Re: Of applications and documents

[David Adam Bordoley]

Eric Christopherson writes: 

> On Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 10:43:42PM -0400, David Adam Bordoley wrote:
> > This concept can further be expanded to other types of documents. Instead of
> > managing folders using a file manager, the user directly manipulates the 
> > folder (there is no proxy between the user and the folder.
>
> I don't really know what you mean here. I can understand if what you're
> trying to say is that the "file manager" should be a core part of the
> interface, not an "application" that's added on to it; but I don't know for
> sure that that's what you're saying. I don't see how the user could directly
> manipulate *anything* unless they happen to be able to change bits with
> their mind ;) You still need some sort of "proxy" (in your words).

The idea is to create the illusion. Take a typical word processing document. 

The traditional steps to opening a document are:
1. Open the start menu,
2. waffel through a whole bunch of applications,
3. choose whatever application is apppropriate,
4. file->open,
5. use the fileselector to find the document
6. edit the document
7 save.
8. quit the application 

instead I propopse 

1. Open the folder that contains the document
2. double click on the document
3. It opens in a window that is unique to that document. Saving its size and 
position, the window follows any changes made to the document (for instance 
if you rename a document in the folder, this change should be recognized and 
shown in the title of the window etc.).
4. Save the document (well ideally we would automatically save document 
changes and have a very well implemented persistent undo system).
5. Close the document (notice that you do not quit the application, this is 
not important to the user). 

The number of steps involved doesn't matter. What is important is the mental 
model as percieved by the user. In the first example, the user is using a 
program to manipulate the document. In the second example, there is a 
stronger feeling of direct manipulation of the actual document. 

> > This is very 
> > similar to how the original macintosh finder worked until they broke it in 
> > osx).
>
> Not to start any flames, but for those who are uninformed (like myself), how
> did it "break" in OSX? 

artstechnica has an excellent explanation. see:
http://arstechnica.com/paedia/f/finder/finder-1.html 

dave