f13.net

The Desktop metaphor has done a lot of course to help the user friendly nature of computing for us non-techies.

But goddamn, file directories still drive me crazy.  I love having documents / papers in a filing cabinet or even spread over a table so I can get a panoramic view of all of them.  But stored in file directories I am constantly resorting to searches since I cannot track down these documents.  My mind just does not find file architecture intuitive.

Any indication out there that the Desktop Metaphor might undergo a change?  Are there other paradigms being considered for the ready retrieval of a single file from a heap of files? (aside:  I don't think google searches can scan the text of pdf files).

I'm sure it's being thought about by someone, at Microsoft, and prolly Google too.  I think part of the limitation is interface at this point.  Part of the last metaphor change was a change in UI, namely the addition of a mouse and higher quality displays.  I'd guess even higher quality displays will help drive the next change, perhaps with some other new interface elements.  I'm personally hoping for something out of Snow Crash or Neuromancer(or the WarStrider books).  Reasearch is being done on neural interfaces to electronics, I've seen people have wires in their arms used to control robotic hands in another room.

As far as searching PDF files, if the PDFs contain actual text, and not just images of text, there's no reason they shouldn't be searchable.  Adobe has been pretty open with large parts of the API.

Alkiera

Not true - I routinely get PDFs as hits in Google searches.  (As Alkiera pointed out, this only works if the PDF contains actual text.)  The trend seems to be toward adding more robust search capabilities to the existing desktop metaphor so that you can use file directories but also use a quick search to find anything at any level of that hierarchy.  Google's Desktop Search thing is one example of it, and both OS X and Windows are adding equivalent capabilities to their file browsers directly.

If you want to replace the desktop/file folder metaphor, the main question you'll have to answer is this: you have two thousand files on your hard drive, and you want to find one of them.  In your ideal world, how do you go about finding it, or what clues would you be able to give your OS to allow it to find it?  Your "papers scattered all over the desktop" usage model is easily accomplished by just plunking all your files in a single folder (including your desktop, since that's really just a "top level folder" from the GUI perspective).  What do you think could be done to make it better?

My solution is to just store stuff in a place that makes sense.

My desktop has like 1000 icons on it. And I have folder on my desktop called "oldDesktop" that has another 1000 icons.

WinFS sounds like what you might be asking for. The idea there is that you can store meta-data about a file and do a SQL-like search (under the covers) for that data. Of course, that means you have to enter decent meta-data. Google Desktop Search is pretty decent as well.

Really the best would be an approach that let you search for meta-data as well as for full text.

Vista has that.  Automatic indexing of file content, plus optional metadata, all readily searchable.

I never used the metadata feature because I'm already used to putting information like that in the file path, either in the filename or expressing it through the folder hierarchy.  But the extra flexibility is kinda cool.

I can tell you my ideal solution in the real world.  I have lots of desktop space with small piles of papers facing up over many desks.  In addition, I have several rooms to housing those desks.  The actual 'walk" to each table is unique - as its room and spatial positioning in the room is unique.  My inference why this works for me is that "searches" engage many sensory modalities - motor engagement and visual clues have a lot of depth (the pile beside my phone in my bedroom, the pile beside my plant in the living room).

Right now, that's my best crack at it.  Currently, when you find the file your looking for in a directory - your actual journey - is not very stimulating.  Trying to put this another way - finding a file should involve a number of rich visual / motor cues along the way (like my apartment), so when you do find the pile you have gone through a unique path to locate it that is memorable.

That's my problem I think - when I find the file - I have trouble remembing the tree that lead me there.  That is unlike a an apartment - with furniture and rooms - all provide spatial orienting cues to navigate from - readily memorable - in locating each file.

Meta date - interesting - I will have a look into that (if you have a good link - would be appreciated).

Is that a clever way of saying your shit is everywhere?

OSX's search utility is pretty neat if you're one of those people who can't find anything they save. I just keep my stuff organized in the whacked manner I need to remember it. I have all the random pictures and screenshots on my computer spread over a dozen folders in random places, ditto with my music.

No.  Its a statement that there are too few navigational cues in file directory systems vs. interactions with the real world.

Maybe it's just me...but I actually, somehow...REMEMBER where I save my stuff.

Like my music? It's in the folder....that's named....MY MUSIC.

All of my documents are stored in a master documents folder, which is further broken down by general subject, or particular class if it's important enough.

I really don't understand the problem here.

Say you have a folder for Game-related documents (PnP RPGS in my case), and a folder for Computer-related documents (product comparisons, manuals, etc). Then you want to save a PC game FAQ. It's computer-related... but it's a game document. Where do you put it - and more importantly - how do you remember where you put it? You can always make folders for more and more specific categories, but eventually that defeats the purpose of having them in the first place.

I think having metadata-cued searches within the file system is a good way of going about it, but at the same time how many people are going to spend the time to tag each and every file? Hell, most of the people I know don't even bother editing ID3 tags on their music. Also, I thought WinFS was dropped from the list of Vista features?

I would probably save it under computer-related docs, since a PC game is NOT PnP.

Then again, if it was a FAQ, I would probably just bookmark it in my browser, but that's me.

I just have a knack for remember where I put things, both on my PC and IRL....which is why I find it especially irksome when someone tampers with my things.

Same here.

You know what has helped me more than a change in computer interface? Having a system in place for not only finding things but finding the right thing when I need it. I use pen and paper for some things, computer for others.

I highly recommend David Allen's book "Getting Things Done -- The Art of Stress Free Productivity (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0142000280/qid=1136262349/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-6992321-0198343?n=507846&s=books&v=glance)". He says nothing in the book that isn't common sense except he gets at the heart of why people who work with informaiton as a job function often get overwhelmed:  we try to carry around too much in our minds and the systems we put in place to store things have flaws (sometimes minor, sometimes major) that cause us to distrust them. Same happens with information about our non-job (home?) lives.

I read and implemented the basics of what he describes in the book and I now get done in a day what used to take me a week -- I also don't have things in piles all over the place any more. My e-mail inbox is almost always kept empty -- and I receive and send out a lot of e-mail every day. (I used to have 600+ items in my e-mail inbox all the time -- I just didn't know how to properly deal with e-mail after I read it -- what to keep/file/toss -- now I do.) My desktop has only a few icons on it now -- chiefly the My Documents folder, which is my filing cabinet, and shortcuts to a couple of other places I access a lot, like My Pictures. Within these I use my own naming method to keep things in a way I understand them. (Allen's book never tells you how to name things -- it tells you what processes to use to get things in order and to have what you need at ready access when you need it.)

I don't disagree that new UI metaphors and paradigms might be welcome changes -- however, they are only interfaces to underlying systems of organizing information. Information can be stored and organized with index cards, paper file folders and a pencil. Retrieving information (search) is a different topic entirely. Computers are obviously extremely useful for information retrieval, helping when you have very specific information you are looking for, or when you want to find out what you don't know. Perhaps the dream is to be able to dump all our documents in a black box and we simply ask for what we want when we want it and the black box knows what to offer us that might satisfy the request?

Once I got a paper filing cabinet in my home office within arms-reach, I never have piles of paper around any more. I modeled my computer folders on the same system as my cabinet and it works for me. As long as a new UI or search system serves me and the way I find/store information, then what I'd really want from it going forward would be for it to go out and find items of information I might be interested in based on my existing documents -- to find things I may not have found on my own. Oh, and if it can figure out how to wash, fold and iron my clothes that wouldn't be bad either ;)

The BeOS file system (aka BFS) had this sort of system and the developer of that went to Apple to work on the OS X file system and Spotlight. Microsoft is trying to do a similar thing with their WinFS which will not be a part of Vista on initial release (it'll be released on Windows Server 2007 first) and they are doing it by kludging stuff on top of SQL Server rather than rebuilding the file system from the ground up which means it's probably going to be a huge resource hog.

Arbitrarily give each directory a different color, icon, and/or sound that gets displayed/played as you navigate through that directory.  Boom - your path through a directory hierarchy now has navigational cues.

Vista actually does this to some extent by color coding directories based on the types of files that they seem to contain.  Took me a little while to get used to but once I did I kinda liked it.

While everyone is talking file systems, I'll mention an idea I've wanted implemented for years: the 3d desktop. Not those wacky concepts MS comes up with every now and again. I was inspired mostly by the loading screen of Evil Islands (a fun lil game everyone probably missed), though that was noninteractive. At the most basic it could just be a 3d office. Printer in the corner is the printer, the file cabinets the hd, yadda.

Every time I bring it up people say it's useless....so? It'd be cool. And most, if not all, gpus in business machines can do rudimentary 3d chores. So why not make stuff cool? Just like Luna, make it easy to turn off so boretards can use plain old windows circa 1995.

People have made that before I thinks. It didn't work that well. (Though the ones I've seen are mostly static images, that let you click on the Filing Cabinet or the Printer or your Notepad, etc - basically a stupid graphic overlaying basic Windows functions).

There is this: http://desk3d.sourceforge.net/screenshots.php

Though as far as I know, Vista is all done in DirectX so, really, it *is* 3D!

A standards based, consistent taxonomy that comes with your computer would be a nice way to create a common-denominator for metadata tagging.  Cross reference this with a local copy of synonyms that you (human) use, versus the standard taxonomy.  A computer that would automatically assist you in the assigning of meta-data would also help a bunch.  But this isn't interface, this is content/data tagging.

I think the next important improvement in interface would be more sophisticated speech recognition.  Why do simple tasks require pointing and clicking on menu's?  "Hal, bookmark this page, it's a FAQ on PnP-game-name".  Hal shouldn't just take your word for it, but it should also look at metadata from the page itself to assist with the tagging of the bookmark created.  user-given content name, datatype (bookmark), etc, are all just pieces of information that HAL should be storing for you automatically to help you retrieve the data the next time you need it.  You wouldn't need to point/click/type until you are actually working with the document, or you are browsing through a list of documents (surfing for info that you aren't sure is there).

Why do I have to open a search window to look for files?  "Hal, I'm looking for a PnP-game-name FAQ that I think I asked you to bookmark".  Why do users have to see the list of bookmarks first, before any refinement?  Let speech to text help with initial refinement first.  "HAL, show me a list of my bookmarks on PnP games", or more broadly, "HAL show me a list of PnP game related content".

I don't think pointing/typing go away, but I do think they can be greatly augmented by speech recognition.

Pointing can later be augmented by eye tracking/depth of focus (in Sky's 3D model), but again likely not replaced because often hands and eyes work in parallel.

Course, that raises an interesting question, what is the best delivery mechanism for content?  I recall studies that showed that women were better then men at pulling information from conversations/listening.  Maybe different people would choose to access content in different ways.  Perhaps purpose also should drive delivery mechanism.  Maybe details are better retained via reading, but total concept is better delivered via an aural rendition (voice recording).  Perhaps mixed mode renditions, with a voice recording giving the summary/concept, and lists/tables showing the details and key topic points.

Help! I can't stop babbling!

I don't think I care for voice recognition. Unless my hands are already occupied I wouldn't have any reason not to use a mouse/keyboard. If I was flying a spaceship, sure.. as I might already be doing something. I'd also hate to have to whisper when I'm up at 2am while everyone else is asleep.

-whisper- psst Hal! Show me those boobies again!

Dammit, HAL has a dynamic synonym engine, fricken use it!  For instance:

Vin: "HAL, tetons is a personal synonym for breasts... large, firm breasts"

HAL: "Roger that, Viin... don't think I don't see you whacking off to the large, firm, br..., er, tetons.  Don't think I'm not recording it.  In fact, I think this is a good time to discuss upgrading my RAM, don't you?"

See?  Don't be scared of the future, embrace it!

That's a fuzzy logic search.  There is a lot of ambiguity and inferred meaning in it, this is a big, BIG (you know, google big), area of research but don't expect to see any serious break throughs in less than a decade.

Doh, I knew my computer was loading those images slower than normal.. now I know why!

Beyond Menus and Toolbars in Microsoft Office (http://www.baychi.org/calendar/files/harris20051213/harris20051213.pdf) - PDF from Jensen Harris, Dec 2005.

One point in the slides I'm elated to read: no more "smart" UI -- i.e. personalized menus that appear or disappear based on use. Predictability of command locations = good. I always turn off personalized menus in the Windows UI and Word or other apps because I don't want to have to hunt for the command or menu item before I can use it -- and don't want to "lose it" just because I don't use it much.