Re: Mac OS X 10.1 File Name Extension Guidelines [Long]
Re: Mac OS X 10.1 File Name Extension Guidelines [Long]
- Subject: Re: Mac OS X 10.1 File Name Extension Guidelines [Long]
- From: Michael Dagate <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2001 13:07:28 -0500
per the article...
"As you have no doubt guessed, I am one of the Mac users that thinks no
Mac application should ever force the user to save a file with a file
name extension. If the file type information stored in the 32-bit type
code is sufficient for my Mac to determine a file's type, why should I
be forced to pollute my file names with a fragile, redundant copy of
that same information? Doing so eliminates one of biggest user
experience advantages of using a Mac."
I agree with the author that storing metadata and interpreting it (re:
application binding) are different issues. What seems to bother people
is not what is stored, but where it is stored and how it is used. The
author acknowledges that file type is non-essential. That is, you can
still read and write the data without it. That said, file type is more
convenience than anything. It allows the OS a convenient way to help
users find and load programs and files. I find file extensions to be a
*very* convenient place to store this information. I can control it, I
can change, I can see instantly what type of file it is. Does it really
matter that much where the information is stored? I think that avoiding
file extensions (as suggested in the quote above) is a big user
experience DISadvantage of using a Mac.
Incidentally, I prefer to control my own application binding. I don't
really care what application was used to create a file on someone else's
computer. For example, I want all .txt files to open in TextEdit,
period, unless I choose otherwise. Also, I want to see all document
extensions, all the time. I don't need to to see .app or other bundle
extensions, since I have no need to edit them.
Basically, the issue comes down to interoperability with the rest of the
computing world. Perhaps a better solution to the problem is to create a
robust mechanism for different platforms to exchange metadata (maybe all
files should be XML?). Using MIME types might be fine to describe a
file's type, but that doesn't change the fact that platforms exchange
little more than file name and size information when transferring files.
XML would allow all the metadata you want, but bears a cost in
performance (the OS would have to look inside the file for the metadata).
The bottom line is this. Apple made a good "business" decision to
support file extensions. It makes the Mac more acceptable in a
heterogeneous and increasing networked world. The Mac community should
embrace it, if for no other reason than to sell more Macs.
Michael
On Saturday, September 8, 2001, at 04:25 PM, Brendan Younger wrote:
I must say that I am rather surprised at the lack of interest (or
should I say justifiable rage) on a rather important feature of
user-interface design. It is this lack of interest that is allowing
Apple to do *very* foolish things in the name of compatibility. (No
pun intended.) To begin with, I strongly suggest that all who haven't
(including any Apple Higher-ups) read:
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/01q3/metadata/metadata-1.html.