3 ms·

Alright: I generally do call them directories. I grew up in UNIX. But we're talking about icons and UX here. Do you consider the "desktop" to be so infantilizin

by evoxed 14y ago

Alright: I generally do call them directories. I grew up in UNIX. But we're talking about icons and UX here. Do you consider the "desktop" to be so infantilizing as well? 1: filesystem > directories > files 2: Desktop > Folders > Documents They're both models for (basically) the same thing. The technical incorrectness of folder doesn't interfere with usage in real scenarios, unless you expect Average Joe to be structuring data as opposed to, say, collecting media. Granted, if Average Joe had mild OCD and thought of everything he did as indexes and references to some abstract node then directories clearly makes more sense, but that would be a separate system divorced from the desktop abstraction. Edit: Being young of course none of this is really hammered in by convention– maybe that's why I don't mind the two abstractions coexisting. Even if the terminology originated in a Windows era, it doesn't bother me in the least that Mac (and others) use it as well (for the reasons stated above).

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
bitwize 14y ago
Alright: I generally do call them directories. I grew up in UNIX. But we're talking about icons and UX here. Do you consider the "desktop" to be so infantilizing as well? Why yes, yes I do. Desktop environments are all attempted answers to the question "why is a computer like a writing desk?" The question is absurd in its own right, but carries additional absurdity baggage such as calling all files "documents". A movie is not a document. A computer program in binary form is not a document. All of my machines boot into bare-ass window managers -- typically either awesome or WindowMaker. It's simple, cruft-free, and leaves more room for the programs I want to run. Aside from the shell I find an activity-based model for launching programs -- such as found in iOS, Android, OLPC, and even Windows 3.1 for pete's sake -- to be infinitely preferable to the document-centric desktop model, which assumes that the user can't fathom a computer without the machine pretending that it is some older, non-computing, manually-operated piece of office equipment. Even if the terminology originated in a Windows era -- it didn't. It started with the 1984 Macintosh. Funny that, even Apple is moving toward an activity-based model for iOS.
- evoxed 14y ago
  In that case it seems you've made a great case for why programmers make terrible interfaces and why UX is so important for everyone else. While models can certainly be adapted and evolve (as say iOS vs. a command line), I find it silly to try and put them in the same category. Maybe I'm begging to be flamed, but I don't see it as being much different from arguing over programming paradigms and high vs. low level. Do I really care that if a string is an array of pointers or not while developing a web app? I don't have to "pretend" that the computer knows exactly what I mean when I tell it to puts "hey"– but unless the underlying process has a meaningful effect on the current process, then it's all moot. The desktop model's heyday may be passing right in front of us, but more likely than not the consequences are going to lead towards even higher level abstractions. For fertility, and for clarity (so that engineers can talk to engineers, and everyone else doesn't get mistaken for a really stupid engineer).
- tripzilch 14y ago
  > why is a computer like a writing desk? Because Poe raved on both?

by evoxed 14y ago

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

bitwize 14y ago

Alright: I generally do call them directories. I grew up in UNIX. But we're talking about icons and UX here. Do you consider the "desktop" to be so infantilizing as well? Why yes, yes I do. Desktop environments are all attempted answers to the question "why is a computer like a writing desk?" The question is absurd in its own right, but carries additional absurdity baggage such as calling all files "documents". A movie is not a document. A computer program in binary form is not a document. All of my machines boot into bare-ass window managers -- typically either awesome or WindowMaker. It's simple, cruft-free, and leaves more room for the programs I want to run. Aside from the shell I find an activity-based model for launching programs -- such as found in iOS, Android, OLPC, and even Windows 3.1 for pete's sake -- to be infinitely preferable to the document-centric desktop model, which assumes that the user can't fathom a computer without the machine pretending that it is some older, non-computing, manually-operated piece of office equipment. Even if the terminology originated in a Windows era -- it didn't. It started with the 1984 Macintosh. Funny that, even Apple is moving toward an activity-based model for iOS.

evoxed 14y ago
In that case it seems you've made a great case for why programmers make terrible interfaces and why UX is so important for everyone else. While models can certainly be adapted and evolve (as say iOS vs. a command line), I find it silly to try and put them in the same category. Maybe I'm begging to be flamed, but I don't see it as being much different from arguing over programming paradigms and high vs. low level. Do I really care that if a string is an array of pointers or not while developing a web app? I don't have to "pretend" that the computer knows exactly what I mean when I tell it to puts "hey"– but unless the underlying process has a meaningful effect on the current process, then it's all moot. The desktop model's heyday may be passing right in front of us, but more likely than not the consequences are going to lead towards even higher level abstractions. For fertility, and for clarity (so that engineers can talk to engineers, and everyone else doesn't get mistaken for a really stupid engineer).
tripzilch 14y ago
> why is a computer like a writing desk? Because Poe raved on both?