[Dan Frakes]

Quote:

---

Quick question: How many of these criticisms would still make sense if you would accept that a "stack" is a stack and not a folder?
In real life stacks do not behave like folders, so why are we stuck on trying to shoehorn the new "stacks" behavior into that of a folder?
It seems quite possible to me that Apple is managing a pardigm shift that includes the idea that the Finder rather than the Dock is to be used for "finding" and organizing files in folders.

---

Originally Stacks were indeed "stacks" -- groups of files you grabbed and stuck in the Dock. Somewhere between WWDC 2006 and October 2007, Apple decided that Stacks should simply be folders. So there's really no "paradigm shift" here; Apple has simply changed how a folder in the Dock behaves. (Perhaps we'll eventually get "real" stacks?)
But even if what you're suggesting were the case, most of the criticisms in the article would still apply -- the main exception being hierarchical menus of folder contents, but there's an argument to be made that such menus would be useful even with "real" stacks.

[randombob]

OK now i'm quite surprised no one else has said this here already, so I guess I get to be the first:
FTFD!
Yeah I know the article references stacks specifically, but it's a function of the Dock. So I stand by the rant ;-)

[glide]

Quote:

---

Originally Stacks were indeed "stacks" -- groups of files you grabbed and stuck in the Dock. Somewhere between WWDC 2006 and October 2007, Apple decided that Stacks should simply be folders. So there's really no "paradigm shift" here; Apple has simply changed how a folder in the Dock behaves. (Perhaps we'll eventually get "real" stacks?)
But even if what you're suggesting were the case, most of the criticisms in the article would still apply -- the main exception being hierarchical menus of folder contents, but there's an argument to be made that such menus would be useful even with "real" stacks.

---

I would have liked it if stacks were indeed groups of files one grabbed and stuck in the Dock as you describe. Interesting. I was not aware of this bit of background. It does add some credence to the idea that these new folders in the dock are not supposed to act like folders but more like stacks. And, yes, perhaps we'll eventually get something with more recognizable stack-like behavior.
In the meantime, notice that some of your noted deficiencies can be viewed as the reasonable features of even an imperfect stack. You've already mentioned hierarchical menus. Here are my thoughts about some other observations:

Quote:

---

Stacks' Dock icons are inconsistent

---

Granted, consistency is a key principle in good UI design, and your comments here regarding inconsistency of Dock icons make a lot of sense when applied to the concept of a "folder." When thinking about what users would expect when dealing with the near equivalent of stacks on a desktop (or on a shelf/dock), one has to think about consistency within that context. To identify a stack on my desktop, I start with a quick look at the item on top, and if that's not sufficient, I glance at a few items located lower in the stack to jog my memory. In other words, when working with stacks, one relies mainly on the appearance of the top of the stack for identification. Therefore stacks generally tend to look different, and that is something which is expected whenever a person creates his/her stacks. (Of course, the owner of the stack has the freedom to create those stacks in whatever manner he/she decides, whether it's carefully or carelessly.) Sometimes two different stacks may have the same item on top. But in most cases, it's is the very inconsistency in appearance from one stack to the next which is relied upon to facilitate retrieval. So within this context -- the context of "stacks" not folders -- the consistency we seek is in fact inconsistency!

Quote:

---

Stacks may not display all files

---

and

Quote:

---

Grid view breaks down

---

These criticisms are only significant because you expect the faux stacks to behave like folders. Someone who is more open to other behaviors that make sense when handling stacks on a desktop might be perfectly happy with these "features." For such a person, the take-home message here would be, "Place or arrange items in folder(s) when your stack becomes messy or too large to be functional," because this is where the apparent break down and/or display failure would lead.
I agree that there is quite a bit of work remaining to be done to make Stacks as useful as they should be. Apple may have done themselves and us a disservice by backing off from a complete deployment of stacks as originally intended, making it easier for us to make the unfortunate comparison to what we know of docked "folders" rather than stacks. Personally, I would love to see both folders and stacks in the dock, including unambiguous distinctions between the two. Given all the good information you've provided, I believe that the main problem now is a lack of clarity regarding whether what we have in the dock should be behaving like a folder from the Finder or, rather, a new entity known as a stack.

[Dan Frakes]

Quote:

---

These criticisms are only significant because you expect the faux stacks to behave like folders. Someone who is more open to other behaviors that make sense when handling stacks on a desktop might be perfectly happy with these "features." For such a person, the take-home message here would be, "Place or arrange items in folder(s) when your stack becomes messy or too large to be functional," because this is where the apparent break down and/or display failure would lead.

---

This sounds like an apology for a poorly-thought-out feature. (Not saying you meant it that way; only that it sounds that way.) Your computer screen isn't a desktop; it's a way of interacting with digital data. And while real-world metaphors are useful for helping people understand how to interact with their data, the computer interface isn't -- and shouldn't be -- confined by the physical restrictions of its real-world counterpart.
For example, a real-world folder has a limit of how many items you can put into it before it's no longer an organizational aid. A folder on your Mac has a limit, as well, but that limit is much higher, thanks to the features a digital folder provides for organizing and locating files within it.
Similarly, just because you can't put many papers in a stack on your desk before the stack becomes a jumbled mess, that doesn't mean Stacks, the OS X feature, should artificially restrict how many items can be displayed just to strictly enforce some sort of digital/analog analogy. A computer screen and a file manager, together, have many advantages over actual sheets of paper and manilla folders, and they should exploit those advantages, not cripple them.

Quote:

---

I believe that the main problem now is a lack of clarity regarding whether what we have in the dock should be behaving like a folder from the Finder or, rather, a new entity known as a stack.

---

I think you're mistaken in thinking that I, and others, criticize the current implementation of Stacks because we're expecting a stack to work like a folder. The truth is that there's nothing about a stack's display in OS X -- even the original idea of a group of files -- that works like a folder or a real-world stack of papers. The only thing that's truly analogous is the idea that you can group files together. The way Stacks provides access to your files -- which is what I'm criticizing in the article -- has little to do with the way you'd browse a stack of papers on your desk. (Nor is there anything about a folder displaying its contents as a hierarchical menu that's analogous with a real folder in your file cabinet /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif )

[TenaciousN8]

I don't see what all the fussing is about- stacks is a 1.0 enticing new feature. Just give it a couple of months and they'll add more functionality. I personally really like opening a view of my applications folder with a single click on the dock.

[bobvin]

Hmm, it appears Apple must have hired a number of Microsoft UI designers for the "Stacks" feature. Overall, it appears to be a gratuitous use of technology. Snazzy looking but functionaly deficient, in my opinion, as are a great many of OS X's features. There was elegance and simplicity in the original Mac OS that died in OS X, and consistency is certainly one aspect of UI design that Apple seems to have abandoned.

[glide]

Quote:

---

The truth is that there's nothing about a stack's display in OS X -- even the original idea of a group of files -- that works like a folder or a real-world stack of papers. The only thing that's truly analogous is the idea that you can group files together.

---

You seem to have forgotten that real-world stacks are mainly identified by the appearance of the topmost item. Representation with a changing icon is in fact analagous....

Quote:

---

For example, a real-world folder has a limit of how many items you can put into it before it's no longer an organizational aid. A folder on your Mac has a limit, as well, but that limit is much higher, thanks to the features a digital folder provides for organizing and locating files within it.

---

The same thing applies to stacks, whether on your real-world desk or within the computer user interface. Now, the interesting question is, "Who decides the upper limit?" I think that allowing for users varying abilities to tolerate smaller and smaller text and icon sizes is a reasonable way of making it the user's responsibility.

Quote:

---

Similarly, just because you can't put many papers in a stack on your desk before the stack becomes a jumbled mess, that doesn't mean Stacks, the OS X feature, should artificially restrict how many items can be displayed just to strictly enforce some sort of digital/analog analogy.

---

In real life stacks serve a different purpose than folders in a file cabinet. There's an inherent disorder, which only helps the user within certain limits. When the stack is too large, that disorder is crippling. If the purpose of stacks is to provide a quick and easy way to tidy up a collection of similar files on the computer desktop until one has the opportunity to sort and organize more optimally in folders, meanwhile allowing some speed advantages from a loose arrangement of the relatively few items in the stack, then it's not a matter of enforcing "some sort of digital/analogy." It's a matter of providing this specific functionality within the limits of the users tolerance for disorder and diminishing feedback.

Quote:

---

The way Stacks provides access to your files -- which is what I'm criticizing in the article -- has little to do with the way you'd browse a stack of papers on your desk. (Nor is there anything about a folder displaying its contents as a hierarchical menu that's analogous with a real folder in your file cabinet )

---

And yet we are able to find the hierarchical menu within the context of a docked folder quite acceptable. I trust that when the Stacks feature becomes more clearly implemented than it is now, we may be able to accept that it was never submitted to provide the same features as a folder. I think stacks are intended as a sort of halfway house between items scattered on the desktop and items organized in folders. (Halfway house, indeed. Maybe the idea is simply "criminal." /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[bastion]

Since the introduction of OS X, Apple has had a "consistent record" of trying to force radically different ways of doing things on Mac users, and backing off only when forced to do so. ... Only a huge outcry persuaded Apple to (obviously reluctantly) restore a sort-of Apple menu (non-configurable, unlike the classic Apple menu since System 7) and allow icon and list views in the Finder.
Actually, it goes back earlier than that, and I don't think they were reluctant at all to bring back the things you've noted. It really started with the introduction of the iMac and I've been saying for years that it was an intentional - and incidentally very smart - business strategy. You announce something that's clearly insufficient and then use the user outrage to prioritize what really needs to be done to get out a product that's compelling.
It's a very effective way to get real information from your real customers; much more so than going out and asking them, unfortunately.

[scotts13]

Quote:

---

Businesses do lots of things to attract customers, but putting out crap is generally not very successful in the long run.

---

But in the short run (and how many businesses plan past this quarter?) putting out flashy crap will sell you two million copies right out of the gate.

[Martian]

Quote:

---

Hmm, it appears Apple must have hired a number of Microsoft UI designers for the "Stacks" feature

---

XP introduced a pane (pain) in each window which replaced the hierarchical tree with Bills random guesses on what you want to do.
BUT at least, Microsoft allows you to turn off this default and just display the hierarchical trees. If Apple wont provide the choice to shut down Stacks, a 3rd party extension soon will

[maxplanar]

Sorry, but I hate Stacks, thoroughly. They offer nothing new in an area of the interface that didn't need any rethinking, they obfuscate meaning as they are a new and different way to display files than the FInder, and they get in the way of functionality. I like Leopard, but it seems like there were so many other things they could have addressed before even THINKING of 'a new way of displaying documents from the Dock'.

[trip1ex]

I have my own list of fixes for STacks.

First off, I'd like the option to display the most recent files only (not folders) and to 1-click through folders within the stack gui.
Next, Apple needs to fix the transition between a magnified Dock and the STacks gui. It's a bit jarring.
And last, but not least, they need an option to let you use Quick Look with Stacks.

[nodoz]

I usually applaud changes but Apple has fully lost me over Stacks, which, well, sucks.
I spent an hour at the over-crowded Apple store here in Portland yesterday confirming my worst fears with the "feature". Others have already noted its many problems and try as I might I could not find a work-around that replicates the incredibible efficiency I get from from hierarchal folders in the dock. With one half-click I can navigate through nested folders to, any file I need - all in under two seconds. Everything under Stacks means multiple clicks and various cludges. The final straw was when I put an alias for the Apps folder in the Leopard doc and got a screen much like the one Dan has in his commentary. Because of the idiotic file name shortening, there was an array of identical dull blue folders with the names "Adobe...CS3" Gosh is that one PS? Is that one DreamWeaver? etc. And putting every app in the Dock is nonsense as well. I keep trying not to flame this mess so my well-considered review of stacks is: crap.
If people like it, that's great for them. I'm fine with leaving it as is for - as some poster above noted - "messy teenagers" but I will also need to see an adult and serious return to quick and simple hierarchal folder access before I touch my copy of Leopard sitting over in the corner of my desk.

[Dan Frakes]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The truth is that there's nothing about a stack's display in OS X -- even the original idea of a group of files -- that works like a folder or a real-world stack of papers. The only thing that's truly analogous is the idea that you can group files together.

---

You seem to have forgotten that real-world stacks are mainly identified by the appearance of the topmost item. Representation with a changing icon is in fact analagous....

---

But that's my point: the fact that a stack is in some way a "group" of files -- identified by one particular file/icon -- is the only way in which Stacks' interface is analogous to a real-world stack of papers. Its actual display of the individual files is completely different. So we shouldn't try to stretch that analogy to explain away Stack's UI flaws. (Ironically, if you were to treat Stacks as if it were a direct analogy, the feature is even more of a failure, as so little about it functions like a real-world stack of papers.)
Like folders in the Finder, Stacks is a computer-interface element roughly inspired by a real-world concept. However, just like folders, Stacks isn't limited by real-world restrictions, so it can provide the user with additional functionality. On a computer, I can click a button to sort a folder's contents by name, date, last modified, size, etc. Should Apple remove this feature just because I can't do that with a real-world folder? If your answer is "no," then why should Stacks' displays be artificially limited?