I think Microsoft's ribbon approach is horrible for usability. It takes a long time to visually scan all those words/icons to figure out what I want. With OS X, the interface is much cleaner. There are only a few buttons and no extraneous visual noise. Finder stays out of your way and lets you get at your files.
I draw this comparison not to start a Mac vs. Windows flame war but to show how wrong-headed I think Microsoft's UI is.
Also, refresh accounts for > 6% of Explorer commands. Why don't they just make Explorer refresh automatically and get rid of the need for the command?
One thing I do like about the redesign is the prominence of the "copy path" button.
Personally, I can't stand Finder. I used a Mac for several years every day before I felt like I really figured it out, and even then I didn't feel like it was user-friendly - it just felt incapable of doing many advanced things (for example, how would you "copy path" in Finder?).
Not only can you hide the buttons in the ribbon (which is nice if you typically use keyboard shortcuts), but the experience is consistent with other recent Microsoft applications. I'm not sure a computer novice or even 50% or more of non-power users would have any idea what the buttons on Finder do (does anyone know what that eye button does before they click on it?), and I think that's the target demographic here. Power users know how to hide unwanted buttons or the text that goes with the buttons.
You can get the a file’s path by dragging it into any text field. But what do you need that for? Besides the terminal (where dragging works, too) the only use case I can think of is troubleshooting.
I'm glad I'm not alone. That weird columnar view mode (don't know the term for it) shown in the screenshot from the GP has to be the worst aspect of the Finder. I've been seriously considering getting a Mac laptop and now someone goes and reminds me about the Finder. But presumably there are 3rd party tools that fix the problem, right?
Some people swear by Miller columns for efficiency and are lost at sea without them. It's entirely a personal preference - if you don't like it, click on one of the other available layouts in the finder.
I don't like it because it's very wasteful of screen real-estate. I do want to see directory hierarchy, but I don't want my files list to be squeezed into smaller and smaller space so I can see lists of every sibling folder of every folder in the path down to the folder that I'm viewing. This view isn't useful in proportion with how much space it takes up. IMO, access to directory structure works better as a treeview, separate from the 'current folder' view, rather than as a new column for each step down into the hierarchy. The latter doesn't scale well.
If so, that view has been available in Finder since at least the first version of OS X I've used which would be 10.3 Panther. These days there are 4 different view you could browse files with in Finder: regular icons, cover flow (does anybody use this ever, by the way? it's the most long-winded, annoying and imprecise to browse anything including photos), column view and hierarchical view.
I was responding to the fact that someone put forward the column view as an example of how Finder was prettier than the Windows 8 Explorer, so yes, I do know that Finder has multiple modes. I would prefer a mode that doesn't conflate the folder navigation UI with the current folder view like that mode that you just mentioned. That'd be a better balance in terms of emphasis on the two aspects of working with a file system.
Huh, column view is one of the things I missed most from Finder. I loved how you could click and hold a file, and navigate through a directory tree just by hovering over each folder in the path.
What a ridiculous question. There are lots of reasons I might want to do that. Storing file paths in a text file for later bookkeeping and copying file paths to a Google search box while trying to debug something are two I can immediately think of.
But how often do you really need to do that? For me, it's once every few months. It's okay for rarely-needed features to be less accessible or a bit harder to use. I understand that getting at the textual path of an object is generally a bit easier in Windows Explorer than in the Finder, but I don't know of any common workflow in OS X that requires it, so I don't understand why it's getting decried as a notable problem with the Finder.
The feature does exist, it just isn't as accessible as some people would prefer. There's an opportunity cost to almost any UI change, so it is perfectly valid to ask whether a feature is useful, important, and popular enough to justify making it easier to use at the expense of making something else harder to use.
The problem is that finder sucks compared to windows explorer. I've used mac os x for two years now and I still do most file management tasks via command-line. This is not the case in windows and linux, where file managers are usable.
I don't like ribbon ui at all, though. But for newcomers it's probably going to be an easier way to manage files. Small anecdote: my grandmother had never used a computer until 6 months ago. One of the hardest things to explain to her was windows context menus. With buttons in the ribbon it would have been so much easier.
The ribbon lays out the essential commands nicely for novices. Advanced users can double-click the ribbon to hide it, and then the interface is fairly uncluttered.
Refresh is done automatically on any filesystems that support it. I think most people do it out of habit, from way back when that wasn't the case.
It's pretty funny, people rant about the ribbon, but it is certainly by far the best usability innovation I've seen in recent years. The only thing that remains is the logical step of pushing ribbon headers into the title bar (Office already does this for contextual ribbons, but not for all of them) to take advantage of the infinite height when the window is maximized.
For sake of argument (and not for sake of flamewars) I'll assume the opposite since I think there is a valid argument both ways.
I'm not sure I would hold the OS X finder up as an example of good design:
Complaints about the finder are numerous and common, there are more finder replacements than just about any other system utility. A google search for "OS X finder" reveals that in the top 10 results (excluding images), #2, #3, #5, #6, #7, #8 and #10 are all either complaints about the finder, replacements for the finder, or commentary on complaints about the finder.
The titles are things like "How to Make the Max OS X Finder Suck Less" as if it's a given that everybody understands it sucks. "n replacements for the Finder". It's even one of those rare topics that Gruber can find it in himself to complain about Apple. http://daringfireball.net/2002/11/that_finder_thing
Also, once I got over the loss of the investment of brain space to memorize every possible menu item in the MS-Office suite, I've actually found the Ribbon interface to be very enjoyable to use, just as fast for things I know about, and many times faster for things I don't because it makes them easily discoverable.
But let's assume for a second I step up to each computer with no idea how to use either (but am familiar with very basic metaphors like a hierarchical file structure).
Looking at the OS X finder, I have virtually no idea what any of the buttons do. Left to right:
arrows going both directions, one is grayed out. Knowing that files can be organized hierarchically, do those buttons let me jump between siblings?
4 pictographs of no discernible relation to anything to do with file management: e.g. does the second one open up a text editor? the fourth one may have something to do with audio volume or screen brightness
there's an eye, does that control my camera? open up a file? only view a file?
a gear/light flash/different sort of eye glyph from the one before. if it's a gear maybe this lets me adjust some sort of setting
at the interface itself:
what is a device vs. a place? what is the relationship to each other? is a place on a device? or is a place something different?
Why do I have two columns of what look like folders? are they related to one another? if the rightmost column is supposed to be what's inside of the selected library folder in the second column, does that imply that I can only go one folder deep?
then at the bottom I have something that looks like a hard drive (but I wouldn't know that having never seen one), a folder called 'users' (why are there more than one! it's my computer, I'm the only one!), a house and then finally another folder.
I'm left with more outstanding questions for what's not on the window. How do I create folders? How do I delete things? How do I rename something? Provided I can figure out that this is a representation of the hierarachical file structure, is there a way to copy or move files between different parts of the file system? How do I add or remove "places"? etc.
The principle problems are that the finder is simultaneously underpowered.
It also hi-lights something that's sadly becoming more and more common in Apple's interfaces, a lack of discoverability. Sure, the disconnected toolbar up at the top of the screen (or perhaps on a different monitor) may answer some of my questions, and I could hover for tool tips perhaps, but realizing that those things are even connected is a serious interface problem.
The new explorer isn't without it's faults:
why is there a "File" menu when I'm clearly looking at files, is that something I push to "file" away something?
it's got the weird left right arrows and even a weirder up arrow
why is there a manage meny? aren't I managing my files right now?
But for the most part it achieves discoverability, while also having (or at least doing a better job of revealing) power.
Oh! So you push the button clearly labeled "move-to" to move a file to someplace!
Oh! There's a button called "open" with a picture of the MS-Word logo, that must open that file in Word.
etc. etc.
"Also, refresh accounts for > 6% of Explorer commands. Why don't they just make Explorer refresh automatically and get rid of the need for the command?"
It does, just sometimes not fast enough for most users. It certainly works better on OS X.
I agree that Finder isn't the pinnacle of folder browsing applications. The best example of this from my own experience is how absurdly it is to copy the path of the current folder. The only built-in way I've found to do this is to drag the folder to a Terminal window and then manually copy the path from there.
I solved the problem with a little AppleScript I call with a Terminal command (pwdff) that copies the full path of the topmost Finder window to the clipboard. Ugly, ugly hack.
I think Finder's design is targeted at naive users, not power users (hence all the power user Finder replacements). I disagree with the parent post that Finder would be hard to use for a new user -- I've helped a number of people switch from Windows to Mac and never had a single question about performing file management tasks in Finder.
I do most of my complicated file management in Terminal on Mac. I would do the same thing in Windows if cmd.exe wasn't completely unusable (why can't I copy/paste normally into cmd.exe???). For everything else, I want the OS's file management app to get out of my way and let me access my files. Finder's minimalist design does that ok. For me, this ribbon thing is an aesthetic/usability nightmare.
What are you doing with textual paths that can't be satisfied by simply dragging the item from the Finder to the place where you want the path as text?
I wonder this too. It sounds like he's not evaluating the Finder, or any other window manager on its own merits. He's comparing it to what he's used before (command line) and assuming that any new way of doing things won't need relearning, or at least that relearning should be easy because he's a "poweruser." (Sort of how doctors end up being worse than average stock investors because they assume expertise in one field means skill in another.)
Someone might have a better feel for temps in degrees Fahrenheit over degrees Celsius. That doesn't mean Fahrenheit is inherently better than Celsius.
> It sounds like he's not evaluating the Finder, or any other window manager on its own merits. He's comparing it to what he's used before (command line) and assuming that any new way of doing things won't need relearning, or at least that relearning should be easy because he's a "poweruser."
- Assessing a window manager in isolation from the rest of your workflow makes no sense.
- Based on my experience with ribbons in Office, I think they are much less user-friendly than any other existing system of accessing commands. Primarily, I think this is because of the visual noise: there are lots of icons and words in an arbitrary layout (not rows or a grid) you have to parse through to find what you want. I think the same principle applies as with web forms (http://www.cxpartners.co.uk/cxinsights/web_forms_design_guid...) -- the ribbon makes you jump around between a whole bunch of icons before you find what you want.
- Spending more time with ribbons don't make them easier to use in practice. For example, I use conditional formatting, autofiltering, and sheet/worksheet protection all the time in Excel. I still am not able to remember which tab they are in on the ribbon (how does putting sheet protection on "Review" tab make any sense?).
> Someone might have a better feel for temps in degrees Fahrenheit over degrees Celsius. That doesn't mean Fahrenheit is inherently better than Celsius.
I'd say a better analogy would be between the US system of measuring volume (gallons, etc.) and the metric system. I've refused to learn the US system because the relationship between the different units is totally arbitrary. The arbitrary feel of the design of the Win 8 Explorer ribbon strikes me the same way.
there are lots of icons and words in an arbitrary layout (not rows or a grid)
They actually use a containment metaphor vs. a list or grid metaphor for orgnaization. Though I have to agree that once they're in the container it all goes to hell. And I can't for the life of me reliably remember which container contains what.
I don't use use my "pwdff" command that often. It is convenient if I need to read a specific file in a script that's buried in some folder.
I use my "cdff" command much more often, which changes the directory in Terminal to the frontmost Finder window. (And if you already have the folder up in Terminal, "pwd | pbcopy" is essentially the same as "pwdff".)
I have come to believe the reason the ribbon interface is criticized is a result of two things.
First, everyone reviewing the ribbon interface online is more than competent with the old menu bar.
Second, everyone who is competent with the menu bar finds themselves in the awkward purgatory of "I know there is a Find function, but where is it hidden in these menus...".
In other words, the reason people don't like it is the same reason most every person has resisted improvements in interfaces for the past forever.
> In other words, the reason people don't like it is the
> same reason most every person has resisted improvements
> in interfaces for the past forever.
Potentially correct in some cases, however your assertion assumes that the ribbon is an improvement and waves away criticism. The ribbon is horribly visually cluttered with poorly-spaced buttons and tabs and menus. It doesn't feel organized.
I think you'll find people aren't resistant to interface change, they're resistant to change that makes them immediately less productive with no immediate benefit. For instance, the Start Menu, way back in the day, was pretty widely considered a good idea.
There's definitely a subset of people that can glom onto interface changes pretty readily.
But I've found that the vast majority of regular old users invest an incredible amount of themselves into learning an interface. I know people who still use WordPerfect for DOS because they couldn't move beyond their investment in the interface and moving to not just MS-Word, but WordPerfect for windows was too much of a jump.
Outside of the tech-sphere, users don't click buttons or dig through menus to figure out what they do or where things are, they might mouseover for a tooltip if your lucky. But most users don't explore. They learn and regurgitate procedures. Do this to make something bold, do this to indent a line, do this to insert a picture, etc.
There's no reason for MS-Office classes, yet they abound everywhere because non-tech users simply don't do these kinds of things. Putting as much up front as possible, with labels on as much as possible is about the only way you can get users to see that, yes, this software can do something.
It's mind-numbing and frustrating as an interface designer to spend hours thinking of optimal workflows, and minimal menu depth and all that, only to have users simply not use those things because it doesn't follow a procedure they happened to have learned a decade prior.
What is interesting is that the Ribbon is an improvement, but only for novice to average users. In various surveys and studies the only segment of the population that seems to have a problem with it are relatively advanced or technical users. High-end users report a loss of productivity. But increasing the capabilities of novice and average users was the goal of the interface and thus it has succeeded.
I agree with this but I think the effect is only temporary. Moving from the menus to the ribbon is a change and you lose your muscle memory and your sense of the "logical" place for things. But when you get used the new system, you're equally effective. After a while I came to appreciate the ribbon in Office because everything you could do in the current context is right there -- nothing is hidden deeper down. If it's not in the ribbon, you can't do it.
I don't like the ribbon because it's hard to find things in it. Same reason I don't like menus. Same reason I don't like Apple's ambiguous menu bar buttons.
The only solution I've found to this is the Help function on recent versions of OS X. Press cmd-shift-/ and you can search for any item hidden in a menu.
If Microsoft added a feature like this, the ribbon wouldn't matter -- I could just turn it off and use keyboard shortcuts/search for everything.
>use keyboard shortcuts/search for everything...
But the quick access toolbar matters imho. Being able to e.g. add 'show/hide hidden' files is great and beats thousandthreehundred times the castrated Finder (which forces me to go to the terminal (and not even provides a context menu for this - lame)).
If Microsoft added a feature like this, the ribbon wouldn't matter -- I could just turn it off and use keyboard shortcuts/search for everything.
I have to agree to some point. This fails the discoverability principle, but it an awesome interface for power users who know what they are looking for a priori.
> Second, everyone who is competent with the menu bar finds themselves in the awkward purgatory of "I know there is a Find function, but where is it hidden in these menus...".
Literally every single question you ask about the Finder can be answered by simply clicking on the UI element you are wondering and observing what happens. It would take less than two minutes of poking around to fully understand all the basic controls of the Finder, and during that time, you are very unlikely to damage your file structure. Also, even a moderate familiarity with OS X UI conventions would explain a lot of the functionality.
It seems you're trying to say that any UI without textual labels on everything is not discoverable. That doesn't fit with the usual meaning of the term, and seems to be too strict a standard to be actually useful.
Most of us here certainly wouldn't have any trouble, but an almost defining characteristic of newbie computer user is being afraid to take any action without understanding the consequences.
Literally every single question you ask about the Finder can be answered by simply clicking on the UI element you are wondering and observing what happens.
You and I have different definitions of the word 'literally'. He has a number of questions for things that aren't apparent on the gui ("How do I create folders? How do I delete things?" etc)
Normally I'm not a fan of the over-fetishization of Apple UI and design that tends to happen here on HN, but in this case I have to strongly agree with you that the OSX finder UI (for all it's many quirks and limitations) is vastly better than this new Explorer UI. Hell, the Windows 7 Explorer UI is better.
This new Explorer UI is just waaaay to damned cluttered. Putting the Ribbon UI on Explorer is not necessarily a bad thing, but I really thing they could trim down the number of buttons present by default on the "Home" tab of that ribbon. IMHO, this is gonna be intimidating as hell to most casual/non-savvy users.
The copy path button is only necessary because Explorer hides the real path with the fake address bar they use now. I'd bet that mostly power users need to copy the path anyways, and they'll be able to figure out how to click on the address bar and Ctrl+C.
It may feel gimmicky to you, but it's very functional. Each area of the breadcrumb bar has a distinct and useful function (jump up the hierarchy, list other folders at that hierarchy level, enter textbox mode). It's insanely useful in comparison to any other method I've seen.
Why use URL shorteners on HN? I feel uneasy clicking on them. There's no real reason to use them.
>I think Microsoft's ribbon approach is horrible for usability. It takes a long time to visually scan all those words/icons to figure out what I want.
A huge percentage of people are repeat users of Explorer. While it may feel cluttered in the beginning, it will soon become second nature once people get used to it, and it's extremely friendly for newbies since it exposes functions instead of hiding it 3 levels deep in some menu. Are you a regular user of Office 2007+?
Extending your comment with some words from the article: "If you collapse the ribbon (double-click the tab, or click the Minimize arrow on the right side of the ribbon), you get even more vertical real estate with our new approach."
I double-click on it a lot when working with Office to get focused. When you hide it, if you hover it it will show without taking up all the space it does when it's open.
Yes, I hate it. I use Excel 2010 (PC)/2011(Mac) almost every day and I can never find anything in the ribbon. On Mac I use the Help/Search function to jump directly to the menu item I need. On Windows, I'm stuck looking through those awful ribbons.
I used to work with someone who insisted on Lotus 1-2-3 for Windows because he could never find anything in Excel. Lotus for Windows was better because it still supported the / menus he'd been using in Lotus for DOS.
Help/Search does seem like a great feature, though.
- Win 8: http://cl.ly/321a2D0b1M1G1v1o2r3F (from article)
- OS X: http://cl.ly/290D3q2Q06203b181C2b (random Google Images search)
I think Microsoft's ribbon approach is horrible for usability. It takes a long time to visually scan all those words/icons to figure out what I want. With OS X, the interface is much cleaner. There are only a few buttons and no extraneous visual noise. Finder stays out of your way and lets you get at your files.
I draw this comparison not to start a Mac vs. Windows flame war but to show how wrong-headed I think Microsoft's UI is.
Also, refresh accounts for > 6% of Explorer commands. Why don't they just make Explorer refresh automatically and get rid of the need for the command?
One thing I do like about the redesign is the prominence of the "copy path" button.