Noticed something? Yea, no Windows Explorer tile. Consumer Preview still had it.

20 minutes ago, ZippyV wrote

Right-click -> All Apps -> Apps -> Windows Explorer

Intuitive.

Well, this additional move will only increase confusion of new Win8 users from previous versions. At least new users, amid all the existing Metro confusion, were able to quickly access files in the previous beta versions, now they made even this more of a hassle.

6 minutes ago, Sven Groot wrote

Or just start typing "explorer".

Ya, this surely beats just clicking on a tile.

I'm still looking for 'Solitaire' though.

Those who need Explorer can still find it easily enough. And add it to the start screen if they want.

26 minutes ago, Bas wrote

Of course you can also still just press Win+E, like you have been able to since forever. That is, if you were actually interested in launching file manager rather than finding something to manufacture outrage over.

Hilarious. The arguments to defend all these decisions is like poking the eyes out of people and then telling them to get used to it by getting a braille reader and a guide dog. And then going on about how great dogs are and that braille readers improve your touch senses.

2 minutes ago, Sven Groot wrote

As much as I dislike Metro on the desktop, on tablets it's the desktop UI that should be avoided. And having a tile for the regular Windows Explorer on the metro start screen by default just isn't a good way to achieve that.

The sensible decision would be detecting on startup whether a touch screen is present and then doing stunts like these.

But I guess poking the eyes out of lapdesktop users at every opportunity is the saner choice.

30 minutes ago, wastingtimewithforums wrote

*snip*

Hilarious. The arguments to defend all these decisions is like poking the eyes out of people and then telling them to get used to it by getting a braille reader and a guide dog. And then going on about how great dogs are and that braille readers improve your touch senses.

So when there was no longer a bouncing arrow next to the start menu that went "PRESS START TO BEGIN" in Windows 98, did you ignite into a similar fit of rage?

Of course you didn't. You knew how everything worked, just as you knew now that explorer was still there and that you could easily launch it or pin it to the start menu or task bar yourself. You just chose to pretend that you were terribly confused by this change so that you could post another thread on C9 in another attempt at validation.

55 minutes ago, wastingtimewithforums wrote

@Sven Groot:

*snip*

The sensible decision would be detecting on startup whether a touch screen is present and then doing stunts like these.

But I guess poking the eyes out of lapdesktop users at every opportunity is the saner choice.

In the time wasted you whining about this decision to remove the Explore tile from the Start Menu, how many times could you have added it back with a simple right-click | "Pin to start"?

29 minutes ago, Bas wrote

*snip*

So when there was no longer a bouncing arrow next to the start menu that went "PRESS START TO BEGIN" in Windows 98, did you ignite into a similar fit of rage?

Of course they didn't need that for Win98 because people learned from Win95 and the message in the first place. With this change there is no cue for the use. Just a vacuum.

[/quote]

Of course you didn't. You knew how everything worked, just as you knew now that explorer was still there and that you could easily launch it or pin it to the start menu or task bar yourself. You just chose to pretend that you were terribly confused by this change so that you could post another thread on C9 in another attempt at validation.

[/quote]

Granny doesn't know how it works. What about her? Are you trying to say my Granny is stupid?!?!?!?

36 minutes ago, Bas wrote

You knew how everything worked

And I also know how Win 8 works on the desktop: worse

I get it why MS does this - brute forcing its PC position somehow to the tablet world. I just wish you guys would at least accept this reality and don't try to pretend with outlandish arguments that every desktop cripplement is somehow an improvement for lapdesktop users. It isn't.

It's just a ploy to get more apps for Win 8 tablets.

While playing around with Win 8, I found that you can right-click on any folder, including network shares, and pin them to the Start Menu.

In Windows 7, you can only "Create shortcut", which puts the shortcut on your desktop.

If you wanted the equivalent of "Pin to Start Menu" in Windows 7, you'd have to:

1. Right-click | Create shortcut
2. Navigated to C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu\Programs (assuming that you even have "Show hidden files, folders, and drives" enabled in your folder options, that is)
3. Drag the shortcut created in step 1 into the Explorer window in step 2.

Sorry, whiners, Windows 8 wins this one hands down.

28 minutes ago, wastingtimewithforums wrote

*snip*

And I also know how Win 8 works on the desktop: worse

If you're whining about the removal of the stupid Explorer tile, you really don't know how Windows 8 works.

3 hours ago, SimonJ wrote

Also, right-click on any folder in Explorer and "Pin to Start".

This is really an awesome feature. My Windows 7 desktop is cluttered with shortcuts to local and network folders that I need quick access to. When I have a bunch of windows open, it's a three step process to use those shortcuts:

1. Drag obscuring window away
2. Double-click shortcut
3. Move window from Step 1 back to original position

I never occurred to me what a rigmarole I went through to use those "quick access" shortcuts.

49 minutes ago, PaoloM wrote

I am enjoying the nerd rage a lot lately... go on guys, keep pretending you're idiots just to score some... uhm... points?

At least we're pretending...

22 minutes ago, cbae wrote

IIRC, the original Explorer tile from Developer and Consumer Previews opened up an Explorer window in the "Libraries" folder, which is useless to me anyway.

While playing around with Win 8, I found that you can right-click on any folder, including network shares, and pin them to the Start Menu.

In Windows 7, you can only "Create shortcut", which puts the shortcut on your desktop.

If you wanted the equivalent of "Pin to Start Menu" in Windows 7, you'd have to:

1. Right-click | Create shortcut
2. Navigated to C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu\Programs (assuming that you even have "Show hidden files, folders, and drives" enabled in your folder options, that is)
3. Drag the shortcut created in step 1 into the Explorer window in step 2.

Sorry, whiners, Windows 8 wins this one hands down.

Windows 7:

1. Drag and drop folder to start menu button or taskbar
2. There is no two.

"When you see yourself doing something badly and nobody's bothering to tell you anymore, that's a very bad place to be. Your critics are your ones telling you they still love you and care."

3 minutes ago, DeathByVisualStudio wrote

*snip*

At least we're pretending...

Stop pretending, and do a little "exploring". I think this loss of the default "Explorer" tile is so trivial, it's ludicrous to even complain about it. Having the ability to quickly pin shortcuts to whatever folder you want to the Start Menu more than makes up this insignificant "loss".

For me, I can see this new full-screen Start Menu in Windows 8 becoming a hybrid between the Windows 7 start menu and the desktop.

5 minutes ago, DCMonkey wrote

*snip*

Windows 7:

1. Drag and drop folder to start menu button or taskbar
2. There is no two.

Yeah, that's intuitive. Plus, if you accidentally release the mouse button before hitting the target, you end up moving the entire folder to the desktop or who knows where?

Sorry, that's a loser feature.

3 minutes ago, cbae wrote

*snip*

Yeah, that's intuitive. Sorry, that's a loser feature.

But right click menus are OK. I see.

54 seconds ago, DCMonkey wrote

*snip*

But right click menus are OK. I see.

Right-click has one function.  It brings up a context menu. Even idiots can be taught this.

When you drag a folder, what exactly are you dragging? Are you dragging the folder itself or are you creating a shortcut of the thing that you're dragging and then copying that said shortcut to the thing that you drop the thing onto?

15 minutes ago, DCMonkey wrote

@PaoloM:

"When you see yourself doing something badly and nobody's bothering to tell you anymore, that's a very bad place to be. Your critics are your ones telling you they still love you and care."

You are right. Hence, why Microsoft decided to move away from a filing business model for their ecosystem and move to a modern, sustainable and more forward looking one.

1 minute ago, cbae wrote

*snip*

Right-click has one function.  It brings up a context menu. Even idiots can be taught this.

When you drag a folder, what exactly are you dragging? Are you dragging the folder itself or are you creating a shortcut of the thing that you're dragging and then copying that said shortcut to the thing that you drop the thing onto?

Well, it has two now, depending on whether you're in Metro or on the desktop. And so now I'm wondering, was this right click in Windows Explorer or in one of those Metro File dialog/screen/pane/whatevers?

Windows 8: Designed For Idiots.

11 minutes ago, cbae wrote

*snip*

Right-click has one function.  It brings up a context menu. Even idiots can be taught this.

You're right. Thanks for showing that this is true.

22 minutes ago, cbae wrote

*snip*

Sorry, that's a user feature.

Fixed that for ya.

25 minutes ago, cbae wrote

*snip*

For me, I can see this new full-screen Start Menu in Windows 8 becoming a hybrid between the Windows 7 start menu and the desktop.

And I can see the start screen becoming one hot mess of tiles upon tiles upon tiles.

20 minutes ago, DCMonkey wrote

*snip*

Well, it has two now, depending on whether you're in Metro or on the desktop. And so now I'm wondering, was this right click in Windows Explorer or in one of those Metro File dialog/screen/pane/whatevers?

Windows 8: Designed For Idiots.

We're talking about a folder in Explorer, aren't we? Is there a Metro version of Explorer? Show me how I can get the right-click to do something else while in Explorer.

Besides, even in the Metro Start Menu, right-click still brings up context menu. Where it shows up is the only difference. I actually like "additive" nature of right-clicking on tiles. It allows you to change the "context" dynamically and have the menu options change accordingly.

From the desktop side, you have to decide beforehand what you want the context menu options to pertain to as well as decide whether or not you want to right-click or SHIFT+right-click to bring up different sets of menu options. It's too bad Microsoft didn't incorporate the Metro-style context menus to the desktop side too.

16 minutes ago, DeathByVisualStudio wrote

*snip*

And I can see the start screen becoming one hot mess of tiles upon tiles upon tiles.

My desktop is already a hot mess, and the size is fixed. The Start Menu can expand and scroll.

36 minutes ago, DeathByVisualStudio wrote

*snip*

You're right. Thanks for showing that this is true.

You're welcome, but I already knew that I was right.

39 minutes ago, DeathByVisualStudio wrote

*snip*

Fixed that for ya.

You're fixing it wrong. It's a user feature that's unintuitive, ambiguous, and probably used by 1% of the user base.

28 minutes ago, cbae wrote

*snip*

My desktop is already a hot mess, and the size is fixed. The Start Menu can expand and scroll.

But my start menu is nice and organized. It's funny how programs when installed actually group their icons in nice organized folders.

11 minutes ago, cbae wrote

*snip*

You're welcome, but I already knew that I was right.

Oh Forrest you amaze me with your confidence.

5 minutes ago, cbae wrote

*snip*

You're fixing it wrong. It's a user feature that's unintuitive, ambiguous, and probably used by 1% of the user base.

Thanks for confirming that it is a user feature.

13 minutes ago, DeathByVisualStudio wrote

*snip*

But my start menu is nice and organized. It's funny how programs when installed actually group their icons in nice organized folders.

Those folders are program groups. They're not in the start menu. You have to click the "All Programs" menu option to see them.

*snip*

Oh Forrest you amaze me with your confidence.

Stupid is as stupid whines.

*snip*

Thanks for confirming that it is a user feature.

No problem. Still doesn't keep it from being a loser feature. Clippy was user feature too.

1 hour ago, cbae wrote

*snip*

We're talking about a folder in Explorer, aren't we? Is there a Metro version of Explorer? Show me how I can get the right-click to do something else while in Explorer.

Besides, even in the Metro Start Menu, right-click still brings up context menu. Where it shows up is the only difference. I actually like "additive" nature of right-clicking on tiles. It allows you to change the "context" dynamically and have the menu options change accordingly.

From the desktop side, you have to decide beforehand what you want the context menu options to pertain to as well as decide whether or not you want to right-click or SHIFT+right-click to bring up different sets of menu options. It's too bad Microsoft didn't incorporate the Metro-style context menus to the desktop side too.

Well, I thought we were talking about folders in Windows 8. Can one even do anything with them in Metro besides drill down into one in a File screen?

And I thought right click in Metro brought up a app global toolbar at the bottom of the screen. Are you saying it also can bring up a menu at the mouse position? Or does it add context sensitive items to the global app toolbar? So confusing.

And getting a menu of items that directly pertain to the object you just clicked on is part of the power of context menus. The only context you get in a metro app that I'm aware of is that of the app itself.

Or maybe it is. You never know with this audience.

37 seconds ago, DCMonkey wrote

*snip*

Well, I thought we were talking about folders in Windows 8. Can one even do anything with them in Metro besides drill down into one in a File screen?

And I thought right click in Metro brought up a app global toolbar at the bottom of the screen. Are you saying it also can bring up a menu at the mouse position? Or does it add context sensitive items to the global app toolbar? So confusing.

Let's rehash. Somebody started whining about losing the Explorer tile. Somebody else mentioned that you can right-click | Pin to start menu to not only get the tile back, but you can do it with any folder in Explorer and do so with as many folders as you want. Hence, losing the default Explorer tile is silly to be whining about since you can create as many Explorer tiles as you want.

I was making a point that the "Pin to start menu" option invoked from the context menu in Windows 8 Explorer is something that doesn't exist in Windows 7. I said that the only similar context menu option in Windows 7 is "Create shortcut" which places the shortcut on the desktop, leaving you to figure out how to get it into the Windows 7 start menu. You came in and said that you can do it indirectly by doing some ridiculous, unintuitive mouse gymnastics rather than using an explicit context menu option, which Windows 7 doesn't provide.

Are you still with me? Up to this point, we have not left the confines of the Windows desktop in this discussion.

Instead of agreeing that "Pin to start menu" is a useful feature that is not found in Windows 7, you tried to make the ridiculous claim that context menus, in general, are unintuitive. Never mind that Windows 7 would be almost unusable without it. To a Windows user, right-click is intuitive, and I said that when you right-click, you can expect a context menu to show up.

That's when you started digging yourself into a strawman hole. You claimed that right-clicking in Metro does different things. And I'm saying that it doesn't matter. You're still getting a context menu. Context menus don't have to appear right next to where your mouse is. What difference does it really make if the context menu appears right next to the thing that you clicked on or on the bottom of the screen? And since some right-click actions are additive, making the context menu appear right next your mouse cursor would block the very things that you'd want to "add to the context".

Instead of thinking about how useful the concept of "additive context" is, you want to play retard and feign confusion about where the menu options appear.

And getting a menu of items that directly pertain to the object you just clicked on is part of the power of context menus. The only context you get in a metro app that I'm aware of is that of the app itself.

Another straw man. We're not talking about context menus within a Metro app. When did we start talking about applications rather than the OS itself?  There are plenty of Windows desktop applications that don't provide context menus either.

And why would you even use a Metro app. You're trying to make the case that Metro sucks. I'm making the case that in Windows 8, there are plenty of improvements for those that want to use only desktop applications. "Pin to start menu" is one of them.

Notice the word Start in the Metro shell. You don't need to run the desktop app and press a start button, then type in some text to start searching the system for files/folders/apps you're spelling... You're already in the Start environment...

Please don't turn this into another ever-spinning gripe thread. Download the RP and spend some time learning how to use it. Then, provide feedback, ask questions, engage in useful conversation with your peers.

C

57 minutes ago, Charles wrote

Windows Explorer is a Desktop application... You're complaining that there is no default pinned Metro tile for it after you install Win8 RP? OK. Seems you're grasping for things to complain about. That's fair. Change is hard to take.

As you may have noticed, there is no Metro version of Explorer. Yea, I know, files are so yesterday, and everyone should abandon everything else and facebooking on a touch device the whole day until you drop dead with a smile on your face and foam around the mouth. Unfortunately, we aren't living in such a perfect world.

57 minutes ago, Charles wrote

That said, as Sven already mentioned very early on -> you can just start typing for what you're looking for while in Metro and a list of related apps/programs will appear....

As I said, surely beats just cliking on something..

2 hours ago, cbae wrote

*snip*

Let's rehash. Somebody started whining about losing the Explorer tile. Somebody else mentioned that you can right-click | Pin to start menu to not only get the tile back, but you can do it with any folder in Explorer and do so with as many folders as you want. Hence, losing the default Explorer tile is silly to be whining about since you can create as many Explorer tiles as you want.

I fully agree. It would be silly if this would the only issue. Problem is, it's just the tip of the ever growing iceberg.

One more silly thing to tweak to make this thing work on something other than a smudgeblet.

Here's an actual legitimate complaint: why is there STILL no "open file location" appbar command (or any appbar commands for that matter) in the Files search result page on the Start screen? And STILL no multiselect on the Apps screen to pin multiple apps at once ... grrrrrrrr. I wish there were a way to move multiple tiles at once on the Start screen tile view itself (e.g. with rectangle select) as well.

7 minutes ago, wastingtimewithforums wrote

*snip*

I fully agree. It would be silly if this would the only issue. Problem is, it's just the tip of the ever growing iceberg.

One more silly thing to tweak to make this thing work on something other than a smudgeblet.

It's not an issue. It's a non-issue. You're going to be spending all your time in the desktop anyway. Just click the Explorer icon in the taskbar and done with it. The Explorer tile defaulting to the "Libraries" folder is useless to me. I wholeheartedly agree with this decision by Microsoft. It saves me the trouble of having to unpin it after pinning the folders that I REALLY want in the Start Menu.

1 minute ago, contextfree` wrote

Uh, isn't Explorer still pinned to the taskbar by default? So you can still get to it directly when you're on the desktop, which for folks like mr. wastingtime and Mr. Death is probably most of the time.

+11111!

1 minute ago, contextfree` wrote

Mr. Death

I take great offence to that. How do you know I'm not Ms. Death? I tell ya all of these sexist comments around here make me want to scream.

1 hour ago, cbae wrote

*snip*

Let's rehash. Somebody started whining about losing the Explorer tile. Somebody else mentioned that you can right-click | Pin to start menu to not only get the tile back, but you can do it with any folder in Explorer and do so with as many folders as you want. Hence, losing the default Explorer tile is silly to be whining about since you can create as many Explorer tiles as you want.

OK, consider me apprised of the context of the discussion. And I agree, it's not that big a deal. At least they left the Desktop tile in so you can get to Explorer in the first place.

I was making a point that the "Pin to start menu" option invoked from the context menu in Windows 8 Explorer is something that doesn't exist in Windows 7. I said that the only similar context menu option in Windows 7 is "Create shortcut" which places the shortcut on the desktop, leaving you to figure out how to get it into the Windows 7 start menu. You came in and said that you can do it indirectly by doing some ridiculous, unintuitive mouse gymnastics rather than using an explicit context menu option, which Windows 7 doesn't provide.

What is "indirect" about directly manipulating an object with the mouse? And the amazing thing about basic GUI interaction techniques like drag-n-drop is that once you learn that you can drop things on other things, you start trying it in other contexts. I didn't even know you can drop folders on the start menu to pin them till now. Windows 7 even gave me a tooltip to tell me what was going to happen when I dropped the folder. Neat.

PS: If you're up for some real Olympic-class double-jointed regedit gymnastics, you can enable a "Pin to Start Menu" Item for folders in pre-Win8 OSen.

Are you still with me? Up to this point, we have not left the confines of the Windows desktop in this discussion.

 Good. That's where I like to be

Instead of agreeing that "Pin to start menu" is a useful feature that is not found in Windows 7, you tried to make the ridiculous claim that context menus, in general, are unintuitive. Never mind that Windows 7 would be almost unusable without it. To a Windows user, right-click is intuitive, and I said that when you right-click, you can expect a context menu to show up.

I agree it's useful feature. But both Right clicking to get a context menu and dragging and dropping an icon have about the same amount of "intuitiveness" when you've never done either before. Again, the magic is that once you know, you can apply the same action in many contexts and get results.

That's when you started digging yourself into a strawman hole. You claimed that right-clicking in Metro does different things. And I'm saying that it doesn't matter. You're still getting a context menu. Context menus don't have to appear right next to where your mouse is. What difference does it really make if the context menu appears right next to the thing that you clicked on or on the bottom of the screen? And since some right-click actions are additive, making the context menu appear right next your mouse cursor would block the very things that you'd want to "add to the context".

Instead of thinking about how useful the concept of "additive context" is, you want to play retard and feign confusion about where the menu options appear.

I'll reserve a detailed comment here until after I install the RP later tonight. But from my recollection of the DP, most app bars were global to the app in question, not context specific. But maybe I'm just thinking about the crappy demo apps.

And to me, having the menu appear directly under the mouse cursor is an important aspect of establishing "context". Having a bar appear over 6" away at the edge of the screen doesn't have that same effect.

*snip*

Another straw man. We're not talking about context menus within a Metro app. When did we start talking about applications rather than the OS itself?  There are plenty of Windows desktop applications that don't provide context menus either.

And why would you even use a Metro app. You're trying to make the case that Metro sucks. I'm making the case that in Windows 8, there are plenty of improvements for those that want to use only desktop applications. "Pin to start menu" is one of them.

I talk about Metro apps because the Start Screen behaves and looks like a Metro app in most respects, and I expect it to conform to similar guidelines in behavior; guidelines that make for app UIs I don't like. It's also the only Metro aspect of Windows 8 I can't completely ignore, so I find myself arguing its deficiencies and/or resenting its intrusion into my existing workflow. 

3 minutes ago, DCMonkey wrote

*snip*

What is "indirect" about directly manipulating an object with the mouse? And the amazing thing about basic GUI interaction techniques like drag-n-drop is that once you learn that you can drop things on other things, you start trying it in other contexts. I didn't even know you can drop folders on the start menu to pin them till now. Windows 7 even gave me a tooltip to tell me what was going to happen when I dropped the folder. Neat.

The problem is that you can't really "stumble upon" this feature. When try to drag something for the first time you have no idea what the dragging is going to do until you drag the object over some other object. And even if you're trying it a second time and do know what the dragging is supposed to do, what happens if you change your mind in the middle of the drag? Or what if the drop target doesn't give you the option you were expecting? If you drop the folder anywhere else, you could end up MOVING the entire folder to the drop target.

And I'd rather not have to drag a folder from one end of the screen to the far lower left corner of the screen. It's time consuming, and fraught with potential f*ck-ups. When you have small children around who regular run up and bump your arms, you can go from attempting to a drag a shortcut to the start menu to moving 250GBs of files to your desktop.

No thanks. I'll take the menu option for pinning.

30 minutes ago, cbae wrote

*snip*

The problem is that you can't really "stumble upon" this feature.

LOL! How much of the new metro stuff (including the desktop "enhancements") are "stumble upon" capable especially with a mouse & keyboard?

30 minutes ago, cbae wrote

...

No thanks. I'll take the menu option for pinning.

I'll agree, the menu option is the better one. But at least d-n-d is easier than your 3 step process outlined earlier. 

2 hours ago, DCMonkey wrote

*snip*

I'll agree, the menu option is the better one. But at least d-n-d is easier than your 3 step process outlined earlier. 

Yes, it is easier. You just have to keep your eyes peeled for kids running around.

3 hours ago, contextfree` wrote

@cbae: ++, this bothered me too. And no way to pin individual documents without going into the folder. (which I guess goes back to my "no appbar for Files search results" complaint - that's 2 commands that should be there but aren't, Open File Location and Pin to Start).

I just occurred to me that you can't rename items pinned to the Start Menu in Windows 7 either. Right-clicking gives you these options:

• Open
• Open Command Window Here as Administrator (LOL, could they have made this any longer?)
• Remove from this list
• Properties

The only shortcuts that you can rename are the ones in the program groups in the "All Programs" list, which technically isn't the Start Menu.

So there is some context sensitivity in the Start Screen's app bar. And I see the "additive" thing where you can right click multiple tiles to select them. Too bad the only context sensitive commands you're left with are unpin and clear selection. I also noticed you can't 'additively" select in the "All Apps" screen.

I could only find one other app with a context sensitivity more focused than "the whole damn screen" however; the Photos app. And all it did was tell me how many pictures I had additively selected. Of course I couldn't figure out what if anything I could do with that selection. Slide show seemed to still show all the photos (and it was over on the right. I'm assuming the convention is context sensitive on the left, though that doesn't seem to be consistent from app to app).

I'm not all that sure what was wrong with Ctrl and Shift+Click for selection; another feature that works in so many places, once you know the keys. Now's where I assume you'll tell me that's a loser feature too because legions of clawing toddlers will knock my hand away from the modifier keys at the last second; therefore this decades old convention had to be abandoned. A more likely explanation is that tablets don't have modifier keys, and this UI is designed for tablets, not desktops. Know compromise.

PS: There still seem to be context menus appearing directly under the mouse in some Metro apps too; usually in a text field for copy and paste, but not always. So much for consistency.

PPS: I was disappointed but not surprised to find there are no file management commands whatsoever available in the Metro file selector screens or in the files search screen. Not even so much as a "new folder" button. Good thing we can pin Windows Explorer to the start screen, because it looks like you're gonna need it a lot if you keep your files organized any more than in a big pile. Maybe someone will write a Metro Norton Commander.

PPPS: Here's a video of me using Windows 8:

Since WinRT seems to provide a way to detect whether input came from touch or mouse:

http://charlespetzold.com/blog/2012/02/Windows-8-Touch-Events-Interactions.html

You can work with mouse and touch input without knowing the origin of the input, or you can determine where the input came from if you want. [...] There's also a Pointer property that supplies PointerDeviceType information (Touch, Pen, or Mouse) and a PointerId of type uint

Wouldn't it make more sense to detect whether someone clicked with a mouse on the log-in screen and then make it disappear, instead of forcing unnatural mouse-swipe movements?

I mean, I am very confident that most people who used quick launch bar in Win98 didn't know the function still been offered in XP. I know this because most XP PC I used that's owned by someone else, did not have quick launch bar enabled. And then, the competitors app bar become more and more appealing while the XP users don't even know they have similar functionality since Win98.

Sure you can add it, but, why not have it there and let people easily unpin it?

Hell, to be honest, I don't even know how to add my trustworthly "my computer" back onto desktop anymore. I really don't. I am actually clicking on the folder and traverse back to my computer. And I also don't know how to pin "windows update" in metro. I have to go through control panel for now. And also getting IP address is harder since Vista.

Sometimes I do feel like MS intentionally hides thing, and I have a hard time to imagine why they do that. I mean really, adding explore back? That would be my responsibility, not my mom, not my partner, not my coworkers, not my boss's  responsibility  if I work in a less technical company. And I don't blame them for expecting me to resolve this issue they have with win8 as well.

4 hours ago, wastingtimewithforums wrote

Hey, something different: Can the Win 8 aficionados explain to me what's intuitive about the log-in screen? Just about every mom & pop in the youtube videos and every reviewer so far was confused by it. Why exactly have you swipe that thing upwards with your mouse?

What?  You don't have to swipe.  Just click any mouse button or hit any key, then start typing your password.

16 minutes ago, warren wrote

*snip* 

What?  You don't have to swipe.  Just click any mouse button or hit any key, then start typing your password.

You still need to drag the initial welcome screen to the top with your mouse. That's what I meant.

5 hours ago, wastingtimewithforums wrote

Hey, something different: Can the Win 8 aficionados explain to me what's intuitive about the log-in screen? Just about every mom & pop in the youtube videos and every reviewer so far was confused by it. Why exactly have you swipe that thing upwards with your mouse?

*snip*

You actually don't have to swipe. A simple mouse click slides it up automatically.

34 minutes ago, wastingtimewithforums wrote

*snip*

You still need to drag the initial welcome screen to the top with your mouse. That's what I meant.

No, you don't. Install the Release Preview and see for yourself.

7 hours ago, DCMonkey wrote

*snip*

PPPS: Here's a video of me using Windows 8:

Then you should change your user name. It seems you've evolved.

22 minutes ago, cbae wrote

*snip*

No, you don't. Install the Release Preview and see for yourself.

Ah, that's great! I installed it but didn't bother to click, just swiped immediately because that was the behavior in the previous version

Kudos for fixing that!

12 minutes ago, wastingtimewithforums wrote

*snip*

Ah, that's great! I installed it but didn't bother to click, just swiped immediately because that was the behavior in the previous version

Kudos for fixing that!

The Windows team must have seen those YouTube videos too.

Seems pretty slick so far.

EDIT: Ok, I did have trouble with the fact that there's still a 255 character limit on paths. I guess we have to wait for ReFS to fix that. But making the bread crumb bar a drop target makes up for it.

2 hours ago, contextfree` wrote

ReFS won't fix it, since it's not a file system issue to begin with =)

In the end, it doesn't matter, just that somebody better fix it. Whether it's file system, or Win32, or a shortage of magic unicorns, it's very annoying.

I suspect Metro actually points to the real solution, completely abstract away the concept of a filesystem altogether (end users often find the concept quite confusing) and instead present the right kind of information and organization of data on an app by app basis.

1 hour ago, AndyC wrote

@kettch:Most of the path limits are essentially compiled into each and every Windows application. Fixing it has long proved a diificult, if not impossible step.

I suspect Metro actually points to the real solution, completely abstract away the concept of a filesystem altogether (end users often find the concept quite confusing) and instead present the right kind of information and organization of data on an app by app basis.

Siloing data on a per app basis isn't going to be enough for things like photos -- there's just too many files. We've all heard your arguments before about tags & search vs. folders but in the end it comes down to the OS and the apps that run on it providing good defaults for folders and/or tags and helping the user keep their files organized in some fashion. Shifting from folders to some other organization technique doesn't necessarily solve the problem.

And for the record I disagree with you're presumption that re file systems that "end users often find the concept quite confusing". There are just as many who find it useful. Also there is still a file picker in metro that relies on the file system so it's not going away any time soon. IMO we need all of the above: apps and an OS that provide better assistance in organizing and finding data in both the file system and via tags & search without arbitrary limitations like file paths. I suspect Microsoft will ignore the latter problem rather than fix it because IMO that's their M.O. these days: chase the shiny rather than fix the problems.

2 hours ago, AndyC wrote

@kettch:Most of the path limits are essentially compiled into each and every Windows application. Fixing it has long proved a diificult, if not impossible step.

Yes, that's the real problem. Every single application ever made that has ever used a "char fileName[MAX_PATH+1];" would have to be changed to really fix the problem.

1 hour ago, DeathByVisualStudio wrote

*snip*

Siloing data on a per app basis isn't going to be enough for things like photos -- there's just too many files. We've all heard your arguments before about tags & search vs. folders but in the end it comes down to the OS and the apps that run on it providing good defaults for folders and/or tags and helping the user keep their files organized in some fashion. Shifting from folders to some other organization technique doesn't necessarily solve the problem.

But files/folders doesn't help any more there either. So most people stick with one tool (be that Flickr/Facebook/Picassa) and use that to organise their photos. How it ends up being stored on the computer is basicallly irrelevant as far as they're concerned. And a tool deliberately aimed at organising just one thing, i.e. photos, is always going to be better capable than a tool aimed at generic organisation, i.e. the filesystem.

And for the record I disagree with you're presumption that re file systems that "end users often find the concept quite confusing". There are just as many who find it useful. Also there is still a file picker in metro that relies on the file system so it's not going away any time soon.

For every one person who finds the filesystem a useful concept, there are easily several thousand who don't. It's a very low-level metaphor and one that is a long way behind the times. I've spent years dealing with end-user support of PC systems and this is one of those areas that consistently causes problems. For first time users of computers (and there are still plenty) it's a horrible experience and it's one of the things that makes devices like the iPad a lot more appealing to the masses, because that "just works"

Even the file picker in Metro mostly abstracts the file system away by doing things like constraining the amount of browsable locations and only displaying things the app can understand, preferably in an appropriate format. It pushes closer to the direction of picking where you're pictures etc come from in the user's mental model (i.e Facebook, Flickr, Picassa etc) rather than some arbitrary filing system you thought up a few weeks ago and can't really remember.

1 minute ago, AndyC wrote

For every one person who finds the filesystem a useful concept, there are easily several thousand who don't. It's a very low-level metaphor and one that is a long way behind the times.

Agreed. How often to people actually know what happens when they click save? I've spent a lot of time helping people understand how documents end up in My Documents, and it never sticks.

I've been doing a lot of work with electronic document storage lately, and one of the big things is being able to tell the users to forget about browsing. Clicking through folders only works when the number of documents is small. It's much easier to trust the metadata and just search. I'm really glad that WinFS went away. There was a lot of great tech in there that primarily went into displaying old fashioned folders and files. I think they've finally got the technology and experience to do something useful with that kind of platform.

2 hours ago, AndyC wrote

*snip*

But files/folders doesn't help any more there either. So most people stick with one tool (be that Flickr/Facebook/Picassa) and use that to organise their photos.

It's really easy to make an argument that "most people" do something when it's baseless.

*snip*

How it ends up being stored on the computer is basicallly irrelevant as far as they're concerned. And a tool deliberately aimed at organising just one thing, i.e. photos, is always going to be better capable than a tool aimed at generic organisation, i.e. the filesystem.

The organization of user files is only as good as the app they are using. That's my whole point. Moving from file system to tags & search is just moving the problem. If the OS and app support & implementation isn't there those that rely on the computer organizing things for them are going to be just as lost.

*snip*

For every one person who finds the filesystem a useful concept, there are easily several thousand who don't.

And what do you base this fact on?

*snip*

Even the file picker in Metro mostly abstracts the file system away by doing things like constraining the amount of browsable locations and only displaying things the app can understand, preferably in an appropriate format.

Now this is what I'm talking about: apps and the OS being smarter in helping the user organize and find their stuff. By restraining the folders in which it finds pictures to the picture library(s) its excludes the other cutter a user would have to search for. This is a great example of how an app can be smarter about context and helping the user with their data. Its a shame there are apps even today that default the "save" dialog to the application's bin folder rather than to the user's folder's. That's not the file system's fault; it's the app.

2 minutes ago, DeathByVisualStudio wrote

And what do you base this fact on?

Have you ever met a user?

Its a shame there are apps even today that default the "save" dialog to the application's bin folder rather than to the user's folder's.

Exactly, and because people don't understand files and folders, they don't know what to do when presented with this scenario.

38 seconds ago, kettch wrote

*snip*

Have you ever met a user?

I've been doing this for 24 years so yes I've met a few.

*snip*

Exactly, and because people don't understand files and folders, they don't know what to do when presented with this scenario.

And an app that just lumps all files of a given type into a single folder is no better. If tag & search is going to work the app needs to collect meta data from the user or context so that the files are findable. It all boils down to the app; both file system and tag & search can fail the user if the app doesn't provide the right assistance especially for those users who won't enter tags when saving a new file nor concern themselves with the location they are saving to. Bad data in, bad data out.

12 hours ago, DeathByVisualStudio wrote

*snip*

I've been doing this for 24 years so yes I've met a few.

Ever had to explain that replacing their monitor won't make them lose the files on their desktop? Ever even tried to explain why, when opening a document from Hotmail, they need to save a copy somewhere otherwise it'll end up saved in some temporary folder and they'll never be able to find that version again?

I'm sure you've dealt with users, but I don't think you've really dealt with the masses.

*snip*

And an app that just lumps all files of a given type into a single folder is no better.

You've missed the point. Nobody cares what the application does with the files.

28 minutes ago, AndyC wrote

*snip*

Ever had to explain that replacing their monitor won't make them lose the files on their desktop?

No. Do your users also think that if they replace their TVs, the contents of their DVDs get changed? Monitors are known as "displays" for a reason. 

Seriously, now, this IS getting ridiculous. Files are actually pretty natural. In school you have multiple courses, for each course you have your own file folders, exercise books and notebooks, where you put in stuff related to this course. Just like programs have their own "exercise books". Everyone who visited school for more than one month should grasp the concept of files.

How is a jungle of tagged items any more intiuitive than this? For a tag-based system you need to put more work into it actually. Just tagging every picture with "picture" will be more messy than files ever were (and given what you tell about your users, they will do just that).

Also, my best proof that files work are youtube comments. The people there are utter retards. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if instead of brains some of them have some sort of alien control device in their heads to make a case at the galactic assembly to eradicate humanity, yet these imbeciles seem to have no problem to operate a modern computer.

If these dolts can, there is no problem.

I am not a hardcore nerd who thinks that only the elite must know how to operate computers, but if you can't grasp the concept of a file, then sorry, stay away from a computer. It's not feasible to dumb it down to such extend. If you can't grasp the concept that changing your TV doesn't change your DVDs, stay away from TV. If you don't grasp the concept of fuel, stay away from cars.

Some ultra basic things just need to be learnt.

Also, your example of hotmail and temporary files etc. is just a problem of how the application is programmed.

6 hours ago, AndyC wrote

*snip*

Ever had to explain that replacing their monitor won't make them lose the files on their desktop? Ever even tried to explain why, when opening a document from Hotmail, they need to save a copy somewhere otherwise it'll end up saved in some temporary folder and they'll never be able to find that version again?

I'm sure you've dealt with users, but I don't think you've really dealt with the masses.

Wow Andy you sure seem to know it all. Seems to me this attack is another example of you being part of the negativity here on these forums.

For the record I was a help desk guy for many years. I helped people find icons on their desktop. I've answered the phone with users saying "My Microsoft isn't working". While these users do exist they by far weren't the majority.

*snip*

You've missed the point. Nobody cares what the application does with the files.

Really? I thought they wanted to be able find their files and in some cases actually organize them but were just too lazy to do so. My bad.

4 days ago, DeathByVisualStudio wrote

And for the record I disagree with you're presumption that re file systems that "end users often find the concept quite confusing". There are just as many who find it useful. Also there is still a file picker in metro that relies on the file system so it's not going away any time soon. IMO we need all of the above: apps and an OS that provide better assistance in organizing and finding data in both the file system and via tags & search without arbitrary limitations like file paths. I suspect Microsoft will ignore the latter problem rather than fix it because IMO that's their M.O. these days: chase the shiny rather than fix the problems.

Based on AndyC's post's, he apparently thinks there are only two types of computer users: 1) Bearded old computer guys who can only talk and think in binary, and 2) People who were born with Down's Syndrome and were subsequently shot in the head causing brain damage to the point where they can't figure out what an on button is. Didn't you get the memo? All computer users are stupid and it's presently 1998.

Most people could learn how to do everything on the command line and get by perfectly well with just DOS, graphical environments succeeded because people didn't want to have to learn arcane commands to get things done. File management on the PC is never the task people are actually wanting to accomplish, it's is merely something the computer makes them learn how to do in order to deal with it's limitations.

15 minutes ago, AndyC wrote

@Craig_Matthews: You misunderstand the difference between being able to learn how to do something and actually having the desire to do so.

Most people could learn how to do everything on the command line and get by perfectly well with just DOS, graphical environments succeeded because people didn't want to have to learn arcane commands to get things done. File management on the PC is never the task people are actually wanting to accomplish, it's is merely something the computer makes them learn how to do in order to deal with it's limitations.

And tagging & search isn't what people want to learn either but they have to if they'll be successful in finding their files later. Until the computer mind-reading interface is complete there is always some amount of learning that is involved.

I don't think anyone has ever disputed the fact that someone must learn how to use a tool in order to use it. I was referring simply to the argument about end-users finding it difficult and confusing to understand folder heirarchies, when there is ample evidence to the contrary (e.g. the fact that people use them every day in their regular job seemingly without any confusion). I've worked with thousands of computer users and I can't say as I've met one who found it confusing at all. Then again, at all the places I've worked, we tend to hire people who have at least graduated high school and have used a computer before.

It seems to me that MS has been driving Windows away from knowing how to navigate your filesystem for quite some time and Metro is a step further along that direction. For the majority of tablet users this isn't a problem, for the majority of desktop users they know where the file explorer is.

Herbie

I've dealt with plenty of perfectly intelligent people who are baffled by the way computers seem to work with respect to the filesystem (even if they aren't really aware that's the issue) and quite frankly most of the time I can fully see their point.

Open a Word attachment from Hotmail, for example and edit it. Then click save and watch as Word happily saves your hours of work. Now try and find it later on....

The organization of user files is only as good as the app they are using. That's my whole point. Moving from file system to tags & search is just moving the problem. If the OS and app support & implementation isn't there those that rely on the computer organizing things for them are going to be just as lost.

It seems as though your assumption is that the system will organize their files for them. Search only works as well as the file is indexed. Countless times I've had to support users who can't find something on SharePoint because either they where not smart enough to pick the right search terms or there were too many documents returned based on their search scope. This only gets worse over time as documents accumulate in the data store.

Search and the file system are both useful tools for users to organize and find their files. I just don't think the OS and apps are smart enough to do away with folders just yet. It's kind of like saying we're ready to forgo the mouse and keyboard because Siri is so bitchin' It's great until that's all you have to get things done.

I scan full magazines and place the images for each issue into its own folder. Many scanned items are one off topics and get tossed into general topic folders. The task of tagging comes later, if at all. I essentially scan so I can throw the physical hard copies out. I need to scan and archive items for research purposes and not because it is fun.

What I am getting at is that users will probably always need a file system plus folders and nested folders.

Anybody remember when Norton Desktop for Windows was an essential install after installing Windows?

I seem to recall there was no such thing as nested folders in early versions of Windows or some such thing.

2 hours ago, Proton2 wrote

When I archive my printed literature by scanning it into my computer, I need to have the current scans located in a folder separate from any other scans or items, because I need to stich multiple scans into one image. Without the current file system, this task would be very difficult to do.

I scan full magazines and place the images for each issue into its own folder. Many scanned items are one off topics and get tossed into general topic folders. The task of tagging comes later, if at all. I essentially scan so I can throw the physical hard copies out. I need to scan and archive items for research purposes and not because it is fun.

What I am getting at is that users will probably always need a file system plus folders and nested folders.

Anybody remember when Norton Desktop for Windows was an essential install after installing Windows?

I seem to recall there was no such thing as nested folders in early versions of Windows or some such thing.

But then, what you really want isn't files and folders, is it? Those are just the only means to the end right now. What you really want is someting that lets you scan multiple images into a single magazine document, and since you are unable to do that, you have to fall back to multiple images in subfolders. If there were better scanning software, more suited to your needs, you could do away with the file system.

15 hours ago, AndyC wrote

@DeathByVisualStudio: Sharepoint is little more than a filesystem in that regards, it suffers exactly the same issues that any generic, user managed hierarchical filestore suffers. The problems you're seeing with users being unable to find things there are exactly the ones I'm talking about.

Oh I get it. You're talking about vaporware; where content is created and with no user education nor input files magically are available in the context the user wants them.

1 day ago, Proton2 wrote

When I archive my printed literature by scanning it into my computer, I need to have the current scans located in a folder separate from any other scans or items, because I need to stich multiple scans into one image. Without the current file system, this task would be very difficult to do.

I scan full magazines and place the images for each issue into its own folder. Many scanned items are one off topics and get tossed into general topic folders. The task of tagging comes later, if at all. I essentially scan so I can throw the physical hard copies out. I need to scan and archive items for research purposes and not because it is fun.

You don't need a file system, you need an intern.

18 hours ago, DeathByVisualStudio wrote

*snip*

Oh I get it. You're talking about vaporware; where content is created and with no user education nor input files magically are available in the context the user wants them.

Kind of how google works?

8 minutes ago, DeathByVisualStudio wrote

@ScanIAm: Or doesn't work just like my SharePoint example hence vaporware...Bad results due to bad search terms or too many results returned. I think my GF said it best when I tried to teach her about tagging photos with Windows Live Photo Gallery: "Why do they make it so hard? I don't want to have to tag all my pictures only to have to search for my pictures later. I just want to go to the folder that I put them in." She hates computers BTW.

Your GF sounds like every other user that thinks computers have magical mind reading powers.

Ask her to take a couple thousand polaroids, throw them in a trash bag, wait a few years, and then find the one that has "her and a friend and that cool dog in it". 

Then ask her why it's so hard.

both can go horribly wrong I the user doesn't use either folders or tags in some organized fashion

Why either? Why not make it easier for them and -just- let them use tags instead of making them understand two similar systems? Even if you are used to working with folders, you can just use the tag hierarchy as if it is a folder hierarchy and end up doing the exact same thing you've always been doing, except it has a different name now.

It would be great to go to import some pictures, and the system sees that they are taken within the time frame as the vacation that I have in my calendar and tags things appropriately.

As users get more used to the idea of metadata, then there will be less and less of a reason to present them with confusing folder structures.

I've got all my photo's tagged that way and navigating to the right ones works exactly like navigating the file system. If I want to find my photo's from the Dominican Republic I can open the "events" tag, open the "2009" tag beneath it, then the "vacation" tag beneath that and then the "Dominican Republic" tag beneath that. Exactly like how it would happen if I were using subfolders to organize my photo's instead of tags, beause tags have a proper hierarchy just as folders do.

If you don't want to cluster-f the organization of your photo's, just look at the tag hierarchy and see the system you came up with. It's just as easy to cluster-f the organization of your photos by putting them in folders called "Paris Vacation" or "France Vacation" if you don't look at your folder tree either.

7 hours ago, Bas wrote

I'm not talking about just search, I'm talking organization and visual discovery just as well. There is no lack of a real visual hierarchy like you suggest. You can tag those pictures as Vacations\Paris and get that same hierarchy you got with the folders. If you tag another set with Vacations\London you can find all your vacation pictures by navigating to the Vacations tag, or just the Paris ones by navigating to Vacations\Paris.

Maybe I'm on meth but there is no understanding of a parent\child relationship with tags. The tag "Vacation\Paris" is no different than then tag "VacationParis". It's a single tag with no hierarchy and no way to visually represent it as one other than a singular category (or folder) of "Vacation\Paris".

I've got all my photo's tagged that way and navigating to the right ones works exactly like navigating the file system. If I want to find my photo's from the Dominican Republic I can open the "events" tag, open the "2009" tag beneath it, then the "vacation" tag beneath that and then the "Dominican Republic" tag beneath that. Exactly like how it would happen if I were using subfolders to organize my photo's instead of tags, beause tags have a proper hierarchy just as folders do.

Is this with Windows Live Photo Gallery? I see no way of establishing such a hierarchy with tags. They're just flat text with no associations to each other.

If you don't want to cluster-f the organization of your photo's, just look at the tag hierarchy and see the system you came up with. It's just as easy to cluster-f the organization of your photos by putting them in folders called "Paris Vacation" or "France Vacation" if you don't look at your folder tree either.

The difference for me is that typically I "tag" photos by entering text as I import them rather than importing or moving them "to" a folder that I see in the folder picker dialog. I can't find a similar experience with tags that help you put things in the right place.

1 minute ago, spivonious wrote

Can tags be hierarchical like that in Windows Live Photo Gallery? I gave up on tags because there was no obvious hierarchical relationship.

I think tags can be described more like a Venn diagram. They can give the appearance of a hierarchy, but it doesn't matter if I click on Disneyland>2012>Vacations or 2012>Disneyland>Vacations or Vacations>2012>Vacations. I will always end up in the same place. The problem with folders is that you need to know how you are going to organize them before you actually get started. When you go to look for something, you pretty much need to already know where you are going, because they might not be discoverable. You have to drill down in exactly the right order.

1 hour ago, kettch wrote

*snip*

...but it doesn't matter if I click on Disneyland>2012>Vacations or 2012>Disneyland>Vacations or Vacations>2012>Vacations.

You seem to be inferring a UI that I just don't see in WLPG. Clue me in please.

In any case it regardless of folders vs. tags it seems like we end up back at the same place: the app has to have a good implementation that is helpful to the user to leverage the metaphor(s) in play and the user needs some training. IOW, there is no free lunch.

1 hour ago, DeathByVisualStudio wrote

*snip*

Maybe I'm on meth but there is no understanding of a parent\child relationship with tags. The tag "Vacation\Paris" is no different than then tag "VacationParis". It's a single tag with no hierarchy and no way to visually represent it as one other than a singular category (or folder) of "Vacation\Paris".

Then I guess it's meth, because this is not true. Creating the tag "Vacation\Paris" creates a parent tag called "Vacation" (if there was none yet) and then a child tag Paris underneath it.

Is this with Windows Live Photo Gallery? I see no way of establishing such a hierarchy with tags. They're just flat text with no associations to each other.

This is with WLPG 2009. I never installed the newer version because I couldn't stand the version of Live Messenger that came with it, so I don't know what it's like in that one.

Regardless of what application you use, the point was wether the file system could be totally abstracted away from users and if tags could be used instead. The answer is yes: with tags you can have a hierarchy, you can organize your documents and search for them in exactly the same way that you can with the files and folders paradigm.

You can also right click a tag in the descriptive tags tree on the left, and click "add new tag" to add a child tag under the one you clicked.

Also, if you type in the tag textbox, you get an autocomplete list which shows tags you've used before, allowing greater discoverability by reminding you of the hierarchy you came up with earlier.

2 hours ago, Bas wrote

I just checked with the latest version of WLPG and it's still there. I just got the slashes mixed up. If you tag a photo with the tag "Fus/Ro/Dah" then in the lefthand pane under "descriptive tags" it adds a tag called "Fus" with an arrow in front of it (if you hover). Expand it and you'll see a child tag called Ro, and that contains a tag called Dah.

That's pretty cool. I'd have to echo spiv's point that it's not very discoverable. It's also going to require education on user's part (again not for free). The other million dollar question is if this is a "standards" way of using tags or is this just for WLPG? I hope Microsoft has used this on all of their products and provides an OS level set of APIs for third-parties to follow so there is some consistency like there is with the file system.

18 minutes ago, AndyC wrote

@DeathByVisualStudio: The point is not to have a "standard" way of doing it, the point is to have a mechanism that makes sense for the type of data the application in question is working with. If a hierarchy makes sense, then it can mimic one (or even multiple variations). If it doesn't or if it makes more sense to allow arbitrary pivoting (think Album, Artist, Release Year, etc) then you don't.

But if I decide to switch photo programs, I don't want to have to re-enter all of my tags.

12 minutes ago, spivonious wrote

*snip*

But if I decide to switch photo programs, I don't want to have to re-enter all of my tags.

Well you could have a "standard" way of doing it for photos, much as we do for music files today, but you don't have to have a universal standard that works with all kinds of arbitrary data, because that just ends up recreating the filesystem model by reducing it to lowest common denominator.

30 minutes ago, AndyC wrote

*snip*

Well you could have a "standard" way of doing it for photos, much as we do for music files today,

And we have it already (EXIF)

but you don't have to have a universal standard that works with all kinds of arbitrary data, because that just ends up recreating the filesystem model by reducing it to lowest common denominator.

Correct. The tags as set from WLPG are standard (as they all go into a specific name=value property bag that can be used by any other software).

1 hour ago, DeathByVisualStudio wrote

*snip*

That's pretty cool. I'd have to echo spiv's point that it's not very discoverable. It's also going to require education on user's part (again not for free). The other million dollar question is if this is a "standards" way of using tags or is this just for WLPG? I hope Microsoft has used this on all of their products and provides an OS level set of APIs for third-parties to follow so there is some consistency like there is with the file system.

Yep. It's just a property of the file, you can even surface it in Explorer.

1 hour ago, AndyC wrote

@DeathByVisualStudio: The point is not to have a "standard" way of doing it, the point is to have a mechanism that makes sense for the type of data the application in question is working with. If a hierarchy makes sense, then it can mimic one (or even multiple variations). If it doesn't or if it makes more sense to allow arbitrary pivoting (think Album, Artist, Release Year, etc) then you don't.

So the lack of a standard way of doing it is supposed to cut down on support how??? It sounds like a recipe for disaster if each app is left up to its own on how tag are interpreted and represented. Do they all support the same kind of hierarchy with the same kind of syntax like WLPG?

9 minutes ago, contextfree` wrote

@spivonious: Because solve distractions, not discoverability 

• These are not solutions to poor discoverability:
  • Pinning an icon in the Start menu.
  • Putting an icon on the desktop.
  • Putting an icon in the notification area.
  • Using a notification.
  • Having a first run experience.
  • Having a tour.

Wow, I'd say the bolded one is a pretty good option. The first time someone tags a photo, just pop up and say "Hey, you can put in multiple tags by using slash!".

And Windows 8 on the desktop definitely needs a tour. How else will users discover the hot corners? By messing about with it for an hour? I don't think users are that patient.

 It's also going to require education on user's part (again not for free).

Why? You can use it in the exact same way as the file system. If people know how that works, they can work with tags. (Although admittedly, I think they should just convert backslashes to slashes or vice versa for convenience's sake.)

Personally I never use the file system when it comes to photo's anymore. I just let the importer throw everything in a folder with the current date as the name, but I never navigate to them by folder. I just use tags for everything. Even opening photo's in Paint.net or something is possible since WLPG has an "Open with..." menu option. All I wish for now is that I could use WLPG as my "File Open" dialog for image files, and what with Windows 8's Share charm, this starts to become a possibility.

I don't know, I personally think WLPG is a great example of how we can one day abstract the file system away entirely and only use the far more convenient tags. I hope that day comes sooner rather than later.

23 minutes ago, AndyC wrote

@DeathByVisualStudio: You don't arrange the books on your bookshelf the way you do the cutlery in your kitchen. A clothes shop is laid out entirely differently to a library. The aim is to give the most natural experience for the data at hand, not to try and create a one-size-fits-all solution.

But that doesn't necessarily reduce the support headache any which is what you were inferring was the problem with the file system. I don't discount the merits of tag, nor search, nor the file system. They are all useful tools for the user, each with their own learning curve and support costs. I'm sure that if the user was fully abstracted from the file system today and left with just tag & search that there would still be plenty of help desk calls for "Help! I can't find my Microsoft!".

25 minutes ago, AndyC wrote

@DeathByVisualStudio: You don't arrange the books on your bookshelf the way you do the cutlery in your kitchen. A clothes shop is laid out entirely differently to a library. The aim is to give the most natural experience for the data at hand, not to try and create a one-size-fits-all solution.

+++

The attempt to create a one size fits all solution what was doomed WinFS. The moment you stop thinking about "things" as something that you arbitrarily store in a filesystem - and start thinking as collections of like-objects - it's when you realize that users do not really need to have a generic viewer for every task.

When you think about tasks, you define and constrain the problem space and suddenly everything is so much simpler... want to manage photos? Use WLPG, not Explorer. Want to manage music? Use Zune/WMP/iTunes, not Explorer. Want to manage arbitrary files? Then use Explorer, it's the right tool for the job.

But when does a regular user want to "manage arbitrary files"?

3 minutes ago, DeathByVisualStudio wrote

*snip*

But that doesn't necessarily reduce the support headache any which is what you were inferring was the problem with the file system. I don't discount the merits of tag, nor search, nor the file system. They are all useful tools for the user, each with their own learning curve and support costs. I'm sure that if the user was fully abstracted from the file system today and left with just tag & search that there would still be plenty of help desk calls for "Help! I can't find my Microsoft!".

But say that you have a user that cares ONLY about photos. Or a user who cares ONLY about music.

What is the value proposition of Explorer vs WLPG or WMP?

4 minutes ago, Bas wrote

Personally, I thought it was pretty discoverable, but then I've been using it that way since WLPG came out. Or possibly even since the version that came with Vista, I don't recall. I'd guess I discovered it by just playing around: I saw the tags, saw that the other things in that pane (the folder tree and the date tree) were trees and thought "I wonder if that tag thing is a tree as well", so I right clicked looking for an "add child tag" option, which was there. Also if you already have hierarchical tags you instantly see the parent/child format as soon as you start typing a tag name, because it shows them in the autocomplete dropdown. I think they should've highlighted this feature more in the documentation (I can find thousands of articles and blog posts from Microsoft on WLPG and photo tagging but none mention hierarchies), but as for the application itself, I'm not sure what they could've done apart from an explanatory text above the textbox, which becomes clutter as soon as you've read it once.

*snip*

Why? You can use it in the exact same way as the file system. If people know how that works, they can work with tags. (Although admittedly, I think they should just convert backslashes to slashes or vice versa for convenience's sake.)

So there are at least two people in the world who are tech savvy and are too stupid to have "discovered" this feature. IMO the average Joe isn't either and will be thrown under the bus if tags aren't implemented consistently & predictably (so you don't have to "discover" how they work for each app). As it stands right now it means education and additional costs.

34 minutes ago, AndyC wrote

You don't arrange the books on your bookshelf the way you do the cutlery in your kitchen.

This depends on how you measure the arrangement.

So, cutlery for me is in the top drawer, my most used books are in the middle shelf. They're both in the most accessible place.

I put all the forks together, all the knives together etc. In the same way I bundle books by authors.

Plus, umm, my cutlery is in Fork, Knive, Spoon, Teaspoon order. Because, err, that's alphabetical.

2 minutes ago, PaoloM wrote

*snip*

But say that you have a user that cares ONLY about photos. Or a user who cares ONLY about music.

What is the value proposition of Explorer vs WLPG or WMP?

It's not the tool it's the varied implementations. Having a consistent syntax and visual representation(s) would reduce the need for education and the associated costs.

4 minutes ago, DeathByVisualStudio wrote

*snip*

So there are at least two people in the world who are tech savvy and are too stupid to have "discovered" this feature. IMO the average Joe isn't either and will be thrown under the bus if tags aren't implemented consistently & predictably (so you don't have to "discover" how they work for each app). As it stands right now it means education and additional costs.

Yes. But then I'm not saying they shouldn't be implemented consistently and predictably, so I'm not sure what the point you're making is. Also, I wasn't talking about "right now", I was talking about a future in which the file system is abstracted away from users. Which is obviously not right now.

a moment ago, PaoloM wrote

But when does a regular user want to "manage arbitrary files"?

As soon as they need 2 or more files that are edited/displayed by 2 or more different programs (Say a Word document and an Excel spreadsheet).

20 minutes ago, DeathByVisualStudio wrote

*snip*

It's not the tool it's the varied implementations. Having a consistent syntax and visual representation(s) would reduce the need for education and the associated costs.

What is consistent between a photo and a song? Very little. Even their organization is very different...

17 minutes ago, DCMonkey wrote

*snip*

As soon as they need 2 or more files that are edited/displayed by 2 or more different programs (Say a Word document and an Excel spreadsheet).

Regular users start Excel, go to File/Open and select a file from their Open dialog (that's already prefiltered for Excel documents and pointed to their documents folder).

Really, file/folder organization is the realm of power users.

22 minutes ago, DCMonkey wrote

*snip*

As soon as they need 2 or more files that are edited/displayed by 2 or more different programs (Say a Word document and an Excel spreadsheet).

 

Not really, a Word document and an Excel spreadsheet have very similar metadata requirements. Look at how the WP7 handles them. One interface is the launching pad for both document types.

23 minutes ago, Bas wrote

*snip*

Yes. But then I'm not saying they shouldn't be implemented consistently and predictably, so I'm not sure what the point you're making is. Also, I wasn't talking about "right now", I was talking about a future in which the file system is abstracted away from users. Which is obviously not right now.

I'm guess I'm trying respond with my points as they applies to multiple people here. Sorry if that wasn't more clear. I'd agree with everything you just said but the implementation needs to be solid and consistent whenever that day comes.

3 minutes ago, PaoloM wrote

*snip*

What is consistent between a photo and a song? Very little. Even their organization is very different...

I didn't say they were. The tools (i.e. varied methods tags are supported) need to be consistent and predictable especially between apps of a particular object type. You wouldn't want tagging implemented differently between photo apps would you?

2 minutes ago, DeathByVisualStudio wrote

*snip*

I'm guess I'm trying respond with my points as they applies to multiple people here.

Ah, gotcha. Sorry if that sounded cross.

13 minutes ago, contextfree` wrote

How do you group multiple files/documents of different types that are associated with one project, class, whatever? That's mostly what I still directly use the filesystem for ...

You could tag?

I do have to admit these days I use OneNote for a lot of stuff I used to do in the filesystem ...

17 hours ago, PaoloM wrote

*snip*

Regular users start Excel, go to File/Open and select a file from their Open dialog (that's already prefiltered for Excel documents and pointed to their documents folder).

Really, file/folder organization is the realm of power users.

Really? Everyone I know navigates to the file in Explorer and double-clicks it.

14 minutes ago, spivonious wrote

*snip*

Really? Everyone I know navigates to the file in Explorer and double-clicks it.

I use the Recent section in jumplists or the recently opened section within the application itself.

15 minutes ago, spivonious wrote

*snip*

Really? Everyone I know navigates to the file in Explorer and double-clicks it.

Then you only know power (or experienced) users. Hey, everyone I know is a wiz at organization, but sometimes I provide "tech support" for friends of my wife and what I see are completely flat My Documents folders and the only structures in Photos and Music are provided by import tools like WLPG or iTunes or WMP burning CDs.

Normal users, in general, do not want to think about post-inception tasks (like manual tagging, renaming or shuffling across folders), they just want to get on with their lives.

(disclosure: I'm a compulsive tagger and organizer, bordering on some medical condition )

31 minutes ago, PaoloM wrote

*snip*

Then you only know power (or experienced) users. Hey, everyone I know is a wiz at organization, but sometimes I provide "tech support" for friends of my wife and what I see are completely flat My Documents folders and the only structures in Photos and Music are provided by import tools like WLPG or iTunes or WMP burning CDs.

Normal users, in general, do not want to think about post-inception tasks (like manual tagging, renaming or shuffling across folders), they just want to get on with their lives.

(disclosure: I'm a compulsive tagger and organizer, bordering on some medical condition )

I don't think there's anyone in tech that doesn't provide support for friends an family to some degree or another. You certainly don't comer the market on experience with the less then advanced user. My experience has been similar to both spivonious and MasterPie. Jumplists & app MRU lists seem to be the most common means for opening a document that I see and especially true for those with Windows 7.

19 hours ago, contextfree` wrote

Sounds like a general file manager, just one that uses tags instead of strict hierarchy?

I do have to admit these days I use OneNote for a lot of stuff I used to do in the filesystem ...

OneNote FTW.  (or does anyone still say that anymore?)