Re: Type/Creator Codes
Re: Type/Creator Codes
- Subject: Re: Type/Creator Codes
- From: Ryan Dary <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 09:23:25 -0700
On Tuesday, May 15, 2001, at 02:56 AM, email@hidden wrote:
Hi All,
Since I started the original thread, I thought I should just say
something. Hopefully Apple have got the message from the responses
here, and, I'm hoping, the feedback you've all given them through the
MacOSX web page.
First, I didn't mean to make a flame war out of this. I was asking a
serious question - thanks for all the great responses.
However, on the topic of extensions, I would like to just say a few
things.
First, whether you like using extensions or not, mixing file name and
file type is very bad from a usability perspective - regardless of the
fact that Windows does it that way, as did NeXT (I believe). You should
never be able to change a file's type by editing its name - this is
basic good usability. It is part of the reason why Windows started
hiding the extensions.
Having seen Windows users in the past change the extension of a GIF file
from .gif to .jpg and believe that they had now created a JPEG - this
should be evidence enough. Try this on OSX and you'll see the icon
actually change from a GIF to a JPEG - even though this is not a JPEG.
This is one of the biggest problem with using such a system.
Perhaps it should, and with QuickTime it might not be so hard. Perhaps
the finder should throw up a sheet which confirms that the object should
really be converted to the new type? How's that for usability? Sure,
no other system does that, but that hasn't stopped the Mac community
before. Perhaps the problem here is not that extensions are tied to the
type, but rather there is no help from the OS to keep things in order.
I believe it would be the file browsers job to monitor the renaming of
files. In this case, the Finder should try to be more aware of
incorrect file typing. A good scenario would be to do this:
The user selects a file "myfavoriteimage.jpg" which the finder knows
belongs to Picture Viewer. The user renames it to "myfavoriteimage.gif"
which the finder knows also belongs to picture viewer. Now, with a
special API for apps to support, the Finder asks Picture Viewer if this
is an okay change, Picture Viewer will tell the finder "Yes" or "No" or
"Convert" depending on the alteration to the "type" (based on
extension). The finder will use this result to do the following: ignore
the change, recommend to the use that this change may produce results
which will cause the file to open with an application that may not
support it, or (by using the api in Picture viewer) will ask the user if
she wants to convert the file to this type. Now with any of these
results (except the ignore) the user has the opportunity to "cancel"
which would return the file name to it's original extension, not
changing the name portion.
The default for this conversion api would be to tell the user that it
may not be supported. This way apps which don't have file types to
convert to/from such as project builder, wouldn't have to support the
api, but if any pbproj files were re-typed (by name extension) the
Finder would recommend that they don't do this, which provides the user
the option to restore the type or keep the change.
Apps which did wish to support this API could include in their Plist
that they support rename conversions with a NSDocumentConversion =
{myConversionClass} class or something? The Finder would invoke the
class and pass it the file and the desired type to convert to. In the
event of a conversion failure, the Finder would simply provide user
feedback which stated that the file cannot be converted into the desired
type. In the event of a success, the new file would have the same name
with the new extension.
Or having a text editor save a file with an extension you didn't request
(like TextEdit) - another example of poor usability. Then when the user
removes the extension so that the file name is like they originally
wanted, and finding the file is no longer launches TextEdit?
Well, although it might be nice to have a checkbox for append filename
extension, I find this useful. I also find it useful that if I have an
extension in the filename already, it asks me if I intend to append the
.txt to that or just use the one already in place. Since everything is
so "internet' ready, and since the internet uses file name extensions,
it makes sense that apps would want to help you assign correct
extensions.
Clearly just hiding all the extensions is not a solution, as some files
do require extensions to be shown - for example source code (.c, .cc,
.h, .java). But to blindly have all extensions showing, editable, AND
essential for association in the interface is just poor all round.
Clearly most Mac users are not happy with this, and I'd think anyone
with a usability background is in total shock that this wasn't resolved
earlier (didn't Apple once have the best usability people in the
business?).
Yes, they did and still could. The problem is that Type/Creator is
out-dated and depreciated. Since everyone wants to be internet-savvy,
Type/Creator are not the best for this task. Since it would be unCarbon
of me to suggest that support for type/creator be dropped, I will simply
say that it should be the last thing used to determine the files type. I
personnaly can't stand the fact that when I double click on some text
files, with .txt and TEXT/ttxt that it tries to open a Classic version
of SimpleText, when in reality I just would like it to open the app in
TextEdit. So here the Type/Creator are very much in my way from a
usability standpoint.
There are much better ways to do this - and OSX is capable, regardless
of the file system being used. But file extensions like they are
currently are probably the worst way to do this.
I am hopeful that Apple are working on something, and it will be
revealed very very soon. If not though, I think there may be a revolt.
I get very concerned when Windows is looking more usable than the Mac,
as should you all.
Personally I think that Apple would have to do something really bad in
order to make a comparison that Windows is more usable than Macintosh.
It would take something very wrong to have this be the case. Sure, Mac
OS is now at an infancy again, but even in some of it's earliest
incarnation (DP4+), it beats the most advance Windows version. IMHO!
One final thing I'd like to say. I am a Unix programmer - 10 years
now. I basically came over to the Mac recently - mainly because of
OSX. However, I'm sick of people characterising Unix users as wanting
extensions on files, or Unix somehow requiring extensions to work. Unix
has NEVER required extensions on file names. They have sometimes been
used in the past because there was no way to determine the type of a
file easily by just looking at it - no icon for one thing in the early
days. They're convenient from a terminal. But I have scripts on
Solaris at work without extensions - for example sh, perl, csh scripts
etc. Executable don't end in .exe. Text files are often without
extension such as README, INSTALL etc. Adobe FrameMaker on Solaris is
quite happy to save files as "My Letter". Don't think for one minute
that just because this is Unix underneath you need to throw out all the
usability ideals of the Mac.
In the case of your "My Letter" example, this is where a Type/Creator
solution is nice, however it does restrict the knowledge of a web server
from knowing how to translate your file, although I suppose it would
simply not translate your file and just transfer it as binary, which is
fine in many cases... but it still doesn't provide a hint of type (which
is nice to know).
Jamie
_______________________________________________
cocoa-dev mailing list
email@hidden
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/cocoa-dev