5 ms·

I don't think files are the problem. It's the folder hierarchy that's the problem. The thing iPhoneOS is most intent on eliminating are deep trees of files. It

I don't think files are the problem. It's the folder hierarchy that's the problem. The thing iPhoneOS is most intent on eliminating are deep trees of files. It does this by training the user to think of their files/content as being managed by an individual app that's responsible for manipulating it. This creates a single top-level "folder" for the user to use as a mental key to remember how to get at something. Contrast that much shorter path to content to the standard desktop model of having a folder in your home folder, perhaps, to store documents. The ability to make sub-folders, sub-sub-folders, etc. and have all the contents of those folders utterly disconnected from the applications you use to manipulate and create that content. It makes sense to those of us who grew up/invented it, but for people just looking to use a computer as a tool in their non-computer-driven life suffer under the cognitive load of the foreign metaphors. In my experience, people "get" that individual files represent their content. They do not "get" folder hierarchies, though, and find themselves easily lost within them. I think many non-experts consider an app as a destination and not as a program to run. It makes more sense to them to think of "going" to the app and then finding their content there than it does to "run" an app and then later point it to their content.

rmundo 16y ago
I think one thing that really confuses people is how user data is stored in the same space as system files, and can be manipulated in the same way. It's fine for people who know what they are doing, but many people I know are lost if their files aren't on the desktop or My Documents. The average user doesn't need to look anywhere outside their home directory, or inside their application bundles. iPhone OS is a good start, but eventually Apple will probably want to provide a way for apps to share data, perhaps a common pool for app data. Or maybe a cloud data storage api which all apps use to store and retrieve files. The sheer amount of data we have and how to organize that is yet another problem that is likely still waiting for a brilliant solution.
- greendestiny 16y ago
  Yeah I agree, and I'd further say I do know what I'm doing and I hate the file system. Unix is much better than windows in that their are much stronger conventions on where to store things, but its still a shmozzle. I think the iPhone OS model is starting to crumble on the iPad with the increase in filetypes that people expect to interact with. I was hoping to see an extension of the itunes library style of database to cover different file types.
whakojacko 16y ago
Exactly. I think (well, I hope) in the future we will see a well-done database fileystem in the desktop space which throws away the concept of files hierarchies and store all metadata in single database, (eg stuff like tags, types of data, applications used, etc). With SSDs becoming cheaper and cheaper, you could throw all the metadata on an SSD and likely have pretty good performance as well.
astine 16y ago
I agree, and I think that a big part of the problem is that most of the folder hierarchy that users have to deal with on normal computers, is dedicated to things that have nothing to do with their work. The user's photo collection, documents, and entire operating system all share the same directory tree. It's true that there are conventions to where certain files are placed, and operating systems often take steps to hide stuff that users shouldn't have to deal with, but these steps are inconsistent and the conventions aren't enforced. While my photo viewer might look in My Documents\Images for photos, my photo editor might look in My Documents\editor workspace. A scanner might use yet another directory entirely. All these programs will drop a user into it's directory of choice, and a user looking for a file that they used elsewhere, will not know that they are in a different directory. Someone not familiar with the file system could easily get disoriented by this.
- jodrellblank 16y ago
  I don't think this needs to be anymore of a problem than working in an office building which has rooms and companies that are nothing to do with your work. You don't continually go into the janitor's store room every time you need the toilet, just in case it might be there. You don't go to the toilet everyday cursing the existence of the nearby janitor's store room for making things complicated for you. You maybe go in there once, then realise it's not relevant, and put it out of your mind. You never even venture to the mail sorting office on the third floor or the canteen kitchens or the legal department if you have no reason to.
  - astine 16y ago
    It's not quite like that. If you worked in a large office building, and went to the same floor every day, you'd probably learn just enough of the building to get to work every day and no more. I one were to place you randomly in the build ing somewhere you would likely be lost until you found some kind of marker or floor map. Your average filesystem and computer user are like that: if images (or example) could be expected to always be in the same part of the filesystem, most users would have no trouble finding the one they want. But different applications use different default directories for the same things. This is like being forced to use a different entrance to a building depending on whether you plan to do paperwork or programming. To make matters worse, the floor plan and room numbers change periodically due to events of which you may or may not be aware.
DannoHung 16y ago
Why did categories instead of folders never take off? Just implementation complexity?
- jodrellblank 16y ago
  In a sense it did - the "open file" dialog in most modern programs is filtered to only show files the program can use - .doc or .bmp or whatever. It's not precisely system wide tags or categories, but it's a closely related solution.
- Zev 16y ago
  Filesystems were never quite ready for it.
- drawkbox 16y ago
  Originally they were trying to do as Curtis mentioned. Files were to match documents, photos etc that might go in a file folder in a file cabinet. I guess the file cabinet was the computer. Categories would work. But they are abstract and folders/files mapped to physical objects that were part of offices at the time. Recycle Bin/Trash, same thing, trying to map to real-world at the time. I think the death of files is overrated though. I mean even on the touch os I can go to search and search for... files. No file browser like Finder or Windows Explorer work when you have a killer Spotlight like search.
jodrellblank 16y ago
The odd thing is that I grew up with folder heirarchies in DOS and am quite happy with them. Until I get onto a default Windows install, where all the hints about where you are in the folder tree are hidden by default. Then I get easily lost. c:\users\myname\local settings\application data\microsoft\outlook\ - fine. outlook - well that could be anywhere. It's no wonder to me that people are lost by default when a modern system goes out of its way to not provide any hints or landmarks to tell you where you (and your files) are. It's bizarre.
iuguy 16y ago
A lot of my UX guidance I get, I get from my wife. Sometimes she's not like your normal user at all (she used FreeBSD for a year, although as an end user running Gnome). Sometimes she is (she hates the Mac's maximise button not maximising the screen - she also hates having to CMD-Q instead of closing the last window). She loves the iPhone. She finds it easy. She has trouble posting images from her photo album to facebook - does she go to camera, photos or facebook? This is the problem with the app paradigm. It's essentially a variant of the folder hierachy. She can play music from her 'music database' on iPod. Why not on last.fm? (bearing in mind that the average user is not aware when it plays something she owns whether or not it's stored locally or streamed) It sounds as though superficially it makes sense, but without a clear understanding of what owns or uses which database you're still reduced to a folder-oriented paradigm - it's just in this case folders are applications and the data can live under any or all of them.

rmundo 16y ago

I think one thing that really confuses people is how user data is stored in the same space as system files, and can be manipulated in the same way. It's fine for people who know what they are doing, but many people I know are lost if their files aren't on the desktop or My Documents. The average user doesn't need to look anywhere outside their home directory, or inside their application bundles. iPhone OS is a good start, but eventually Apple will probably want to provide a way for apps to share data, perhaps a common pool for app data. Or maybe a cloud data storage api which all apps use to store and retrieve files. The sheer amount of data we have and how to organize that is yet another problem that is likely still waiting for a brilliant solution.

greendestiny 16y ago
Yeah I agree, and I'd further say I do know what I'm doing and I hate the file system. Unix is much better than windows in that their are much stronger conventions on where to store things, but its still a shmozzle. I think the iPhone OS model is starting to crumble on the iPad with the increase in filetypes that people expect to interact with. I was hoping to see an extension of the itunes library style of database to cover different file types.

whakojacko 16y ago

Exactly. I think (well, I hope) in the future we will see a well-done database fileystem in the desktop space which throws away the concept of files hierarchies and store all metadata in single database, (eg stuff like tags, types of data, applications used, etc). With SSDs becoming cheaper and cheaper, you could throw all the metadata on an SSD and likely have pretty good performance as well.

astine 16y ago

I agree, and I think that a big part of the problem is that most of the folder hierarchy that users have to deal with on normal computers, is dedicated to things that have nothing to do with their work. The user's photo collection, documents, and entire operating system all share the same directory tree. It's true that there are conventions to where certain files are placed, and operating systems often take steps to hide stuff that users shouldn't have to deal with, but these steps are inconsistent and the conventions aren't enforced. While my photo viewer might look in My Documents\Images for photos, my photo editor might look in My Documents\editor workspace. A scanner might use yet another directory entirely. All these programs will drop a user into it's directory of choice, and a user looking for a file that they used elsewhere, will not know that they are in a different directory. Someone not familiar with the file system could easily get disoriented by this.

jodrellblank 16y ago
I don't think this needs to be anymore of a problem than working in an office building which has rooms and companies that are nothing to do with your work. You don't continually go into the janitor's store room every time you need the toilet, just in case it might be there. You don't go to the toilet everyday cursing the existence of the nearby janitor's store room for making things complicated for you. You maybe go in there once, then realise it's not relevant, and put it out of your mind. You never even venture to the mail sorting office on the third floor or the canteen kitchens or the legal department if you have no reason to.
- astine 16y ago
  It's not quite like that. If you worked in a large office building, and went to the same floor every day, you'd probably learn just enough of the building to get to work every day and no more. I one were to place you randomly in the build ing somewhere you would likely be lost until you found some kind of marker or floor map. Your average filesystem and computer user are like that: if images (or example) could be expected to always be in the same part of the filesystem, most users would have no trouble finding the one they want. But different applications use different default directories for the same things. This is like being forced to use a different entrance to a building depending on whether you plan to do paperwork or programming. To make matters worse, the floor plan and room numbers change periodically due to events of which you may or may not be aware.

DannoHung 16y ago

Why did categories instead of folders never take off? Just implementation complexity?

jodrellblank 16y ago
In a sense it did - the "open file" dialog in most modern programs is filtered to only show files the program can use - .doc or .bmp or whatever. It's not precisely system wide tags or categories, but it's a closely related solution.
Zev 16y ago
Filesystems were never quite ready for it.
drawkbox 16y ago
Originally they were trying to do as Curtis mentioned. Files were to match documents, photos etc that might go in a file folder in a file cabinet. I guess the file cabinet was the computer. Categories would work. But they are abstract and folders/files mapped to physical objects that were part of offices at the time. Recycle Bin/Trash, same thing, trying to map to real-world at the time. I think the death of files is overrated though. I mean even on the touch os I can go to search and search for... files. No file browser like Finder or Windows Explorer work when you have a killer Spotlight like search.

jodrellblank 16y ago

The odd thing is that I grew up with folder heirarchies in DOS and am quite happy with them. Until I get onto a default Windows install, where all the hints about where you are in the folder tree are hidden by default. Then I get easily lost. c:\users\myname\local settings\application data\microsoft\outlook\ - fine. outlook - well that could be anywhere. It's no wonder to me that people are lost by default when a modern system goes out of its way to not provide any hints or landmarks to tell you where you (and your files) are. It's bizarre.

iuguy 16y ago

A lot of my UX guidance I get, I get from my wife. Sometimes she's not like your normal user at all (she used FreeBSD for a year, although as an end user running Gnome). Sometimes she is (she hates the Mac's maximise button not maximising the screen - she also hates having to CMD-Q instead of closing the last window). She loves the iPhone. She finds it easy. She has trouble posting images from her photo album to facebook - does she go to camera, photos or facebook? This is the problem with the app paradigm. It's essentially a variant of the folder hierachy. She can play music from her 'music database' on iPod. Why not on last.fm? (bearing in mind that the average user is not aware when it plays something she owns whether or not it's stored locally or streamed) It sounds as though superficially it makes sense, but without a clear understanding of what owns or uses which database you're still reduced to a folder-oriented paradigm - it's just in this case folders are applications and the data can live under any or all of them.