[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: One vs many directories
From: |
Jean Louis |
Subject: |
Re: One vs many directories |
Date: |
Sat, 21 Nov 2020 13:21:08 +0300 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/2.0 (3d08634) (2020-11-07) |
* Texas Cyberthal <texas.cyberthal@gmail.com> [2020-11-21 11:32]:
> Hi Jean,
>
> I'll use some of the concepts in the first half of your email. I
> disagree with the second.
>
> > In my opinion directories should never bother user. User should just
> > pre-define sets of directories such as: People, Groups, you name it, and
> > files should be accessible in such directories automatically.
>
> Productivity studies show that navigation dominates search. Human
> animals are natural pathfinders and walking computer paths with
> ergonomic file explorers such as Dired increases mastery of the
> subject matter.
Do you mean that navigating file system dominates the search?
I also think that navigating file system dominates the search if that
is what you refer. I think that users are inclined to navigate because
computing tools such as file managers are given to users for
that. Users did not get better systems to find or file files or other
documents in computing. In other words I wish to say that we are under
developed.
Navigating does not necessarily contribute to production. Productivity
may say what it wants but it may not reach those who are actually more
productive without using the navigation. So studies may not tell us
what is more productive, such may only tell what is currently used
within the subject of being productive.
You mentioned 2 things, navigation and search. Since years I am
integrating pieces in my computing that drives me into direction of
neither navigating nor searching. Examples:
- I read your email in Mutt. Maybe I remember something you wrote
earlier but not quite well and I wish to find your previous email. I
click ESC-v and I can view all your previous emails. In this sense I
do not need to know your email address and where your emails are
stored on my system.
For this particular type of object "Emails of user Texas" neither I
am searching, neither navigating. I do not spend time searching and
I do not spend time navigating to that object. It is by one click or
two all in front of my eyes.
Underlying functionality is very simple. All emails of users can be
automatically (by sieve) or semi-automatically by key press saved
into personalized mailboxes ~/Maildir/person@example.com and by
clicking ESC-v in Mutt, email address is extracted from the email I
was reading and I new Mutt instance opens with all emails from
~/Maildir/person@example.com -- then after reading, I click q and I
am back in your first email, the top level email in the inbox.
I could as well make it more automated, I could answer all emails
and finish with Mutt, and upon finishing all emails could be sorted
in personalized email files.
- example with files belonging to user, let us say hyperlinks or
anything, any piece of information, I could just press F4 on email
and I could access all information related to that user. I do not
need to know the phone number and I cand send SMS or initiate the
call, share the contact, send email or fax, see all pictures of this
person, notes, tasks, and financial transactions.
I neither navigate neither search there. Maybe better way to call
this type of locating objects is relational accessing. Somebody may
correct me.
There is some object like contact named "Texas Cyber". If object has
any relation to anything else, then anything else can be displayed
and found right there.
Instead of me searching, computer is searching.
Instead of me navigating, computer is navigating.
> This value is trivial with retrieval tasks such as a person's name,
> which is why 10 Bins stores such names in a flat list of
> directories, sorted alphabetically by last name. It is easy to
> integrate an automated retrieval script with such a predictable
> path.
Take care of duplicates. When marketing contact database is growing
fast, some times 1000 people per day or more. People have same
names. Often one cannot even know what is first and what is last
name. You may know it for your country, in other countries is not
so. Then those people engage in a course on distance. They are sending
me images and files as results of their course assignments. I have to
file the files in proper folder. Because names are not always unique I
better file it under unique IDs, and keep separate symlinks with names
of people to such unique IDs whereby symlinks can be automatically
updated.
That alone makes things easily very simple at least for objects such
as people because people's names are in the file system.
Then simple `locate` command can be used to find Texas Cyber's files:
#!/bin/bash
locate -e -d /home/data1/protected/.locate.database -A -i $@
I think that switch -A helps in finding all of these:
Texas Cy
Cyber Tex
or similar variations.
But in general I would just click ESC-e and I would get your profile
and access to all files because location by email address from an
email document is pretty much decisive.
If person is not there, person is then created in the database.
- One vs many directories, Texas Cyberthal, 2020/11/20
- Re: One vs many directories, Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide, 2020/11/21
- Re: One vs many directories, Texas Cyberthal, 2020/11/21
- Re: One vs many directories, Jean Louis, 2020/11/21
- Re: One vs many directories, Texas Cyberthal, 2020/11/21
- Re: One vs many directories, Jean Louis, 2020/11/21
- Re: One vs many directories, Ihor Radchenko, 2020/11/22
- Re: One vs many directories, Jean Louis, 2020/11/22
- Re: One vs many directories, Ihor Radchenko, 2020/11/22