- folders remember where they were on the screen
- folders remember how big they were
This enables you to utilise the brain's superb spatial memory for file management.
- folders remember where they were on the screen
- folders remember how big they were
This enables you to utilise the brain's superb spatial memory for file management.
No they don't? I'm on Sequoia and Finder windows open in exactly the position of my last window. Height does vary on the view style though.
This looks maddening, it's the complete opposite of what I'd want.
> seemingly random positions and sizes
Indeed, so let's open each folder in an actually random position and size, whatever I sized it 3 weeks ago, really.
Sure. I'm just arguing that on paper this is not the solution to the problem described.
You say: "windows open in exactly the position of my last window" (hint: this is called browser behavior, not spatial behavior)
Spatial Finder: windows ignore your last window and open to "whatever I sized it 3 weeks ago" (each window space, position, size, etc is individually remembered by folder)
You would be served to read up some Finder history, like the link to arstechnica featured on the github, so you can understand what Spatial Finder means before weighing in on a tool specifically designed to bring back that feature.
Great job bringing something similar to the modern Finder!
I use a PowerBook G4 Titanium, the 867MHz model. With an SSD, the battery holds 1-2 hours if I'm away from a charger. But I usually keep it at my desk for notes.
Unless someone around me has a keen eye for tech, it is still modern looking enough that I can use it in public or meetings as needed without seeming like I'm pulling out a Windows 2000-era laptop, even though I am.
It's also missing the open folder indicator that the Classic Finder had, where folders that had their window open somewhere had a different icon (filled with a stipple pattern). This is a bigger problem than it sounds like, particularly with OS X having multiple desktops and making it easier to lose windows.
That's quite a caveat. The reason for it is:
> size and position are stored in a hidden .framedata.json file in that folder. When a folder is opened, this file is used to restore its state.
Couldn't this information be stored centrally in the user's home for any folders opened/moved/sized, avoiding this limitation?
Everything seems to be at the point where you want to invite the developer over, get him drunk, and make him swear at his own product until he agrees the experience is not great. Of course there is no "the developer" anymore.
From my perspective the desktop metaphor UX was obsolete the moment it was conceived of. All anyone has to do is look at the physical desks of a thousand random people and it should be immediately obvious how little value there is in recreating that chaos.
Working with such few resources, an iPad-like fullscreen UI would have made more sense and been more efficient.
Companies just wanted to show off I guess.
I think of an app like Photoshop, and it had one window for each image you had open, and then floating toolbars, another window for layers, etc. You could really organize your workspace and have a sense of "mise en place" in a way that doesn't really exist anymore.
Now every application is essentially a 16:9 rectangle squeezed into a tab. The web's enabled some amazing things, but not at zero cost…
Something's lost but something's gained, in living every day.
But for those who loved the spatial Finder and did indeed have nontrivial numbers of files, well, some people just have exceptional visual memory. Think of those who have thousands of books in their house with seemingly loose-to-no organization, yet can quickly retrieve any volume. Or cooks with pantries that seem to lack any rhyme or reason, yet they can immediately find any ingredient.
The one person I know who loved the classic Mac OS spatial Finder and dealt with nontrivial numbers of files worked exactly like that. Their files were organized in haphazard piles across an incredibly cluttered desktop and a handful of folders, yet they could always track down what they needed. Their brain was essentially a flat key->value store that mapped files -> screen coordinates. It didn't map files -> filenames (lots of "memo_1.doc"), and it certainly had no notion of hierarchical keys.
OP: whether this delivers or not, it's a concept that concerns me. Thanks for caring about this and doing something about it.
p_ing•4mo ago
dailyanchovy•4mo ago
p_ing•4mo ago
Thanks!
alsetmusic•4mo ago
therein•4mo ago