Comment Re:"The" hard disk icon? (Score 1) 613
Sure; the multiple-desktop route ought to be explored. The key is to avoid turning the working environment into a "maze of twisted passages, all alike."
In other words, the design must make traversing the different work areas as visually intuitive as the tree control. Perhaps a map graph or a set of parallel timelines would best help people rediscover the environment of interest.
I mean, novice users relate much better to "last Tuesday after lunch" than to "the blue desktop labeled 'draft recievables 2001-11-13'". I mean, there's nothing wrong with eventually filing the work history and/or end products on a particular desktop under 'recievables 2001-11-13', but that sort of systematic naming (in other words, devising and adhering to a naming convention designed for optimal partitioning) ought to be delayed as long as possible in the task cycle.
Of course, workers wouldn't much like having their every action included on a timeline. Hence it would probably be wise to have modes where only start times or end time are recorded . . . and to be able to completely obliterate [sic] individual items in the history.
A complementary technique for reducing the maze effect is to introduce reference counting to the filesystem. That minimizes the differences between a document and a link to a document. Reference tracking would allow you (in Win32 parlance) to right-click on a shortcut and select an entry that says "move/copy the document here" which would move the document between physical storage locations (if necessary) and simultaneously change all other references to the document (such as references within timeline-style workspaces). Yes, I realize that removable media and intermittently available network resources would require more than two catetories of document reference, but you get the idea.
In other words, the design must make traversing the different work areas as visually intuitive as the tree control. Perhaps a map graph or a set of parallel timelines would best help people rediscover the environment of interest.
I mean, novice users relate much better to "last Tuesday after lunch" than to "the blue desktop labeled 'draft recievables 2001-11-13'". I mean, there's nothing wrong with eventually filing the work history and/or end products on a particular desktop under 'recievables 2001-11-13', but that sort of systematic naming (in other words, devising and adhering to a naming convention designed for optimal partitioning) ought to be delayed as long as possible in the task cycle.
Of course, workers wouldn't much like having their every action included on a timeline. Hence it would probably be wise to have modes where only start times or end time are recorded . . . and to be able to completely obliterate [sic] individual items in the history.
A complementary technique for reducing the maze effect is to introduce reference counting to the filesystem. That minimizes the differences between a document and a link to a document. Reference tracking would allow you (in Win32 parlance) to right-click on a shortcut and select an entry that says "move/copy the document here" which would move the document between physical storage locations (if necessary) and simultaneously change all other references to the document (such as references within timeline-style workspaces). Yes, I realize that removable media and intermittently available network resources would require more than two catetories of document reference, but you get the idea.
