[thelist] [CODE] bloated image src names

[Chris W. Parker]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hassan Schroeder [mailto:hassan at webtuitive.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 10:35 AM
> To: thelist at lists.evolt.org
> Subject: Re: [thelist] [CODE] bloated image src names
>
>
> >>any issue like this has pros and cons, for both sides
> >
> > except for the excellent (i think) point that
> david.cantrell brought up,
> > i would agree. (about the "4 decades of computer science
> and interface
> > design" thing.)
>
> ?? Exactly what point *was* that?

why is it that you are asking this question when it seems from the
paragraph below that you fully understand what point i am referring to?

> > Wow. You just debunked 4 decades of computer science and
> interface design.
> > I'm amazed that noone else was able to come to the same incredible
> > conclusion you were. Organization? Who needs it?
>
> That there is no "organization" possible without using hierarchical
> directories??

(yes, this is the point i was referring to.)


"no 'organization' possible without using hierarchical directories??" of
course not. but is it more efficient than using directories when
confronted with 100,000 files? if i had to guess, i'd say no it is not
more efficient, or even comparable. and i'd say that's probably why
whoever came up with the idea of folders in the first place did. and
also why the folder paradigm is still around and probably will continue
to be and was in fact used even before computers came around.

remember kelly's example of the filing cabinet? how did
sally-the-secretary organize her boss's files? she used folders and
placed individual files inside each folder organized with some system.
topical, alphabetically, numerical, etc.

the point i'm making here is the reason folders are more popular in many
aspects (as opposed to what i've been presented with here, that is, the
minority of people who do not use it on websites) of living (filing
cabinets, kitchen droors, parking structures, cubby holes in preschool,
etc.) is because it's logically superior to the folder-less paradigm.


> We've already had several examples to the contrary. If that doesn't
> suit your personal work style, cool, but that's *all* it comes down
> to -- personal preference.

several examples, yes. but good enough ones to beat out the folder view?
no. you're point of just having "several examples to the contrary"
doesn't carry any more weight than exactly having "several examples to
the contrary". they may be examples, but does that mean they are good
enough? no. so if you're going to turn this into a personal preference
issue there is absolutely no reason to debate at all and there shouldn't
have been a debate in the first place.

bringing this down to a matter of "personal preference" seems wrong. i'd
prefer to be proven wrong and have my mind changed (thus being a little
more wise on the subject) than to just throw the conversation away by
saying "it's personal preference man now shut up!" if i decide to change
my mind on a subject that is because it's been logically proven to me
that an alternate view is better/more efficient than my previous view.
(how relieved was i when someone finally told me that i'm supposed to
peddle with my feet and stear with my hands and not the other way around
when riding my bicycle?)

i will concede that this idea seems like something i could put to use on
a website with a very small number of files (what's small? i'm not sure
yet. maybe < 50 or > 100) as opposed to what i've got now which is
thousands of files.


but if you really feel we should stop this conversation/debate i will be
glad to give you the last word. otherwise...


chris.