5 ms·

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 b

by 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.
cstross 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.* That statement encapsulates an ideological outlook. I, personally, agree with you. (I happen to have a CS degree and used to work in the industry: of course I agree with you!) However, purely pragmatically, a lot of people don't agree with that position. They no more want to know how their computer works than they want to know how to adjust the ignition timing on their car. Yes, in principle they could learn that stuff; but they consider it to be a waste of their valuable time, for which they have other priorities. By way of an analogy: we're in the position of 17th century puritans asserting that of course everyone must learn to read so they can read the Bible for themselves and interpret the word of god directly. (While a large chunk of the audience at the time disagreed strongly and wanted to leave that to the priests.) That's how things are for a large chunk of the general public, whether we want it to be so or not. And as computer use becomes a universal, pervasive element of society, we're going to run up against it increasingly.
- tsahyt 14y ago
  It's not about learning the inner workings of the computer but about having a very basic understanding of fundamental concepts. A computer is eventually nothing but a tool to get stuff done. A user not willing to learn those basic concepts is the equivalent to a craftsman not willing to learn how to use a hammer. I agree that the inner workings are probably far too complex to understand for anybody not working in the field, but they aren't expected to either. As I pointed out in a different reply, hierarchical storage is no different from putting things and thoughts into mental drawers, as we do all the time (even though we're often not supposed to do so). It's a ridiculously simple concept. I also agree that devices like tablets and smartphones, which are ultimately just consumer devices, not meant for any productive work, will get by without this concept (although I personally prefer having it). I wouldn't want my laptop, desktop, workstation, whatever to be without directory structure though.
  - taligent 14y ago
    Can we stop with this rubbish that you can't do productive work on a tablet. Tablets can access web apps and the massive amount of functionality they provide today.
rahoulb 14y ago
I honestly believe that there are some people who simply don't "get" hierarchical folder structures. And it's not a small percentage. Years ago when Windows Explorer tree-views were all the rage our desktop app had them all over the place. And the number of support requests were phenomenal. We'd demonstrate the tree-view - expanding out folder nodes till you find what you want, the user would go "Oh that's how it works" and then a few days later would ring up with the same request. I think there's just some part of their brain that can't deal with the geometry of it or something.
- scarmig 14y ago
  You see a similar issue with recursion: it's never seemed particularly difficult to me. But there are, apparently, lots of fairly smart undergraduates who are taking a CS class who just can't grasp it. A tree is recursive--maybe that inability to "get" hierarchical folder structures is somehow related to an inability to understand recursion?
  - rahoulb 14y ago
    I think it's the same sort of idea but at a lower level (as it were). The (very) few times I've tried to explain recursion to non-CS-types have always been met with "I sort of get it" looks (meaning "we'll have forgotten in five minutes"). But there seems to be no pattern to the non-tech people who don't understand tree-views. The only thing I've noticed is it might be maths-related - as people in the accounts departments invariably get trees straight away.

by acabal 14y ago

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.

cstross 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.* That statement encapsulates an ideological outlook. I, personally, agree with you. (I happen to have a CS degree and used to work in the industry: of course I agree with you!) However, purely pragmatically, a lot of people don't agree with that position. They no more want to know how their computer works than they want to know how to adjust the ignition timing on their car. Yes, in principle they could learn that stuff; but they consider it to be a waste of their valuable time, for which they have other priorities. By way of an analogy: we're in the position of 17th century puritans asserting that of course everyone must learn to read so they can read the Bible for themselves and interpret the word of god directly. (While a large chunk of the audience at the time disagreed strongly and wanted to leave that to the priests.) That's how things are for a large chunk of the general public, whether we want it to be so or not. And as computer use becomes a universal, pervasive element of society, we're going to run up against it increasingly.

tsahyt 14y ago
It's not about learning the inner workings of the computer but about having a very basic understanding of fundamental concepts. A computer is eventually nothing but a tool to get stuff done. A user not willing to learn those basic concepts is the equivalent to a craftsman not willing to learn how to use a hammer. I agree that the inner workings are probably far too complex to understand for anybody not working in the field, but they aren't expected to either. As I pointed out in a different reply, hierarchical storage is no different from putting things and thoughts into mental drawers, as we do all the time (even though we're often not supposed to do so). It's a ridiculously simple concept. I also agree that devices like tablets and smartphones, which are ultimately just consumer devices, not meant for any productive work, will get by without this concept (although I personally prefer having it). I wouldn't want my laptop, desktop, workstation, whatever to be without directory structure though.
- taligent 14y ago
  Can we stop with this rubbish that you can't do productive work on a tablet. Tablets can access web apps and the massive amount of functionality they provide today.

rahoulb 14y ago

I honestly believe that there are some people who simply don't "get" hierarchical folder structures. And it's not a small percentage. Years ago when Windows Explorer tree-views were all the rage our desktop app had them all over the place. And the number of support requests were phenomenal. We'd demonstrate the tree-view - expanding out folder nodes till you find what you want, the user would go "Oh that's how it works" and then a few days later would ring up with the same request. I think there's just some part of their brain that can't deal with the geometry of it or something.

scarmig 14y ago
You see a similar issue with recursion: it's never seemed particularly difficult to me. But there are, apparently, lots of fairly smart undergraduates who are taking a CS class who just can't grasp it. A tree is recursive--maybe that inability to "get" hierarchical folder structures is somehow related to an inability to understand recursion?
- rahoulb 14y ago
  I think it's the same sort of idea but at a lower level (as it were). The (very) few times I've tried to explain recursion to non-CS-types have always been met with "I sort of get it" looks (meaning "we'll have forgotten in five minutes"). But there seems to be no pattern to the non-tech people who don't understand tree-views. The only thing I've noticed is it might be maths-related - as people in the accounts departments invariably get trees straight away.