tis 2006-11-28 klockan 09:51 +0200 skrev Kåre Särs:
> On Tuesday 28 November 2006 08:01, David Roberts wrote:
> > > Am Montag, 27. November 2006 19:05 schrieb Uno Engborg:
> > > > > I agree, I don't see any real problem with the current system. Most
> > > > > "normal users" don't even look at the location bar, so I don't even
> > > > > see why it's an issue.
> > > >
> > > > You miss the point. Of course it isn't a problem mounting it at /mendia
> > > > or whatever other place. As you say yourself, most users would probably
> > > > not even look at the location bar.
> > > >
> > > > The problem is that the user can use the GUI to navigate to /media or
> > > > even / by pressing the up arrow. (Should still be possible when showing
> > > > hidden files). By being able to browse to media you lose the one to one
> > > > relationship between whats on your physical USB stick and how it is
> > > > displayed in the GUI.
> > >
> > > There's a brand new invention called "the back button".
> >
> > Exactly, if a user goes somewhere unfamiliar, they can always use the back
> > button. Perhaps this is just me, but the "normal" users I know don't even
> > use the up button - they just use the back button to get to the previous
> > directory. Even if they did use it, I don't know what they'd be hoping to
> > acheive by going up a level from the root of a device - of course if you do
> > something stupid like that you're bound to end up not knowing where you
> > are, it's not the file manager's fault, just hit back.
> 
> I think Uno Engborg is after a mode where the "moron/normal user" wouldn't be 
> able to browse outside his own directories and removable media and that this 
> mode could be disabled by the "geek" users. This mode feels strange to me as 
> I quite often browse outside these directories. This doesn't mean that it 
> couldn't be usable for somebody. However I do not feel that hiding 
> information is the right approach.

The best way to hide information is in other information. By hiding
things that are not relevant to people outside the Unix world, their own
real world related information will be much more visible.

Humans can easily handle about five pieces of information over that the
cognitive load increases significantly. You can test this for yourself
on your friends using a deck of cards. The problem becomes even worse
if you have so many files/folders that they don't easily fit in file
dialogs and thus forces the user to scroll.

If we count the directories found at top level in
most Unix systems we get 7 or so entries that most users shouldn't need
to enter. On my system I have:
/usr, /lib /bin, /sbin, /dev, /etc, /var, /opt, /boot

You say that you frequently browse to places strange places, may I ask
what folders do you access and why. Perhaps there are some other problem
that needs to be solved, that makes it necessary for you to go there.
Also, are the information you find at these places about your computer
system or is it information about the real world?

Besides, if you quite frequently browse to places outside the standard
places I have suggested. It would be quite easy for you to unhide them
by showing hidden files and edit your .hidden file. This procedure is
of course something only power users would do unless we somehow give
users a GUI to unhide files and directories. Perhaps there could be a
context menu where you could say hide or unhide files. However, I doubt
that this would be necessarey MacOS-X users doesn't seam to complain
that a large part of their folders are hidden.

> 
> I do not agree with the "Unix file system is hard to understand" assumptions. 
> The same hierarchy exists in OSX, Windows and most other operating systems. 

MacOS-X is actually what have inpired me to suggest hiding stuff that is
irrellevant to people that are not sysadmins or developers.

In OSX you have folders like /usr, /lib /bin, /sbin, /dev, /etc, /var
are hidden. I'm not quite sure if I remember correctly what happens if
you mount an USB disk but I think it shows up as a separate unit on the
desktop, giving the user the impression that there is a one to one
relation between the disk and what shows up on the screen.

> 
> One problem with not allowing the user to browse outside a removable media and 
> home directory is that he might have a harder time understanding the file 
> system hierarchy. I think that we have to represent the data in a way that 
> the users (also computer illiterates) understand what they see.

How does it benefit e.g. an accountant to understand the file system
hierarchy. If we can build a system where the metaphores used are close
to what he expects from his experience from everyday life, why should we
make his life more complicated by having him learn computer related
stuff that probably is of little use to him. He just want to find his
invoices, his reports, his presentations, his e-mail and some way to
communicate with his collegues and customers. None of this need to
involv learning about file system hierarchy

> 
> With that said I do not think it is hard to understand that the removable 
> media show up under /media/ as well as showing up ass a shortcut icon on the 
> desktop.

It's not hard to understand but my accountant from above couldn't care
less. He will just go for the desktop icon. The /media information is
for the geeks.

Regards
Uno Engborg

_______________________________________________
kde-usability mailing list
kde-usability@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-usability