I agree that 'Computer' isn't the best, but I don't think these suggestions are a good alternative either. You can't have a places section in the places sidebar, and 'standard'/'general'/'common' are all way too generic.

The devices section is at the top because these items are likely to be used - it is convenient and efficient to have them there. I don't think stability is much of a problem - the devices section doesn't interrupt the normal menu order, it just shifts it down, and it makes sense to have it at the top for reasons of convenience.

One solution would be to remove the headings and combine the computer and bookmarks sections. That was what Garrett favours, though I know Hylke had objections.

I agree with Allan. The Computer header contains everything that's on your computer. Filesystem doesn't fit well there i agree, but we''re talking about making it invisible by default.

Devices is at the top because 99% of the time these will be temporary plugged in devices like cameras/usb sticks/mp3 players/CDs etc. If any of these are plugged in it is very likely that the user wants to perform actions on it, hence it is at the top. Bookmarks are at the top for that reason as well. The more common stuff goes below.

Thanks for the replies. I agree my suggestions may not be ideal either, but I think the current wording is really wrong.

"Computer header contains everything that's on your computer": I don't think that makes sense. Your computer contains many things that are not at all listed in that header: applications, windows, various types of data, settings... And that header only includes files that are in your personal folder: your computer contains files from other users that don't appear there.

Moreover, your bookmarks also are in your computer, and they are even most likely in your personal folder: so "Computer" doesn't tell anything to the user about the distinction between headers. Remember, in current Nautilus, the "Computer" place is even used to show *devices*! "Computer" is the technical, physical aspect of your desktop, it's often associated with hardware and devices, and not with files.

I think if we can't find a correct wording for the "Computer" heading, it would be better to merge it again with the bookmarks. Else, it could be called "Personal" or "Personal files", if you think that's nicer (and in that case, the root filesystem would go away).


The order is another issue. I don't believe putting devices at the top will really help people to find them: the fact that they appear in the list is enough to make them prominent. We could even highlight them for a few seconds when they are inserted if needed. OTOH, knowing in advance the exact position of all items in the list is a real gain - many users have to read again and again the list when it has moved down.

It's not because you have inserted, say, and audio CD, that you don't want to access your home folder - you are even likely to use both the external device and another shortcut to copy files around. Making the device easier to find at the expense of moving all other items to an unexpected place is not a good trade-off. Stability is of real value in GUIs.

A different kind of argument is that GNOME Shell "Places & Devices" section is putting devices at the bottom - I reckon, to keep the list stable. Consistency among the desktop is important, so I think a common layout should be used as much as possible. I'm subscribing Jon McCann to hear what he thinks.

(In reply to comment #3)
> Thanks for the replies. I agree my suggestions may not be ideal either, but I
> think the current wording is really wrong.
> 
> "Computer header contains everything that's on your computer": I don't think
> that makes sense. Your computer contains many things that are not at all listed
> in that header: applications, windows, various types of data, settings... And
> that header only includes files that are in your personal folder: your computer
> contains files from other users that don't appear there.

But it's a file browser :)

> Moreover, your bookmarks also are in your computer, and they are even most
> likely in your personal folder: so "Computer" doesn't tell anything to the user

True, but putting bookmarks in the long list under computer won't make them very easy to find. And you want to find your bookmarks easily.

Also, the whole list in computer is generated by GNOME. Bookmarks by the user.

> about the distinction between headers. Remember, in current Nautilus, the
> "Computer" place is even used to show *devices*! "Computer" is the technical,
> physical aspect of your desktop, it's often associated with hardware and
> devices, and not with files.

I don't think this is true. It's how Windows did it and how GNOME copied it. it doesn't make much sense. Generally we're going to get rid of these kind of "metaplaces".

> 
> I think if we can't find a correct wording for the "Computer" heading, it would
> be better to merge it again with the bookmarks. Else, it could be called
> "Personal" or "Personal files", if you think that's nicer (and in that case,
> the root filesystem would go away).

This has the same problems. Aren't devices and bookmarks personal? everything you do with your computer is personal, that's why it's a PC :)

> The order is another issue. I don't believe putting devices at the top will
> really help people to find them: the fact that they appear in the list is
> enough to make them prominent.

Disagree. Also, because of the new layout the devices would appear somewhere unnoticable at the bottom.


> We could even highlight them for a few seconds
> when they are inserted if needed. OTOH, knowing in advance the exact position
> of all items in the list is a real gain - many users have to read again and
> again the list when it has moved down.
> 
> It's not because you have inserted, say, and audio CD, that you don't want to
> access your home folder - you are even likely to use both the external device
> and another shortcut to copy files around. Making the device easier to find at
> the expense of moving all other items to an unexpected place is not a good
> trade-off. Stability is of real value in GUIs.

Having inserted a CD and moving everything one line down (still in the same orrder) doesn't make the rest of the list any harder to use.

> A different kind of argument is that GNOME Shell "Places & Devices" section is
> putting devices at the bottom - I reckon, to keep the list stable. Consistency
> among the desktop is important, so I think a common layout should be used as
> much as possible. I'm subscribing Jon McCann to hear what he thinks.

The new GNOME Shell design doesn't have this.

Anyway, we can test this.

Created attachment 169121 [details]
The usual look-ma-i-know-how-to-use-inkscape mockup!

(In reply to comment #2)
> 
> Devices is at the top because 99% of the time these will be temporary plugged
> in devices like cameras/usb sticks/mp3 players/CDs etc. If any of these are
> plugged in it is very likely that the user wants to perform actions on it,
> hence it is at the top. Bookmarks are at the top for that reason as well. The
> more common stuff goes below.

Looking at :http://live.gnome.org/Nautilus/UIRoadmap/Places , there seem to be a lot of missing pieces.

a] The placement of the Filesystem, between the Home and Downloads, seems to have no rationale.

b] Seems to have /not/ factored the internal partitions. Where do they go?
-- In devices?  If the internal partition is to be in Device,[ Lets say a Windows partiton from a user dual booting ] wouldnt it be unnecessarily clogging up the first space in the sidebar?
-- Is it under Computer?  We have to remember that deleting in the Filesystem or in the partitions the files do not move to Trash, so the placement of Filesystem and Partitions under Computer with every other user folder is questionable. Since we are not having a logical arrangement there.

c] By placing the bookmarks at the top we wrongly assume that those bookmarks are the user's top priority. Which need not be, its just a bookmark to a folder the user would want to get quicker, in addition to the rest of the existing xdg bookmarks which user might use more. Lets not decide for the user here.

d] By placing devices at the top, we are unnecessarily moving *every* item in the sidebar when ever a device is added. Whatever benefit we are trying to achieve by keeping them on top is lost by the constant moving around the other items. User needs to get adjusted once the media is attached and again once the media is removed for every device.

e] Why do we have so many labels/Headers wasting space? Do we really need to know that a bookmark is different from a pre-selected item in Computer? Why? To make it easily recognizable? As mentioned above it need not be the user's main preference. 

---

For [a][b] > we move them out to a section labeled "Media" [maybe a better name?] , This contains the filesystem/partitions/new media, every thing not part of userland. If user bookmarks any folder in the partitions, the bookmark stays under the partition initially, but user can drag the bookmark later and place the bookmark higher [below Trash and a separator].

Also, if the partition is not mounted , a bookmark from within the partition would not open. Keeping it close/separate from userland , makes it easily differentiable.

For [c] > Merge both the XDG bookmarks and user bookmarks , allow the user to rearrange their most common items

For [d] > Just keep the devices lower. No need to keep moving everything around just to try and catch users attention. User will just need to know a constant place to look for, it doesnt have to be the top. attaching a mockup where alteast to my eyes , the media section [the center] of the sidebar seems to draw my attention!

For [e] > Drop use of 'Bookmarks', 'Computer' and just use a bold Home instead. Which serves as both a header and the place selection. [Another benefit of moving devices below ;)] Or maybe we do not require a Bold either for that top section.

In Addition, Having the section headers collapsible would be a nice feature too. If the Media section is too long [4new media when user already has 3 partitions? Remember laptops come with 2/3 partitions and 4usb slots], then user can just collapse it to access the Recent items, instead of scrolling the sidebar. Top part of the user folders need not be allowed to collapse.

(In reply to comment #5)

Thanks for the detailed feedback. It's great to get rigorous critique of new features. There's a lot of issues here. I'd like to concentrate on the overarching ideas rather than the details (we can talk about those later). (I'm also not going to repeat what I've already written above.)

First a few bits of design rationale that featured in the development of the sidebar design:

 * There's a key difference between the ways that removable devices and permanent devices (like internal partitions) get used, and most people won't think of a hard drive as a device (it's just 'their computer'). That's why 'devices' only includes removable devices.

 * The computer section and the bookmarks section are separated because the contents of the former cannot be removed. The idea is to communicate that these are permanent file system locations that belong to the system rather than the user. That is the meaning communicated by these two sections.

 * Expanders - they are too much work, and have been demonstrated to perform poorly in usability studies (so says Garrett).

Now two questions:

 1. Should computer and bookmarks be amalgamated? (If yes, then XDG folder bookmarks should be removable.)

 2. Should there be section headers?

These are the basic issues, IMO. My personal feeling is 'yes' to both questions, basically because of increased simplicity and because I think it makes sense for users to be able to remove XDG bookmarks. I'm also happy with the current design though - it has conceptual clarity, and I agree with many aspects of it (removable devices at the top, etc).

I talked this over on IRC with Hylke last night. A few arguments were raised in favour of headers:

 * Headers are good for guiding users as to where items will be, particularly if the visibility of those items has changed.

 * Headers break up the list, thus making it easier to parse.

I'm largely convinced that the headers are a good idea after that discussion.

We also brainstormed some alternative terms for Devices and Computer, but were unable to come up with anything. I'm not *that* concerned about the current terminology, since they're pretty generic terms. The main thing is to ensure that the sidebar items are grouped in a logical way, and that the headers aren't going to throw users off. That shouldn't be a problem, since the current terms are rather generic. (Ideally we'd do user testing on this, of course.)

In my mind, the outstanding issues are the possible amalgamation of bookmarks and computer, and we could probably do to work out a rationale for the placement of permanent devices. Considering the latter - yes, we want to hide the file system entry by default, but it should still have a logical position when it is displayed. Also, Vish is right about multiple partitions being common, so we need a way to display these.

Alrighty, let me try this talking slowly and split it up before it becomes a tl;dr.  ;)

Devices placement:
I'v tried to think of a user case that we are trying to solve by placing the new media on top. But i fail to see it being an improvement to the present behavior of gnome. Further I feel this is not a change worth doing.

Present behavior for new media, immediately on plugging in the device
1 - Mp3player/media-cards/Installation CD with pictures -> user is offered the respective application handler
2 - Blank CD/DVD -> Prompt -> CD/DVD burner is opened
3 - External Drives/CD with content -> nautilus displays the browser with the media's content open in the foreground.

Now for all these scenarios, the new media is already in the foreground and the user is having those in view immediately. 
- What are we improving for the user here? I'm probably missing some scenario?
[note, i did not include the user-inserted-drive-and-closed-first-window-and-forgot-for-a-while-about-the-media scenario, since we were mentioning that those devices were temporary]

1 - The first scenario, the application takes over the handling and user does not need to worry about the nautilus window or the media in the sidebar. If anything is not fully handled by the application it is an application bug. 

Why this would worsen the situation we have now: [Would like to remind again at this point that the new media is a temporary addition and the user will already be very familiar with the nautilus sidebar and its permenant contents' position.]

2 - When the blank CD/DVD is inserted, user now has to add new media. So ,user already might have a window open with the contents required and adds them. Work done!  
Or if user needs to add more content from elsewhere , user heads-over to the sidebar. 
And huh? everything has moved and is now lower! atleast 2 rows lower! [remember the header for the devices and the device name]
 The user's goal of getting work done faster is *not* achieved. Rather we are moving the stuff user wants .

3 -  This is where use might be adding or might be removing from the media. If adding, same as above for the CD/DVD creator. If removing, again nothing is where the user expects things to be . And we have moved the folders user needs, contrary to what we are trying to solve by placing devices above.
 Again, The user's goal of getting work done faster is *not* achieved. 
While ejecting might be the case where placing it on top might help, but again keeping it on top has more disadvantages than advantages. 

Presenting the devices under a separate header [than what we have now in nautilus] is clear enough for the user to identify the new media.

I have probably missed a use-case, and if we knew that, maybe we all could understand why this would be a change worth doing.

(In reply to comment #6)
> 
>  * There's a key difference between the ways that removable devices and
> permanent devices (like internal partitions) get used, and most people won't
> think of a hard drive as a device (it's just 'their computer'). That's why
> 'devices' only includes removable devices.

I had labeled the section which contains Filesystem+removable media > "Media", maybe we can name it 'Computer' :)

Traditionally Windows uses, following headers :

Files stored on this computer = User/shared data
Hard Disk Drives = Local drives + mounted external drives/pendrives
Devices with removable media = CD drive and disc when present

If we acknowledge that Windows has the largest market share of *an average end-user* , then Users have been habituated to the presence of both Local non-removable drives and external removable media within a same category for a very very long time. 

> 
>  * The computer section and the bookmarks section are separated because the
> contents of the former cannot be removed. The idea is to communicate that these
> are permanent file system locations that belong to the system rather than the
> user. That is the meaning communicated by these two sections.
> 

Is this an implementation problem? Cant XDG folders be removed?

All a user needs to care is "these are the folders I use daily and are relevant to me." 
Lets just keep those together. And everything else away.

Placing the Filesystem in between the user data seems a bad choice. The user has nothing to interact with or browse in root.

> 
> These are the basic issues, IMO. My personal feeling is 'yes' to both
> questions, basically because of increased simplicity and because I think it
> makes sense for users to be able to remove XDG bookmarks.

+1 , *we* know what an XDG folder is and which isnt , but we dont need to expose this difference to the end-user.

(In reply to comment #9)
> 
> I had labeled the section which contains Filesystem+removable media > "Media",
> maybe we can name it 'Computer' :)
Thanks for the nice joke! Makes a lot of sense indeed... ;-)

> Traditionally Windows uses, following headers :
> 
> Files stored on this computer = User/shared data
> Hard Disk Drives = Local drives + mounted external drives/pendrives
> Devices with removable media = CD drive and disc when present
> 
> If we acknowledge that Windows has the largest market share of *an average
> end-user* , then Users have been habituated to the presence of both Local
> non-removable drives and external removable media within a same category for a
> very very long time. 
I agree with most of your argumentation above, but, this is not a valid argument. If we consider that we have to follow what Windows is doing, we can stop thinking immediately and apply the model MS chose. So let's focus on finding a rational and efficient organization rather than a traditional one.


> Is this an implementation problem? Cant XDG folders be removed?
> 
> All a user needs to care is "these are the folders I use daily and are relevant
> to me." 
> Lets just keep those together. And everything else away.
XDG folders can be removed by making them point to ~. From the user's standpoint, this can be done by moving the folder to trash from Nautilus. Of course, XDG folders could also allowed to be removed from the sidebar without being moved to trash, meaning they still exist but have to be accessed directly.

An interesting consequence of making them separate from other bookmarks is that it's more obvious that those folders have a special meaning for the desktop, i.e. that apps will find/save files there by default. I'm not sure it's absolutely worth the separate header, but I think this original decision was interesting.

> Placing the Filesystem in between the user data seems a bad choice. The user
> has nothing to interact with or browse in root.
Agreed, but Allan said this item was to be hidden by default anyway.



Related to other issues, I agree headers are an improvement since they break up the list into meaningful categories. I'm just discussing their labels and their order. Maybe we should tackle the problem of permanent partitions, and then we'll have a clearer idea of what we have to do: it's hard to fix other issues without this one.

So, just a first attempt:
Personal
 -> Home folder
 -> XDG folders
 -> Bookmarks
 -> Trash
Devices (or Media?)
 -> USB keys, CDs, DVDs, Cameras...
Disks (only visible if internal partitions are present, or with an option)
 -> Filesystem
 -> Internal partitions
Network
Recent

(In reply to comment #9)
> (In reply to comment #6)
> > 
> > >  * There's a key difference between the ways that removable devices and
> > > permanent devices (like internal partitions) get used, and most people won't
> > > think of a hard drive as a device (it's just 'their computer'). That's why
> > > 'devices' only includes removable devices.
> 
> > If we acknowledge that Windows has the largest market share of *an average
> > end-user* , then Users have been habituated to the presence of both Local
> > non-removable drives and external removable media within a same category for a
> > very very long time. 
>
> I agree with most of your argumentation above, but, this is not a valid
> argument. If we consider that we have to follow what Windows is doing, we can
> stop thinking immediately and apply the model MS chose. So let's focus on
> finding a rational and efficient organization rather than a traditional one.
> 

No,I'm not suggesting that we copy Windows, that was a comment in response to Allan's "...most people wont think..." . 
I'm actually trying to bring some rationale to a hypothesis. ;)
 
> XDG folders can be removed by making them point to ~. From the user's
> standpoint, this can be done by moving the folder to trash from Nautilus. Of
> course, XDG folders could also allowed to be removed from the sidebar without
> being moved to trash, meaning they still exist but have to be accessed
> directly.
> 

I'm confused now, I wasnt suggesting deleting the folder itself. I'm only focusing on it's presence in the sidebar.  

Removing from sidebar should not remove the folder itself. 

> An interesting consequence of making them separate from other bookmarks is that
> it's more obvious that those folders have a special meaning for the desktop,
> i.e. that apps will find/save files there by default. I'm not sure it's
> absolutely worth the separate header, but I think this original decision was
> interesting.
> 

Yes, but how will user ever know this ? Would user care if they dont use those apps?
We can try to mention this if user tries to delete the XDG folder itself. [probably a separate discussion]

> > Placing the Filesystem in between the user data seems a bad choice. The user
> > has nothing to interact with or browse in root.
> Agreed, but Allan said this item was to be hidden by default anyway.
> 

Hidden by default or not is a secondary issue. Why there? 
User need not and should not even bother with that location.
Placing it right in the middle of user's folders is an odd choice.

What i see in the present mock-up seems like an implementation-burdened mockup, rather than user-goal centric.

Also, this hidden-by-default has not been blessed by the nautilus folk, yet. ;)

> Maybe we should tackle the problem of permanent partitions, and then
> we'll have a clearer idea of what we have to do: it's hard to fix other issues
> without this one.

Yup, we seem to have missed this in the initial mockup. Knowing where the partitions are going to be placed should be our top priority before we think of other issues.

Wow, lots here.

(In reply to comment #8)

> Devices placement:
> I'v tried to think of a user case that we are trying to solve by placing the
> new media on top. But i fail to see it being an improvement to the present
> behavior of gnome.
...


...
> Presenting the devices under a separate header [than what we have now in
> nautilus] is clear enough for the user to identify the new media.
>
...

Clear enough? Probably. It could be clearer though.

...
> I have probably missed a use-case, and if we knew that, maybe we all could
> understand why this would be a change worth doing.
...

If I work from a USB stick (which I sometimes have to do), I'll often leave it connected for the duration of my session and frequently return to it. I think it's pretty common for a removable drive to be repeatedly returned to. In those situations having those items at the top of the list makes it quicker and easier to identify and select the desired location.

(In reply to comment #10)
> Maybe we should tackle the problem of permanent partitions, and then
> we'll have a clearer idea of what we have to do: it's hard to fix other issues
> without this one.
> 
> So, just a first attempt:
> Personal
>  -> Home folder
>  -> XDG folders
>  -> Bookmarks
>  -> Trash
> Devices (or Media?)
>  -> USB keys, CDs, DVDs, Cameras...
> Disks (only visible if internal partitions are present, or with an option)
>  -> Filesystem
>  -> Internal partitions
> Network
> Recent

I've considered having a disks section. It's a possibility, though the problem is that we end up with a lot of sections. Also, disks is only going to have one or two items in it, which doesn't seem to warrant having a separate section.

(In reply to comment #11)

...
> > > Placing the Filesystem in between the user data seems a bad choice. The user
> > > has nothing to interact with or browse in root.
> > Agreed, but Allan said this item was to be hidden by default anyway.
> > 
> 
> Hidden by default or not is a secondary issue. Why there? 
> User need not and should not even bother with that location.
> Placing it right in the middle of user's folders is an odd choice.
...

I agree that the placement isn't ideal, but it's a question of trade-offs and I haven't seen a preferable solution.

> What i see in the present mock-up seems like an implementation-burdened mockup,
> rather than user-goal centric.

Let's stick to the issues at hand. Is there a preferable solution? Why is it preferable?

(In reply to comment #13)
> I've considered having a disks section. It's a possibility, though the problem
> is that we end up with a lot of sections. Also, disks is only going to have one
> or two items in it, which doesn't seem to warrant having a separate section.
Agreed. But what can we do else?

* We could group Devices and Disks, as they have much in common: they can be considered as an independent unit, they can be mounted and unmounted (or ejected).

* We could consider that the opposition between internal and external is the most important, and then have a "Computer" header with internal disks, filesystem root and personal files (home, XDG, bookmarks). And a "Devices" section for external drives. The advantage is that "Computer" makes a little more sense, since it now means: always present in the local computer - though I still don't really like that word... ;-)

An interesting result is that the headers we keep are logically organized:
Computer -> Internal and local
Disks/Devices -> External but local
Network -> External and away

I'm not saying that's THE solution, but that's two possibilities.

(In reply to comment #12)
> 
> If I work from a USB stick (which I sometimes have to do), I'll often leave it
> connected for the duration of my session and frequently return to it. I think
> it's pretty common for a removable drive to be repeatedly returned to. In those
> situations having those items at the top of the list makes it quicker and
> easier to identify and select the desired location.

That one i mentioned too. :)

(In reply to comment #8)
> [note, i did not include the
> user-inserted-drive-and-closed-first-window-and-forgot-for-a-while-about-the-media
> scenario, since we were mentioning that those devices were temporary]
> 

Again , probably for the last time, at the cost of sounding like a broken record. ;)

Why do we think that this scenario is *the* most important scenario? Also to note is that even in this case , the benefit /might/ be later only..
How does it trump other scenarios where user goal's is worsened?

Mass changing component for BZ cleanup, sorry for the spam.

Milan, we now have almost exactly what you suggested.