From: David Ensteness (denstene_at_mac.com)
Date: Sun Apr 25 2004 - 12:08:24 PDT
>> You are not comparing your own notes. If you use a database file
>> system, you do not want a spatial interface because a database is not
>> spacial.
> I have to disagree with this. Everything in this world is spacial.
Oh is it? Well, it sits in a particular hard drive sector ... for a
time ... It sits in particular memory registers, for a time ... not
exactly spatial. File systems are by their nature not *really* spatial
because software is not physical.
> Not at all. People want the impression of a consistent (ie spacial)
> presentation of data. If I set my utilities folder to show me icons
> and I put one in a particular place, dammit when I open that window
> again it should show me icons and it should be where I left it.
Impression yes, but is it actually that way, no. I want to open iTunes,
import some songs, then I go do something else, after a while I want to
open a Finder window, I want those songs to be there, I want them
viewable and sortable by *all* of their metadata/attributes. I do not
actually want them inside a directory by the name of the album or
artist, I want to be able to see them in a directory by the artist
name, I also want to be able to see them appear when I browse by album,
or by genre, or anything else. The interface of the iPod is not suited
for this application but it is similar. The data does not reside in any
of the organization headings that the user accesses it from, yet it is
available through any of them. That is a great level of abstraction. It
could appear spatial, but it should not and does not need to be nor do
I think it will be as we go into the future.
> This has NOTHING to do with where the data actually resides.
Exactly my point.
> This is broken on OSX. There is no argument. It doesn't work the way
> it's supposed to.
Eh, spatial sense is largely broken, no argument, but I think that is
for the most part intentional. "The way its suppose to work" is however
it is designed to, I believe Apple is transitioning away from spatial
systems, as is everyone else. Be did in the 1990s, so did NeXT, so is
MS now.
>> Less users have
>> worked in the office without computers on which that metaphor was
>> based
>> so much of the familiarity it brought has been lost. Eventually
>> computers will need an interface that is native to how they really
>> work
>> and not native to a model few have used in the real world for ten to
>> fifteen years. As this happens the interface should become less
>> spatial
>> because computers are not spatial. This should also allow a greater
>> number of interface points for any given piece of data.
> I disagree. Clearly the interface must change. it's actually
> completely stupid that we have to "look" for our data in as primitive a
> way as we do. The computer should really handle this for us. It knows
> when the document/item was made, it knows what made it and what is in
> it too (find by content). This should allow me to tell the computer
> open the letter to Visa i wrote last year...
I do not understand how you disagree, what you said just now concurs
with many of the things I have described. A great number of interface
points is necessary and you seem to be asking for that. Right now we
are very limited in the ways we can "get to" data. Why? Because for the
most part we are working in at least somewhat spatial systems and those
are limiting. The way I organize data in iTunes is not reflected in the
Finder? Why not? Because the Finder is still mostly spatial, not as
much as it was, and certainly not as much as it could be, but since it
is still partially spatial the level of abstraction necessary for
database interaction at the root level does not exist. The computer's
ability to be aware of data based on attributes is not a spatial
concept at all. And you are right, the computer should be able to
access data via attributes such as dates in a far more direct manner
than it does, that is part of moving away from spatial systems. There
is a big difference between the file system and design philosophy being
spatial and the interface. With a spatial philosophy in the system
design, the interface needs to be spatial also, with a non-spatial
philosophy the interface could be, but would at the same time not be.
As I said before, our Newtons are not spatial in their design
philosophy or most of their interface ... yet in places they appear
spatial, our notes stay where we put them for instance, yet they are
maintained in a database soup and viewable only within certain
applications, yet applications can share soups .... Non-spatial
philosophy taking form.
I think we are actually agreeing on a lot of these points, look deeper
at the implications of what we have each said.
David
-- This is the NewtonTalk list - http://www.newtontalk.net/ for all inquiries Official Newton FAQ: http://www.chuma.org/newton/faq/ WikiWikiNewt for all kinds of articles: http://tools.unna.org/wikiwikinewt/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Apr 25 2004 - 12:30:02 PDT