Re: Interpretation of extensions different from Unix/Linux?

[Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>]

Dmitry A. Kazakov schrieb:

> Modern interfaces are kind of "OO".  Older interfaces, like d'n'd, were
> "functional": you had a function first (the text editor window open) and
> then you chose arguments for it, by dropping objects into it. "OO" GUI
> first selects an object. Only then the you choose the operation, like
> "open" in the popup menu. That opens a corresponding application, which is
> not necessarily a text editor. There are too many applications and their
> functional parts in these days to have all them active and visible on the
> desktop.

A context would be the important and user centric notion, I think.
Click on a file---is the file a component in an O-O sense,
what should the click trigger, etc.  Several options that can
be controlled by the context. Maybe the context will establish
a priority list of programs/services that can deal with this
particular file object. D'n'd is not the essential piece:
file dialogue windows are another opportunity to foster
contracts about the ongoing support of ever changing file
selection machanisms ... ;-)

A good search box helps me a lot when finding files.  Lucene
is a good, free, quick, and known-format indexing library
for file system names.


> Everybody knows what it is, genetically imprinted.... (:-))

(I mean, could anything be worse than the preconfigured
auto-wiggling of narrowly boxed tree views in Vista's "explorer"?
Psycho MS salesmanship... We are open to removing our innovations
when users don't like them. Comes with the next release.)