-34

I've been looking at some other file managers in other operating systems, like BeOS/Haiku and Mac Classic, and they both use spatial file managers. There are several things that I like about them, and I kind of want a spatial Dolphin, not just for the novelty, but also because some of

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatial_file_manager

Actually, GNOME does a good job of explaining why a spatial nautilus was used, and the concepts behind it.

http://www.bytebot.net/geekdocs/spatial-nautilus.html

So... do you think that a spatial option would be a nice addition to Dolphin?

EDIT: Here's another good resource, this time about the Mac Finder, and the switch to a navigational file browser in OS X.

http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/finder.ars

Oh I absolutely hate spatial file managers. I have no idea why you would want to make a user believe that "folders are real objects" or any of that **** people always tell. In my opinion it doesn't even work out. Folders and files get moved, renamed, symbolically linked, etc. Why not letting the user really understand the abstract tree structure? Those spatially file managers only hinder the understanding of the real filesystem organization.

jrick wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatial_file_manager

I had no idea that everything I hated about various other file managers could be summarised in just one word. Thanks.

There are no real advantages in my eyes for this system. Its fine how it is now.

I really don't like this feature ( but I do like the lack of it),
Finder is a mess if you need to move files to different folders.
Same goes to Nautilus when using it on Spatial mode (it does have a non spatial mode too, that works quite ok).

the best solution so far for me is the 'Split' button on Dolphin

I don't care either way as long as I don't have to use it.

No thanx... what's the point of it ?

Heh, yeah, kind of thought that this would be the general opinion about it. Not too many people I meet like the idea of spatial file managers if they already know how to use a file browser/navigator.

But look at Mac OS X's Finder; while spatial is not the default, with one click, you can change it to spatial mode. That's what the clear button at the top right hand corner of the window does. Spatial would not have to be default, but just as an option for those who want it.[hr]

Cypher wrote:No thanx... what's the point of it ?

The idea behind spatial file managers is that humans are spatial beings. The spatial way is the object oriented way. Instead of a window representing what's inside a folder, the window actually becomes the folder. Every time you open that folder, it will open it in a new window in the exact same location as you closed it. Files arranged in the folder remain in the same locations. Everything becomes an actual object, instead of a representation of what's there. Multiple windows is not a feature, but a side effect.

For example, just because you can open each new folder in a new window does not mean that it is necessarily spatial; if you open the same folder twice, and it makes two windows, you just broke the spatial design. Instead, opening a folder which is already open, it will bring it above the others and into focus, just like you would do in real life with real folders.

I know that many, many people hate it because of the window clutter, but for new computer users, it can be a sigh of relief. There's a reason why Mac Classic was hands down the easiest OS to learn at the time. People interacted with their files as if they were actual objects. And as humans are spatial by nature, this can theoretically decrease the learning curve and increase productivity.

irina_r wrote: I don't care either way as long as I don't have to use it.

+1

Uhhhhh after looking up on wikipedia what a spatial file manager is I remembered what I hated so much on Nautilus! The spatial approach is usless imho. As a developer i would not even waste 1 sec in such a option. If someone wants to implement it, go ahead. As long as it is optional and not de default I dont care...

Spartial file managers are just to messy, maybe they are more "real life" than others, but very unfunctial, however options don't hurt no one.

jrick, the window clutter is a side effect, that's right. But what breaks the neck of spatial filemanagers is that the whole concept is flawed: 'Folders' are no objects, period. Seeing directories as objects just seperates them from each other and confuses the user. They are not seperate.
Nonspatial filemanagers just present it as what it really is: a tree structure of file system entities.

I know a bunch of people that uses Finder,
but I don't know a bunch of people that uses Finder in it's spatial flavor.

The poll needs a third answer -- "I don't care as long as I don't have to use it."

Developers are free to chuck any feature in there they want; if it helps one user and makes the developer happy, fine by me. But I will never use a spatial file manager.

Then again, I do about 80% of my file management in BASH, so I don't represent Grandad Q Newuser.

admoore wrote:The poll needs a third answer -- "I don't care as long as I don't have to use it."

Developers are free to chuck any feature in there they want; if it helps one user and makes the developer happy, fine by me. But I will never use a spatial file manager.

That's what the "Yes" option is. It would (could) be an option to set Dolphin to spatial mode. Spatial would never be the default. If you don't want to use it, don't. If you do, it would be there for you.