4 ms·
I think the other point of view, the anti-directory one, is well reflected in this review of OSX: http://informationarchitects.net/blog/mountain-lions-new-file-
by gbog 14y ago
I think the other point of view, the anti-directory one, is well reflected in this review of OSX: http://informationarchitects.net/blog/mountain-lions-new-file-system/ http://informationarchitects.net/blog/mountain-lions-new-fil...
The most notable saying is that "As soon as we have more than a handful of notions, or (beware!) more than one hierarchical level of notions, it gets hard for most brains to build a mental model of that information architecture."
Here is my ranty answer:
~~~~
My god. Who the HELL are those guys to be so dismissive of human brain?
I have a kid, he is learning ten words a day, and this little boy is not a genius: It is a normal human being in formation. He is also playing a lot with my old legos, and he is communicating better and better in two very different languages. I can tell you, dear "Information architects" that he can already handle more than one hierarchical level!
I have worked in normal companies before. By that I mean companies were people have meetings, get bored by many slideshows every week, and use excel spreadsheets daily. In this kind of companies, geniuses are not the norm. And all of these people, all of these common "brains" could handle easily "more than one hierarchical level".
So, dear "Information architects", please keep your stinky morgue to yourself.
Human brain is the most wonderful thing that can be observed in the world. Its capacities surpass anything we (human brains) can modelize with our other tools. A kid of 3 years is much better in all what matters than a computer. We, normal human beings, won't let you grow a new generation of lobotomized humans for whom it is "hard" to build a "mental model" with "more than one hierarchical level".
Post-scriptum: After a mandatory proof-reading, I sit there and I wonder: maybe my legitimate anger against your aristocratic hauteur did blind me of a better explanation. The "brain limitation" you are attributing so kindly to "most brains" is just your own problem, maybe. Then your are not as cynical as it seems. But then I repeat: of any of my colleagues, old and young, clever and stupid, ubergeek or almost illiterate, all could handle a fking tree structure for their file. Thanks for considering them (a bit).
- epo 14y agoMy God, what is it about this topic? Is there something about geeks that makes them think a mastery of nested folders is a validation of their manhood? There are other, and probably better, organising principles than hierarchical directories. It is not anti-directory as the original author so witlessly claims but a search for better, easier to understand, alternatives. Something which Apple have repeatedly done, and by so doing made a lot money in the process.
- gbog 14y agoNo, my point is that all the office employees I have known did master nested folders. For some assets a hierarchical structure is not ideal, I agree with that, but I don't agree with this "users are geeks or stupid" claim I see flourishing more and more here and there. In reality, users are either very clever or not interested. I have seen once a non geek do incredible tweaking to his Windows box in order to play CS. On the opposite, I know of very clever geeks who can't even fill a sign-up form, or cook eggs, because they aren't interested.
- super_mario 14y agoTrees are so yesterday. I think we should move to cyclic graphs for our filesystems.
- fferen 14y agoDon't worry, with the magic of symlinks anything is possible!
- super_mario 14y agoYes indeed :D.