5 ms·

Spatial memory is a very useful and important part of navigation. One thing I (and probably we all) miss is an ability to create nameless folders. Well, we sort

by wruza 2y ago

Spatial memory is a very useful and important part of navigation. One thing I (and probably we all) miss is an ability to create nameless folders. Well, we sort of can, with “New folder (24)” and “dklstnrigwh”. I’d like to use spatial sorting more and in regular folders, but that’s very fragile and second-thought in most UIs. Also they provide no visual cues, so I can’t leave my file in the left black drawer with a flower sticker on it. Yes I know about Bob and how it failed. But it works for me in e.g. Fallout games where I can use multiple boxes in different rooms to sort my loot. I just know that my plasma rifle is in the metal box near the bed and cells are in the dresser. The ability to find things without creating, remembering and searching the names or containers feels good.

klabb3 2y ago
> Spatial memory is a very useful and important part of navigation. Oh yes! And so under appreciated. Things that have their place is absolutely crucial. Imagine if your menu bar sorted based on how often you used “edit” vs “file”. Or why not have the keys on the keyboard change based on frequency? I’d argue we should leverage spatial- and muscle memory much more in UX and design.
- wruza 2y ago
  Yes, and memory palaces work this way. People remember 20-50 items (or cards) at once by simply placing them at a familiar location. “A racoon sits near a red vase at the entry with his legs crossed and a rhino spilled half the bath on the floor”. It’s strange that UX overlooks space so badly and uses same-{shape,color,font} elements everywhere. I guess it’s due to that Bob meme, what else. There’s “Raskin”, but it also isn’t perfect in this regard.
cesarb 2y ago
> I’d like to use spatial sorting more and in regular folders, but that’s very fragile and second-thought in most UIs. I've heard that the "spatial Finder" from the old Mac OS worked like that: from what I understood from reading a couple of classic Ars Technica articles about it, there was a direct one-to-one correspondence between each folder and the window which represented it on the screen, and each of these windows always preserved its size and position. Quoting from https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2003/04/finder/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2003/04/finder/ "[...] There was no such thing as a "Finder window" that "displayed the contents of a folder." Double-clicking a folder opened it. The resulting window was the folder. When scrolling, moving, or resizing that window, there was no doubt about which folder was being affected. And the stability of the interface was such that there was no doubt about what that folder would look like the next time it was opened."
hulitu 2y ago
> Spatial memory is a very useful and important part of navigation. Yes, if you can organize your staff. Windows 10 and 11 will just put your icons as it see fit, without the option to change the size of them. Position is also monitor dependent. And the ribbon is a disaster for spatial navigation.

by wruza 2y ago

klabb3 2y ago

> Spatial memory is a very useful and important part of navigation. Oh yes! And so under appreciated. Things that have their place is absolutely crucial. Imagine if your menu bar sorted based on how often you used “edit” vs “file”. Or why not have the keys on the keyboard change based on frequency? I’d argue we should leverage spatial- and muscle memory much more in UX and design.

wruza 2y ago
Yes, and memory palaces work this way. People remember 20-50 items (or cards) at once by simply placing them at a familiar location. “A racoon sits near a red vase at the entry with his legs crossed and a rhino spilled half the bath on the floor”. It’s strange that UX overlooks space so badly and uses same-{shape,color,font} elements everywhere. I guess it’s due to that Bob meme, what else. There’s “Raskin”, but it also isn’t perfect in this regard.

cesarb 2y ago

> I’d like to use spatial sorting more and in regular folders, but that’s very fragile and second-thought in most UIs. I've heard that the "spatial Finder" from the old Mac OS worked like that: from what I understood from reading a couple of classic Ars Technica articles about it, there was a direct one-to-one correspondence between each folder and the window which represented it on the screen, and each of these windows always preserved its size and position. Quoting from https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2003/04/finder/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2003/04/finder/ "[...] There was no such thing as a "Finder window" that "displayed the contents of a folder." Double-clicking a folder opened it. The resulting window was the folder. When scrolling, moving, or resizing that window, there was no doubt about which folder was being affected. And the stability of the interface was such that there was no doubt about what that folder would look like the next time it was opened."

hulitu 2y ago

> Spatial memory is a very useful and important part of navigation. Yes, if you can organize your staff. Windows 10 and 11 will just put your icons as it see fit, without the option to change the size of them. Position is also monitor dependent. And the ribbon is a disaster for spatial navigation.