Guy in the Hat

Analogies

Fraser Speirs has an analogy for RAM vs. hard disk space for new computer users.

“Think of RAM as your physical wooden-or-formica desktop. It has a certain fixed size and, if you want to work on paper documents, you have to have them on your desk.”

It’s a good analogy, but I think it’s a very bad idea. Nobody but a technophile should ever have to care about the difference. I like Jef Raskin’s idea of making all technical concepts, including file systems and operating systems, completely invisible to the user.

“the reason why PARC invented the desktop was to make the idea of an operating system and other technical underpinnings of computers easily understood by representing them graphically. The better idea would have been to eliminate the irrelevant technical details.”

Kindle

There is a widespread belief that once books go electronic, something of immense value dies. Reading comfortably by a fire will be forever tainted by the soulless machine, its cruelly glaring screen, its cold metallic emptiness.

Story time.

Before the printing press, when Europe was wailing in the depths of the Dark Ages, books were made in remote monasteries.

The same people who bound the lambskin pages raised the lambs.

Each text was accompanied by notations in the margins, the copyist musing over particularly insightful passages as he wrote them by hand.

The typographical flourishes, the intricate art, everything was done uniquely for a single copy of a book.

Story time two.

Each and every book you own was made on an assembly line in the most identical and cost-effective manner possible.

Moral of our story:

Your books have no soul to lose.

If you think that books shouldn’t trade personality and craftsmanship for mass distribution, that ship already sailed. Centuries ago.

The Kindle might suck (and it definitely does), but “it isn’t a book” is not the reason why.

An Example

So I keep saying the Finder should be more spatial. But that’s a bit vague—what does it even mean? Here’s an everyday example of why spatiality is nice.

I have several folders on my Mac devoted to solely to images from the internet. Since such images usually have gibberish filenames and the content is what’s important, Cover Flow is perfect for viewing these folders in the Finder. But doing so effectively requires a big Finder window. This is a problem, since most of my Finder windows are small (a folder with, say, ten sub-folders is still a relatively tiny window). The normal browser-like behavior of the Finder is to replace the contents of the front window with the contents of the folder you open. Let’s see how that works for my Wallpapers folder, which I’ve set to always open in Cover Flow (in Show View Options).

My Pictures folder:

And opening Wallpaper:

Ooh, not good. Cover Flow gets squished into that tiny window. I’d have to manually resize it and then do the reverse every time. Now let’s try the same thing under old-school spatial mode (click the pill button on the top right).

Once again, the Pictures folder:

And Wallpaper:

My viewing preferences for this window were preserved from where I left it last. Beautiful.

So what’s the problem? Why don’t I just keep on going in old-school mode for the rest of my days? Unfortunately, the Finder exhibits browser-like behavior for the different views (icon, list, etc.) even when it looks old-school. So if I switch one folder to Cover Flow, then open another that used to be in icon view, that folder will also show up in Cover Flow. The Finder treats the views as a switch for newly opened folders: off or on. Boo.

To get the desired effect above, I had to go into View Options and set it manually as I described. This is a terrible state off affairs. New users are never going to see this option, and without it, old-school mode is exactly like browser mode except without the toolbar. In short, it looks inherently worse at face value. Not to mention the annoyance of opening that palette all the time.

So won’t you join in my crusade? Who will be strong and stand with me? Beyond the barricade, is there a Finder you long to see? Then join in the fight that will give you the right to be free!

[Editor’s Note: I keep capitalizing Cover Flow. I don’t know why, I guess it looks more official that way.]

Mindless Automation Tutorial Update

For all of you MtG Players out there, I’ve made some small Leopard-related updates to the Mindless Automation tutorial.

Mindless is a free, ugly-as-sin Linux application that lets you connect to the Apprentice network and play Magic: the Gathering against your geeky friends. A port of it can be run on a Mac using X11:

If you check the tutorial’s comments, there’s also a bit of troubleshooting, as well as an explanation of how to make your life a bit easier using Porticus, a DarwinPorts GUI.

Awwww...

Is it weird to get sentimental over an application icon? I just noticed this about TextEdit:

Wood

I was reading through the DrunkenBlog archives (as I often do), when I came across the interview with Wil Shipley (which, by the way, is required reading), and noticed this early mockup of Delicious Library:

It reminded me immediately of the most recent MyDreamApp post (which isn’t very recent at all—MyDreamApp is dying) about Cookbook’s interface, which looks something like this:

If you think that an all-wooden interface is a silly idea, that’s because it is. As Wil Shipley puts it:

“At one point we had an interface where we replaced Apple’s brushed-metal with wood, and it looked really amazing but there were some technical issues and we finally decided that, actually, it was cool but it made the interface harder to understand. Sometimes you do stuff that’s just cool for cool’s sake, but you can’t do it if it actually gets in the way of the app’s transparency.”

Let’s hope Austin Sarner or whoever actually ends up implementing the Cookbook interface (if it ever gets made at all) comes to a similar realization.

Xfile Review

If its developer is to be believed, Xfile is some sort of magical application: “The standard setter,” “1/100 the size of comparable products” and “by far the fastest file browser.” How does Xfile manage these amazing feats? Let’s take a look, shall we?

The first thing we notice about the application is a familiar file-manager scheme: a source list of folders on the left (in this case, every folder of the drive in a heirarchy) and a list of the folder contents on the right. The text of this right-hand view is fairly tiny, so we may be tempted to change it. And that’s when we realize:

There’s no View menu.

Well, that’s weird, but I’m sure it’s in the Preferences, right?

There are no Preferences.

And the reason behind the small size of Xfile begins to become oh-so-painfully clear.

There are no features in this application.

We scan furiously across the window, through the menus, and into the documentation; surely there is more to this app than a window with two views! But we search in vain.

Maybe the developer’s site will help us! Surely it can explain why all icons are either a generic white “file” of blue “folder.” Or why all dot files are forcibly displayed, or why there is no search of any kind. And it must be able to explain why we can’t assign shortcuts to folders we want or open the app at anywhere other than Home. Of course it can tell us why there is no installer, and we had to move the framework to the proper place manually.

Aha, a FAQ! And I was getting worried there for a second. Let’s see…

“Q. Why doesn’t Xfile include the functionality of Xfind and Xscan? It would be a lot more convenient with search capabilities in the same program.

A. Because it’s bad design. The design you speak of will only be optimal for precisely the situation you have in mind. Keep the programs separate and they’re more flexible. Besides, smaller more finite bodies of code mean more rugged bug-free crash-proof programs. The difference in how one works with these programs is almost non-existent.”

Oh, so the $50 file manager doesn’t include a basic function of every other file manager because it’s “more flexible” that way. Makes perfect sense. And I bet it saves space, too.

“Q. How can I get Xfile to open at other than my home directory?

A. Xfile is a ‘Cocoa document-based application’, even though it doesn’t edit documents per se. Put the directory you’re after on a command line in a shell script. Xfile will always open new windows at the directories dropped on its Dock icon: drop one and see. This also works interchangeably with Xfind and Xscan.”

Silly me, I forgot to write a shell script just to open the directory I wanted on startup. Thank goodness Rixstep saved space in the application by not programming this in!

“Q. I’d like to add my favourite applications to the Xfile menu. How do I do that?

A. You don’t have to. The system automatically knows where all applications are at all times. You never need to supply a full path to an application, nor do you need to suffix the ‘app’ extension. Just use the ‘Open’ sheet in Xfile and put in the name of your application in the second field. If AOL users can type keywords instead of clicking links, you can do the same.”

Oh, so I just had to enter every folder and file name manually instead of having the software keep track of what I use the most? Why didn’t I just think of that in the first place?

“Q. I can’t drop files from the Finder onto Xfile.

A. This is by design. You can do it the other way around, as Xfile must export the common file dragging format. But the Xfile message to the Finder is otherwise clear: ‘hands off!’”

Oh, Rixstep. You’re always looking out for the customer’s desire to fight your personal battles against the Finder for you. How considerate.

“Q. Can I turn off display of hidden files? Can’t you mark them in a different colour?

A. There are no hidden files in Xfile. The program is counting on you to be intelligent and to use discretion. Live up to its expectations. They’re not in a different colour because they’re not really hidden - they’re only hidden in the Finder.”

Because allowing people to hide dot files insults their intelligence.

And finally, the question of all questions:

“Q. How can you make the Xfile System programs so compact?

A. That’s classified. We could tell you, but then we’d have to kill you. We’re selling something valuable here, Bubba - we’re not about to give it or the secrets away.”

How is that app so small? It’s still a mystery.

I could go on and on about the interface’s usability flaws or how the testimonies on the websites lack sources, but ultimately, reviewing Xfile is like catching smoke. There’s no substance at all to this application. It’s a window with two fixed views for files and nothing else. By design.

Buy it now for $50, or for $90 you can also get all those other apps that were complimentarily downloaded to your computer when you tried out Xfile. Distinguishable icons not included. Users with Gmail, .mac, or anything that isn’t strictly plain text need not apply.

Quicksilver and Text Clippings

Sorry if everyone already knows this, but I use it all the time, and I’ve never seen it mentioned online.

Text clippings are those files you get by dragging selected text into the Finder.

You can drop them in text windows to “paste” the contents, and since the file name is the content, they make nice little reminders or notes in file form.

If you need a writing surface just to create a text clipping quickly (even opening TextEdit seems counterintuitive—why not just save a file?), Quicksilver has you covered. Hit the period key, type, and press tab.

Boom, text clipping. You can drag and drop it where you like. As a bonus, if your text is formatted like a url, it generates a webloc file (which you can double-click to launch the website) instead.