If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Explaining the file system hierarchy. (was: Positioning the Windows Explorer windows)
In message , Ken Springer
writes: [] At this stage, Total Commander will "totally confuse" this guy. :-) The concept of the filesystem hierarchy still hasn't sunk in. The "light bulb" hasn't come on. Explaining things like this can be hard when the user is fixated on doing a, b, c, d and has no interest in learning something else. The Don't I know it! I have a (possibly similar) elderly friend who doesn't grasp the concept of folders within folders. He's more than once asked me to go through downloading from his camera card - and he writes down each stage/step. He just doesn't grasp the _concept_. (He's not dim; I'm quite proud that he's managed to convert most of his LP collection onto CDs, using mp3directcut to cut sides into tracks, and so on. He's a retired printer - from hot metal days, but I think would have used linotype machines, not just hand-layout.) hierarchy is so much easier to explain when your file manager has "lines" like XP and older system have. I may end up installing only (My friend has Vista, which I think still has the lines.) the Classic Explorer part of Classic Shell, so he has the lines for his eyes to follow. I've created a simple chart that visually shows the hierarchy, but laid out as if it was an organizational chart, but I don't know if he's really looked at it. That is indeed the problem. You can't give them too much at once, or they suffer from information overload. I'm fairly sure that, at some point, he's going to decide he wants his music categorized, into R&B, country, soft rock, etc., and that should be the perfect time to explain the hierarchy. Could be; good luck. What _is_ it that makes the hierarchical file/folder system, which is so obvious to us, so difficult to grasp as a concept to some? I'd really like to know. My friend, for example, just about knows how to make a new folder - but I suspect would never think of doing so, or at best would only ever do so in one or two specific places. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Radio 4 is one of the reasons being British is good. It's not a subset of Britain - it's almost as if Britain is a subset of Radio 4. - Stephen Fry, in Radio Times, 7-13 June, 2003. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Explaining the file system hierarchy. (was: Positioning the Windows Explorer windows)
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote
| What _is_ it that makes the hierarchical file/folder system, which is so | obvious to us, so difficult to grasp as a concept to some? | I don't think it's at all obvious. The original idea was to use a desk/paper/file cabinet metaphor, but the metaphor simply doesn't work. It's not self-evident. Only the names are the same. There are far too many differences. Just one example: When you move a paper across your desk it moves, but when you put it into a file cabinet it doesn't magically copy. Likewise with writing files. We can say that a DOC is equivalent to a paper-printed letter, but it's simply not true. They have very little in common until you print the DOC. 20 years of typewriters and White-Out won't be of any help at all in learning how to cut, copy, paste or get rid of talking paperclip cartoons that pop up while you're trying to learn how to cut, copy, paste. It's a high bar to become adept with the tool. I think the office metaphors actually end up being an obstacle. People need to learn a profoundly different system. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Explaining the file system hierarchy. (was: Positioning the Windows Explorer windows)
On Fri, 2 Mar 2018 12:34:34 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote: Don't I know it! I have a (possibly similar) elderly friend who doesn't grasp the concept of folders within folders. Have you tried asking him to visualize a filing cabinet containing folders, and several folders in each of them? Perhaps even better than visualizing it is demonstrating it in an actual filing cabinet, if you have one handy. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Explaining the file system hierarchy.
In message , Wolf K
writes: On 2018-03-02 07:34, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: [...] What _is_ it that makes the hierarchical file/folder system, which is so obvious to us, so difficult to grasp as a concept to some? I'd really like to know. My friend, for example, just about knows how to make a new folder - but I suspect would never think of doing so, or at best would only ever do so in one or two specific places. Good question. It may be that some people never used real manila folders stored in file cabinets. Or they just can't classify I don't think it was/is a good metaphor anyway. I _have_ used manila folders, but I don't think I've ever put them inside each other! They were a good metaphor when the hierarchy was only one level deep, i. e. not really a hierarchy. But ... hierarchically to begin with. You wouldn't believe the number of .... I think that's the real problem. At least, have never been trained to think hierarchically. I guess there are _some_ who genuinely can't, and a lot more who have never really been trained to. (And no, I'm not claiming this is something simple to do. As I have found.) [] I think it's a glitch in the brain. Eg, I used to have my grade 9 students organise their 3-ring binders by subject. About 10% couldn't do it even when looking at a page of Geography notes in the Math section. So I helped them move their notes into the right sections, step by step, and two days later it was all a mess again. Despite it being them who invented the metaphor, Microsoft are a bit to blame he their folders, and the ones they encourage users to use, are very sloppy (and even inconsistent). Then there are people who are neatness-blind, or tone-deaf. Etc. I'm very untidy in my house, but (IMO) tidy inside my computer. Neurologists will solve some of these puzzles eventually. (-: -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf If your mind goes blank, remember to turn down the sound. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Explaining the file system hierarchy.
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
Don't I know it! I have a (possibly similar) elderly friend who doesn't grasp the concept of folders within folders. A tree structure might be just as effective a teaching tool. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_structure Finding your files is like "going down a mine". It also makes it possible to give a justification for behaviors when "moving" a file versus "copying" a file. If you have two inverted trees in your diagram, it's pretty hard to get the file from one tree to another without copying it. Whereas you can imagine moving a file up and down within a single inverted tree. The purpose of the desktop metaphor was to answer the question "what is this big space on the CRT screen for". And to answer that, the first GUI people said it "was the top surface of your desk". Which it really isn't. But you have to make this stuff up, as part of the "story". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desktop_metaphor "The desktop metaphor was first introduced by Alan Kay at Xerox PARC in 1970" I think at least some desktops offered more convincing representations. (There have been attempts to animate everything, but such attempts are doomed to fail from a productivity perspective.) I'm sure if someone was teaching you how to use an IBM mainframe, the lesson wouldn't have worked this way. You would be going "what is this 191 and 192 stuff and why do I want to SWAP A B ?". Thankfully the explanations now should be a bit milder and easier to take. IPL CMS, Paul |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Explaining the file system hierarchy.
In message , Paul
writes: J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: Don't I know it! I have a (possibly similar) elderly friend who doesn't grasp the concept of folders within folders. A tree structure might be just as effective a teaching tool. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_structure I'm sure I must have used the tree metaphor; as far as it goes, it's a good one: branches can have other branches but also leaves, and leaves can even grow out of the trunk. I think it's just a mental block. Finding your files is like "going down a mine". It also makes it possible to give a justification for behaviors when "moving" a file versus "copying" a file. If you have two inverted trees in your diagram, it's pretty hard to get the file from one tree to another without copying it. Whereas you can imagine moving a file up and down within a single inverted tree. But that only works if you intuitively grasp the concept in the first place. Extra metaphors are just, after a point, extra sources of confusion. The purpose of the desktop metaphor was to answer the question "what is this big space on the CRT screen for". And to answer that, the first GUI people said it "was the top surface of your desk". Which it really isn't. But you have to make this stuff up, as part of the "story". I never thought it was a good metaphor, and don't really think of my "desktop" as a real desk top. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desktop_metaphor "The desktop metaphor was first introduced by Alan Kay at Xerox PARC in 1970" An awful lot of windows concepts seem to be the subject of claims from Xerox PARC in the '70s (-:. I think at least some desktops offered more convincing representations. (There have been attempts to animate everything, but such attempts are doomed to fail from a productivity perspective.) I remember one - I think it was Packard Bell - who presented a view of a hallway, with rooms opening off it. I'm sure if someone was teaching you how to use an IBM mainframe, the lesson wouldn't have worked this way. You would be going "what is this 191 and 192 stuff and why do I want to SWAP A B ?". Thankfully the explanations now should be a bit milder and easier to take. I never programmed that particular processor, but if the reason is what I think it is, I don't think I'd have wondered why I might want to use a swap instruction. Of course I don't know about the "191 and 192 stuff". IPL CMS, interrupt, program, load? Paul -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Once a mind is opened it is very hard to shut. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Explaining the file system hierarchy.
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Paul IPL CMS, interrupt, program, load? Initial Program Load perhaps. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conver...Monitor_System The first computer I worked on, was a mainframe that took punched cards. And those had a tiny bit of JCL at the start, and you'd slap some number of 7-8-9 (orange) and 6-7-8-9 (pink) cards to your deck (those are a kind of record marker). I think when i was done with punched cards, I'd collected around two boxes (4000 cards). Hey, look! They have a picture of the pink card!!! Yikes. It's missing the 6-7-8-9 holes in a single column though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:H...rd_Punch-2.jpg And no, the inhabitants of the room didn't look like this. The keypunch room looked like a hippie convention. These people are entirely too clean cut. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...nes_in_use.jpg https://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/e...4506VV4002.jpg Back then, they had a program to allow high-school students access to the university mainframe. There were 25 key-punches, but at busy times, there wasn't a seat left in the house. Surprisingly, not a lot of students took up the offer. A good thing I guess. You couldn't bring food in there, so staying there meant a bit of "suffering" :-) Paul |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Explaining the file system hierarchy.
Sorry for the late replies to everyone. I use Albasani.net, and they've
been down for like 3 days. Had withdrawal symptoms! LOL On 3/2/18 5:34 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: In message , Ken Springer writes: [] At this stage, Total Commander will "totally confuse" this guy. :-) The concept of the filesystem hierarchy still hasn't sunk in. The "light bulb" hasn't come on. Explaining things like this can be hard when the user is fixated on doing a, b, c, d and has no interest in learning something else. The Don't I know it! I have a (possibly similar) elderly friend who doesn't grasp the concept of folders within folders. He's more than once asked me to go through downloading from his camera card - and he writes down each stage/step. He just doesn't grasp the _concept_. Exactly, grasping the concept is hard, and, IMO, none of the MS file managers windows adequately as they don't display the very top level correctly. That's why I created my own charts to show the very basic hierarchy of the filesystem. I've done one for both Windows and Mac, and would like to do one for Linux someday. You can see the charts he https://www.dropbox.com/sh/1lrrman43...kEaOcINFa?dl=0 For any reader that looks at the charts, feel free to download for your own personal use. The goal was to make it as simple and self explanatory as possible, and still be able to print on letter sized paper. I'd appreciate comments and improvement suggestions if anyone has any. I got my brother-in-law to try Directory Opus, and we turned on the feature that (He's not dim; I'm quite proud that he's managed to convert most of his LP collection onto CDs, using mp3directcut to cut sides into tracks, and so on. He's a retired printer - from hot metal days, but I think would have used linotype machines, not just hand-layout.) The guy I'm working with is similar, and I think he may have been beat down growing up with people telling him he is dumb. As a result, he's possibly over compensated in areas of life. I haven't heard from him in a couple of days, so I'm thinking he's finally got a grasp on just the things he wants to do. hierarchy is so much easier to explain when your file manager has "lines" like XP and older system have. I may end up installing only (My friend has Vista, which I think still has the lines.) In XP the lines are optional, in Vista they don't exist. But Classic Explorer, part of Classic Shell, can show the lines, and I have mine set that way. the Classic Explorer part of Classic Shell, so he has the lines for his eyes to follow. I've created a simple chart that visually shows the hierarchy, but laid out as if it was an organizational chart, but I don't know if he's really looked at it. That is indeed the problem. You can't give them too much at once, or they suffer from information overload. What I tell everyone one, is when what I say starts going over their head, it's time to quit. I'm fairly sure that, at some point, he's going to decide he wants his music categorized, into R&B, country, soft rock, etc., and that should be the perfect time to explain the hierarchy. Could be; good luck. What _is_ it that makes the hierarchical file/folder system, which is so obvious to us, so difficult to grasp as a concept to some? I'd really like to know. My friend, for example, just about knows how to make a new folder - but I suspect would never think of doing so, or at best would only ever do so in one or two specific places. Humans, I think, are basically visual at the core. But if the visual feed your brain gets doesn't make sense, even that is useless. The charts display the same thing as the MS file managers, but just laid out in a way many of us are used to seeing, a simple organizational chart. Even here, some explanation may be necessary. For some, the use of color may help. So, if you ad a 3rd party program like Folder Colorizer, where, say, all folders containing bills are green, that may make it easier. I haven't tested this as yet. -- Ken Mac OS X 10.11.6 Firefox 53.0.2 (64 bit) Thunderbird 52.0 "My brain is like lightning, a quick flash and it's gone!" |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Explaining the file system hierarchy.
On 3/2/18 7:50 AM, Wolf K wrote:
On 2018-03-02 07:34, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: [...] What _is_ it that makes the hierarchical file/folder system, which is so obvious to us, so difficult to grasp as a concept to some? I'd really like to know. My friend, for example, just about knows how to make a new folder - but I suspect would never think of doing so, or at best would only ever do so in one or two specific places. Good question. It may be that some people never used real manila folders stored in file cabinets. Or they just can't classify hierarchically to begin with. You wouldn't believe the number of incorrectly classified lists I've seen, even in papers published in professional journals. For that matter, many scientific problems hide classification/category errors in their assumptions. Eg, nature vs nurture. "If you don't ask the right question...." I think it's a glitch in the brain. Eg, I used to have my grade 9 students organise their 3-ring binders by subject. About 10% couldn't do it even when looking at a page of Geography notes in the Math section. So I helped them move their notes into the right sections, step by step, and two days later it was all a mess again. Is it a glitch, or just the fact that we are all not alike, and our brains work differently? Then there are people who are neatness-blind, or tone-deaf. Etc. Neurologists will solve some of these puzzles eventually. You can put me in the neatness-blind category! LOL All my life, if I left things in a mess, I knew that X was "over there". When I try to organize, in a short time I don't know where anything is. -- Ken Mac OS X 10.11.6 Firefox 53.0.2 (64 bit) Thunderbird 52.0 "My brain is like lightning, a quick flash and it's gone!" |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Explaining the file system hierarchy.
On 3/2/18 12:17 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Wolf K writes: On 2018-03-02 07:34, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: [...] What _is_ it that makes the hierarchical file/folder system, which is so obvious to us, so difficult to grasp as a concept to some? I'd really like to know. My friend, for example, just about knows how to make a new folder - but I suspect would never think of doing so, or at best would only ever do so in one or two specific places. Good question. It may be that some people never used real manila folders stored in file cabinets. Or they just can't classify I don't think it was/is a good metaphor anyway. I _have_ used manila folders, but I don't think I've ever put them inside each other! They were a good metaphor when the hierarchy was only one level deep, i. e. not really a hierarchy. But ... One metaphor I used to use is the case of a Christmas present. You open the box, and there's another box inside plus a couple of items. Open that box, and still another box and some items. On and on. hierarchically to begin with. You wouldn't believe the number of ... I think that's the real problem. At least, have never been trained to think hierarchically. I guess there are _some_ who genuinely can't, and a lot more who have never really been trained to. (And no, I'm not claiming this is something simple to do. As I have found.) [] I think it's a glitch in the brain. Eg, I used to have my grade 9 students organise their 3-ring binders by subject. About 10% couldn't do it even when looking at a page of Geography notes in the Math section. So I helped them move their notes into the right sections, step by step, and two days later it was all a mess again. Despite it being them who invented the metaphor, Microsoft are a bit to blame he their folders, and the ones they encourage users to use, are very sloppy (and even inconsistent). Then there are people who are neatness-blind, or tone-deaf. Etc. I'm very untidy in my house, but (IMO) tidy inside my computer. Neurologists will solve some of these puzzles eventually. (-: -- Ken Mac OS X 10.11.6 Firefox 53.0.2 (64 bit) Thunderbird 52.0 "My brain is like lightning, a quick flash and it's gone!" |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Explaining the file system hierarchy.
On 3/2/18 8:42 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
On Fri, 2 Mar 2018 12:34:34 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote: Don't I know it! I have a (possibly similar) elderly friend who doesn't grasp the concept of folders within folders. Have you tried asking him to visualize a filing cabinet containing folders, and several folders in each of them? Perhaps even better than visualizing it is demonstrating it in an actual filing cabinet, if you have one handy. I used to use the "folder in a folder" metaphor too, but this will break down when the student suddenly realizes you can't physically fit any more folders inside the one folder. Maybe better is this: You need a bunch of folders with the tabs staggered across the top. One level is a folder with the tab on the left end. The next level down is a physical folder with the tab one step to the right. Next level down are folders with the tabs one more step to the right. :-) -- Ken Mac OS X 10.11.6 Firefox 53.0.2 (64 bit) Thunderbird 52.0 "My brain is like lightning, a quick flash and it's gone!" |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Explaining the file system hierarchy.
On 3/2/18 3:33 PM, Paul wrote:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: Don't I know it! I have a (possibly similar) elderly friend who doesn't grasp the concept of folders within folders. A tree structure might be just as effective a teaching tool. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_structure The articles just shows that what makes sense to one person or group makes absolutely no sense to another person or group. Take the graphic of the hierarchy that contains groups of windows. To me, that display is useless, especially to new users. Took me awhile to figure that one out. Finding your files is like "going down a mine". That extra bold line you can have in Directory Opus excellently makes that point obvious., IMO. My brother-in-law really liked that line when I got him trying out DO. Made it so simple to understand where the files were being taken from and moved to. It also makes it possible to give a justification for behaviors when "moving" a file versus "copying" a file. If you have two inverted trees in your diagram, it's pretty hard to get the file from one tree to another without copying it. Whereas you can imagine moving a file up and down within a single inverted tree. The purpose of the desktop metaphor was to answer the question "what is this big space on the CRT screen for". And to answer that, the first GUI people said it "was the top surface of your desk". Which it really isn't. But you have to make this stuff up, as part of the "story". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desktop_metaphor "The desktop metaphor was first introduced by Alan Kay at Xerox PARC in 1970" I think at least some desktops offered more convincing representations. (There have been attempts to animate everything, but such attempts are doomed to fail from a productivity perspective.) I'm sure if someone was teaching you how to use an IBM mainframe, the lesson wouldn't have worked this way. You would be going "what is this 191 and 192 stuff and why do I want to SWAP A B ?". Thankfully the explanations now should be a bit milder and easier to take. IPL CMS, Paul -- Ken Mac OS X 10.11.6 Firefox 53.0.2 (64 bit) Thunderbird 52.0 "My brain is like lightning, a quick flash and it's gone!" |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Explaining the file system hierarchy.
On 3/2/18 4:37 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Paul writes: J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: snip I think at least some desktops offered more convincing representations. (There have been attempts to animate everything, but such attempts are doomed to fail from a productivity perspective.) I remember one - I think it was Packard Bell - who presented a view of a hallway, with rooms opening off it. We don't want to forget MS's Bob! LOL snip -- Ken Mac OS X 10.11.6 Firefox 53.0.2 (64 bit) Thunderbird 52.0 "My brain is like lightning, a quick flash and it's gone!" |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Explaining the file system hierarchy.
On 3/4/2018 1:37 PM, Ken Springer wrote:
On 3/2/18 8:42 AM, Ken Blake wrote: On Fri, 2 Mar 2018 12:34:34 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote: Don't I know it! I have a (possibly similar) elderly friend who doesn't grasp the concept of folders within folders. Have you tried asking him to visualize a filing cabinet containing folders, and several folders in each of them? Perhaps even better than visualizing it is demonstrating it in an actual filing cabinet, if you have one handy. I used to use the "folder in a folder" metaphor too, but this will break down when the student suddenly realizes you can't physically fit any more folders inside the one folder. Maybe better is this: You need a bunch of folders with the tabs staggered across the top.* One level is a folder with the tab on the left end.* The next level down is a physical folder with the tab one step to the right.* Next level down are folders with the tabs one more step to the right.* :-) How about a building analogy? The hard drive starts out as a large empty building, rooms are partitioned off, cabinets are added, boxes are put in the cabinets, stuff is put in the boxes. Heck, that analogy could also be useful in explaining defragging. -- == Later... Ron C == |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Explaining the file system hierarchy.
In message , Ken Springer
writes: Sorry for the late replies to everyone. I use Albasani.net, and they've been down for like 3 days. Had withdrawal symptoms! LOL I would too (-: On 3/2/18 5:34 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: In message , Ken Springer writes: [] Explaining things like this can be hard when the user is fixated on doing a, b, c, d and has no interest in learning something else. The Don't I know it! I have a (possibly similar) elderly friend who doesn't grasp the concept of folders within folders. He's more than once asked me to go through downloading from his camera card - and he writes down each stage/step. He just doesn't grasp the _concept_. Exactly, grasping the concept is hard, and, IMO, none of the MS file managers windows adequately as they don't display the very top level correctly. That's why I created my own charts to show the very basic hierarchy of the filesystem. I've done one for both Windows and Mac, and would like to do one for Linux someday. You can see the charts he https://www.dropbox.com/sh/1lrrman43ubk5m6/AAA-p4e6O7vkDo5akEaOcINFa?dl=0 For any reader that looks at the charts, feel free to download for your own personal use. The goal was to make it as simple and self explanatory as possible, and still be able to print on letter sized paper. I'd appreciate comments and improvement suggestions if anyone has any. Thanks. There are obviously lots of concepts we have difficulty in conveying; your charts are (perhaps) good at conveying the top level, which you say is what you were trying to convey. My problem - I think! - is conveying the concept of files and folders within folders, especially the concept that *each level is the same*. [] -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Look out for #1. Don't step in #2 either. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|