|Subject:||Re: spatial finder|
|Date:||Wed, 16 Jun 2004 15:35:49 +0200|
|User-agent:||Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040413 Debian/1.6-5|
The most us mere users can hope for is that the devs will include many options of how you'd like things to behave. There's not much point in argueing about what's "better" or even "the right way to do it." *looks at this posting, shakes head, continues* Personal preferences as well as academic points of view are too diverse to settle for one, be-all end-all solution. Naturally, developers should stick to their idea of what was intended and prevent users from getting used to bad design and bad habits (Windows's Task Bar comes to mind), but ultimately? It's the users' choice what they want to work with, and how they want to work with it. So, in the end, I wouldn't mind GWorkspace becoming a bit more "spatial aware" than it is right now, but should it go down that road, it should try to do a better job at it than OS-X does at the moment.
<snap>It's isn't so much about a one-solution ends-all situtation as well as about being consistent. Like the Un*x philosophy that everything is a file, I like the idea of a graphical solution that everything is a window (even a folder). Just finished the reading of the article and being an old-time mac user (up-till Mac OS 7) I generally liked the Finder solution compared to file browsing. And I feel the article gives some useful hints like the search folder that holds proxies based on search criterial. But as mentioned at the end the article it all boils down to a consistent, uniform and well defined meta-data set. Without the right meta-data you'll never get anyform of logical system and you need to use a form of tree browsing, since the directory tree is your meta-data.
Dennis --You must learn from the mistakes of others. You can't possibly live long enough to make them all yourself.
--- Sam Levenson
|[Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread]|