Rethinking the desktop metaphor, or even improving it in any significant way, is a daunting task, and few dare to take the risk. The end result is that the desktop metaphor that we use today barely changed over the years - which is quite unique for the computing industry, as normally, things change very rapidly.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-11
I don't see the author mentioning anywhere that Grape is designed to work well with spatial memory. Maybe the reverse even is intended. Perhaps this concept will be a natural fit the day we stop thinking about where we put our files, and just search a flat space instead. Then it might make more sense to use a single full screen file manager, and only have windows for document contents. I know Thom claimed this to be an improved desktop only, and not a redesign of how to interact with the computer in general, plus Yann Le Coroller mentions "as soon as you drop files on it, it automatically generates a preview", which implies a desktop, but still...
Member since:2005-07-06
Infact, he said it was a improved desktop for the way he works with files. IE, only using a few distinct files each day.
In that sense, I see where he is coming from.
Sometimes, when programming I may be only looking at 5-10 files *ONLY* day in and day. People like my mom also does very few things on the computer and get confused the moment there are more than 20 twenty items in sight.
I think there are lots of people who's daily work flow only involves a few files at a time. To those people, this could be a major improvement.
Member since:2008-05-13
[q]Zooming in and out destroys your spatial memory with considerable force. And the human brain plain and simply isn't constructed to remember where stuff is in a physically flat 3d space.
/q]
Says who ?
to my knowledge spacial memory is one of the best we have, we use it for millenaries and I am eager to read a study that say otherwise.
Member since:2008-02-26
Spatial memory yes, 3D memory no. Maybe the human brain could handle it if we used it regularly, but in our real lives we are 2.5D. We move in a 2D space and manipulate local objects in 3D.
I doubt you remember your girlfriend's room(the refrigerator, whatever) as relative 3D(x,y,z) coordinates. You have a 2D memory of the surfaces you have to cross. You going upstairs or using the elevator are just tricks, you aren't really thinking in 3D. Go upstairs to reach surface A. Push "3" button to reach surface B.
Trivial 3D memory and abstract 3D thought problems such as the folded/unfolded dices present in IQ tests, leave at least 50% of the human population out, so even if YOU could remember random 3D locations and relative positions, I wouldn't assume an interface based in real 3D to be usable by the general populace at all.
Edited 2008-05-14 08:31 UTC
Member since:
2006-06-24
I thought of this, except for the live previews, but I decided it was useless. Zooming in and out destroys your spatial memory with considerable force. So whole idea of remembering physically is vanishes into smoke, when things aren't there any more. Well, they are, but the view is zoomed. And the human brain plain and simply isn't constructed to remember where stuff is in a physically flat 3d space.
Another problem is that unless this can be the only file manager, the user has to learn two programs instead of one. And they have completely different interfaces. Which totally ruins this idea, whose purpose was to make stuff easier. (Making stuff easier isn't done by adding complexity without removing any complexity.)
Of course, we can drop the normal file manager completely, and only use the desktop. As far as I can see, this will be a mess unless the zoom range is very big. But, if the zoom range is very big, then the spatial memory will not be cooperative, as shown by usability tests.