, people have built up huge collections of files and folders. I did a quick count of mine and I get nearly 4000 folders without system folders. It's true that a tag system can translate these but I don't want to see a list of 4000 tags every time I want to find one of those groups.
The way the list would work of course is that the tags with the highest file count appear first so you don't have to go through all of them but it would essentially flatten an images directory to one level with all child folder tags shown at once, which can still be thousands of tags. It's not a problem narrowing it down to what you want as long as you know what you called it, otherwise you are sifting through the huge numbers of tags.
If you can't remember the name of the different folders then how to you know that a folder is located somewhere in the middle of a group of folders?
If I'm looking for an image and I remember what the image looked like but I have no idea at all what I named it because I haven't gotten round to tagging it properly, how do I find it? What I do is the same thing I do when I lose my keys - check where the last place I visited that I knew where it was. If I use a tag system, the only way I can go back to where I was is to remember the tags (out of 4000 tags) that I selected to get to that result set e.g did I pick vacations + 2008 + beaches and browse near the middle or did I pick voyeur + nudist + teen. With a fixed hierarchy, I can figure out where I was much more readily.
When you name a file you have only one name to give it and you better memorize that name because that is the only way to find it. With tags you can have as many names as you want to help you find the file, 10, 15, 20 doesn't matter. The more tags the greater your chances of finding it. With only one file the smaller your chances. Using just file naming requires you to remember thousands of files. This is not about being disorganized it's about not having powerful enough tools to name and search for files, power that the finder lacks.
Which is a load of crap; choose names that are descriptive and to the point - I swear when I fix peoples computers up they have the most fucking ridiculous names for their files and they don't even get close to describing what is in the file itself. Maybe what you should be focusing on is instead of big elaborate tags and stuff you learn how to give your files meaningful names that can succinctly describe what is in the file or fail to organise their files in such a way that the file is stored in a meaningful location. Its interesting that these same people who whine about the complexity of computers are able to organise a filing cabinet with no problems but when it comes to organising their files on a computer all those practical skills are some how forgotten.