File management? Shove it!

@Bas: I may just start tagging my photos that way. Why does MS make features that aren't discoverable?

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.

@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.

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?

@spivonious: Because solve distractions, not discoverability 

@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.

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.

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.

 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.

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.