[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-usability
Subject:    Re: KListView => KCategoryView or KCategoryList
From:       jos poortvliet <jos () mijnkamer ! nl>
Date:       2007-06-19 7:13:13
Message-ID: 200706190913.18000.jos () mijnkamer ! nl
[Download RAW message or body]

[Attachment #2 (multipart/signed)]


Op Tuesday 19 June 2007, schreef Jacob Beauregard:
> On Monday 18 June 2007 14:37:46 you wrote:
> > Op Monday 18 June 2007, schreef Jacob Beauregard:
> > > I'm not quite sure what you guys are talking about, but aren't folders
> > > supposed to be the categorization tool? In that sense, wouldn't it be
> > > better to make more useful and intuitive use of folders than create
> > > another form of categorization?
> >
> > You sure got a point, but users have to explicitly make folders and
> > categorize files in them. Having a way to automatically categorize a lot
> > of files in a folder makes it easier to find them.
>
> 1. Users don't necessarily have to create folders explicitly. For instance,
> Just look at the Audio CD browser. You really need to understand why
> existing structures are used, only to clear out all assumptions that that's
> the only way of implementing them.
>
> 2. Folders can be made easier to create and interact with given the right
> interface changes and a strong heuristic approach.
>
> 3. The only reason to necessarily create a new structure for organization
> is, I believe, if a file is intended by the user to fit into more than one
> structure (ex. an audio or video file can be in more than one playlist, a
> photo can be in more than one slideshow).
>
> Meanwhile, having file duplicates within a single file system is one thing
> that should be avoided IMO, but it happens. You could assume almost all
> users agree, and build a smart system to avoid that situation. However,
> there would also be the crowd that intentionally duplicates files on a
> single partition for purposes beyond the functionality of their browsing
> experience.
>
> > > Then the users have a big problem anyway: Categorization can be done by
> > > name, type, size, ... so how should we guess which kind of
> > > categorization is wanted by the user?
> >
> > I'd say choose the one which works best in general, or use some simple
> > way of autodetecting (eg 1 filetype, use on name. a few filetypes -> on
> > filetype).
>
> In the sense of #3, we can use Amarok's playlists as an example of the
> numerous ways a single user might want a vast amount of data organized at
> any point in time. As for me, I generally just load my entire collection
> and filter out what I want to listen to, and the file manager should
> already be capable of doing the same thing.
>
> > > Not the categorization will confuse users, but turning it on
> > > automatically based on some magic criteria. Just let the user decide
> > > whether he wants to use category or not.
> >
> > What about this: with a few files, you seem em all at once. As soon as
> > they need a scrollbar, we could use categorization. That's not so
> > 'magic', it just makes sense, right?
> >
> > But if others agree automatically turning it on sucks, I vote for having
> > it on by default. I dunno how smart it is, currently, btw. Earlier
> > incarnations categorized file by name, and showed a categorie even if it
> > would have only 1 member. I think it should be smarter to be usable.
>
> "Smart" is only good if one can assume what the user wants to do, and the
> user can easily expect what's going to happen. A good example of the user
> not expecting something is the shut down menu in Windows XP, when the mouse
> is "magically" teleported over the menu. With most users, there generally
> is quite a bit of error when moving the mouse after the teleportation.

Hmmm. Maybe there should be some folders with default categorization turned 
on. Pictures on date, Music and documents on name, stuff like that. I guess 
this setting can be saved per folder, so having some sane defaults would 
help, right?

You're opposed to turning it on when the files don't fit anymore?

> The problem with this structure is that we can't assume that the user wants
> categorization, we can't assume on what terms the user wants things
> categorized. Still, I would say go ahead with it being the default if the
> cumulative margin that users prefer it to traditional file management is
> positive, and also noting variance.
>
> > The reason I'm so pro-categorization is that it can help find stuff
> > faster. People, esp in office's, spend a lot of time looking for files.
> > Making their life easier is important, imho.
>
> There are definitely a lot of ways that one can improve this particular
> kind of user experience. I'm just a bit skeptical that the approach would
> sit well with a strong majority of users.
>
> > grtz
> >
> > Jos
>
> _______________________________________________
> kde-usability mailing list
> kde-usability@kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-usability



-- 
Disclaimer:

Alles wat ik doe denk en zeg is gebaseerd op het wereldbeeld wat ik nu heb. 
Ik ben niet verantwoordelijk voor wijzigingen van de wereld, of het beeld wat 
ik daarvan heb, noch voor de daaruit voortvloeiende gedragingen van mezelf. 
Alles wat ik zeg is aardig bedoeld, tenzij expliciet vermeld.

Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html

   A: Because it destroys the flow of the conversation
   Q: Why is top-posting bad?

["signature.asc" (application/pgp-signature)]

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


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]