Apple’s choice to remove the concept of files from the interface of the iDevices strikes me as a huge step. For a large number of people, the file (along with the folder, or “directory” for the old-fashioned people out there) has become an intuitive tool to relate to the computer.
However, it is a concept, and is no more real than the concept of “record” (some database systems), the “social graph” (Facebook), “cards” (HyperCard), or “pages” (the web). These are all just metaphors that convey the nature of arbitrary groupings of data and help users make sense of features that are offered.
The concept of “files” has spawned a number of related terms, such as “open” and “close” (which rely on the metaphor), and have been given additional support, such as the icon and the desktop on which icons can be arranged. “Drag and drop” is understood in many circumstances, but it’s particularly intuitive in the context of files.
All this galaxy of interface syntax is removed from iDevices: there is no “file browser” on the iPad. Some individual applications (Mail.app for attachments, DropBox or Docs To Go for example) explicitly mention of files, but they’re not available system-wide and are clearly not favored by iOS.
Applications are now the focus of the interface, and each application is responsible for offering the appropriate metaphor to approach the information it contains. Files are still part of the system (jailbreak your iPhone, and you’ll have a command line, complete with files and folders), but they are abstracted.
The antiquated “save” button
In the best applications, persistence is often achieved without mentioning it at all. In fact, the “save” button is really antiquated: it refers to the transfer of data held in working memory onto permanent storage, and dates back to the era when permanent storage was so slow there was a significant cost in writing.
Now, with the speed of hard disks or solid-state drives, as well as with multi-threading which enables an application to save while the data is also being manipulated, this concept could simply disappear, and has from many apps.
It’s a little ironic: compared to DOS and Windows, the Mac has been historically “document-focused”, with the right application launching to open the requested file, rather than launching an application and opening a file from within it. And now iOS devices are going the other way.
Applications are actually working with files (or database records, or working memory, or whatever they want), but data manipulation and persistence is achieved without making that underlying mechanism explicit to the user.
On the whole, this entire movement makes use of new technical possibilities to simplify the users’ life and their understanding of the function of the device. The interfaces can claim to be more “natural”: they have fewer and fewer quirks induced by technical conditions, and therefore no longer need metaphors to give average users purchase on those quirks.
While the technology keeps adding layers that abstract the inner working of the technical systems, the interfaces become more and more literal, and strip away the symbolism previously to convey content and functionality.
I think this is kind of a big deal.
iOS: de-abstracting the interface
Apple’s choice to remove the concept of files from the interface of the iDevices strikes me as a huge step. For a large number of people, the file (along with the folder, or “directory” for the old-fashioned people out there) has become an intuitive tool to relate to the computer.
However, it is a concept, and is no more real than the concept of “record” (some database systems), the “social graph” (Facebook), “cards” (HyperCard), or “pages” (the web). These are all just metaphors that convey the nature of arbitrary groupings of data and help users make sense of features that are offered.
The concept of “files” has spawned a number of related terms, such as “open” and “close” (which rely on the metaphor), and have been given additional support, such as the icon and the desktop on which icons can be arranged. “Drag and drop” is understood in many circumstances, but it’s particularly intuitive in the context of files.
All this galaxy of interface syntax is removed from iDevices: there is no “file browser” on the iPad. Some individual applications (Mail.app for attachments, DropBox or Docs To Go for example) explicitly mention of files, but they’re not available system-wide and are clearly not favored by iOS.
Applications are now the focus of the interface, and each application is responsible for offering the appropriate metaphor to approach the information it contains. Files are still part of the system (jailbreak your iPhone, and you’ll have a command line, complete with files and folders), but they are abstracted.
The antiquated “save” button
In the best applications, persistence is often achieved without mentioning it at all. In fact, the “save” button is really antiquated: it refers to the transfer of data held in working memory onto permanent storage, and dates back to the era when permanent storage was so slow there was a significant cost in writing.
Now, with the speed of hard disks or solid-state drives, as well as with multi-threading which enables an application to save while the data is also being manipulated, this concept could simply disappear, and has from many apps.
It’s a little ironic: compared to DOS and Windows, the Mac has been historically “document-focused”, with the right application launching to open the requested file, rather than launching an application and opening a file from within it. And now iOS devices are going the other way.
Applications are actually working with files (or database records, or working memory, or whatever they want), but data manipulation and persistence is achieved without making that underlying mechanism explicit to the user.
On the whole, this entire movement makes use of new technical possibilities to simplify the users’ life and their understanding of the function of the device. The interfaces can claim to be more “natural”: they have fewer and fewer quirks induced by technical conditions, and therefore no longer need metaphors to give average users purchase on those quirks.
While the technology keeps adding layers that abstract the inner working of the technical systems, the interfaces become more and more literal, and strip away the symbolism previously to convey content and functionality.
I think this is kind of a big deal.