Re: Generalised approach to storing address details

On Dec 14, 7:26 am, "Neo" <neo55..._at_hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > It has been proven in numerous research studies that menu's use is deletrious
> > > > if nesting goes above two levels... File systems are the only real vestige of
> > > > hierarchy left and are a well known and are rapidly changing to add none
> > > > hierarchical features...
>
> > > If hierarchal interfaces are so deletrious and we have numerous
> > > research studies to prove it, why not extend this to the file explorer
> > > and limit it two levels?
>
> > Why not indeed?
> Have you opened your file explorer recently? Starting from desktop, it
> not too difficult to find folders 11 levels deep.

Yes, and it sucks.

> While some users can
> manage their files within two levels, are you seriously suggesting that
> it would be more intuitive to organize all the files in a computer
> within two levels?

No, I'm saying let's have better tools than nested directories.

> Do you personally manage your files within two
> folder levels?

Mostly I put everything in my home directory, or in a Java package hierarchy. Occasionally I'll make a directory for a special purpose. But I hate it; it's not clear where to put stuff or how to find it again.

Compare manually organized email folders with gmail search + label. I rarely have any trouble finding anything in gmail; I can't say the same for Outlook.

> > If search was better we wouldn't have directory trees.
> What is deficient with file explorer's current search abilities that
> prevents you from managing all your computer files without directory
> trees?

Today, even searching on filename is agonizingly slow, whereas I can STFW with Google in 400 ms. Note that the Google search examines the *contents* of roughly every file on the web.

> > > > JOG: Very little in the world is hierarchical.
> > > Neo: How about physicals things like cars and airplanes?
> > Marshall: Physical things have atoms which form molecules. Any other
> > organizational principle is an abstraction made by the mind,
> > not an attribute of the object.
> So would a BOM for a cars look like the following:
>
> Car
> molecules
> atoms
>
> Isn't it still hierarchal and futhermore not as intuitive as a
> hierarchy of parts like chassis, engine, transmission, etc?

The point is, physical objects are one thing, abstractions of physical objects are another. And we can't characterize those abstractions in the absence of a specific set of requirements. There's no right schema; there's only right-schema-for-a-purpose.

> > Trees do have their uses. They can be a good fit for when nodes have
> > no particular relationship with each other...
> So a hierarchal interface would not be a good fit for BOMs since parts
> has a particular relationship with each other? Do you prefer the list
> or table interface for BOMs? Could you show how you would like a car
> BOM to be displayed?

I've never had to program a BOM application, and I've read about them only a little. I'm not qualified to have an opinion on BOM specifically.

Marshall Received on Thu Dec 14 2006 - 17:54:09 CET