Let's Kill the Hard Disk Icon 613
Kellym writes "The desktop metaphor is under attack these days. Usability experts and computer scientists like Don Norman, David Gelernter and George Robertson have declared the metaphor "dead." The complexities blamed on the desktop metaphor are not the fault of the metaphor itself, but of its implementation in mainstream systems. The default hard disk icon is part of the desktop metaphor. And the icon is the cause of the complexity created by the desktop"
glorified directory (Score:3, Interesting)
We would then have a different desktop for different parts of the system -- e.g. an operating system desktop which would expose internal controls, configuration files, utility programs and other settings, several program desktops, etc.
In pratice it sounds good but I don't think anyone will take to it very well or it will be that different. In fact, most desktops are just glorified directories anyway that are always open and at the lowest level. So what's the point of difference, because I fail to see one.
Where's some real work on this? (Score:5, Interesting)
Where's some real data on desktop usability? Surely if the desktop is considered so wretched, there'd be a score of empirical HCI studies that:
1) Proposed an alternative
2) Actually went out and prototyped the alternative
3) Showed that the alternative was more efficient than the desktop
But I'm not seeing anything coming out that would seem to indicate that the desktop was dead.
Nitpicking (Score:1, Interesting)
Intriguing idea - but flawed (Score:3, Interesting)
This idea sounds cool, but the argument is weak.
The whole point of the tree-like structure of the harddisk is managed-complexity. Hierarchial structures allow the user to ascend the descend the hierachy, performing operations that are similar in execution, but differing in context.
What happens when you have 1 million odd bits of stuff to manage? How would such a user switch between desktops, looking for the right window to do his stuff on?
You need some kind of tree, not a linear sequence of desktops! Say maybe one for administrative configuration. Let's call that etc. And one for executables, let's call that bin. And then how about some tmporary space to play around in. On wait
This Article Misses the Point (Score:4, Interesting)
In it's place he would do away with the hierarchical directories and replace it with multiple "desktops" (e.g. flat, non-heirarchical, visually-managed workspaces).
The glaring problem with this is that most professional computer users (ie. discounting grandma who sends email three times a month and opened Word once) have so many files/applications on their computers that they would need dozens (or hundreds!) of these desktop workspaces to manage all of the files & applications.
True, some Linux desktop environments have multiple desktops, but check and see how many users have more than six or eight desktops configured. Very few. There's a usablility threshold where if setting up more "categories" (in this case more desktops) actually decreases usability, whereas setting up "sub-categories" within the top-level categories will increase usability. Hence: heirarchy.
The entire field of taxonomy is dedicated to this principle.
As a previous poster said: This article is daft. (And poorly written.)
New Xerox Palo Alto for 3D usage metaphors? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why we still 20-30 yrs later have no good new metaphors is because there is no fundamental development dedicated to that effort.
The machines today come, thanks to ID and other game companies, equipped with graphics chips more than able to create an immersive 3D environment. This capability is totally unused in daily usage.
Trash the disk metaphor like it has been trashed in UNIX file hierarchy: you can still know everything about your disks, but they have become irrelevant in the directory structure.
A good 3D environment should trash the desktops as well and use spaces instead. Yes you can have your 2D windows for text terminals and whatever current applications, but you can as well do your 3D CAD/CGI design/rendering in space provided by a 3D GUI. Imagine being able to "turn around" with mouse or similar (headmounted?) device in order to look around; to be able to "zoom" into and past separate windows and work areas (workspaces) with mouse wheel or cursor keys.
Imagine being able to link to each other related files/items in a 3D-space instead of 2D. What would that do to your DB schemes. Or to zoom into a software package's source icon to see its design, zoom into a class to see its components, and zoom into a method to see its source.
Etc.
This would require trial-and-error, examining, playing around. Where is the team that is being paid for this development?
Any hints would be greatly appreciated. I could even be interested in such work myself.
Declare the _metaphor_ dead (Score:2, Interesting)
As an analogy that someone else suggested once (iirc on
Re:Yah right... (Score:3, Interesting)
Keyboard-based navigation tools -- e.g. a command-line interface -- are ten times faster if
Okay, totally valid point. It _is_ of course non-obvious how to use vi for text editing or bash for file manipulation. Still, most people who use computers for work use them for hours a day - and mostly using the same applications. So, being able to use them is IMO much preferrable to being "simple".
That, of course is an implementation problem - if you take a look at GNU software, there's the Readline library [cwru.edu] that controls how you enter text (and a few more things :)) in almost any application. So you set your preferences once, and they work in your mail client, on the shell prompt and in your web browser, just the same (of course, with configurable exceptions and all the candy you'd expect from a solution for smart people).
Trouble with readline is only that it's GPL licensed, and therefore never found adaptation in any non-free (or non-GPL, for that matter) software...
Comment removed (Score:2, Interesting)
He's wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
If the desktop metaphor is perfect, yet the "hard drive" icon is part of the metaphor, the how can he claim that the metaphor is perfect and it's the implementation that's wrong?
Ignoring the fact that they contradict themselves in the first paragraph, there's plenty of other glaring holes in the argument.
"The extension of the "rules of the desktop" to cover the entire capacity of the hard disk is the main reason why systems that support multiple desktops seem simpler and are easier to use and manage."
Who says it's simpler? You still need to initially setup that desktop, which involved setting up shortcuts to locations in the file system. Try doing that without delving into the hard drive while still maintaining a super simplistic environment (i.e. no command line either). Besides, maybe I have a lot of data and need 20 desktops to organize it correctly. So instead of setting the default "open" path in the application of my choice, I would have to switch desktops to open a file. What if I want several things of different types open at once?
"It is possible to build labyrinths of internal directories that eventually become too deep to navigate via the mouse. The feeling of such spiral filing systems is of endless depth, requiring great effort to retrieve a piece of information. It is difficult to create the same spiral feeling on the desktop."
So sub-folders are a bad thing I guess. Yes, it's terribly confusing to have a tree like "documents/company/forms/standard contracts". That would be too confusing to navigate. But if you had someway of setting a "view" on the desktop that would be simpler. And this "view" menu would be incredibly simplistic to use and would be able to differentiate between Forms and Letters in a DOC or PDF file? Gee, that sounds like more work when I create the document too.
"To reap the benefits of the desktop metaphor, we have to design computer systems that leave the user clearly anchored in the desktop metaphor at all times. But in the multiple desktop, you are always on a desktop and can't ever get lost inside the computer."
Ok, but you could get lost in all the desktops you'd need to setup.
The desktop was designed to give users quick access to common programs. You don't need every file you ever need to use, sitting on your desktop, or even some virtual desktop somewhere. Because if you only use it once every six months, you're going to forget what desktop it's on anyways. Intelligent directory trees and default "file-open" locations are the way to do it. The methods outlined in this article would require a lot of extra setup the user would have to do, and doesn't address new files being added by another user on a network.
I guess I was really bored this morning, I didn't intend to comment that much on an opinion piece on some other site. Which makes me wonder, why are we linking to use opinions on other sites? Maybe the author is somebody I know, but isn't this like linking to a slashdot users comments?
Re:Yah right... (Score:2, Interesting)
LOVE your logic!
Re:You must understand the technology to use it (Score:3, Interesting)
Since the first option is by far the most userfriendly, I think in the future (when we have really nice uplinks at home), companies will start to over fully functional thin clients which they admin themselves. This would take away a lot of the problems the average home-user has and at the same time will enable us to rent applications which we'd otherwise consider too expensive to buy (and now use illegaly) and offer lots and lots more...
Ok, we'll kill the icon (Score:3, Interesting)
I get what the pundit is saying, but the idea of multiple desktops to do everything is awkward. Calling for that as a matter of usability is to fail to realise the general cluttered state most people leave their desktops.
Yeah, getting rid of the icon is probably a good idea. It is a "box" elsewhere and it's frustrating. Most of the newbies I see go through three stages:
I don't know about you, but having a directory system I can bring up on my "desktop" that lets me jump through is great. It all depends on how you use the system. But face it, as people becoem power users, the directory structure will come back again and again. Most people can't wait for tech support and thus will always migrate away from the dummy device.
Re:Mac was the first? (Score:3, Interesting)
I for one wouldn't object to having /configuration that was a symlink to /etc and even having /etc non-visible by default in graphical browsers.
Re:Confused user (Score:2, Interesting)
Maybe you didn't have a hard time learning because the term was already in common use. I bet it wasn't always that way. Now fast forward 10 years... I wonder if "desktop" and "hard-drive" will be in common use. I know people 60 years old who now know these terms, and they have nothing to do with the field... Just like you don't really have anything to do with the automotive industry.
Sorry for the extremely overworked computer as car metaphor, but here it actually fits. You can actually substitute *any* new technology with its corresponding terminology.
-Greg ---
Desktop uses (Score:3, Interesting)
The desktop stores links to other resources.
This applies to applications and to directories. The author of the original article is fundamentally wrong to say that the desktop contains the hard disk. Instead, it just contains a link to the directories "c:\" or "/home/$USER" or whatever.
This makes perfect sense if you want quick access to your folders, exactly as most people want quick access to their favorite applications.
However, he's right that the desktop has its limitations. It's especially stupid if you have to minimize all your windows just for the 5 second job of locating an icon and clicking on it. The taskbar of Windows 98 and the extended start menu of Windows XP do it much better...
Abstractions (Score:3, Interesting)
I should be able to use a computer without knowing the details of inodes, free space bitmaps, disk partitioning, and the I/O channel configuration of the computer. It is the operating system's job to manage that stuff and hide it from the user. The user interface should present a suitable abstraction or abstractions that is not dependent on the implementation details of the computer's storage system.
Let's time doing its work (Score:2, Interesting)
MSWindows have added some interestings changes, like a "real" top level desktop, a taskbar, a quicklanch bar, a start menu, a trash... And now that I'm using Debian with Ice, I choose to reuse some os these ideas, suppress some, to obtain MY perfect desktop.
And it's the same for the user community: God created the taskbar, everybody used it, some linux GUI used it too, so God saw that it was good.
It's a kind of natural evolution...
The Good Ol' Days (Score:5, Interesting)
Multiple desktops are simply windows. Call them whatever you want, but the authors want a windowing motif without a base window to throw junk onto.
The other problem is the incredible naivetee of this statement from the article: Add unlimited files without fear of clutter. (You can change views in a directory.) The first time you used a Disk Operating System, you had a tendancy to throw all of your files into one directory. That's my definition of clutter, and it is no different than the desktop paradigm where junk files reside.
I think the authors are forgetting history and the reasons why we don't use bare-bones DOS to operate our applications. They're also forgetting that with a computer monitor, if you remove all of your desktops, what's left? there has to be some basic background, even if it has no functionality.
Re:Oh please $deity, no... (Score:4, Interesting)
They are BEHIND these damn window things - WTF use are they there?????
All my shortcuts go on the menu. Where I can get them, without hiding the current app.
Desktops are useful, in real life, when they are large enough to sit *around* your work. You can reach out and grab pens and such. Desktops, on PCs, have never yet been big enough for me to feel comfortable with more than a couple of (non-overlapping) windows up at a time. (Don't get me started on overlapping windows... grrr...)
And I NEVER store files on the desktop. Why? Because, sonny, this is Win2K with a roaming profile. Everything you write there is synched with the server (which, half the time, is in a different city from me). T r y l o g g i n g o n t o d a.... oh feck it can I log on as you today?
- Cantankerous Old Git
All these so called experts... (Score:3, Interesting)
His proposal of imposing artificial, view based limits on the organazation of files is ludicrous. He spends his time complaining that while their is a screen with a Desktop, it's not consistant with directory structure, not like we have it in real life. Last time I checked, people working on stuff on their desks pull them out of a file cabinet and put them back when finished, more like the computer paradigm. It makes sense to store your information differently from the way we work on a desktop. A strategy like he suggests would impose a huge penalty in terms of time to organize and retrieve data that is not currently on the Desktop, and greatly limits the amount of data that can be in one space, even if the relationships demand that they *should* be together, regardless of "icon clutter".
All these self-proclaimed experts need to be hit a few times with a clue stick. Users like the paradigm the way it is, it is not too complicated.
Re:/complexity/ ?? (Score:3, Interesting)
Just a casual FYI: My Hi-Fi has 4 buttons to control the CD tray and selection, another 4 to control the input source (casette, cd, tuner, aux), another 6 for various graphic equaliser options, 12 buttons to control the tapes, and one volume knob.
And just to complicate the issue, you won't get any sound out of the TV alone because its rigged to play through the aux ; similarly the TV isn't tuned to any channels, but accepts input on aux from the VCR.
The VCR, in addition to its 8 buttons, is programmable from an OSD.
This is not a typical household setup, not does it perform "a single function". What is important is that there are a limited set of functions most "users" use, and those are highlighted on the remote(s) in luminous blue (gotta love Tiwanese stuff ;p ).
The single most important part of designing an interface (for a computer) is to hide complexity without "hiding" it. Reduce the number of options at easy choice point to 7 +- 2. Don't do stupid MS stuff like hiding infrequently used options - users get confused ; it also means the user has a heck of a job investigating the full capabilities of the application.
An extension to this: your menu bar should have 5 to 9 menus, each with 5 to 9 items (possibly sub-menus), and each sub menu should have 5 to 9 items with NO submenus. A submenu should never invoke a dialog or be a "checkbox menu". In this manner you reduce the overall complexity to something a user can reasonably nagivate.
desktop? bah! we need cube walls! (Score:3, Interesting)
at first you arent sure what metaphor he is whinging about, but then you realize that he does have a point.
we need a new metaphor. its true. we do. and its not really us who need new metaphors, its the typical user community. the ones who we usually bitch about - the AOL users of the world. and since we're all such ass-kick programmers (l33t c0d3 h4>but what i would really really like is to have the desktop not be a file metaphor, but a notes metaphor - in other words, kill the desktop and make it a cube wall metaphor. one where i can stick up notes and reminders and post its. where i can "hang" my clock, my calendar, or maybe where i can hang a shelf to put books and manuals at.
I've always found the "Desktop" concept somewhat difficult. it doesnt feel like a dsektop, its standing up in front of me. why would i be looking down at it? (i know, i know, pre computers we used to write by looking down at the desktop, but i always focused on what i was doing, not on the things strewn about the 5 foot wide space...)
actually, one metaphor that i did like was the old Magic Cap os from General Magic [generalmagic.com] it used a Desktop [emulation.net] metaphor and also a Hallway [emulation.net] metaphor. these actually work when you realize that people shouldnt have to think to use the computer, they should just be able to use it.
Make computers easier to use, and we'll have more people using computers and doing more with them. To me, thats what makes a GUI good. Thats why i think people liked the mac originally. you didnt have to learn how to use it, it was all presented for you in a graphical and friendly manner - as opposed to a command line.
The GUI has to evolve again. lets go for something even easier to use.
Re:Yah right... (Score:3, Interesting)
This is absurd. Perhaps if they are navigating a tree of folders they are intimately familiar with, but I can navigate a tree or set of folders much quicker with a mouse then a CL and autocomplete. Especially if the folder names are unknown to me.
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Interesting)
Consider the number of users who can't find files after they've downloaded them and you'll see how right they are. Consider what "My Documents" tries to do and you'll see that half-assed efforts have been made to address a fundamental usability issue.
If you've ever gotten really used to multiple desktops for organizing your open applications - if you are one of those people like me who has about 25 windows open at any given time - you'd see what a strong point they have beyond the filesystem notion; it makes more sense to put similar tasks and data in groups together, to have a fairly flat set of groups, and to be able to switch between these contexts.
Re:That's right (Score:4, Interesting)
That is until you realize that, like designing a house, if you don't know what you're doing the whole thing is going to fall apart the instant you look at it funny.
The really interesting thing is that computer programs are quite often designed by People Who Aren't Computer nerds. They're called "customers." Often, these "customers" come by to meddle with the design during its building phase. If this were done during the construction of a house, you would have spaghetti for plumbing, electrical wiring that wouldn't pass inspection, and it would probably float in the air by magic. And this is often exactly what happens to software when you go through a few "design changes" as you make attempts to show the customer what you're spending his hard-earned (or maybe not-so-hard-earned in the case of some companies) cash on during the coding phase of the software. And what they believe to be "minor interface adjustments" typically turn out to be major overhauls that require an almost total rewrite because of how it was originally programmed. The problem is that it needs to be finished in a week, because that was "the last of the changes." If you've ever wondered why programmers don't sleep in that last week of development, that's why.
Don't fool yourself. You wouldn't let a bridge be designed by Joe Average, now would you? Coding's at least as complex.
Re:That's right (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't compare programming to construction. They are so similar, yet implemented so differently it's a shame. There are long lists of rules and codes by which construction has to do things. Are some of these things the "best" way? Probably not, but it is the accepted way and is therefore ubiquitous. Due to this, advances in construction techniques happen slowly, and usually come about through improved tools rather than new rules or codes.
However, in the programming world, nothing is standardized. There are approximately 8 bajillion ways to encode the alphabet. There are a dozen different libraries to display a bitmap image. There are 18 different widget sets in X to accomplish the same thing, and two major toolkits for writing software for Unix.
Advances happen often and create whole new directions to take programming, but these advances happen in the basic rules and codes while the programmer use the same old vi,gcc,gdb from the 19th century.
Computer nerds are poor designers, because they have a skewed outlook of what a computer can and should do. A nerd looks at a computer and sees a box filled with limitations. A nerd sees a computer as a natural extension of his hands and head. A user is 180 out of phase: they see a computer as a magick box with an obtuse and difficult operating mechanism.
Don't fool yourself. You wouldn't let a bridge be designed by Joe Average, now would you? Coding's at least as complex
I wouldn't let a programmer build a bridge either: they'd invent a new method of smelting ore and an entirely new branch of mathematics to build it, it would cost 3 times as much as was estimated, and would be 10 years late in construction. And, after it was built, it would fall into the river and the programmers would blame Microsoft.
I know how complex programming is. I also know that "but it's so haaaard!" is a pretty lame excuse for not doing it right. Programmers, by and large, do not do it right when it comes to design. They are great implementers, but poor designers, because they end up solving the wrong problems.
Perhaps I'm unclear when I say "design"--I don't mean how the inner workings of a computer program passes bits around. That's not design. Designing comes long before fingers touch keyboards. It's where real designers decide what problem the program should solve and how the user will interact with the program. After this has been designed, then the programmers implement this set of specifications. I'm not talking about those designers who put a pretty picture on a CD-player program: I'm talking about real designers that work just as hard as programmers do to design, test, lather, repeat as neccessary to create a good, usable program.
Autocomplete (Score:2, Interesting)
And yeah, MS has noticed that too. Support for Autocomplete has improved with IE5/Win2000, now I get autocomplete in cmd.exe, and in most File Open/Save dialog boxes.
Whats interesting is, MS has been talking about a "universal command line" (perhaps attached to the start bar) as one of the possible features for "Longhorn" (2004-5?) (ahh, can't find a link).
This apparently would feature auto-complete as well as context-sensitivity
OT: On building houses and software (Score:3, Interesting)
Consider the folliwing:
When we planned the addition on our house, we engaged the services of an architect. He took us through the design, starting with extracting our requirements/needs/wants (my list also had to go through the wife filter, but that's a separate story) and sketched out a couple of proposed designs on the spot. We spent a fair amount of time just suggesting random things/improvements/modifications to his design, and eventually he went away with a big pile of notes.
The architect came back with a proposed design, and took us through it, including explaining relevant building codes and material issues, as well as adding a certain amount of value just from his knowledge. After a couple of iterations of this, we approved the plan, and got quotes from contractors to build it.
At various points during the construction, issues came up and we worked with the contractor to resolve them (usually by writing a bigger check). And we got a nice addition which looked very much like the one we wanted!
So why does it work so well in the real world, and less well in the software world?
Communication. We had a clearly defined specification, produced by the architect and approved by us. At various times during construction, we were told about issues and given choices. We were given the cost of each.
Visibility. We were able to see the work progressing, so (when they brought the wrong window and tried to install it) we were able to say "Hang on, that's not what we agreed to.
Accountability (1). Waving the big stick (check for completion) gave us a lot of leverage with the contractor if he was going in the wrong direction.
Accountability (2). Conversely, we were told that the contractor could do anything we wanted, but it would cost time and money, especially money. Any work done over and above the original contract was documented and signed off on.
So can you do this in software? Yes, but you need a couple of (rare) things:
A Manager/Project Leader (of either gender) with Big Brass Balls who can stand up to various people and say "Here's the impact of doing that".
Agreed-on goals/requirements, with key people accountable for both ensuring that they are met and for communicating them to the key players.
Communication amongst the developers and between the developers and the other stakeholders.
Something of a sense that the end-customer isn't a "luser"
Of course, that's my opinion -- I could be wrong.
Re:Ever teach somebody how to drive a stickshift? (Score:3, Interesting)
Very good point and it explains why a computer UI will always be more complex than a car or VCR. BUT, the fact the computers perform a "nearly infinite" number of tasks makes it all the more important that the UI *attempts* as much as possible to be intuitive. A car can use a "counterintuitive" interface precisely because it's function and thus it's interface elements are so limited. There are only three pedals, a wheel and a stick - or even two pedals and a wheel. The UI of a car is NOT complex! On the other hand it IS consistant. No matter which make or model I buy a car from the pedals and the steering wheel all do the same thing and are in the same spot. It's not like Ford puts the clutch on one side and Chrysler puts it on the other - or a Taurus uses a steering wheel, Saturn uses a joystick and Yugo's use a rudder to steer the thing.
By contrast a computer, as you pointed out, can perform a nearly infinite number of tasks and so requires a just as nearly infinite number of UI elements. If those elements are arbitrary, inconsistant and counterintiutive it will take a nearly infinite amount of knowledge to master them to use the computer. If those UI elements are thoughtfully designed to be as intuitive and consistent as possible the user can get the computer to perform those nearly infinite tasks without himself having to expend nearly infinite time and mental energy learning the interface.
There are some things in life that people should just be expected to learn how to do, like operate cars and computers (regardless of the computer's OS).
True, one thing that programmers should be expected to learn (or should hire those that have learned) is good UI design. The people expected to learn the use of computers should themselves expect thought to be put into the UI of those things by the people who design them. Unlike cars too many computer programs and operating system UI's are poorly thought out, needlessly complex, inconsistent, and needlessly constantly changing.
man and info (Score:4, Interesting)
>the GNU people (it was the GNU, people
>right?)
Yes.
>that decided that 'man' wasn't good enough and
>they wanted to reinvent it;
It's not that they wanted to reinvent itthat's a probelem; that would have been survivable. It's that info is just plain an abomination. It seems to be an "emacs everywhere" notion. It's a pain to navigate, counter-intuitive, and the type of thing that could only have come out of the emacs or redmond mentalities.
hawk
Re:Yah right... (Score:3, Interesting)
Disclaimer, I'm a sports car geek, and I drive a 6-speed.
The one argument that can be said, and this applies to computers, is that people turn their brains off too often. Manual transmission gives you better performance because it gives you direct control over the engine- it's all up to you. Driving is an active activity, but most people in North America (well, every region of NA has its habits,) take driving as 'I'm sitting in this lane until my exit shows up, and I'll ignore everything around me.' North America has the worst trained drivers...
These people also like to install in-dash DVD-Video players, because they find the act of driving... boring or something. They'd rather watch a movie while they drive--turning their brains off.
To relate this to computers, a computer is not like using a TV or a toaster. It's a tool and needs to be used like a tool- with an active brain. I remember back in the day when computers were rare, and I'd do vector artwork on computers, people thought it was cheating. "But the computer does everything for you!" Maybe there were thinking of Print Shop, but that's the reputation computers have. It does stuff for you.
It takes learning to use computers, and most people are very afraid to learn outside of their 'domain' (there domain being their profession). And this is one of the biggest problems I've had with Microsoft guis. "Let's show the user everything, let's make everything one click away. We'll make enough toolbars that can fill up the screen. Is there a task to do? We'll try an do it for them!" That really kills a user's need to explore, and people won't become better computer users that way. Most people don't even know what Style Sheets in Word are, and they're arguably the only good reason to use Word (once you turn off all that automatic formatting crap).
Not that our way (um, Unix) is better in that people should learn it. Raw Unix just wasn't designed for users. This article was about mainstream guis... that points to Microsoft :) Mac users are known for becoming experts with their computers, whereas Windows users are always asking me to fix their computers... free up hard drive space... "do I need more memory?"
My mother understands Adobe Illustrator much better than she understands Word, and Illustrator is a far more complicated program. She gets pretty clueless about some of the aspects in Word sometimes. She's often able to figure out Illustrator on her own.
Back to the article, the hard disk icon is bad. People don't want to manage files. They don't even want to think about filing. A more ideal solution would be a database like storage system where the user could always find what they wanted easily, and saving was transparent. Then you'd need 'undo' and 'drafts' to make up for that, which is something that people understand easily. This is trading efficiency for usefulness. What else are we going to do with our 1 GHz machines?
But this desktop idea is just stupid. How many people do you know have cluttered real desktops and digital desktops?
That's where hybrid interfaces come to play (Score:4, Interesting)
Have some (well-written) GTK apps installed? (Some apps written by less-clued folks try to implement their own open boxes... ugh!). Open such an application and go to file/open (alt+f o). Now, type part of a filename and press . If possible, the filename will be completed for you; if several options are available, the windowed listing will be reduced to them. If the only option is a directory, you'll instantly see the contents of that directory (and if it has only one subdirectory, you'll be instantly inside that too). There are lots of other goodies it's capable of as well (some globbing capabilities, &c).
The point of this is that it's possible to write an interface which is intuitive for first-time users but also insanely powerful for power users. It also demonstrates how a good set of underlying libraries can provide applications with really nifty functionality without the programmer even having to be aware that it's available.