

A Call For A Filesystem Abstraction Layer - senki
http://algorithm.com.au/blog/files/filesystem-abstraction.php#unique-entry-id-609

======
rlpb
I think we already have an abstraction: it's "My Documents" (or the
equivalent). "Normal" user applications just need to simplify their interfaces
so that users actually end up keeping their files in there. File managers
should have a simple interface so that users can work with files in there (and
the interface should be simple enough that they actually do). File managers
still need the current ("advanced") interface for power users who need to mess
with the system.

The Preferences argument made by the author is the same in my opinion.
~/Library/Preferences should be hidden by default. The user should be able to
clear preferences from within Photoshop itself, or some sort of general
preferences manager.

None of this needs a new abstraction layer, just some incremental UX work
within individual applications.

~~~
meric
My "Documents" folder is so full I've started a new folder at
~/<user>/Work/<year> to store my stuff. I go into my Documents folder and I
feel overwhelmed by the sheer number of old files. I'd like an iTunes-like
interface to control my documents.

------
derefr
This goal isn't really that far off. Modern OSes already have a composite,
relational metadata index built by the system Search indexer; if an
Explorer/Finder-alike simply hid all the hierarchical detail, and presented
the already-relational information relationally, as a set of libraries (with
rendering plugins so, for example, iTunes could display your song library
prettily within the file manager itself) you'd already be 90% of the way
there.

------
drblast
Filesystems are confusing because they force a hierachy, and we all know that
real-world data isn't all hierarchical.

The best filesystem abstraction is GMail, because you can tag things and
search them. Instead of saving my photos to
/home/user/Christmas/2009/DecoratingTree/ I should be able to label a group of
photos with those tags and filter by them later.

For the novice, the operation would go like this: Show me all things related
to "Christmas..." wow, that's a lot of stuff, now limit those results to
"2009"...and just show me photos. Ah yeah, there's the one of the kids chewing
on the tree light wires.

"Tagging" files in this manner would require no more effort than organizing
them in directories, and it's a lot more intuitive.

I've been meaning to write an application that works like this for years, but
something else has always taken the priority away. If you want to work on it
send me an email and I can dig up the code.

~~~
thasmin
The problem with tagging is that it's a laborious process and prone to errors
which accumulate over time to make the system very inaccurate.

~~~
drblast
How is tagging any more laborious than saving in directories?

If I save to /home/user/Photos/Christmas/2009, then treat each one of those as
a "tag."

If later I navigate to /home/user/2009/Christmas, I should see everything
"under" that directory.

The point is that the hierarchical system filters too early. I want to see
everything under a directory without having to drill down and filter from
there.

------
vicaya
No. The existing Filesystem abstractions conflate namespace APIs and storage
APIs and handle both poorly. It's time to break'em apart!

What we need is storage atom/fabric APIs that provide individual namespace
(tagging, hierarchical or whatever) and storage
(dedup/sync/versioning/replication or whatever) components to enable
applications to innovate UX for each domain.

In the next a few years, we shall see the passing of traditional Filesystem
APIs and blossoming of new storage APIs.

------
scrrr
Windows 7 has an abstraction layer for Documents ("Library"). Otherwise a good
Desktop search can provide an additional layer.

~~~
dfox
All windows versions since 95 actually have pretty complex abstraction layers
(IIDL -> user-space path, user-space path -> kernel path) between real kernel-
level filesystem and what user sees in Explorer (To faciliate things like "My
Documents" and also to provide illusion of drive letters and current
directory). I assume that OS X's finder also has some abstraction layer (to do
things like Library->Bibliotheque).

Also it is relatively simple for application on either system (including
generic unices) to find suitable place for their data. Making some OS-agnostic
abstraction has fundamental problem in fact that different systems offer
different types of standard locations (Unix has $HOME and dot-files, while in
windows you have My Documents and three distinct Application Data directories
and lot of specialized directories like Pictures, Saved Games etc.).

------
olalonde
I would go even further and call for the death of "files". Of course,
files/filesystems will always exist under the hood but I think it is
conceivable that in the future, filesystem operations become increasingly
unneeded. There will be an iTunes/web app. for documents, books, software,
etc.

------
leppie
Directories, not folders. Only Windows got folders.

