Re: spatial finder

[Frederico Muñoz]

(forwarded since I made a misteake in the mailing list address lat time) 

On 2004-06-16 11:56:41 +0100 Bj=F6rn Giesler <giesler@ira.uka.de> wrote:= 


> Hi,
> =20
> Am 16.06.2004 um 12:29 schrieb Frederico Mu=F1oz:
> > Having said that I don't see anything wrong in supporting alternate m=
odes,=20
> > as long as they are not the default.
> =20
> I agree totally, except I would make the spatial view the default and =
allow=20
> alternate modes :-)

Yes, of course, that's why the option should be there. People that need =
the functionality would make it the default :) 

> =20
> > I must confess that I've red numerous articles about the spatial file=
=20
> > managers and I'm one of those that "still don't get it"... they alway=
s go=20
> > on and on on how it isn't only a matter of opening a new window for e=
ach=20
> > opened component and remebering the attributes of that window, but in=
the=20
> > end that's all I can actually see... all the talk about the folders b=
eing=20
> > like objects, etc, maes some sense, but in the end it boils down to "=
each=20
> > click opens a new window".
> =20
> No. It boils down to "a click on a folder opens the *exact same* windo=
w that=20
> the same click opened before".
> =20
> One of the basic rules is that there can never be two finder windows o=
pen to=20
> the same directory at the same time. This is very logical -- a directo=
ry is=20
> just a document containing a view on its contents. You shouldn't open =
the=20
> same document multiple times, since your changes in one "view" might b=
e=20
> overwritten by those you made in another. Good user interfaces everywh=
ere=20
> follow the same paradigm for document files. Users are used to that. W=
hy not=20
> for directories? [1]

Thank you for the explanation; I agree on the duplicate opened window...=
I can't really imagine a situation where I would want to have the same =
directory opened  as folder (using GW's syntax here) and have two identi=
cal looking windows... I suppose that the default behaviour, even if not=
talking about a spatial finder, should be "order front and focus existi=
ng window if already opened", as it should be with documents, etc. 


> =20
> The effect is that you recognize an open directory window in a spatial=
file=20
> manager instantly because of how it *looks* (what icons are in it, and=
where?=20
> background color? etc.), without having to read its name or a path in =
a=20
> hierarchical column view. This is immensely helpful, especially when y=
ou=20
> start interacting with the file manager (drag and drop, picking out=20=

> almost-covered windows, etc.)

I agree that it looks pratical... the problem in this things is that yea=
rs of expectation on a particular behaviour make a difference. I'm still=
convinced that a tipical finder (i.e. non spatial) can be as easy to us=
e as a spatial one, but I do understand the points you brought up. 

> =20
> The column view (while *very* practical for people used to navigating =
very=20
> deep hierarchies and keeping their structure in mind) is especially da=
maging=20
> here: Narrow columns hide large parts of the directory names. Wide col=
umns=20
> waste space. If the column width is a property of the directory shown =
in the=20
> column, what happens if you have several column views showing the same=
column=20
> and you resize the column? Will the other views adapt correspondingly,=
=20
> possibly hiding other things contained in them? If not, which window w=
ill you=20
> have to close first to use the new column width?
<snip> 

The column view isn't suited for making particular preferences for each =
dir or column... one of it's strenghts is actually the opposite of the s=
patial concept: you can expect every directory and file to be presented =
in the exact same way (dir icons not withstanding). Column view with a s=
mall depth of directories is actualle very managable, and it has the ben=
efict of scaling better. However I agree that some people might prefer w=
hat is now "Icon View", and when talking about a possible spatail behavi=
our of GWorkspace it is this icon view that should be considered. 

So, to sum it up, and leaving behind the discussion on the actual superi=
ority or not of each mode, I think that to make GWorkspace at least some=
what spatial the following things would be needed: 

o Remove the Shelf from the finder windows (already possible)
o Remove the path hierarchy view from the top of each window (I think th=
at the presence of this makes it less "spatial", but I could be wrong he=
re. Anyway this change, since it's actually removing stuff, shouldn't be=
too hard)
o Make each double click open a new window (easily done, GW already prov=
ide "Open as Folder", one would just change the default behaviour)
o Make each window remember it's attributes (as far as I can see GW alre=
ady does this... window location et al are remembered)
o Don't open duplicate windows for the same folder (instead order to fro=
nt) 


So, some of this are already present, others are not but the changes wou=
ld be minimal. The only thing that I think would be more problematic is =
the background colour and stuff like that. 


Best Regards, 

Frederico Mu=F1oz