5 ms·

From the article: I have honestly never seen a single person have any issues with directories, nested or no, and as old as the concept might be, the people I in

by cstross 14y ago

From the article: I have honestly never seen a single person have any issues with directories, nested or no, and as old as the concept might be, the people I interact with seem to be able to handle it just fine. Twitch. The author's clearly been interacting with different people from the ones I know. 80-somethings who didn't grow up with computers frequently get hopelessly confused by directories. The philosophy professor who's been using a Mac since the mid-80s is a bit harder to explain. And then there was the time I got called in in the early 90s to fix the office PC used by a succession of secretaries -- running MS-DOS -- and discovered they'd saved something over 2000 Word Perfect files in the root directory because none of the temps the company had employed over a 12 month period had ever heard of directories. In my experience many casual users (for values of something like 10%-50% of computer users these days) simply do not "get" hierarchical storage at all; they find it as baffling as predicate calculus. Hence the desire of some software vendors -- who are trying to provide machines that anyone can use without training -- to move away from it, at least on the user's side.

gaius 14y ago
It's a question of jargon. What does the layperson think of when they hear "directory", a telephone directory? Whereas if you call them "folders" or even better, as on the Amiga, "drawers", then it all becomes very obvious.
- rimantas 14y ago
  The problem is not directory, it's the hierarchy. The first time I have this described was a looong time ago when reading Alan Cooper's "About Face". I guess this is not news to anyone who is interested in UI and UX.
- Someone 14y ago
  Obvious? Then you must be in favour of Apple's move to 'at most one level of hierarchy'. Or do you find the concept of drawers inside drawers inside drawers intuitive?
  - gaius 14y ago
    Call 'em "boxes" or "bags" for all I care - the point is the geek word "directory" isn't suitable for non-technical people, I think everyone understand the concept of "putting things in things" because they do it all the time in the real world.
    - tomflack 14y ago
      I haven't seen the word "directory" widely used amongst laymen since the move from Windows 3.x to Windows 95, where if my memory serves me (I was 9 at the time) Microsoft made the change to "folder" themselves.
  - Nursie 14y ago
    Not to comment on how it works in a UI, but my chest of drawers at home does indeed have two levels, there is a smaller drawer (for socks) inside the main top drawer.
- olavk 14y ago
  Not really - it is not very intuitive that you put folders into folders and have all your documents in one big folder containing all your other folders. And you don't have drawers containing other drawers either, in the real world. But apart from bad metaphors, I thing non-geeks have a problem with organizing things in arbitrary deep hierarchies. You don't really do that a lot outside of computing.
  - sho_hn 14y ago
    When I started out using computers, an adult explained it to me using a shelf as a metaphor: The drive is a shelf. You can have multiple shelves. Shelves have compartments, which contain things. Some of those things can contain other things, like boxes or folders. Made the nesting rather obvious to me.
  - gaius 14y ago
    Sure you do, it's common in any sort of industry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_materials http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_materials
  - crististm 14y ago
    Indeed but not quite. Inside drawers you have shelves. On the shelves you have boxes. In the boxes you have folders, envelopes, files... There's more: in the files you have pictures, frames, tables
    - olavk 14y ago
      I should probaly have said recursive hierarchies is not intuitive for everyone. Everyone can understand shelves in drawers, boxes on shelves and so on. What is confusing to many is folders inside folders or drawers inside drawers arbitrarily deep.
      - icebraining 14y ago
        I've never seen anyone having trouble with putting little boxes inside bigger boxes.
acabal 14y ago
I don't know. I think that at a certain point people have to accept that there are just some things must be learned in order to operate a computer. It would be nice if computers could just read the mind of the user, but until then, the user must learn some things about how the computer operates. Folders, I think, is one of those things. In the end, some knowledge is required. If we remove folders, then that knowledge will change from "What is a folder, and where did I put that file?" to "What is an application, and which one did I use to create that file, and how do I get that file from one application to another?" (Think word processing program to email attachment.) Either way, the end user has to learn something. We can continue dumbing down concepts and interfaces with the noble goal of making it easier for the people who just don't want to understand how computers work (let's face it, learning basic folder manipulation isn't hard, especially with Google--or a manual or family member, for those who can't even use Google), but there will always be a lazier person, and eventually we'll end up dumbing things down until they become useless. Maybe the better solution is to have a better "Home" folder concept. I don't know how it is in OSX, but in Windows the home folder is a confusing collection of sample files, folder-spam from other apps, and "library" views that masks the entire concept, but only sometimes. Fixing that mess and making it more like, say, a Linux home folder (/home/acabal/videos/) would be a good starting point without losing the usefulness of folders altogether.
- tsahyt 14y ago
  > I think that at a certain point people have to accept that there are just some things must be learned in order to operate a computer. This! I personally like the idea of learning concepts in order to be able to make sense of a computer or it's applications. One might argue that the learning curve is too steep for some users, but on this particular topic it just isn't. Come on, we've been putting stuff into boxes for ages. In a metaphorical sense we put everything in boxes and label them in some way. Directories do exactly that. We're used to it and, as much as I hate those three words, "it just works". Trying to make every last bit of a computer absolutely idiot-proof harms productivity (compare poweruser tools to what-your-grandma-uses) and may even scare away those who actually have to get work done. I believe we've actually reached the point where the "dumbing down" started a while ago, and it's a rather bad trend.
- 14y ago
johnchristopher 14y ago
I am a man and when I first had to do the laundry with our new washing machine I read the manual supplied by the manufacturer. I did the same with a lot of kitchen and household appliances. So why in hell people whose daily jobs consist of interacting with Word and the computer and managing files are exempted of reading their computer's manual ?! Nobody is asking them to learn a programming language (well, that fad died last week) or compute binary soustraction. Just use some folders (and learn a shortcut or two like ctrl+v, ctrl+c). I admit good introduction material to "the computer" are a rare thing nowadays (there is a market!) and I remember the win95/98 introduction to the mouse was something good and an interactive learning software should be made available on every platform (I believe ubuntu would grasp billions of users if they provided something like that). Not getting hierarchical storage is like... I don't know... not getting the subway schedule ? Or how to operate a tv remote ?
ehutch79 14y ago
i experience with these types of people has been tht they're not failing to understand folders, they're going 'i dont like new things, therefore i refuse to understand this'
astine 14y ago
I'll bet it wasn't the concept of directories that those secretaries of yours had trouble with. I'll bet that they simply weren't told that they existed and the computer offered no hints and that when they were told, they understood it readily. My mom frequently has trouble with directories but it's not the concept she has trouble with. It's the fact that the filesystem is so huge that it's hard to manage and there is no way she keep where everything is in her head. The fact that operating system files, application files, and user created files are mixed rather indiscriminately is probably the biggest problem. Also photo-managing applications trying to make things simple by saving files but not telling her where they put them leads to a lot of confusion. But the idea of files and folders she has not trouble with; it's the difficulty of navigating an impossibly huge and insufficiently mapped directory structure that she has trouble with. The concept of folders is pretty straightforward: "Everything has its place and there's a place for everything." People naturally organize things through place and directories create a semblance of 'place' for abstract pieces of data. (Place is actually such a powerful concept in the human mind, that the Jesuits used to memorize complicated arguments and passages by going for walks and assigning concepts to different locations on the way.) Tagging and search based systems while technically more powerful, I think would actually be more confusing not less because the concept is not as intuitive.
jcromartie 14y ago
I'm a programmer and I have problems with files and folders. That's why the UNIX "find" command exists.

by cstross 14y ago

gaius 14y ago

It's a question of jargon. What does the layperson think of when they hear "directory", a telephone directory? Whereas if you call them "folders" or even better, as on the Amiga, "drawers", then it all becomes very obvious.

rimantas 14y ago
The problem is not directory, it's the hierarchy. The first time I have this described was a looong time ago when reading Alan Cooper's "About Face". I guess this is not news to anyone who is interested in UI and UX.
Someone 14y ago
Obvious? Then you must be in favour of Apple's move to 'at most one level of hierarchy'. Or do you find the concept of drawers inside drawers inside drawers intuitive?
- gaius 14y ago
  Call 'em "boxes" or "bags" for all I care - the point is the geek word "directory" isn't suitable for non-technical people, I think everyone understand the concept of "putting things in things" because they do it all the time in the real world.
  - tomflack 14y ago
    I haven't seen the word "directory" widely used amongst laymen since the move from Windows 3.x to Windows 95, where if my memory serves me (I was 9 at the time) Microsoft made the change to "folder" themselves.
- Nursie 14y ago
  Not to comment on how it works in a UI, but my chest of drawers at home does indeed have two levels, there is a smaller drawer (for socks) inside the main top drawer.
olavk 14y ago
Not really - it is not very intuitive that you put folders into folders and have all your documents in one big folder containing all your other folders. And you don't have drawers containing other drawers either, in the real world. But apart from bad metaphors, I thing non-geeks have a problem with organizing things in arbitrary deep hierarchies. You don't really do that a lot outside of computing.
- sho_hn 14y ago
  When I started out using computers, an adult explained it to me using a shelf as a metaphor: The drive is a shelf. You can have multiple shelves. Shelves have compartments, which contain things. Some of those things can contain other things, like boxes or folders. Made the nesting rather obvious to me.
- gaius 14y ago
  Sure you do, it's common in any sort of industry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_materials http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_materials
- crististm 14y ago
  Indeed but not quite. Inside drawers you have shelves. On the shelves you have boxes. In the boxes you have folders, envelopes, files... There's more: in the files you have pictures, frames, tables
  - olavk 14y ago
    I should probaly have said recursive hierarchies is not intuitive for everyone. Everyone can understand shelves in drawers, boxes on shelves and so on. What is confusing to many is folders inside folders or drawers inside drawers arbitrarily deep.
    - icebraining 14y ago
      I've never seen anyone having trouble with putting little boxes inside bigger boxes.

acabal 14y ago

I don't know. I think that at a certain point people have to accept that there are just some things must be learned in order to operate a computer. It would be nice if computers could just read the mind of the user, but until then, the user must learn some things about how the computer operates. Folders, I think, is one of those things. In the end, some knowledge is required. If we remove folders, then that knowledge will change from "What is a folder, and where did I put that file?" to "What is an application, and which one did I use to create that file, and how do I get that file from one application to another?" (Think word processing program to email attachment.) Either way, the end user has to learn something. We can continue dumbing down concepts and interfaces with the noble goal of making it easier for the people who just don't want to understand how computers work (let's face it, learning basic folder manipulation isn't hard, especially with Google--or a manual or family member, for those who can't even use Google), but there will always be a lazier person, and eventually we'll end up dumbing things down until they become useless. Maybe the better solution is to have a better "Home" folder concept. I don't know how it is in OSX, but in Windows the home folder is a confusing collection of sample files, folder-spam from other apps, and "library" views that masks the entire concept, but only sometimes. Fixing that mess and making it more like, say, a Linux home folder (/home/acabal/videos/) would be a good starting point without losing the usefulness of folders altogether.

tsahyt 14y ago
> I think that at a certain point people have to accept that there are just some things must be learned in order to operate a computer. This! I personally like the idea of learning concepts in order to be able to make sense of a computer or it's applications. One might argue that the learning curve is too steep for some users, but on this particular topic it just isn't. Come on, we've been putting stuff into boxes for ages. In a metaphorical sense we put everything in boxes and label them in some way. Directories do exactly that. We're used to it and, as much as I hate those three words, "it just works". Trying to make every last bit of a computer absolutely idiot-proof harms productivity (compare poweruser tools to what-your-grandma-uses) and may even scare away those who actually have to get work done. I believe we've actually reached the point where the "dumbing down" started a while ago, and it's a rather bad trend.
14y ago

johnchristopher 14y ago

I am a man and when I first had to do the laundry with our new washing machine I read the manual supplied by the manufacturer. I did the same with a lot of kitchen and household appliances. So why in hell people whose daily jobs consist of interacting with Word and the computer and managing files are exempted of reading their computer's manual ?! Nobody is asking them to learn a programming language (well, that fad died last week) or compute binary soustraction. Just use some folders (and learn a shortcut or two like ctrl+v, ctrl+c). I admit good introduction material to "the computer" are a rare thing nowadays (there is a market!) and I remember the win95/98 introduction to the mouse was something good and an interactive learning software should be made available on every platform (I believe ubuntu would grasp billions of users if they provided something like that). Not getting hierarchical storage is like... I don't know... not getting the subway schedule ? Or how to operate a tv remote ?

ehutch79 14y ago

i experience with these types of people has been tht they're not failing to understand folders, they're going 'i dont like new things, therefore i refuse to understand this'

astine 14y ago

I'll bet it wasn't the concept of directories that those secretaries of yours had trouble with. I'll bet that they simply weren't told that they existed and the computer offered no hints and that when they were told, they understood it readily. My mom frequently has trouble with directories but it's not the concept she has trouble with. It's the fact that the filesystem is so huge that it's hard to manage and there is no way she keep where everything is in her head. The fact that operating system files, application files, and user created files are mixed rather indiscriminately is probably the biggest problem. Also photo-managing applications trying to make things simple by saving files but not telling her where they put them leads to a lot of confusion. But the idea of files and folders she has not trouble with; it's the difficulty of navigating an impossibly huge and insufficiently mapped directory structure that she has trouble with. The concept of folders is pretty straightforward: "Everything has its place and there's a place for everything." People naturally organize things through place and directories create a semblance of 'place' for abstract pieces of data. (Place is actually such a powerful concept in the human mind, that the Jesuits used to memorize complicated arguments and passages by going for walks and assigning concepts to different locations on the way.) Tagging and search based systems while technically more powerful, I think would actually be more confusing not less because the concept is not as intuitive.

jcromartie 14y ago

I'm a programmer and I have problems with files and folders. That's why the UNIX "find" command exists.