3 ms·

The debate about whether a spatial metaphor or a browser metaphor is better for file managers has a long history. The classic Mac OS finder was designed around

by Veen 6y ago

The debate about whether a spatial metaphor or a browser metaphor is better for file managers has a long history. The classic Mac OS finder was designed around a spatial metaphor, which is probably what influenced the Gnome developers. Classic Mac OS nostalgics like John Siracusa [0] and John Gruber [1] argue that the spatial metaphor is superior. [0]: https://daringfireball.net/2002/11/that_finder_thing https://daringfireball.net/2002/11/that_finder_thing [1]: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2003/04/finder/2/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2003/04/finder/2/

TeMPOraL 6y ago
I need to read up on the debate, because I'm honestly surprised by it. The "spatial metaphor" in context of a file manager sounds like complete nonsense. I'm actually surprised to see your link [1] list efficiency as a benefit of arranging stuff spatially on the screen, and their explanation doesn't make much sense (doing stuff with muscle memory isn't unique to spatial arrangement of things). The way I see it, arranging things in space works well when you have enough space to fit these things in; once you have to scroll or zoom, the utility rapidly degrades with the number of excess stuff. On top of that, remembering where things are works when there are couple things. Not when there might be couple thousand. For comparison, it's worth thinking about two other things human beings seem to understand and employ rather well: 1) Lists. Note that while you may put different lists in different places, you generally don't generally put each item on a separate post-it placed in a different location. List items belong together. 2) Hierarchies. That one is probably biological, and almost as fundamental as understanding 3D space. We inherently grok hierarchies - both abstract and social. We navigate them every day. Unlike spatial arrangement, hierarchies and lists scale well. And so that's why a filesystem is a hierarchy, and it's usually rendered as either list, or - if you need to see multiple hierarchy levels at the same time - as a tree.

by Veen 6y ago

TeMPOraL 6y ago

I need to read up on the debate, because I'm honestly surprised by it. The "spatial metaphor" in context of a file manager sounds like complete nonsense. I'm actually surprised to see your link [1] list efficiency as a benefit of arranging stuff spatially on the screen, and their explanation doesn't make much sense (doing stuff with muscle memory isn't unique to spatial arrangement of things). The way I see it, arranging things in space works well when you have enough space to fit these things in; once you have to scroll or zoom, the utility rapidly degrades with the number of excess stuff. On top of that, remembering where things are works when there are couple things. Not when there might be couple thousand. For comparison, it's worth thinking about two other things human beings seem to understand and employ rather well: 1) Lists. Note that while you may put different lists in different places, you generally don't generally put each item on a separate post-it placed in a different location. List items belong together. 2) Hierarchies. That one is probably biological, and almost as fundamental as understanding 3D space. We inherently grok hierarchies - both abstract and social. We navigate them every day. Unlike spatial arrangement, hierarchies and lists scale well. And so that's why a filesystem is a hierarchy, and it's usually rendered as either list, or - if you need to see multiple hierarchy levels at the same time - as a tree.