Why doesn't OSX Finder have a proper tree view?
4 points| robomartin | 13 years ago | reply
Is there a fundamental philosophical reason for Finder not offering a tree view?
Yes, the definitions of "proper" is variable. That's not the point. I find that tree views are far more useful and easier to navigate than what Finder offers. I understand that if all you've known is Finder none of this will make sense. Please refrain from down-voting based on tribalism as you would be down-voting a dedicated iOS developer who's been using Mac and other platforms for a long time.
[+] [-] icodestuff|13 years ago|reply
A bit of history:
The classic Mac OS Finder never had a tree view. Heck, for a couple System versions, the file system (MFS) didn't support more than one level of folder hierarchy, so it would have been completely pointless. With HFS in System 4 (IIRC), that changed. Still no tree view though, and I don't think it was until System 6 that there was a list view, and not til System 7 were there disclosure triangles so you could drill down. (fun fact - though on OS X, you can adjust a slider to change icon sizes, back in OS ≤9, there was also "Small Icon View", which used 16x16 icons instead of the traditional 32x32, and put the labels to the side, rather than underneath) Despite a few other miscellaneous additions to the Finder over the years (tab view, At Ease (not really the Finder, but it shipped with certain Mac lines)), for System 7 through OS 9, most folks' file systems weren't that deep or complex. Having a tree view would have been mostly unnecessary and very Windows-like, which was something to avoid back then. There was even some outcry in OS 8 when the system got menus where you didn't have to hold down the mouse button to keep them open.
Come at it from the other side, NeXTStep Workspace's primary view was column view. So naturally that was left in the OS X Finder along with icon and list views from classic Mac OS. If tree view has ever been discussed at Apple in the past 15 years (and I wouldn't be surprised if it hasn't), it was almost certainly rejected as a throwback to the old Windows Explorer ca. 1995. Anecdote: in 2008-ish, at WWDC, there was a feedback forum, and while I can't remember what prompted the question, I asked if there were going to be resize handles on all the corners. I actually got boos from the audience and a look of horror from most of the panel, and a straight up "No. We're not doing that, probably ever. No way." as an answer. (Years later, I couldn't help but smirk when Lion had resize handles on all corners and edges.) The point is, if something potentially useful has too many associations with Windows, it was (and still is, to some extent) taboo.
[+] [-] robomartin|13 years ago|reply
This thinking is, of course, unfortunate. Any UI can benefit from ideas borrowed from others. I remember when I was using Irix (Silicon Graphics) heavily many moons ago. It had some really compelling ideas. I can't remember most of them but I think one I liked was that the focus followed the mouse, you didn't have to click on a window to give it focus.
Yeah, only being able to resize a window from one corner is a pain in the ass.
Also, not having a border around a window makes for a fine mess. Overlap a few terminal windows full of text to see the effect.
The irony today is that the the OSX GUI sits on top of Unix. Which, of course, has supported deep and complex directory structures for a long time.
I can see Apple's point in keeping it simple for the typical non-tech user. No issues with that whatsoever. Judging from those I know, they don't ever create deep directory structures on their own and probably don't need anything beyond what Finder offers.
That said, I firmly believe that advanced users, which includes developers, could benefit from a much more advanced Finder. A tree structure is only one aspect of this. For example, in Windows I can very easily tell Explorer to show system files. You can do that in OSX, but it isn't as simple it becomes system-wide not directory-specific and it pollutes the desktop.
Another thing that I find missing is the ability to see your path in a Finder window, you know, one that you can copy and paste into the terminal window or another Finder window. Another useful feature would be "Open Terminal Here". I've implemented this through an add-on I found and it is fantastic. This should be standard. Directory and file sizes without having to use "Get Info". Preview pane. Create <insert application> file here (i.e: text files). And more.
It'd be nice if Apple offered a way to switch Finder to "Advanced" or "Developer" mode and offer a closer-to-the-metal experience.
[+] [-] Someone|13 years ago|reply
Back to the original question: the Finder has a tree view, but it is different than what Windows offers; it includes the files in the tree view.
Next question probably will be why Windows doesn't properly sort directory items by name, but insists on sorting by 'is a directory' first :-)
[+] [-] cientifico|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] robomartin|13 years ago|reply
No, seriously, what's under the pretty GUI is Unix. Developers and advanced users make use of the available Unix features, including deep directory structures.
You can see this consumer focus on tools like Xcode. I recently completed work on an iOS game with about 1600 media files. If you left it up to Xcode it wants to place all 1600 files at the root level of the app code directory. In order to create and maintain a usable tree of folders you have to go out of your way and jump through some hoops.
[+] [-] marssaxman|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] robomartin|13 years ago|reply
Here's random example: http://www.chapo.co.il/content/articles/snmp-fig5.gif