A Better Finder?

Build6 writes "Ars Technica opens today with another one of their deeply-thought-out articles relating to MacOS X issues, pointing out another thing which the old MacOS had and the current one doesn't."

Comments

I don't agree with the article

[MarkWatson]

It is easy to criticize. I use OS X about 80% of the time, Linux/KDE about 15%, and Windows 2000 about 5%. OS X, in my opinion, gives the best desktop experience.

Any desktop uses a spacial metaphor for data - however, for me, the desktop is just a holding area - short term memory, if you will.

I do like the idea of other means of filtering: LifeStreams seems like a good idea: being able to filter based on time and document type (for example).

Anyway, it is a free world - I will stick with OS X.

-Mark

Re:I don't agree with the article

[SewersOfRivendell]

I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Linux (any flavor) or Windows (any flavor) has recieved nearly the same amount of scrutiny and criticism with regard to UI. Why is that? Is it simply because Apple brags about it so much? Is it a recognition that Apple does it best (usually) and therefore it is fair that they should be evaluated based on that claim? I suspect that this is the reason.

Well, somewhat. The parent post is correct in that OS X has still by far the best UI out there. Mac OS is the benchmark by which all user interfaces are judged, and so all changes to it are held to a much higher standard.

The reason why the author wrote this article, though, is that, compared to the Mac OS 9 Fnder, the X Finder really is a mess (better in 10.2, but a polished turd is still a turd). Compared to Windows Explorer, X Finder still wins, but that's saying very little, isn't it? Nautilus is much better than Windows Explorer, but it still has at least a couple more major revs ahead of it before it approaches Mac OS Finder-territory.

For those who didn't bother to read the article: the author's not saying that everything from Mac OS 9 should be brought back. He's not saying that Mac OS 9 was the end-all of user interface. He's saying that the Finder, as the center of the user's OS X experience, should be a substantial advancement over OS 9, and right now it's not. It's a kludgy, poorly-integrated hybrid of NeXT and classic Mac OS. He's saying the Finder should bring the best of NeXT and classic Mac OS into a unified whole, along with a few other much-needed enhancements.

And I think he's right. Hopefully Panther (10.3) Finder will head in the direction suggested by this article.

For any newbies out there who might be confused: the Finder is the Mac file browser, equivalent to Windows Explorer, Midnight Commander, or Nautilus. It is not the user interface to all applications -- it is the tool you use to get to (or "find") your applications and documents.

OS X is in its infancy

[Seanasy]

I love OS X. But it is such a huge change from OS 9- that I consider it a newborn new OS albeit with a very rich parents. I think what we've seen so far is just the beginning. They had to get things to work first. Refinements will be forthcoming.

While a lot of the article is interesting -- live folders sound useful -- I'm content with the Finder. It could -- and I'm sure will -- get some tweaking but I don't find it an obstacle in my daily work.

Re:Evil bit support

[Build6]

I guess I shoulda made this more clear in my initial submission.

I think the primary thing that the old MacOS had that the current one doesn't, is good handling of file metadata. I think most people who come from a Windows/x86 background don't really understand how magical it is to have a file system that, for example, can allow for different files of essentially the same "file type" yet be launched by different apps (file "creator" and file "type" tags exist).

This was discussed in Ars Technica quite a while back, as well:

http://arstechnica.com/reviews/01q3/metadata/met ad ata-1.html

And, this "other thing" I'm talking about is a (properly) spatial finder.

If Ars Technica is so concerned about usability

[T1girl]

...why is this article in white print on a black background? ... There's a reason books and newspapers are printed in black print on a white background: IT'S EASIER TO READ.

A person who can't hold a job can always make a living as a career coach.

Re:Full Mirror

[Caesar]

Did you happen to get permission to host that article from Ars? I don't think so. I never gave that permission, nor did the author.

I know what you're doing is with good intentions, but our server is running just fine, and what you're essentially doing is hurting our business because mirroring this document without our permissions removes our ability to see important stats about the article's readers. We kinda need that info if we're going to continue to provide free content.

Spatial Finder, etc.

[thatguywhoiam]

The article is pretty good at explaining the idea of a Spatial Finder, but I think that a lot of people give this idea too much credit.

My impression is that, when Mr. Siracusa speaks of spatial orientation, many times he is actually referring to basic consistency.

First points: labels and pop-up windows are a bit of a moot point, as they are coming in Panther. (Yes, I've seen builds.) So don't sweat it.

Spatial qualities are useful; however they are just that, qualities. The original Finder was very much in the vein the author describes; a window was a folder which contained icons that were your files. The current iteration of OS X, I might point out, pretty much sticks to this as long as you have the toolbar collapsed (that underused widget in the right side of the toolbar). Collapsing this toolbar will give you something very very similar to what we had before. Furthermore OS X takes it even futher with the use of packages - I'm surprised he didn't mention this - which allows whole applications to keep their guts in one place. Therefore the icon is the application now, as well. I could see Apple taking this further: imagine being able to install a Photoshop plug-in by just dragging it onto the single Photoshop icon.

Now, as far as spatially oriented interfaces being insufficient for the task of managing many thousands of files... there is something to that. The old Finder would have absolutely choked on certain computing situations common now (giant nested MP3/photo folders, for instance). It just doesn't scale to that many files cleanly.

Having said that, it shouldn't have to. A user generally has far fewer abstractions they are mentally adhering to than what is presented in your interface. I think this is where half-baked implementations like favourites really fall down. Favourites is a great idea. When you save something, or move something, you are generally thinking about the project you are working on. Odds are you have one master folder for this project, with several sub-folders divided the way you like. The data contained within these folders takes various forms (text, code, media). Depending on what kind of work you are doing, one 'view' that is entirely appropriate for say, code, is not appropriate for graphics previewing. You want to work in the view that is appropriate, and have it 'stick'. You don't want to drill through 'My Computer -> My Documents -> My Whatever' to get to it, if possible. This mixing of standard OS bits and pieces with your actual 'work' files is what causes people to lose their work in some loopy abstraction. While the idea of just having a filename field and a pull-down for a Save dialog is great, people just don't take the time to define Favourites as they are quite used to simply creating folders when they need them, and then navigating each time to that folder. OS X could do a better job by remembering which folder you last saved to, no matter what. I hate it when Flash constantly thinks I want to save Flash projects in the Flash application directory. If you could tell the OS, when you create a folder, that is is a project folder, and have it automatically add it to your Favourites (I like 'Projects', can you tell?), that would be spiffy.

So Mr. Siracuse's idea of Finder plug-ins is sound. I might just add that you only really need one plug-in, QuickTime, which can handle damn near anything you throw at it. What QuickTime can't catch, Quartz sure can (i.e. previews of PDFs and other vector artwork). The idea that the Finder should be an end-all to every kind of work is somewhat mad. The author's ideas about metadata are great, and I also think Apple is working on this (that Be guy they hired). I'm not sure about abstracting the Finder to a true 'browser' even more, I can't make up my mind on that. What I don't want to see is a schizo metaphor like Windows, where you have two distinct ways of browsing and no preference given to either (i.e. re