Keeping items in multiple places is fine for a computer, but not so
good for humans. It adds clutter.
Having my music, calendar, address book, etc. _synced_ is great, but
that is impossible in the physical. I could never manage that. I need
to be able to find stuff. Repositories (insert whatever metaphor you
wish) are neccessary to stay organized. Tagging and labeling is still
another real world metaphor.
We define the machine, not the other way around (though dome may argue
that).
Chris Palle, {human} experience
blue flame interactive
732-513-3570
http://blueflameinteractive.com
Sent from iPhone
On Oct 10, 2007, at 5:34 PM, "Robert Hoekman, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> I don't understand why the folder
>> model is supposed to be broken. It's not exactly a reflection of the
>> underlying system. It's a metaphor taken from real life.
>
> The metaphor is what originally dictated how the system was built, but
> the result is a weak system regardless.
>
> We're not dealing with physical objects here - we don't have to put
> things in drawers and boxes. Computers are capable of doing this great
> thing that we can't do with physical objects - keep them in multiple
> places - so why stick to the old metaphor when a new one can be so
> clearly superior?
>
>> Interestingly, in real life we don't usually label the things we want
>> to archive, we put things into boxes, drawers, folders and label
>> these
>> containers. Just because foldering is an old metaphor it doesn't mean
>> it's bad. In fact, it might be a great metaphor since it's been
>> successful for a long time.
>
> I'm not saying it's a bad metaphor. I'm saying it results in a system
> that doesn't live up to its potential. Tagging (or "labeling") is the
> next logical step and we should pursue it further instead of clinging
> to the old model just because it's worked in the past.
>
>> Also, why does the web have to be different from the desktop? Why not
>> take working paradigms from the desktop and implement them into the
>> web?
>
> Because the web has constraints the desktop simply doesn't have. It's
> far better to build a system that works within its environment than
> one that is forcefully crow-barred into a format that isn't
> necessarily appropriate for it.
>
> Embracing the constraints of the web can force more creative solutions
> that move us forward. Gmail is a great example of this. To build a
> faster webmail client, Google conslidated conversations into a single
> thread. To eliminate the heavy functionality that goes along with
> foldering, they used a tag-based method that is light, and as an added
> bonus, it has benefits well beyond foldering. By building something
> specifically for the web environment (instead of copying desktop
> designs), they came up with something that works better on the web
> than most mail clients do on the desktop.
>
>> In a few years we won't talk about "desktop" and "web" anymore,
>> it will all be the same animal.
>
> And I hope you're right, but that's not the case at the moment, and I
> think that if we're going to get there, we need to be able to deal
> with the constraints we have with both platforms right now in order to
> unite them.
>
> -r-
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Unsubscribe ................ http://gamma.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://gamma.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://gamma.ixda.org/help
________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe ................ http://gamma.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines ............ http://gamma.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .................. http://gamma.ixda.org/help
