Ask Slashdot: Is the Recycle Bin a Good GUI Metaphor?

dsginter writes "During a recent Windows 7 upgrade, I disabled the 'Recycle Bin' from appearing on the user desktop. Why? Because this allows the users to retrieve errant deletions. While this was the goal of the 'Recycle Bin' in the first place, most people (including myself) are in the good habit of keeping a tidy workspace and 'taking out the trash' when they see that it is full. For some people, their OCD meant that deleting a file was a two step process: delete the file and then empty the recycle bin. By disabling it from view, I have found that the original function is restored for the smattering of times that it is actually needed. Why are we wasting pixels on such a poor metaphor?" Going further, is there some combination of metaphor and method of use that you'd find more useful or natural?

Comments

Autocratic Admin?

[Frosty Piss]

I think you are out of line *forcing* other users to abide by your view of how the desktop should operate.

Re:Autocratic Admin?

[Rinnon]

I disagree. In the workplace, you're not the owner of your machine. I've never worked in an office that allowed me to do whatever I wanted with a computer. Maybe certain websites were blocked, maybe I couldn't install stuff. Maybe something I would have liked on the Desktop wasn't there. In a lot of cases, Admin can setup your computer however they want, because THEY are the ones who have to fix it when it's broken. I think he's well in line with what he should be allowed to do. The very first time someone deletes something and wants it back, and he can do it in 35 seconds, they'll be glad he did it.

Re:Autocratic Admin?

[FutureDomain]

I've always wanted this feature. Eliminate the "Recycle Bin" and just have a feature like Time Machine that will let you retrieve earlier versions of a file and previously deleted files. A Log-structured file system would eliminate the fragmentation issue, make the implementation of this feature easier, and also provide some performance enhancements.

Re:Autocratic Admin?

[jedidiah]

I don't suppose you've ever heard of something called VMS by any chance?

Re:Autocratic Admin?

[Mr. Slippery]

The point is that, as stupid as it may be, the owner of the machine SHOULD have omnipotent power over what happens, and is or is not allowed.

Nonsense. A computer provided to an employee is a tool for that employee's use. To get the best results, that employee ought to be able to configure and customize that tool in any way that helps them work more efficiently.

I work with Real Computers, and don't use a "Trash Can" or "Recycle Bin", but if some pissant sysadmin told me I wasn't allowed to alias rm to '/bin/rm -i' or ls to 'ls -F', I'd laugh in their face; and if I were sanctioned by management for doing so, they'd find themselves without my services, since it would be pointless to continue working for a company so clearly doomed.

Challenging IT's computer sovereignty...

"Sovereignty?" It is to laugh.

Re:Autocratic Admin?

[Lehk228]

i think you are misunderstanding the type of user OP is dealing with. these are not "I need read/write permissions in /blah/blah" users, these are "i think my cup holder is broken" users. These are users who move their important shit to the trash because they are too stupid to create a new folder and name it something, then they empty the trash, then they call IT in a huff because "your system ate my files get down here and fix it NOW"

these are people who really shouldn't be allowed to operate equipment more complicated than an adjustable 3 hole punch.

these are "my outlook says that my mailbox is full and i need to delete messages before i can send mail, why won't it let me send mail?" users -- or more likely "my Internet is broken" then you get to the machine and there is nothing wrong with it. or you get to the machine and it won't turn on and smells like ozone and coffee, "yea i spilled coffee on it and now the Internet doesn't work"

You Gotta Be Kidding!

[mwandaw]

I understand that we should always try to improve on the current state of affairs. However, in this case, I think the the "solution" is the answer to a question that no one has asked.

When they see that it is full

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if I delete a tiny little file, the trashcan icon goes from completely empty to totally full.

Perhaps the trashcan graphic could show the actual size of the deleted files relative to the space allocated on the hard drive for said files.

That way you would only need consider taking out the trash when the can is actually full.

out of disk space

[LordKronos]

Why are we wasting pixels on such a poor metaphor

Because, I actually want to have an easy way to empty the recycle bin. It's utilization of disk space wasn't a major concern for many year, but now with the introduction of SSDs, and the fact that huge SSDs are not yet affordable, I find myself running out of space on mine quite often. When I do, I tend to find I've got some large files sitting in the recycle bin.

You're the worst type of admin

[Y-Crate]

How could this possibly be a good idea? And how can you implement this and then accuse every other Windows user of having OCD? Pot. Kettle. Black.

This is an absurd personal preference to force on your users, and a good example of an admin crossing the line from "ensuring the system works well" to "forcing the users to compromise their workflow because of the personal whims of the admin". Admins are supposed to keep users from interfering with the operation of the system, but it's equally important that they don't interfere with what the users are doing more than they absolutely have to.

This is right up there with admins who don't set the time properly / leave the display at a ridiculously low resolution, then lock down the preference setting so it can't be adjusted.

Re:You're the worst type of admin

[Overzeetop]

On the contrary, he's streamlining the system so that it works for his users. I seriously doubt that the users like to have to delete, confirm a delete, and then empty the bin. They're also probably pissed if they accidentally get rid of a file and he can't recover it because they've emptied the bin.

There's no great use to having the bin icon on the desktop. It's a convenience if you happen to frequently delete a lot of files you meant to keep (huh?), but otherwise it's probably a "me to" remnant of some UI designer that though the apple trashcan was a good idea.

Thank you.

[msauve]

Much more useful to Shift-Delete files you really want (albeit insecurely) gone, and don't worry about the ones in the Trash, which are only taking up otherwise unused disk space. From the summary:

Why are we wasting pixels on such a poor metaphor?

It's only a poor metaphor for the few really anal retentive people who can't be bothered to learn how and why their OS works. But that's not right - the metaphor isn't in error - Trash works just like a trash can. Put stuff in and take it out, empty it when it's full or stinks. What the writer wants is an incinerator.

Re:Not exactly a world emergency this one

[schnablebg]

It doesn't even "waste" any pixels unless you are using the entirety of your desktop to keep files or shortcuts, in which case you much bigger problems than a freakin' icon metaphor.

Bullshit

[raftpeople]

I generally try to keep my slashdot comments relatively positive but the level of stupid in this thread is just enormous.

The point is that, as stupid as it may be, the owner of the machine SHOULD have omnipotent power over what happens, and is or is not allowed.

IT doesn't "own" the computers any more than the users "own" the computer. The company "owns" the computers.

Challenging IT's computer sovereignty is something only upper management has any business doing. Users who attempt to do so should get sanctioned, and rightly so.

Perfect philosophy if your goal is to get outsourced. Seriously, whenever I have an employee that thinks this way I have to educate them. IT's job is to empower the users to get their job done more efficiently. Period. You serve the users.


Users "own" the applications, in a logical sense. It's their responsibility and their right to be an integral part of the process in determining how it functions. It's a two way street.

There are some things that each side is correct in putting their foot down and drawing a line in the sand - and this one is firmly owned by the users.

Re:Shift+Delete

[Hatta]

No, thinking before you delete is a good habit to get into. When I hit delete, I mean delete. The computer should comply.

Re:I was a big OS/2 fan because it had a shredder

[brusk]

If you need greater assurance than that, physically destroy the drive. It's the only way to be sure.

Technically, that is only one way to be sure. The other is to leave the drive intact but destroy the rest of the universe.