>> Except for keyword searches, most people find the notion of a >> query very >> challenging. To somehow "store" one is even harder. To then >> represent it >> as a folder just adds an obscuring layer on top of that challenging >> abstraction. Even worse, of course, is the fact that most people >> really >> don't fully understand filesystems, and often are operating out of >> habit >> and faith there. > > This is true, but in OSX and GNOME (and presumably Vista, when it > arrives), "smart folders" don't exist in isolation. In OSX, some > of the iLife apps have their own "smart folders" (or "smart > playlists", in the case of iTunes), as does Mail.app. Likewise in > GNOME, Evolution has had vFolders for years. These might be > considered 'advanced' features (although they're not marketed as > such), but having used those, a user does at least gain some basis > for abstracting the idea into their file manager.
I know those are there... I have no data about how much ordinary folks use them (and, I admit we may have different notions of what an 'ordinary user' is :-) >> (on top of all this, I've never been highly clear what problems these >> would actually solve for ordinary users :-) > > For the file manager case, I can at least see some /potential/ for > the sort of "ordinary user" who dumps everything into their "My > Documents" folder, and has no notion of subfolders-- but > ironically, of course, they're probably also the least likely to > discover and use the feature in the normal course of things. Agreed on both counts. > Where implemented inside individual applications, though, I'd say > they're a lot more useful... most iTunes users seem to understand > and use the concept of smart playlists (partly because it cleverly > comes with some pre-configured), smart folders are invaluable in > iPhoto when you have thousands of photographs to wade through, and > many Evolution users switched from other mail clients just to use > vFolders. Interesting point. david
