42 ms·

Why does the New menu even exist for creating new empty files?

338 points by zdw 5y ago

tshaddox 5y ago
> User research shows that for many users, the way they create a new file is to find an existing file of the same type, copy it, then open the copy and delete everything in it. > For people with a document-centric view of the world, programs aren’t really things that you think about. What you really work on are documents. Okay, but I don't think people create new paper documents by photocopying an existing document and covering everything with correction fluid. The user interface of those physical document-authoring tools (typewriters, paper and pen, etc.) seem to make it quite clear how to start a new blank document. The fact that people can't discover any other way of creating a new document on their computer is obviously a legitimate problem, but I can't see how the New menu is a particularly good solution because it doesn't seem any more discoverable than the list of document-authoring programs in the Start menu. I'm of course in agreement that user research is vital and that not everyone is aware of what you might consider the "obvious" or "best" way to create a document on a computer. I would like to see more details about how and why the New menu came to be (apparently) the primary solution to this UI problem.
- dylan604 5y ago
  Wow, I would never have thought of doing that to get to a new state. I can't think of the number of times that I have opened an existing document to make alt versions of, but forget to Save As before making those changes so my alt is the version. Hopefully undo buffer allows me to go back to start, Save As, redo back to where I was. Too many times. I love/hate when I hear about the covoluted ways that users use a computer in the most illogical way that apparently makes perfect logical sense to them. It's like the Stupid Criminals bit on the Tonight Show. All you can think at first hearing is surely nobody is that dumb, but yet, here we are looking at someone being that dumb. One co-worker was often heard saying "I can't fix stupid"
- falcolas 5y ago
  Real world comparisons don’t help you here - creating a new digital document from an existing document is a very simple four step process. Duplicate, open, select all, delete. If it were that easy in the real world, perhaps we would. Especially for things like letterhead or forms. Who wants to go to a room filled with thousands of different forms, if they could just get a fresh and clean one with four simple gestures?
  - tshaddox 5y ago
    It seemed to me that the author was claiming that people copy existing documents on computers only because it's the only (or easiest) way they know of to create a new document of a given type, not because it is actually the easiest way to create a new document of a given type. It seemed to me that the author was decrying the fact that so many people copy existing documents and delete all the contents, and was providing that as justification for why the New menu exists.
- maxander 5y ago
  > I can't see how the New menu is a particularly good solution because it doesn't seem any more discoverable than the list of document-authoring programs in the Start menu. I think you’ve missed the key point of this article, which is that a lot of people use computers without a clear idea what programs are. They know they can double-click a spreadsheet file and have a window open that lets them do things with that spreadsheet; but to them, I guess, that’s just “what a spreadsheet file is like” and there is no notion of this thing called Excel which is mediating their experience of the file. To a person like this, “discovering the program in the Start menu” is not something that can happen within the bounds of how their ontology of computers works. It’s a credit to the designers of Windows that they design to accommodate users like this, though it also goes a long way to explaining why Windows is so annoying to many professional computer users.
  - boondaburrah 5y ago
    This is actually an interesting assessment for me, since smartphones are pretty much the exact opposite (can't even see the filesystem on some of them): There's only apps, and the apps have stuff in them. Sure there's ways of exchanging data between apps, but documents/files aren't really a thing. Conceptually, that means I feel like I'm using services/tools to interact with this abstract 'data.' By keeping 'data' abstract, it feels less solid who owns it, who's responsible for it, and where it is. Now I'm interested in the opposite system where the 'documents' are the core concept of the device, and programs are just "things your computer/smartphone can do with this document." Really make the data feel like it's /there/ you know?
    - frabcus 5y ago
      Yes, exactly this! Jef Raskin's Humane Interface is like that: "An end to stand-alone applications - every software package should be structured as a set of tools available to users on any document." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Humane_Interface https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Humane_Interface I'd love to see a popular device that was done that way round.
  - tshaddox 5y ago
- thinkingemote 5y ago
  Actually in the past people really did re-use paper (and papyrus, vellum, slate etc) documents that way! They would scrape off or erase or whitewash what was on there previously and write on top. People wouldn't create a new file if they could just reuse an existing one.
fourseventy 5y ago
I mostly use the terminal, but I usually follow the same pattern of first creating a blank file then opening the file in an editing program. $ touch myfile.txt $ vim myfile.txt
- gruez 5y ago
  But it's not necessary right? If you omit the first step, vim will still open, and the file will get created when you first save it.
  - baud147258 5y ago
    Maybe it takes into account if the user doesn't have write access to the folder? If the user didn't have access, the touch command would fail, whereas going directly to vim, it would only fail when trying to save (potentially losing the work done in the file)?
    - lupire 5y ago
      vim will make a swap file for you and will stop you from quitting on an unsaved file.
- tshaddox 5y ago
  I don't use vim, but can't you just skip the first command? I would guess that the second command would work just fine. Presumably the only difference would be that the file wouldn't be created until you first save the file within vim.
  - JadeNB 5y ago
    > I don't use vim, but can't you just skip the first command? I would guess that the second command would work just fine. You are correct.
  - version_five 5y ago
    > Presumably the only difference would be that the file wouldn't be created until you first save the file within vim. And for me anyway, this is a benefit. When I used windows (and the same holds for google docs) I always had "New Folder"s everywhere that I'd created for whatever reason and then changed my mind or got distracted. Same with new documents. In vim, I do like to say, and it I change my mind and don't save it, I never see it again. If I touch'd it first, inevitably I'd have empty files everywhere.
feifan 5y ago
"Create a thing here" is a really powerful interaction. You often start the process of creation by navigating near the relevant bit (path in the file system, module in the codebase, etc), and then realize that you need a new file/class/method/whatever in the specific place you're looking. A consistently-available "New" menu seems like a good primitive in the computing experience.
- anigbrowl 5y ago
  Key insight. One annoying thing in many workflows is different programs and file environments (GUI or CLI) bein gout of sync with the patterns of the work I'm doing; why (I ask myself) am I having to traverse the same routes around my directory tree like a squirrel carrying nuts and and berries back and forth? There's no flow between the OS and application UI in most instances.
  - jazzyjackson 5y ago
    I'm really loving the image of a 3D GUI for navigating your file hierarchy as a squirrel climbing branches of a tree, thanks for that.
    - anigbrowl 5y ago
      You're welcome, I'm sure. I'm lucky enough to have a decent size yard and I spend a lot of time trying to see things from the perspective of the animal and plant life that inhabits it. A lot of our information problems (imho) come from too much detail of specificity at the wrong scale. You don't look at a tree as a collection of leaves, or draw one by cataloguing all their sizes. Likewise a tree rarely grows as a pure function of its DNA-encoded phyllotaxis patterns, but rather a combination of those and the variations of its environment - soil composition,w ater, other roots, helper fungi, sunlight, prevailing winds, and local animal life. It's truly amazing to watch the interactions between different plants and trees over a period of years. I think because we're so used being able to catalog, measure, categorize and sort our various files and directory structures, manipulate them programmatically, have our browsers or operating systems identify a particular leaf by reference or just by searching for some of the micro-structure within it (usually words) etc. etc. we tend to overlook the organicess of how a data collection grows and opt instead of producing analytics measuring it. It'd be like trying to describe a tree with tables of vector statistics about the angle and length of branch sections - it's valid in certain ways, but doesn't give you a good sense of the tree's shape or structure. It's as if we've developed a sort of techno-myopia towards the shape of our own output and activities, and approach everything by dissecting it into slices and then ranking them by various criteria.
1MachineElf 5y ago
I use it all the time to add contextual note.txt files inside file archives.
- swayvil 5y ago
  I do exactly the same I don't even put ".txt" on the end.
Ronson 5y ago
I do `new > text document` enough so in 20 years that I still do it for all types of reasons. Often I do it when I signing up for an unknown-if-useful service and copy paste stuff into this newly created file. I am sure in my early days, I used `new > Bitmap image` and it wasn't valid so I never used it again. Infact `new > folder` and `new > text document` is all I use, and I just noticed I have many options here.
kazinator 5y ago
If you don't "get" the new menu, you are "program centric", but in a Fortran 66 way, not in an 1990 OOP way. Constructing a new object is a constructor call from OOP. Without arguments, you get some default, representative instance. Look at Python: New integer: representative default instance is zero: >>> int() 0 New string: empty by default: >>> str() '' New bool: false by default. >>> bool() False
version_five 5y ago
This brought back memories, maybe Win98, where you would right click then accidentally mouse over the "New" menu and have the computer swap for 15-20 seconds in order to bring up the large list of new things you could possibly create.
- colecut 5y ago
  And more often than not you had hovered over the "new" menu on accident
- dannyw 5y ago
  I'm running Windows 10 and the right click menu often takes like 3-10 seconds... :(
  - zupa-hu 5y ago
    Get an SSD
    - cunthorpe 5y ago
      It feels a little weird that what is essentially a query from a dozen items takes longer than 10ms. The SSD shouldn't be needed.
      - fomine3 5y ago
        Seek time on HDD is about 10ms for single IO, so it looks reasonable. Good news: Windows 11 simplifies context menu explorer. It won't show customized menu item by default.
        pjmlp 5y ago
        Bad news (for devs), it is still COM based.
        marcosdumay 5y ago
        It's reasonable for it to take more than 10ms. It's not reasonable for it to take many seconds.
fartcannon 5y ago
Save As is particularly worthless in Windows since Windows goes out of its way to obfuscate the file system. It's far simpler to create a new file in a folder and start from there.
- winrid 5y ago
  OSX does the same thing, too. I always have to go and turn the setting on just to see my home folder, not even to mention actually seeing file paths anywhere, or God forbid finding root in Finder.
  - remram 5y ago
    macOS goes further, by not only hiding the path of folders but showing a lot of views that aren't folders. Clicking on "pictures" might very well show only picture files but from anywhere in your home folder and under. Also there are (were?) tags.
  - mcfedr 5y ago
    It's one of the first steps for a new macos install, enable path bar and add root and home to the sidebar
    - cunthorpe 5y ago
      macOS Finder defaults are pretty weird if you think about it. We've gotten used to its quirks but… why is the world isn't the desktop aligned to the grid by default? And why doesn't the grid automatically stretch to fit the screen like Windows does? Another one is that there's no toolbar button to delete files since they expect you to drag them to the trash. Please I'm not dragging files for 1000px with a trackpad as an entry-level user.
      - winrid 5y ago
        I always wondered why the delete key did nothing with files in Finder. Like what is the reasoning there?
lootsauce 5y ago
Its 100% this. “lets you create the file directly where you want it, saving you the trouble of having to navigate through the Save As dialog just to get back to where you started.”
- happytoexplain 5y ago
  Yes - all the prior arguments seem to fall flat when this simple reason exists. I am frequently already in or near the directory where I want to create the file when I decide to create it. Or at the very least, navigating the filesystem is just easier in whatever tool I'm using than in the save dialogue.
cassianoleal 5y ago
> And who among us can say they never created a new class or project by copying an existing one, and then deleting everything inside? Why would I do that? Sure, I've copied classes and whole repositories around, then deleted most of the meat but the reason for copying instead of starting fresh is because a lot of the boilerplate and directory structure can be reused. Deleting everything is a pointless exercise.
- catmanjan 5y ago
  I've done this in Visual Studio simply because the way to create a new blank code file is convoluted
  - cassianoleal 5y ago
    I don't use Visual Studio but on VS Code it's pretty much the same as everywhere else: Either: * Cmd/Ctrl + N to open a new buffer, then Cmd/Ctrl + S to save it using th OS file picker; or * Right-click on the file browser pane on the directory to create the file, select New File and give it a name.
  - mattowen_uk 5y ago
    I 100% forgot how I did it, but somewhere in the Visual Studio installation folders is one containing the empty project files for each type of project. I've replaced my blank 'Command Line' project template with one that already contains a lot of my favourite boilerplate code.
samplatt 5y ago
What a weird hill to die on. I gave up trying to navigate the Start Menu to launch programs around Win7 in disgust of Windows' continued "helpful" reorganisation of it. My main way to create new files is DEFINITELY "rightclick -> New -> *", because I usually have the directory I'm working in already open in Explorer, because that's where I'm doing my work, so I'm already there! ... The alternative to finding Paint in the start menu and then later on finding my folder in whatever convoluted network drive I'm working on to save the file, is just hitting [Enter] to open the file you just made.
- xvector 5y ago
  Who is dying on this hill? The article is in support of the New menu too.
  - samplatt 5y ago
    Maybe my reading comprehension failed me, but my takeaway was that the article was very much not in support of it. "Why does the New menu even exist for creating new empty files? What’s the point of having a New menu anyway?" Supports my view, I feel.
    - Voloskaya 5y ago
      Try to read past the first line.
      - samplatt 5y ago
        The rest of the article is a schizophrenic compilation of often single-sentence paragraphs barely relating to each other. Regardless, having your articles' title and opening sentence to mean the opposite of what you intend is pretty bad writing, if that's what you're proposing he's doing. (edit: Sorry OP, apparently you've touched a nerve here)
        scbrg 5y ago
ubercow13 5y ago
> For people with a document-centric view of the world, programs aren’t really things that you think about. What you really work on are documents. This seems outdated - computers are very app-centric now. Stuff is usually found inside an app, not a document, and the filesystem barely exists.
- perryizgr8 5y ago
  The only device this work flow seems to be natural in is Iphone (which is barely a computer). Nothing else works like that. So no, computers are not at all "app-centric". They are always file-centric.
- signal11 5y ago
  > This seems outdated - computers are very app-centric now. Stuff is usually found inside an app, not a document, and the filesystem barely exists. Which is why Google spent $$$ on a whole gTLD to enable new document creation :-) https://doc.new https://doc.new, https://spreadsheet.new https://spreadsheet.new etc.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  Which is bad UI in my opinion. Especially since you can use media for association. What is a song? A picture? A model? A script? A book? A document? All those things are files. Apps deprecate fast and so would all the data contained within them.
phkahler 5y ago
Oh if people care about their documents and not programs, then the sure dont care what company wrote the programs! Why is the start menu full of company names and not categories?
- naikrovek 5y ago
  because companies want you to see their names first.
  - phkahler 5y ago
    Its dominated by Microsoft, and the others have to follow guidelines to say Windows.
    - naikrovek 5y ago
      then why are applications installed by default categorized only by their name? or by category, as in the case of Win95/98/NT/2000?
ernestoperez 5y ago
End user here. I spend many happy hours creating Word documents. When I use a menu, I tend to use New, and then use one of my templates. I like the way it works in that it shows the last templates I have used. I would prefer if it kept track of the templates I use the most and presented them in that order. It would be really cool if it could read my mind and knew that on Saturday mornings I normally create two specific types of document. One of the old versions of Mac operating system (System 7 or 8?) used to have templates on the desktop. I seem to remember I just double clicked on them and it created an empty document with a the selected template. I liked that a lot. Eventually, I have just bound a function key in Word to creating two of the types of document I use most regularly. I have been using Emacs with deft to write text notes for some time now. I like the idea of just pressing enter and having a new empty text document. I don't have to worry about the name or where to save it. It would be fantastic if I did not have to think about where to file documents, create the folders and move them there, and the system magically created virtual folders with content it thought should go there.
throaway46546 5y ago
New > Text Document was always my workflow for creating a new batch script.
Causality1 5y ago
Better question: why in the hell doesn't Windows have a central settings menu for deciding what is and is not on the right click menu? Why do I have to search through the settings of fifty different programs if I want to clean it up?
- accrual 5y ago
  That would be a nice feature. Back in the day I would use TweakUI to trim the menu down to just New > Text Document, I didn't need anything else.
davb 5y ago
I absolutely love this approach to feature inclusion and usability. User research showed that for some number of users (presumably not the majority) this is a familiar and comfortable interaction. All too often we see companies cut features (or whole products) because the metrics/analytics indicate most users don't use them - ignoring the fact that those features may be really important to the small minority. I understand that every feature and product carries a maintenance burden, but I believe that the barrier to cutting them should be really high (especially when users build workflows around them).
_carbyau_ 5y ago
I use the New context menu exclusively to make new txt files. Everything else is open the app first territory. Explorer is weird in a few ways. - doesn't show NTFS alternate data streams. - hides "copy as path" behind a shift-rightClick context menu. This is handy for running scripts, but why the "shift" modifier? Same for "Open commandline/powershell" when right clicking whitespace of directory. - copy and paste a file listing. IE a simple "dir". Or checksums to verify downloaded files. Nope, that requires 3rd party extensions. Thankfully newer explorer has much better UX for copying/overwriting/deleting files these days.
- naikrovek 5y ago
  > copy and paste a file listing. IE a simple "dir". I think you can do "dir | clip" at the command line or in the address bar of an explorer window to get this. > checksums to verify downloaded files. there is a PowerShell commandlet that does this out of the box, if I remember correctly.
  - _carbyau_ 5y ago
    The command line is useful. But in the same way most users are not likely to "touch newfile.txt" the GUI isn't helpful.
    - naikrovek 5y ago
      yes, I know. I can't fix the Windows GUI, but I can try to offer workarounds. Not everyone knows all of the little things you can do, including myself.
  - accrual 5y ago
    Get-FileHash myfile.txt An optional -Algorithm flag lets you choose between MD5, SHA256, etc. It's nice to have this built-in. For 3rd party options I really like HashTab [0] which is free for personal use. It places a configurable list of hashes in right-click > Properties, with a bonus of comparing the hashes against one you might already have on your clipboard and giving you a green "OK" if it matches. [0] http://implbits.com/products/hashtab/ http://implbits.com/products/hashtab/
adventured 5y ago
I frequently use the right click -> new menu in Windows to create new text files in a given folder (the only thing I use it for). It would be exceptionally obnoxious if they removed that feature.
branon 5y ago
> for many users, the way they create a new file is to find an existing file of the same type, copy it, then open the copy and delete everything in it. Cringe. > And who among us can say they never created a new class or project by copying an existing one, and then deleting everything inside? ... Hey. No fair.
- iscrewyou 5y ago
  I can relate. I work with CADD software. Throughout the day I will jump between projects in different survey zones. It’s much faster to copy an existing file in a given zone and open it than go through menus and apply certain settings for each file. In fact, the first file I make for a project is projectname_blank. Then this gets copied everywhere.
  - Gibbon1 5y ago
    Reminds me of PCB Layout. Start a new PCB Layout from scratch? Good luck getting the stack up and constrains correct.
  - heliodor 5y ago
    The concept of blank templates is sorely missing from many apps. Even task management apps don't implement it.
- cunthorpe 5y ago
  To be fair we copy projects to preserve their structure, specifically to avoid starting anew. It’s not the same as copying and clearing the whole file
  - noizejoy 5y ago
    But does that particular nuance invalidate the general point of the parent post?
    - vntok 5y ago
      Absolutely, copying a file to maintain things a certain way vs newing up a file are two completely different behaviours.
theoneness 5y ago
i use it as a way to generate template folder structures that are to contain files to be populated throughout their work. this shares with my team how I do my work, and supports them following my formula should they want to follow it themselves, which in experience shortcuts their onboarding time. I mean, I just touch files with extensions into existence rather than use a menu, but it's basically the same idea.
razzimatazz 5y ago
I'm pretty sure its about time that Windows guessed what I am trying to do when I am looking around inside a folder. Right-click, offer me the shortcut to create a file similar to what is already here. They already have the obvious yet brilliant use of recent items in Outlook : compose reply, click attach file -> top of the list is that file I just edited and saved over in Word a few seconds ago.
tamrix 5y ago
I like what they have in some Linux desktop mangers. You get a 'templates' folder in your home directory with default empty files which you can add, change & remove line normal files. Then the new sub context menu lists those files copying them when selected. It's actually useful.
- derefr 5y ago
  And macOS has the "Stationery Pad" file attribute, where a "Stationery Pad" file has the semantics that whenever you open it, you're actually duplicating it and then opening the duplicate. (I believe this results in "Stationery Pad"-derived documents acting much like new blank documents in most programs, in that upon attempting to close the document, the program will force you to choose between discarding or naming the new document.)
  - user3939382 5y ago
    Microsoft Office includes similar functionality with its template file types, such as (in Word, for example) .dot or .dotx, in case anyone saw that and wondered what it’s for. My strategy with those was to make the .dotx read-only and remove delete permissions so it was also in-tact on a network drive, and office workers can double click to start a company form letter.
    - nsomaru 5y ago
      Thanks, good tip. You can also make the template appear in the “new document” screen under the personal tab if you fiddle with some settings and put the template in the right place.
  - tonyedgecombe 5y ago
    On Big Sur it copies the file and starts editing that. None the less it's a nice feature that I completely missed.
  - derefr 5y ago
    macOS post 10.7 also has the "Locked" file attribute; and optionally auto-applies "Locked" to documents after a set interval. "Locked" files behave similar to "Stationery Pad" files, though with slight differences in workflow. You can open a "Locked" document, but when you attempt to make any changes to it, the program will pop a modal informing you that the document is "Locked", and asking whether you want to 1. unlock the document (and then apply your attempted change to the original); 2. duplicate the document (and then apply your attempted change to the duplicate); or 3. cancel your attempted change. "Locked" documents entirely subsume/obsolete "Stationery Pad" documents, IMHO. Locking gives you all the benefits of edits triggering a duplication of the document; while also offering you the option to edit the original if you so desire (without needing to close out of the document and modify its attributes first); and without creating unnecessary duplicates when all you wanted to do was view the document.
pjs_ 5y ago
- Browse to a sub-directory of OneDrive using Explorer - Right click - Create new Word document - Double-click on Word document - Click title bar to see where document is stored - Get prompted to save document to OneDrive - Press Upload - Copy of document is created in root directory of OneDrive - Double-click newly created document in root directory of OneDrive - Click title bar to see where it is located - Get prompted to save document to OneDrive - Press Upload - Another copy of document is created in root directory of OneDrive - Press file, Save as - Press Browse - Browse to subdirectory of OneDrive - Press save - Click title bar to see where document is stored - Get prompted to save document to OneDrive - Press Share - Get prompted to save document to OneDrive - Press Upload - Copy of document is created in root directory of OneDrive
- mjthompson 5y ago
  This shouldn't happen. If you create a Word document within a subfolder of OneDrive, and open it in Word, it should be saving to OneDrive with autosave enabled. Perhaps you are using an older version of Word and/or the OneDrive client?
dehrmann 5y ago
> Not everybody knows that the way to create a new BMP file is to open this program called Paint that is hidden in the Accessories folder of your Start menu. That's a valid point, these same users also get confused by having a right button and context menu.
mmackh 5y ago
An convenience that I use all the time and really miss on macOS. I found a substitute app [1] which works well. [1] https://langui.net/new-file-menu/ https://langui.net/new-file-menu/
mint2 5y ago
> For people with a document-centric view of the world, programs aren’t really things that you think about. What you really work on are documents. As a Mac user long before a windows user, this is bizarre and I’ve always been frustrated that closing a windows document quits the program. It’s dumb.
- michaelmrose 5y ago
  Without a global menu where does the app live when the last document closes?
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    On the task bar.
    - michaelmrose 5y ago
      That isn't how windows apps work. Even if you believe its better, even if you are correct working different than other apps on the same platform is confusing.
      - CRConrad 5y ago
        > That isn't how windows apps work. What do you mean? That is how many (most?) Windows apps work: * Before you start them, an icon for them is somewhere (possibly several somewheres) in your Start Menu. You can also (usually) start them from the actual .EXE file, which you can find with the file Explorer, or even from the command line. After you have started the app, it gets an icon on the task bar. (Let's disregard, for the purposes of this discussion, the option to set up a permanent icon on the taskbar, i.e. one that's present even before the app is running, to start it running from, for those of us who can't be bothered to use the Start Menu.) * Now that the app is running, it gets an icon on the task bar. If you open several documents in the app, it usually gets several icons; one per document. Depending on which icon in the task bar you click, the app brings the corresponding document to the foreground of your screen. Start closing some documents, and the icons go away. In the end you're down to a single icon on the task bar again. * Close the last open document, and some apps go fully away: No window on your screen, no icon on the task bar. Others, though, don't do that -- an "empty" window remains on-screen, and the lone icon on the task bar usually changes its caption from "document name" or "document name - app name" to just "app name". Minimize this window, and the icon on the task bar remains. Ergo, when you close the last document, the app "lives" on the task bar. Q.E.D. (Sure, not all apps, but so many of them I think it may be the majority nowadays. Certainly the most used ones: Microsoft Office, for instance, behaves this way.) > Even if you believe its better, I don't have much of an opinion; I was just answering a question by stating a fact. > even if you are correct working different than other apps on the same platform is confusing. A) But it's not "different than other apps"; this is how many / most apps work nowadays. B) Microsoft has apparently been betting for a decade or two now that it won't be too confusing for a majority of their users, and they show no sign of being about to change it, so I'd guess haven't had too many complaints about it being confusing.
analog31 5y ago
Because you've already got the directory open, but might not know how you got there. Especially if your directories are a cluttered mess, like mine are, and you found the directory using the file search feature. And the "save" dialog is not completely standardized, e.g., not all programs start you out at the same place, and some force you to navigate all the way from root.
mixmastamyk 5y ago
I never liked the new submenu in Windows and dislike when others copy it because it takes extra clicks. Typically the correct type for me is not even in there. I’d rather have a menu item instead that simply makes new empty files, what I do 98% of the time. There could be a standard set of blanks according to extension, while obscure programs would need to handle zero byte files.
kebman 5y ago
Only slightly related, but I really like the touch command because it's a very good way to initialize files that is also visible in logs as a file-creation moment. I always run an init log next to my project, so that I can recreate all the files from scratch at a later date if I need to scrap stuff.
- cunthorpe 5y ago
  touch is good also because it stays in the history and can be recalled as a whole. Lately I've just started calling my editor on files I want to create and edit: code my/file.js (the editor will also create the required folders)
- mongol 5y ago
  What is an init log?
forgotmypw17 5y ago
>¹ And who among us can say they never created a new class or project by copying an existing one, and then deleting everything inside? lol, got me!
gmrple 5y ago
I have always thought the fork() interface was convoluted, perhaps it is more intuitive to some folks than me; using a old document to create a new one by copying it, opening it, and deleting its contents is not something I had considered.
mackrevinack 5y ago
something i wish was the norm would be a list of open folders that would show in the save-as window. a lot of times the folder i want to save to is already open on my desktop but if i open, say notepad, and save then it will start in the user folder and then i have to navigate to the open folder manually or copy and paste the address. i think it was dreamweaver that had a target icon that you could drag from the save-as window onto a folder and it would change the location. even just a drop down menu would do as well though
- tobyhinloopen 5y ago
  This is such a good idea i’ve never seen or heard, but it makes so much sense.
- fomine3 5y ago
  I can't agree more. It's ok if the file picker has address bar like standard one, just paste it. It's very frustrating to manually navigate custom file picker without address bar to specific location.
contextfree 5y ago
I always thought of this as: Notepad is an app for viewing and editing text files, which contain characters. It lets you delete, change, and move/copy existing characters, and also add (type) new characters. Explorer (like other file managers) is an app for viewing and editing folders, which contain files. So it makes sense that besides deleting, changing, and moving/copying existing files, it also lets you add (create) new files. Maybe not literally true, but a nice mental model to entertain for a few moments’ entertainment! (It also suggests it should be possible to take this a lot further than Windows and Explorer do; does anyone know of any historical or current file managers that do a particularly good or interesting job here?)
ggm 5y ago
Microsoft .POT templates are so infuriating to use on OSX that almost every OSX user of Office I know has routinely ignored .POT and copies an integrally complete .PPT and strips out the slides. the whole "apply template" idea is broken. If I made an empty file via classic shell :> file.ppt and it was a valid powerpoint, I would be surprised. But for many systems, a valid empty instance can be passed around. I don't like 8.3 magic override "if its .txt its a text file" but I know it exists (eg for icon assignment in the GUI)
tobyhinloopen 5y ago
The new-menu is the one feature from Windows I wish was present in macOS. Especially for text files. When I’m in a folder, many times I want to open the current folder in some kind of app (terminal, code editor) or I want to create a new text file
- ksd482 5y ago
  There are HUNDREDS (not an exaggeration) of Mac OS shortcuts out there. Take a look at this video. This guy is awesome. Check out his other Mac OS tips videos as well and you are very likely to find what you are looking for and then some. Edit: forgot to paste the link. Here it is: https://youtu.be/HPQobUOx17o https://youtu.be/HPQobUOx17o
- jcfields 5y ago
  I have a script that changes the Terminal to the directory of the frontmost Finder window. Then I use touch to create empty new files. The script, for whoever's curious: https://gitlab.com/jcfields/shell-scripts/-/blob/master/cdf https://gitlab.com/jcfields/shell-scripts/-/blob/master/cdf Back when I used Windows, I actually used the New > Text Document item discussed in the article all the time. It created an empty, 0-byte file, so I'd rename it to whatever file extension I needed. There was a folder that contained the templates for this menu so you could add or remove blank files for any type, but I only ever used the .txt file one.
- Doctor_Fegg 5y ago
  Create a folder somewhere. Call it "New documents" or something. Create blank text file(s) of the type you want within that folder. For example, I have a blank.txt which opens in TextMate, a blank.rb which opens in TextMate, and a blank.rtf which opens in TextEdit. Lock the folder (by selecting it, Cmd-I, check "Locked"). Put the folder in your Dock. Hey presto. You can now create a blank text file anywhere simply by dragging it out of this folder in the Dock. Because the folder is locked, you won't delete the original - macOS will make a copy for you, every time. Just rename it before opening and you're done.
  - tobyhinloopen 5y ago
cycomanic 5y ago
I recall that back when I was still using Windows (which was sometime in the XP days) opening the New menu could result in quite a bit of a pause, if you had lots of programs installed. It was really enfuriating, as the pause could be on the order of a second or more. IIRC I only used the New menu for creating folders, and creating some nested folder structure became an exercise in frustration. I never understood how this could take so long but it seems the list of possible new filetypes was dynamically generated everytime by querying a dB of installed programs. Maybe it was so slow to encourage people to not use the new menu?
2dvisio 5y ago
Reading some comments I realised I might be one of the few who _never ever_ used that functionality. I see it’s benefits for some. But always wondered about the menu estate taken away from me…
aitchnyu 5y ago
I wish save/select files depute the system file browser to do that, maybe even reuse recently open window. I was annoyed by 3 distinct file selector with their unique faults in a KDE distro.
xg15 5y ago
> You still need a BMP editor to put anything meaningful in there. The same is true for a PowerPoint presentation, and an Access database. Although, creating an empty Access database and then opening it will presumably get you the Access program. But if I want to create a new PowerPoint presentation, I will… um… open PowerPoint I think that really highlights the paradigm-shift that happened in UX in the last decade - what you could call "documents-centric" vs "application-centric". Until recently, UI was centered around files. You used programs to edit and manage those files, but the programs didn't "own" the files: A file was generally independent of the programs that are used to open them. On the other side, a program does not "know" about a file until you explicitly prompt the program to open the file. Compare that to the "application-centric" paradigm that dominates on the web, in mobile OSes and recently in desktop OSes as well: Here a program "owns" its data and you are supposed to interact with the data only through the program. It's an implementation detail how the data is physically stored - but from the user's PoV, there is no unified file system. Instead, the assets managed by each program are living in separate universes.
- the_other 5y ago
  As a comp-sci graduate, as someone who grew into computing through the late 80s and 90s, the files-based paradigm makes a lot of sense to me. But is it really the ideal model/UX for most people? Files are hard to manage. Most people don’t do library work, or habitually create relationship hierarchies. (I do it all the time; I love a taxonomy, but it’s work, and the general pattern for memory is association, not hierarchy). I worry the “apps” paradigm focuses users on brands and encourages lock-in, walled gardens, and so on. I think we need a third way.
  - azernik 5y ago
    Something that is evolving for certain common types of files (images, for example) is an application-mediated storage, but where apps "share ownership" (or rather, declare awareness) of files rather than owning them exclusively. So e.g. my camera roll, Google Photos, and Facebook comments can all give me a window onto my photos. Those "windows" are currently inconsistent and kind of painful, but I see the germ of an approach there.
cm2187 5y ago
I think it's useful for creating empty text files. It saves you to have to navigate back to the folder in the text editor. What I don't understand is why you have to press shift to get "copy file path" in the same menu. Why should such a useful feature be hidden?
- nomercy400 5y ago
  I usually enter the folder and click in the white area to the right of the 'folder breadcrumbs' bar. That transforms the 'folder breadcrumbs' into an (already selected) path. Ctrl+C and I have copied my file path. I never knew there was a "copy file path" in the context menu until this topic.
sharikous 5y ago
As a heavy Mac use I love this Windows feature so much I have installed a Finder extension that does just that. It is so much better than opening an app, writing something and then deciding awkwardly where to put the file. Like, when you write something you don't usually scribble on a piece of paper and then glue it to your notebook. That goes if I am using a GUI. touch, echo, cat, vim and >> redirection are my friends in the terminal.
rodarmor 5y ago
Based.
fomine3 5y ago
Generally reasonable, but I can't imagine who really need to create BMP file rather than PNG.
nomercy400 5y ago
If only there was a shortcut to create a new file in Windows. New folder works, why not new file? CTRL + N would be nice, as it would match the create new folder shortcut CTRL + SHIFT + N, but that is already in use by 'create new window'. WIN + N comes to mind, with a selection box highlighting the most commonly used New file (in my case, a txt file).
- thrwyoilarticle 5y ago
  On my ribbon: Alt, H, W. They're consecutive but it seems you can do them quite quickly.
  - noisem4ker 5y ago
    Also with old-style keyboard accelerators: menu key, W (as in Ne_w_), then arrows till the desired file type. It's one fewer key than with the ribbon.
paulannesley 5y ago
> Even Unix follows this pattern for process creation! To create a new process, you clone an existing one (fork) and then delete everything inside it (exec). I love this observation.
jpm48 5y ago
I use the terminal and the touch command all the time to create empty files before adding them to a project (for example touch include/MyClass.h src/MyClass.cpp )
qwerty456127 5y ago
I believe the "New" menu of the file manager is mostly used by newbies and that's great it is there for them. For more experienced people the usefulness of an option in this menu probably varies from type to type. Being able to create a plain text file at any given place makes a lot of sense even for advanced users (especially if displaying file name extensions is enabled, I actually believe making hiding them even an option, let alone the default is the worst decision of whole Windows UX design). Word/Excel documents also make sense. BMPs make notably less (today). Some types make zero sense to be there yet get there occasionally.
- mattowen_uk 5y ago
  IIRC they are entries in the registry - a lot of 'cleaner' apps for windows lets you edit the list.
  - qwerty456127 5y ago
    Historically they have always been just template files in a special directory. Perhaps this has changed recently, I don't really know about Windows 10.
    - mattowen_uk 5y ago
      I know that WAY back in the 3.1/95 days there was a ShellNew folder that contained the template files, maybe it's a mix of both now?
perfunctory 5y ago
> Even Unix follows this pattern for process creation! To create a new process, you clone an existing one (fork) and then delete everything inside it (exec). I always thought fork was one of the biggest design blunders in unix.
robertlagrant 5y ago
> It’s like making a telephone call in the United States. You don’t think about which telecommunications company serves that number. You just dial the number and let the telephone network figure out which telecommunications company is responsible for that number. I don't think this is a good comparison. I make a phone call by getting my phone out. I've memorised this, just as I've memorised opening Word to start writing a document. The right-click option would be fine if it didn't take longer and longer to work, and the list were easier to customise. What the heck is it doing on every right click?
amelius 5y ago
Sounds like the author wants Microsoft OLE, invented in the 90s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_Linking_and_Embedding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_Linking_and_Embedding
thathndude 5y ago
Touch has entered the chat
ho_schi 5y ago
Nautilus, the file-browser of GNOME on Linux, provides a template system for this: https://fedoramagazine.org/creating-using-nautilus-templates/ https://fedoramagazine.org/creating-using-nautilus-templates... It is a good approach but lacks presentation to users. Most users require "touch new.ext" and therefore complain about the lack of this item. I've added one template "New file" with no extendsion and not content, exactly what I need to get started. It is better than a hidden registry just for applications but could be improved with well designed default behavior for "empty files".
snarfy 5y ago
> Even Unix follows this pattern for process creation! That does not make it a good pattern.
theonlybutlet 5y ago
I don't think I've ever opened Notepad and saved a new .txt document from there.
dusted 5y ago
Such bikeshedding ^_^ clearly something everyone can have an opinion about, and every one of them (mine included) will be insuficciently informed to contribute any value. I've used and found every possible way of creating new files useful, maybe except for copying and then emptying (except for some times when being a lazy programmer). Working in Windows95 explorer, the context menu from right-clicking seemed extremely reasonable, and I'd probably still use that if I worked on windows.
gwbas1c 5y ago
I almost always create files by going to the folder, right-clicking, and making the file there. I know most people don't do it that way. When I switched to Mac, it took me a few years to get used to opening the application first to create the file. Old habits die hard.
monkeynotes 5y ago
I don't understand this article. Is Microsoft criticizing it's own UI decisions? I had no idea Windows worked this way, it seems like such an odd way of working to me. As for 'hidden' applications, all of my applications are hidden on my Mac. I exclusively use spotlight or Alfred to open an app, I can't imagine working any other way with any semblance of productivity.
Gravityloss 5y ago
First you had applications and the file menu. Then you had folders and the file explorer with context menu for new. But now you don't really care about file and folder structure since you have your documents in the cloud or use search on desktop, so the folders don't make sense either. So you really mostly create new documents from some portal like thing, like google drive or sharepoint front page.
yrro 5y ago
Classic Mac OS had OS-level support for document templates in the form of "Stationary Pads". You could create a document to to use as a template, then in 'Get Info' (the equivalent of file properties in Explorer) you could check the 'Stationary Pad' checkbox. Now the file is a template. When opened, the application behaves as if the user created a new document, and pasted in the contents of the template: in particular, the document would be 'Untitled Document' and Save would be unavailable, you'd have to use Save As to save the document to a new file, etc. I think the file icon even changed to visually indicate its status as a stationary pad.visually. The template feature being a property on a file means you can arrange your templates in folder structures which is handy if you have a lot, they can be on network shares for groups of users to use, etc. And, of course, it was easy for users to manage this themselves rather than relying on obscure registry keys...
pjerem 5y ago
IMO, this « New » paradigm worked best in the past (on Windows 9x) when Explorer was a simple and comprehensive abstraction around « Desktop / Folders / Files ». Windows explorer evolved from a user friendly implementation of a simple abstraction to a complex file management tool with buttons and menus everywhere. Once you start installing programs, the context menu starts to be bloated and incomprehensible, the ribbon toolbars is full of useless buttons for the vast majority of end users, files organisation is a mess with virtual folders right from the fresh install … « New > » was a nice and comprehensive feature I could explain to my grandmother two decades ago when this thing was just a window holding files. Now I wouldn’t even try to explain her how she could use that tool. I have the strange feeling that, as things goes, personal computing is more and more complex.
jug 5y ago
I would love if Microsoft replaced the contents of that menu from being Windows Registry entries to being contents in %USERPROFILE%\Templates. So one could not only easily manipulate those oneself if needed but also add actual templates to create, i.e. not only truly empty documents. The menu entries would share names with the file names. Certain other operating systems/distros do it like this and I always found it a better idea than the current Windows way.

338 points by zdw 5y ago

> User research shows that for many users, the way they create a new file is to find an existing file of the same type, copy it, then open the copy and delete everything in it. > For people with a document-centric view of the world, programs aren’t really things that you think about. What you really work on are documents. Okay, but I don't think people create new paper documents by photocopying an existing document and covering everything with correction fluid. The user interface of those physical document-authoring tools (typewriters, paper and pen, etc.) seem to make it quite clear how to start a new blank document. The fact that people can't discover any other way of creating a new document on their computer is obviously a legitimate problem, but I can't see how the New menu is a particularly good solution because it doesn't seem any more discoverable than the list of document-authoring programs in the Start menu. I'm of course in agreement that user research is vital and that not everyone is aware of what you might consider the "obvious" or "best" way to create a document on a computer. I would like to see more details about how and why the New menu came to be (apparently) the primary solution to this UI problem.

dylan604 5y ago
Wow, I would never have thought of doing that to get to a new state. I can't think of the number of times that I have opened an existing document to make alt versions of, but forget to Save As before making those changes so my alt is the version. Hopefully undo buffer allows me to go back to start, Save As, redo back to where I was. Too many times. I love/hate when I hear about the covoluted ways that users use a computer in the most illogical way that apparently makes perfect logical sense to them. It's like the Stupid Criminals bit on the Tonight Show. All you can think at first hearing is surely nobody is that dumb, but yet, here we are looking at someone being that dumb. One co-worker was often heard saying "I can't fix stupid"
falcolas 5y ago
Real world comparisons don’t help you here - creating a new digital document from an existing document is a very simple four step process. Duplicate, open, select all, delete. If it were that easy in the real world, perhaps we would. Especially for things like letterhead or forms. Who wants to go to a room filled with thousands of different forms, if they could just get a fresh and clean one with four simple gestures?
- tshaddox 5y ago
  It seemed to me that the author was claiming that people copy existing documents on computers only because it's the only (or easiest) way they know of to create a new document of a given type, not because it is actually the easiest way to create a new document of a given type. It seemed to me that the author was decrying the fact that so many people copy existing documents and delete all the contents, and was providing that as justification for why the New menu exists.
maxander 5y ago
> I can't see how the New menu is a particularly good solution because it doesn't seem any more discoverable than the list of document-authoring programs in the Start menu. I think you’ve missed the key point of this article, which is that a lot of people use computers without a clear idea what programs are. They know they can double-click a spreadsheet file and have a window open that lets them do things with that spreadsheet; but to them, I guess, that’s just “what a spreadsheet file is like” and there is no notion of this thing called Excel which is mediating their experience of the file. To a person like this, “discovering the program in the Start menu” is not something that can happen within the bounds of how their ontology of computers works. It’s a credit to the designers of Windows that they design to accommodate users like this, though it also goes a long way to explaining why Windows is so annoying to many professional computer users.
- boondaburrah 5y ago
  This is actually an interesting assessment for me, since smartphones are pretty much the exact opposite (can't even see the filesystem on some of them): There's only apps, and the apps have stuff in them. Sure there's ways of exchanging data between apps, but documents/files aren't really a thing. Conceptually, that means I feel like I'm using services/tools to interact with this abstract 'data.' By keeping 'data' abstract, it feels less solid who owns it, who's responsible for it, and where it is. Now I'm interested in the opposite system where the 'documents' are the core concept of the device, and programs are just "things your computer/smartphone can do with this document." Really make the data feel like it's /there/ you know?
  - frabcus 5y ago
    Yes, exactly this! Jef Raskin's Humane Interface is like that: "An end to stand-alone applications - every software package should be structured as a set of tools available to users on any document." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Humane_Interface https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Humane_Interface I'd love to see a popular device that was done that way round.
- tshaddox 5y ago
thinkingemote 5y ago
Actually in the past people really did re-use paper (and papyrus, vellum, slate etc) documents that way! They would scrape off or erase or whitewash what was on there previously and write on top. People wouldn't create a new file if they could just reuse an existing one.

fourseventy 5y ago

I mostly use the terminal, but I usually follow the same pattern of first creating a blank file then opening the file in an editing program. $ touch myfile.txt $ vim myfile.txt

gruez 5y ago
But it's not necessary right? If you omit the first step, vim will still open, and the file will get created when you first save it.
- baud147258 5y ago
  Maybe it takes into account if the user doesn't have write access to the folder? If the user didn't have access, the touch command would fail, whereas going directly to vim, it would only fail when trying to save (potentially losing the work done in the file)?
  - lupire 5y ago
    vim will make a swap file for you and will stop you from quitting on an unsaved file.
tshaddox 5y ago
I don't use vim, but can't you just skip the first command? I would guess that the second command would work just fine. Presumably the only difference would be that the file wouldn't be created until you first save the file within vim.
- JadeNB 5y ago
  > I don't use vim, but can't you just skip the first command? I would guess that the second command would work just fine. You are correct.
- version_five 5y ago
  > Presumably the only difference would be that the file wouldn't be created until you first save the file within vim. And for me anyway, this is a benefit. When I used windows (and the same holds for google docs) I always had "New Folder"s everywhere that I'd created for whatever reason and then changed my mind or got distracted. Same with new documents. In vim, I do like to say, and it I change my mind and don't save it, I never see it again. If I touch'd it first, inevitably I'd have empty files everywhere.

feifan 5y ago

"Create a thing here" is a really powerful interaction. You often start the process of creation by navigating near the relevant bit (path in the file system, module in the codebase, etc), and then realize that you need a new file/class/method/whatever in the specific place you're looking. A consistently-available "New" menu seems like a good primitive in the computing experience.

anigbrowl 5y ago
Key insight. One annoying thing in many workflows is different programs and file environments (GUI or CLI) bein gout of sync with the patterns of the work I'm doing; why (I ask myself) am I having to traverse the same routes around my directory tree like a squirrel carrying nuts and and berries back and forth? There's no flow between the OS and application UI in most instances.
- jazzyjackson 5y ago
  I'm really loving the image of a 3D GUI for navigating your file hierarchy as a squirrel climbing branches of a tree, thanks for that.
  - anigbrowl 5y ago
    You're welcome, I'm sure. I'm lucky enough to have a decent size yard and I spend a lot of time trying to see things from the perspective of the animal and plant life that inhabits it. A lot of our information problems (imho) come from too much detail of specificity at the wrong scale. You don't look at a tree as a collection of leaves, or draw one by cataloguing all their sizes. Likewise a tree rarely grows as a pure function of its DNA-encoded phyllotaxis patterns, but rather a combination of those and the variations of its environment - soil composition,w ater, other roots, helper fungi, sunlight, prevailing winds, and local animal life. It's truly amazing to watch the interactions between different plants and trees over a period of years. I think because we're so used being able to catalog, measure, categorize and sort our various files and directory structures, manipulate them programmatically, have our browsers or operating systems identify a particular leaf by reference or just by searching for some of the micro-structure within it (usually words) etc. etc. we tend to overlook the organicess of how a data collection grows and opt instead of producing analytics measuring it. It'd be like trying to describe a tree with tables of vector statistics about the angle and length of branch sections - it's valid in certain ways, but doesn't give you a good sense of the tree's shape or structure. It's as if we've developed a sort of techno-myopia towards the shape of our own output and activities, and approach everything by dissecting it into slices and then ranking them by various criteria.

1MachineElf 5y ago

I use it all the time to add contextual note.txt files inside file archives.

swayvil 5y ago
I do exactly the same I don't even put ".txt" on the end.

Ronson 5y ago

I do `new > text document` enough so in 20 years that I still do it for all types of reasons. Often I do it when I signing up for an unknown-if-useful service and copy paste stuff into this newly created file. I am sure in my early days, I used `new > Bitmap image` and it wasn't valid so I never used it again. Infact `new > folder` and `new > text document` is all I use, and I just noticed I have many options here.

kazinator 5y ago

If you don't "get" the new menu, you are "program centric", but in a Fortran 66 way, not in an 1990 OOP way. Constructing a new object is a constructor call from OOP. Without arguments, you get some default, representative instance. Look at Python: New integer: representative default instance is zero: >>> int() 0 New string: empty by default: >>> str() '' New bool: false by default. >>> bool() False

version_five 5y ago

This brought back memories, maybe Win98, where you would right click then accidentally mouse over the "New" menu and have the computer swap for 15-20 seconds in order to bring up the large list of new things you could possibly create.

colecut 5y ago
And more often than not you had hovered over the "new" menu on accident
dannyw 5y ago
I'm running Windows 10 and the right click menu often takes like 3-10 seconds... :(
- zupa-hu 5y ago
  Get an SSD
  - cunthorpe 5y ago
    It feels a little weird that what is essentially a query from a dozen items takes longer than 10ms. The SSD shouldn't be needed.
    - fomine3 5y ago
      Seek time on HDD is about 10ms for single IO, so it looks reasonable. Good news: Windows 11 simplifies context menu explorer. It won't show customized menu item by default.
      - pjmlp 5y ago
        Bad news (for devs), it is still COM based.
      - marcosdumay 5y ago
        It's reasonable for it to take more than 10ms. It's not reasonable for it to take many seconds.

fartcannon 5y ago

Save As is particularly worthless in Windows since Windows goes out of its way to obfuscate the file system. It's far simpler to create a new file in a folder and start from there.

winrid 5y ago
OSX does the same thing, too. I always have to go and turn the setting on just to see my home folder, not even to mention actually seeing file paths anywhere, or God forbid finding root in Finder.
- remram 5y ago
  macOS goes further, by not only hiding the path of folders but showing a lot of views that aren't folders. Clicking on "pictures" might very well show only picture files but from anywhere in your home folder and under. Also there are (were?) tags.
- mcfedr 5y ago
  It's one of the first steps for a new macos install, enable path bar and add root and home to the sidebar
  - cunthorpe 5y ago
    macOS Finder defaults are pretty weird if you think about it. We've gotten used to its quirks but… why is the world isn't the desktop aligned to the grid by default? And why doesn't the grid automatically stretch to fit the screen like Windows does? Another one is that there's no toolbar button to delete files since they expect you to drag them to the trash. Please I'm not dragging files for 1000px with a trackpad as an entry-level user.
    - winrid 5y ago
      I always wondered why the delete key did nothing with files in Finder. Like what is the reasoning there?

lootsauce 5y ago

Its 100% this. “lets you create the file directly where you want it, saving you the trouble of having to navigate through the Save As dialog just to get back to where you started.”

happytoexplain 5y ago
Yes - all the prior arguments seem to fall flat when this simple reason exists. I am frequently already in or near the directory where I want to create the file when I decide to create it. Or at the very least, navigating the filesystem is just easier in whatever tool I'm using than in the save dialogue.

cassianoleal 5y ago

> And who among us can say they never created a new class or project by copying an existing one, and then deleting everything inside? Why would I do that? Sure, I've copied classes and whole repositories around, then deleted most of the meat but the reason for copying instead of starting fresh is because a lot of the boilerplate and directory structure can be reused. Deleting everything is a pointless exercise.

catmanjan 5y ago
I've done this in Visual Studio simply because the way to create a new blank code file is convoluted
- cassianoleal 5y ago
  I don't use Visual Studio but on VS Code it's pretty much the same as everywhere else: Either: * Cmd/Ctrl + N to open a new buffer, then Cmd/Ctrl + S to save it using th OS file picker; or * Right-click on the file browser pane on the directory to create the file, select New File and give it a name.
- mattowen_uk 5y ago
  I 100% forgot how I did it, but somewhere in the Visual Studio installation folders is one containing the empty project files for each type of project. I've replaced my blank 'Command Line' project template with one that already contains a lot of my favourite boilerplate code.

samplatt 5y ago

What a weird hill to die on. I gave up trying to navigate the Start Menu to launch programs around Win7 in disgust of Windows' continued "helpful" reorganisation of it. My main way to create new files is DEFINITELY "rightclick -> New -> *", because I usually have the directory I'm working in already open in Explorer, because that's where I'm doing my work, so I'm already there! ... The alternative to finding Paint in the start menu and then later on finding my folder in whatever convoluted network drive I'm working on to save the file, is just hitting [Enter] to open the file you just made.

xvector 5y ago
Who is dying on this hill? The article is in support of the New menu too.
- samplatt 5y ago
  Maybe my reading comprehension failed me, but my takeaway was that the article was very much not in support of it. "Why does the New menu even exist for creating new empty files? What’s the point of having a New menu anyway?" Supports my view, I feel.
  - Voloskaya 5y ago
    Try to read past the first line.
    - samplatt 5y ago
      The rest of the article is a schizophrenic compilation of often single-sentence paragraphs barely relating to each other. Regardless, having your articles' title and opening sentence to mean the opposite of what you intend is pretty bad writing, if that's what you're proposing he's doing. (edit: Sorry OP, apparently you've touched a nerve here)
      - scbrg 5y ago

ubercow13 5y ago

> For people with a document-centric view of the world, programs aren’t really things that you think about. What you really work on are documents. This seems outdated - computers are very app-centric now. Stuff is usually found inside an app, not a document, and the filesystem barely exists.

perryizgr8 5y ago
The only device this work flow seems to be natural in is Iphone (which is barely a computer). Nothing else works like that. So no, computers are not at all "app-centric". They are always file-centric.
signal11 5y ago
> This seems outdated - computers are very app-centric now. Stuff is usually found inside an app, not a document, and the filesystem barely exists. Which is why Google spent $$$ on a whole gTLD to enable new document creation :-) https://doc.new https://doc.new, https://spreadsheet.new https://spreadsheet.new etc.
raxxorrax 5y ago
Which is bad UI in my opinion. Especially since you can use media for association. What is a song? A picture? A model? A script? A book? A document? All those things are files. Apps deprecate fast and so would all the data contained within them.

phkahler 5y ago

Oh if people care about their documents and not programs, then the sure dont care what company wrote the programs! Why is the start menu full of company names and not categories?

naikrovek 5y ago
because companies want you to see their names first.
- phkahler 5y ago
  Its dominated by Microsoft, and the others have to follow guidelines to say Windows.
  - naikrovek 5y ago
    then why are applications installed by default categorized only by their name? or by category, as in the case of Win95/98/NT/2000?

ernestoperez 5y ago

End user here. I spend many happy hours creating Word documents. When I use a menu, I tend to use New, and then use one of my templates. I like the way it works in that it shows the last templates I have used. I would prefer if it kept track of the templates I use the most and presented them in that order. It would be really cool if it could read my mind and knew that on Saturday mornings I normally create two specific types of document. One of the old versions of Mac operating system (System 7 or 8?) used to have templates on the desktop. I seem to remember I just double clicked on them and it created an empty document with a the selected template. I liked that a lot. Eventually, I have just bound a function key in Word to creating two of the types of document I use most regularly. I have been using Emacs with deft to write text notes for some time now. I like the idea of just pressing enter and having a new empty text document. I don't have to worry about the name or where to save it. It would be fantastic if I did not have to think about where to file documents, create the folders and move them there, and the system magically created virtual folders with content it thought should go there.

throaway46546 5y ago

New > Text Document was always my workflow for creating a new batch script.

Causality1 5y ago

Better question: why in the hell doesn't Windows have a central settings menu for deciding what is and is not on the right click menu? Why do I have to search through the settings of fifty different programs if I want to clean it up?

accrual 5y ago
That would be a nice feature. Back in the day I would use TweakUI to trim the menu down to just New > Text Document, I didn't need anything else.

davb 5y ago

I absolutely love this approach to feature inclusion and usability. User research showed that for some number of users (presumably not the majority) this is a familiar and comfortable interaction. All too often we see companies cut features (or whole products) because the metrics/analytics indicate most users don't use them - ignoring the fact that those features may be really important to the small minority. I understand that every feature and product carries a maintenance burden, but I believe that the barrier to cutting them should be really high (especially when users build workflows around them).

_carbyau_ 5y ago

I use the New context menu exclusively to make new txt files. Everything else is open the app first territory. Explorer is weird in a few ways. - doesn't show NTFS alternate data streams. - hides "copy as path" behind a shift-rightClick context menu. This is handy for running scripts, but why the "shift" modifier? Same for "Open commandline/powershell" when right clicking whitespace of directory. - copy and paste a file listing. IE a simple "dir". Or checksums to verify downloaded files. Nope, that requires 3rd party extensions. Thankfully newer explorer has much better UX for copying/overwriting/deleting files these days.

naikrovek 5y ago
> copy and paste a file listing. IE a simple "dir". I think you can do "dir | clip" at the command line or in the address bar of an explorer window to get this. > checksums to verify downloaded files. there is a PowerShell commandlet that does this out of the box, if I remember correctly.
- _carbyau_ 5y ago
  The command line is useful. But in the same way most users are not likely to "touch newfile.txt" the GUI isn't helpful.
  - naikrovek 5y ago
    yes, I know. I can't fix the Windows GUI, but I can try to offer workarounds. Not everyone knows all of the little things you can do, including myself.
- accrual 5y ago
  Get-FileHash myfile.txt An optional -Algorithm flag lets you choose between MD5, SHA256, etc. It's nice to have this built-in. For 3rd party options I really like HashTab [0] which is free for personal use. It places a configurable list of hashes in right-click > Properties, with a bonus of comparing the hashes against one you might already have on your clipboard and giving you a green "OK" if it matches. [0] http://implbits.com/products/hashtab/ http://implbits.com/products/hashtab/

adventured 5y ago

I frequently use the right click -> new menu in Windows to create new text files in a given folder (the only thing I use it for). It would be exceptionally obnoxious if they removed that feature.

branon 5y ago

> for many users, the way they create a new file is to find an existing file of the same type, copy it, then open the copy and delete everything in it. Cringe. > And who among us can say they never created a new class or project by copying an existing one, and then deleting everything inside? ... Hey. No fair.

iscrewyou 5y ago
I can relate. I work with CADD software. Throughout the day I will jump between projects in different survey zones. It’s much faster to copy an existing file in a given zone and open it than go through menus and apply certain settings for each file. In fact, the first file I make for a project is projectname_blank. Then this gets copied everywhere.
- Gibbon1 5y ago
  Reminds me of PCB Layout. Start a new PCB Layout from scratch? Good luck getting the stack up and constrains correct.
- heliodor 5y ago
  The concept of blank templates is sorely missing from many apps. Even task management apps don't implement it.
cunthorpe 5y ago
To be fair we copy projects to preserve their structure, specifically to avoid starting anew. It’s not the same as copying and clearing the whole file
- noizejoy 5y ago
  But does that particular nuance invalidate the general point of the parent post?
  - vntok 5y ago
    Absolutely, copying a file to maintain things a certain way vs newing up a file are two completely different behaviours.

theoneness 5y ago

i use it as a way to generate template folder structures that are to contain files to be populated throughout their work. this shares with my team how I do my work, and supports them following my formula should they want to follow it themselves, which in experience shortcuts their onboarding time. I mean, I just touch files with extensions into existence rather than use a menu, but it's basically the same idea.

razzimatazz 5y ago

I'm pretty sure its about time that Windows guessed what I am trying to do when I am looking around inside a folder. Right-click, offer me the shortcut to create a file similar to what is already here. They already have the obvious yet brilliant use of recent items in Outlook : compose reply, click attach file -> top of the list is that file I just edited and saved over in Word a few seconds ago.

tamrix 5y ago

I like what they have in some Linux desktop mangers. You get a 'templates' folder in your home directory with default empty files which you can add, change & remove line normal files. Then the new sub context menu lists those files copying them when selected. It's actually useful.

derefr 5y ago
And macOS has the "Stationery Pad" file attribute, where a "Stationery Pad" file has the semantics that whenever you open it, you're actually duplicating it and then opening the duplicate. (I believe this results in "Stationery Pad"-derived documents acting much like new blank documents in most programs, in that upon attempting to close the document, the program will force you to choose between discarding or naming the new document.)
- user3939382 5y ago
  Microsoft Office includes similar functionality with its template file types, such as (in Word, for example) .dot or .dotx, in case anyone saw that and wondered what it’s for. My strategy with those was to make the .dotx read-only and remove delete permissions so it was also in-tact on a network drive, and office workers can double click to start a company form letter.
  - nsomaru 5y ago
    Thanks, good tip. You can also make the template appear in the “new document” screen under the personal tab if you fiddle with some settings and put the template in the right place.
- tonyedgecombe 5y ago
  On Big Sur it copies the file and starts editing that. None the less it's a nice feature that I completely missed.
- derefr 5y ago
  macOS post 10.7 also has the "Locked" file attribute; and optionally auto-applies "Locked" to documents after a set interval. "Locked" files behave similar to "Stationery Pad" files, though with slight differences in workflow. You can open a "Locked" document, but when you attempt to make any changes to it, the program will pop a modal informing you that the document is "Locked", and asking whether you want to 1. unlock the document (and then apply your attempted change to the original); 2. duplicate the document (and then apply your attempted change to the duplicate); or 3. cancel your attempted change. "Locked" documents entirely subsume/obsolete "Stationery Pad" documents, IMHO. Locking gives you all the benefits of edits triggering a duplication of the document; while also offering you the option to edit the original if you so desire (without needing to close out of the document and modify its attributes first); and without creating unnecessary duplicates when all you wanted to do was view the document.

pjs_ 5y ago

- Browse to a sub-directory of OneDrive using Explorer - Right click - Create new Word document - Double-click on Word document - Click title bar to see where document is stored - Get prompted to save document to OneDrive - Press Upload - Copy of document is created in root directory of OneDrive - Double-click newly created document in root directory of OneDrive - Click title bar to see where it is located - Get prompted to save document to OneDrive - Press Upload - Another copy of document is created in root directory of OneDrive - Press file, Save as - Press Browse - Browse to subdirectory of OneDrive - Press save - Click title bar to see where document is stored - Get prompted to save document to OneDrive - Press Share - Get prompted to save document to OneDrive - Press Upload - Copy of document is created in root directory of OneDrive

mjthompson 5y ago
This shouldn't happen. If you create a Word document within a subfolder of OneDrive, and open it in Word, it should be saving to OneDrive with autosave enabled. Perhaps you are using an older version of Word and/or the OneDrive client?

dehrmann 5y ago

> Not everybody knows that the way to create a new BMP file is to open this program called Paint that is hidden in the Accessories folder of your Start menu. That's a valid point, these same users also get confused by having a right button and context menu.

mmackh 5y ago

An convenience that I use all the time and really miss on macOS. I found a substitute app [1] which works well. [1] https://langui.net/new-file-menu/ https://langui.net/new-file-menu/

mint2 5y ago

> For people with a document-centric view of the world, programs aren’t really things that you think about. What you really work on are documents. As a Mac user long before a windows user, this is bizarre and I’ve always been frustrated that closing a windows document quits the program. It’s dumb.

michaelmrose 5y ago
Without a global menu where does the app live when the last document closes?
- CRConrad 5y ago
  On the task bar.
  - michaelmrose 5y ago
    That isn't how windows apps work. Even if you believe its better, even if you are correct working different than other apps on the same platform is confusing.
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      > That isn't how windows apps work. What do you mean? That is how many (most?) Windows apps work: * Before you start them, an icon for them is somewhere (possibly several somewheres) in your Start Menu. You can also (usually) start them from the actual .EXE file, which you can find with the file Explorer, or even from the command line. After you have started the app, it gets an icon on the task bar. (Let's disregard, for the purposes of this discussion, the option to set up a permanent icon on the taskbar, i.e. one that's present even before the app is running, to start it running from, for those of us who can't be bothered to use the Start Menu.) * Now that the app is running, it gets an icon on the task bar. If you open several documents in the app, it usually gets several icons; one per document. Depending on which icon in the task bar you click, the app brings the corresponding document to the foreground of your screen. Start closing some documents, and the icons go away. In the end you're down to a single icon on the task bar again. * Close the last open document, and some apps go fully away: No window on your screen, no icon on the task bar. Others, though, don't do that -- an "empty" window remains on-screen, and the lone icon on the task bar usually changes its caption from "document name" or "document name - app name" to just "app name". Minimize this window, and the icon on the task bar remains. Ergo, when you close the last document, the app "lives" on the task bar. Q.E.D. (Sure, not all apps, but so many of them I think it may be the majority nowadays. Certainly the most used ones: Microsoft Office, for instance, behaves this way.) > Even if you believe its better, I don't have much of an opinion; I was just answering a question by stating a fact. > even if you are correct working different than other apps on the same platform is confusing. A) But it's not "different than other apps"; this is how many / most apps work nowadays. B) Microsoft has apparently been betting for a decade or two now that it won't be too confusing for a majority of their users, and they show no sign of being about to change it, so I'd guess haven't had too many complaints about it being confusing.

analog31 5y ago

Because you've already got the directory open, but might not know how you got there. Especially if your directories are a cluttered mess, like mine are, and you found the directory using the file search feature. And the "save" dialog is not completely standardized, e.g., not all programs start you out at the same place, and some force you to navigate all the way from root.

mixmastamyk 5y ago

I never liked the new submenu in Windows and dislike when others copy it because it takes extra clicks. Typically the correct type for me is not even in there. I’d rather have a menu item instead that simply makes new empty files, what I do 98% of the time. There could be a standard set of blanks according to extension, while obscure programs would need to handle zero byte files.

kebman 5y ago

Only slightly related, but I really like the touch command because it's a very good way to initialize files that is also visible in logs as a file-creation moment. I always run an init log next to my project, so that I can recreate all the files from scratch at a later date if I need to scrap stuff.

cunthorpe 5y ago
touch is good also because it stays in the history and can be recalled as a whole. Lately I've just started calling my editor on files I want to create and edit: code my/file.js (the editor will also create the required folders)
mongol 5y ago
What is an init log?

forgotmypw17 5y ago

>¹ And who among us can say they never created a new class or project by copying an existing one, and then deleting everything inside? lol, got me!

gmrple 5y ago

I have always thought the fork() interface was convoluted, perhaps it is more intuitive to some folks than me; using a old document to create a new one by copying it, opening it, and deleting its contents is not something I had considered.

mackrevinack 5y ago

something i wish was the norm would be a list of open folders that would show in the save-as window. a lot of times the folder i want to save to is already open on my desktop but if i open, say notepad, and save then it will start in the user folder and then i have to navigate to the open folder manually or copy and paste the address. i think it was dreamweaver that had a target icon that you could drag from the save-as window onto a folder and it would change the location. even just a drop down menu would do as well though

tobyhinloopen 5y ago
This is such a good idea i’ve never seen or heard, but it makes so much sense.
fomine3 5y ago
I can't agree more. It's ok if the file picker has address bar like standard one, just paste it. It's very frustrating to manually navigate custom file picker without address bar to specific location.

contextfree 5y ago

I always thought of this as: Notepad is an app for viewing and editing text files, which contain characters. It lets you delete, change, and move/copy existing characters, and also add (type) new characters. Explorer (like other file managers) is an app for viewing and editing folders, which contain files. So it makes sense that besides deleting, changing, and moving/copying existing files, it also lets you add (create) new files. Maybe not literally true, but a nice mental model to entertain for a few moments’ entertainment! (It also suggests it should be possible to take this a lot further than Windows and Explorer do; does anyone know of any historical or current file managers that do a particularly good or interesting job here?)

ggm 5y ago

Microsoft .POT templates are so infuriating to use on OSX that almost every OSX user of Office I know has routinely ignored .POT and copies an integrally complete .PPT and strips out the slides. the whole "apply template" idea is broken. If I made an empty file via classic shell :> file.ppt and it was a valid powerpoint, I would be surprised. But for many systems, a valid empty instance can be passed around. I don't like 8.3 magic override "if its .txt its a text file" but I know it exists (eg for icon assignment in the GUI)

tobyhinloopen 5y ago

The new-menu is the one feature from Windows I wish was present in macOS. Especially for text files. When I’m in a folder, many times I want to open the current folder in some kind of app (terminal, code editor) or I want to create a new text file

ksd482 5y ago
There are HUNDREDS (not an exaggeration) of Mac OS shortcuts out there. Take a look at this video. This guy is awesome. Check out his other Mac OS tips videos as well and you are very likely to find what you are looking for and then some. Edit: forgot to paste the link. Here it is: https://youtu.be/HPQobUOx17o https://youtu.be/HPQobUOx17o
jcfields 5y ago
I have a script that changes the Terminal to the directory of the frontmost Finder window. Then I use touch to create empty new files. The script, for whoever's curious: https://gitlab.com/jcfields/shell-scripts/-/blob/master/cdf https://gitlab.com/jcfields/shell-scripts/-/blob/master/cdf Back when I used Windows, I actually used the New > Text Document item discussed in the article all the time. It created an empty, 0-byte file, so I'd rename it to whatever file extension I needed. There was a folder that contained the templates for this menu so you could add or remove blank files for any type, but I only ever used the .txt file one.
Doctor_Fegg 5y ago
Create a folder somewhere. Call it "New documents" or something. Create blank text file(s) of the type you want within that folder. For example, I have a blank.txt which opens in TextMate, a blank.rb which opens in TextMate, and a blank.rtf which opens in TextEdit. Lock the folder (by selecting it, Cmd-I, check "Locked"). Put the folder in your Dock. Hey presto. You can now create a blank text file anywhere simply by dragging it out of this folder in the Dock. Because the folder is locked, you won't delete the original - macOS will make a copy for you, every time. Just rename it before opening and you're done.
- tobyhinloopen 5y ago

cycomanic 5y ago

I recall that back when I was still using Windows (which was sometime in the XP days) opening the New menu could result in quite a bit of a pause, if you had lots of programs installed. It was really enfuriating, as the pause could be on the order of a second or more. IIRC I only used the New menu for creating folders, and creating some nested folder structure became an exercise in frustration. I never understood how this could take so long but it seems the list of possible new filetypes was dynamically generated everytime by querying a dB of installed programs. Maybe it was so slow to encourage people to not use the new menu?

2dvisio 5y ago

Reading some comments I realised I might be one of the few who _never ever_ used that functionality. I see it’s benefits for some. But always wondered about the menu estate taken away from me…

aitchnyu 5y ago

I wish save/select files depute the system file browser to do that, maybe even reuse recently open window. I was annoyed by 3 distinct file selector with their unique faults in a KDE distro.

xg15 5y ago

> You still need a BMP editor to put anything meaningful in there. The same is true for a PowerPoint presentation, and an Access database. Although, creating an empty Access database and then opening it will presumably get you the Access program. But if I want to create a new PowerPoint presentation, I will… um… open PowerPoint I think that really highlights the paradigm-shift that happened in UX in the last decade - what you could call "documents-centric" vs "application-centric". Until recently, UI was centered around files. You used programs to edit and manage those files, but the programs didn't "own" the files: A file was generally independent of the programs that are used to open them. On the other side, a program does not "know" about a file until you explicitly prompt the program to open the file. Compare that to the "application-centric" paradigm that dominates on the web, in mobile OSes and recently in desktop OSes as well: Here a program "owns" its data and you are supposed to interact with the data only through the program. It's an implementation detail how the data is physically stored - but from the user's PoV, there is no unified file system. Instead, the assets managed by each program are living in separate universes.

the_other 5y ago
As a comp-sci graduate, as someone who grew into computing through the late 80s and 90s, the files-based paradigm makes a lot of sense to me. But is it really the ideal model/UX for most people? Files are hard to manage. Most people don’t do library work, or habitually create relationship hierarchies. (I do it all the time; I love a taxonomy, but it’s work, and the general pattern for memory is association, not hierarchy). I worry the “apps” paradigm focuses users on brands and encourages lock-in, walled gardens, and so on. I think we need a third way.
- azernik 5y ago
  Something that is evolving for certain common types of files (images, for example) is an application-mediated storage, but where apps "share ownership" (or rather, declare awareness) of files rather than owning them exclusively. So e.g. my camera roll, Google Photos, and Facebook comments can all give me a window onto my photos. Those "windows" are currently inconsistent and kind of painful, but I see the germ of an approach there.

cm2187 5y ago

I think it's useful for creating empty text files. It saves you to have to navigate back to the folder in the text editor. What I don't understand is why you have to press shift to get "copy file path" in the same menu. Why should such a useful feature be hidden?

nomercy400 5y ago
I usually enter the folder and click in the white area to the right of the 'folder breadcrumbs' bar. That transforms the 'folder breadcrumbs' into an (already selected) path. Ctrl+C and I have copied my file path. I never knew there was a "copy file path" in the context menu until this topic.

sharikous 5y ago

As a heavy Mac use I love this Windows feature so much I have installed a Finder extension that does just that. It is so much better than opening an app, writing something and then deciding awkwardly where to put the file. Like, when you write something you don't usually scribble on a piece of paper and then glue it to your notebook. That goes if I am using a GUI. touch, echo, cat, vim and >> redirection are my friends in the terminal.

rodarmor 5y ago

Based.

fomine3 5y ago

Generally reasonable, but I can't imagine who really need to create BMP file rather than PNG.

nomercy400 5y ago

If only there was a shortcut to create a new file in Windows. New folder works, why not new file? CTRL + N would be nice, as it would match the create new folder shortcut CTRL + SHIFT + N, but that is already in use by 'create new window'. WIN + N comes to mind, with a selection box highlighting the most commonly used New file (in my case, a txt file).

thrwyoilarticle 5y ago
On my ribbon: Alt, H, W. They're consecutive but it seems you can do them quite quickly.
- noisem4ker 5y ago
  Also with old-style keyboard accelerators: menu key, W (as in Ne_w_), then arrows till the desired file type. It's one fewer key than with the ribbon.

paulannesley 5y ago

> Even Unix follows this pattern for process creation! To create a new process, you clone an existing one (fork) and then delete everything inside it (exec). I love this observation.

jpm48 5y ago

I use the terminal and the touch command all the time to create empty files before adding them to a project (for example touch include/MyClass.h src/MyClass.cpp )

qwerty456127 5y ago

I believe the "New" menu of the file manager is mostly used by newbies and that's great it is there for them. For more experienced people the usefulness of an option in this menu probably varies from type to type. Being able to create a plain text file at any given place makes a lot of sense even for advanced users (especially if displaying file name extensions is enabled, I actually believe making hiding them even an option, let alone the default is the worst decision of whole Windows UX design). Word/Excel documents also make sense. BMPs make notably less (today). Some types make zero sense to be there yet get there occasionally.

mattowen_uk 5y ago
IIRC they are entries in the registry - a lot of 'cleaner' apps for windows lets you edit the list.
- qwerty456127 5y ago
  Historically they have always been just template files in a special directory. Perhaps this has changed recently, I don't really know about Windows 10.
  - mattowen_uk 5y ago
    I know that WAY back in the 3.1/95 days there was a ShellNew folder that contained the template files, maybe it's a mix of both now?

perfunctory 5y ago

> Even Unix follows this pattern for process creation! To create a new process, you clone an existing one (fork) and then delete everything inside it (exec). I always thought fork was one of the biggest design blunders in unix.

robertlagrant 5y ago

> It’s like making a telephone call in the United States. You don’t think about which telecommunications company serves that number. You just dial the number and let the telephone network figure out which telecommunications company is responsible for that number. I don't think this is a good comparison. I make a phone call by getting my phone out. I've memorised this, just as I've memorised opening Word to start writing a document. The right-click option would be fine if it didn't take longer and longer to work, and the list were easier to customise. What the heck is it doing on every right click?

amelius 5y ago

Sounds like the author wants Microsoft OLE, invented in the 90s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_Linking_and_Embedding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_Linking_and_Embedding

thathndude 5y ago

Touch has entered the chat

ho_schi 5y ago

Nautilus, the file-browser of GNOME on Linux, provides a template system for this: https://fedoramagazine.org/creating-using-nautilus-templates/ https://fedoramagazine.org/creating-using-nautilus-templates... It is a good approach but lacks presentation to users. Most users require "touch new.ext" and therefore complain about the lack of this item. I've added one template "New file" with no extendsion and not content, exactly what I need to get started. It is better than a hidden registry just for applications but could be improved with well designed default behavior for "empty files".

snarfy 5y ago

> Even Unix follows this pattern for process creation! That does not make it a good pattern.

theonlybutlet 5y ago

I don't think I've ever opened Notepad and saved a new .txt document from there.

dusted 5y ago

Such bikeshedding ^_^ clearly something everyone can have an opinion about, and every one of them (mine included) will be insuficciently informed to contribute any value. I've used and found every possible way of creating new files useful, maybe except for copying and then emptying (except for some times when being a lazy programmer). Working in Windows95 explorer, the context menu from right-clicking seemed extremely reasonable, and I'd probably still use that if I worked on windows.

gwbas1c 5y ago

I almost always create files by going to the folder, right-clicking, and making the file there. I know most people don't do it that way. When I switched to Mac, it took me a few years to get used to opening the application first to create the file. Old habits die hard.

monkeynotes 5y ago

I don't understand this article. Is Microsoft criticizing it's own UI decisions? I had no idea Windows worked this way, it seems like such an odd way of working to me. As for 'hidden' applications, all of my applications are hidden on my Mac. I exclusively use spotlight or Alfred to open an app, I can't imagine working any other way with any semblance of productivity.

Gravityloss 5y ago

First you had applications and the file menu. Then you had folders and the file explorer with context menu for new. But now you don't really care about file and folder structure since you have your documents in the cloud or use search on desktop, so the folders don't make sense either. So you really mostly create new documents from some portal like thing, like google drive or sharepoint front page.

yrro 5y ago

Classic Mac OS had OS-level support for document templates in the form of "Stationary Pads". You could create a document to to use as a template, then in 'Get Info' (the equivalent of file properties in Explorer) you could check the 'Stationary Pad' checkbox. Now the file is a template. When opened, the application behaves as if the user created a new document, and pasted in the contents of the template: in particular, the document would be 'Untitled Document' and Save would be unavailable, you'd have to use Save As to save the document to a new file, etc. I think the file icon even changed to visually indicate its status as a stationary pad.visually. The template feature being a property on a file means you can arrange your templates in folder structures which is handy if you have a lot, they can be on network shares for groups of users to use, etc. And, of course, it was easy for users to manage this themselves rather than relying on obscure registry keys...

pjerem 5y ago

IMO, this « New » paradigm worked best in the past (on Windows 9x) when Explorer was a simple and comprehensive abstraction around « Desktop / Folders / Files ». Windows explorer evolved from a user friendly implementation of a simple abstraction to a complex file management tool with buttons and menus everywhere. Once you start installing programs, the context menu starts to be bloated and incomprehensible, the ribbon toolbars is full of useless buttons for the vast majority of end users, files organisation is a mess with virtual folders right from the fresh install … « New > » was a nice and comprehensive feature I could explain to my grandmother two decades ago when this thing was just a window holding files. Now I wouldn’t even try to explain her how she could use that tool. I have the strange feeling that, as things goes, personal computing is more and more complex.

jug 5y ago

I would love if Microsoft replaced the contents of that menu from being Windows Registry entries to being contents in %USERPROFILE%\Templates. So one could not only easily manipulate those oneself if needed but also add actual templates to create, i.e. not only truly empty documents. The menu entries would share names with the file names. Certain other operating systems/distros do it like this and I always found it a better idea than the current Windows way.