Show HN: Re-Implementing the macOS Spatial Finder(github.com)
github.com
Show HN: Re-Implementing the macOS Spatial Finder
https://github.com/everydayanchovies/SpatialFinder
37 comments
Interesting, but I think part of what made Classic Mac OS' spatial Finder work is that every folder only ever had a single window associated with it (similar to how in the physical world, spaces like folders and drawers only have a singular location) and opening a folder opens that window. It feels a touch strange to apply spatial logic to an Explorer-style navigator file manager.
I see. While making this I found that if you hide the Finder sidebar and toolbar (both are options in the menu), then your scenario plays out. In a way it’s nicer than the video on my github.
Yeah, single-window mode has been in the Finder for a very long time (wanna say since 10.1 or something), but compared to the OS 9 Finder it's always been a bit flaky and will sometimes forget window sizes+positions. I figure that it's probably never gotten the level of attention required to make it polished.
It's also missing the open folder indicator that the Classic Finder had, where folders that had their window open somewhere had a different icon (filled with a stipple pattern). This is a bigger problem than it sounds like, particularly with OS X having multiple desktops and making it easier to lose windows.
It's also missing the open folder indicator that the Classic Finder had, where folders that had their window open somewhere had a different icon (filled with a stipple pattern). This is a bigger problem than it sounds like, particularly with OS X having multiple desktops and making it easier to lose windows.
Well, this is sure to come up on next week's (well, later this week) Accidental Tech Podcast. John Siracusa (one of the hosts) used to write those twenty page reviews of each major release of MacOS on ArsTechnica. He and I both miss the spatial Finder. I'll try this out tomorrow for sure. If I wasn't worn out from a busy weekend, I'd try it now. I can't wait to see how this holds up.
OP: whether this delivers or not, it's a concept that concerns me. Thanks for caring about this and doing something about it.
OP: whether this delivers or not, it's a concept that concerns me. Thanks for caring about this and doing something about it.
I still use a Mac OS 9.2.2 based machine as my second brain, as no other file system I've used works like the human memory in the same way the spatial Finder does.
Great job bringing something similar to the modern Finder!
Great job bringing something similar to the modern Finder!
Cool! Are you using an emulator for that or an old mac? I'd be interested in hearing more if you've written it up somewhere.
I tried emulation but it's convenient to have a separate machine most of the time.
I use a PowerBook G4 Titanium, the 867MHz model. With an SSD, the battery holds 1-2 hours if I'm away from a charger. But I usually keep it at my desk for notes.
Unless someone around me has a keen eye for tech, it is still modern looking enough that I can use it in public or meetings as needed without seeming like I'm pulling out a Windows 2000-era laptop, even though I am.
I use a PowerBook G4 Titanium, the 867MHz model. With an SSD, the battery holds 1-2 hours if I'm away from a charger. But I usually keep it at my desk for notes.
Unless someone around me has a keen eye for tech, it is still modern looking enough that I can use it in public or meetings as needed without seeming like I'm pulling out a Windows 2000-era laptop, even though I am.
> seemingly random positions and sizes
No they don't? I'm on Sequoia and Finder windows open in exactly the position of my last window. Height does vary on the view style though.
This looks maddening, it's the complete opposite of what I'd want.
> seemingly random positions and sizes
Indeed, so let's open each folder in an actually random position and size, whatever I sized it 3 weeks ago, really.
No they don't? I'm on Sequoia and Finder windows open in exactly the position of my last window. Height does vary on the view style though.
This looks maddening, it's the complete opposite of what I'd want.
> seemingly random positions and sizes
Indeed, so let's open each folder in an actually random position and size, whatever I sized it 3 weeks ago, really.
You can just choose not to use this. Nothing bad about having the choice, so no need to be negative.
> You can just choose not to use this
Sure. I'm just arguing that on paper this is not the solution to the problem described.
Sure. I'm just arguing that on paper this is not the solution to the problem described.
Do you understand what the phrase "Spatial Finder" means?
You say: "windows open in exactly the position of my last window" (hint: this is called browser behavior, not spatial behavior)
Spatial Finder: windows ignore your last window and open to "whatever I sized it 3 weeks ago" (each window space, position, size, etc is individually remembered by folder)
You would be served to read up some Finder history, like the link to arstechnica featured on the github, so you can understand what Spatial Finder means before weighing in on a tool specifically designed to bring back that feature.
You say: "windows open in exactly the position of my last window" (hint: this is called browser behavior, not spatial behavior)
Spatial Finder: windows ignore your last window and open to "whatever I sized it 3 weeks ago" (each window space, position, size, etc is individually remembered by folder)
You would be served to read up some Finder history, like the link to arstechnica featured on the github, so you can understand what Spatial Finder means before weighing in on a tool specifically designed to bring back that feature.
I don't think Spatial Finder is as useful as it once was. The reason is that these web interfaces block the whole screen, so I generally need to move the browser to the side, beep open a finder window, drag the file in, move the browser back, etc. What I would really like to have back from those days is to drag a folder to the bottom of the screen and have it turned into a little tab, so I can have a "CS602" tab for example during that class. Alternatively, how about putting the tab in the menu bar and doing it as a little popup? I'd probably pay $5 for that right now if it was implemented in a not annoying way.
I never thought too much about what you just said — specifically about web interfaces and their single-window nature — but now that you mention it, a lot has changed as a direct result.
I think of an app like Photoshop, and it had one window for each image you had open, and then floating toolbars, another window for layers, etc. You could really organize your workspace and have a sense of "mise en place" in a way that doesn't really exist anymore.
Now every application is essentially a 16:9 rectangle squeezed into a tab. The web's enabled some amazing things, but not at zero cost…
Something's lost but something's gained, in living every day.
I think of an app like Photoshop, and it had one window for each image you had open, and then floating toolbars, another window for layers, etc. You could really organize your workspace and have a sense of "mise en place" in a way that doesn't really exist anymore.
Now every application is essentially a 16:9 rectangle squeezed into a tab. The web's enabled some amazing things, but not at zero cost…
Something's lost but something's gained, in living every day.
I have a hot corner configured to reveal desktop, so I just pop my cursor into it, go into the Finder to grab the file, then boop the hot corner and I'm back in the browser, without any additional manual window management
Why not put an accordion folder in the dock?
Not a bad idea, but the dock has gone to pot too. For example I just dragged an alias of a folder there and it doesn't even understand I wanted the folder.
Everything seems to be at the point where you want to invite the developer over, get him drunk, and make him swear at his own product until he agrees the experience is not great. Of course there is no "the developer" anymore.
Everything seems to be at the point where you want to invite the developer over, get him drunk, and make him swear at his own product until he agrees the experience is not great. Of course there is no "the developer" anymore.
Move the browser to the side? I can never understand why anyone would want to manually shuffle windows around as a disorganized stack.
From my perspective the desktop metaphor UX was obsolete the moment it was conceived of. All anyone has to do is look at the physical desks of a thousand random people and it should be immediately obvious how little value there is in recreating that chaos.
From my perspective the desktop metaphor UX was obsolete the moment it was conceived of. All anyone has to do is look at the physical desks of a thousand random people and it should be immediately obvious how little value there is in recreating that chaos.
Yeah I also have felt it weird and anachronistic that computer GUIs STARTED with a windows-based system, in an era of small screens, limited colors, limited resolution, and limited user expertise!
Working with such few resources, an iPad-like fullscreen UI would have made more sense and been more efficient.
Companies just wanted to show off I guess.
Working with such few resources, an iPad-like fullscreen UI would have made more sense and been more efficient.
Companies just wanted to show off I guess.
It made a lot more sense back before every agent in the system had an interest in shipping the org chart and making their piece as cumbersome as possible to increase ad revenue.
On the Mac it works to start dragging a file from one place and, while keeping the dragged file selected with the mouse/trackpad, using Command-Tab to switch to another application. If that’s the Finder, once there Spring-loaded Folders can be activated/navigated while retaining the selected file.
One must-have app I put on any macOS install is Yoink, which gives you a "shelf" you can drag anything onto, then drag out later when convenient. Handy when the target app you're dragging to hasn't been opened yet.
The love for the spatial finder is the one thing I've never understood. It seems to fall apart when you work with a non-trivial number of files. For someone who has grown up comfortable with the abstractions of files and filesystems, what advantages do you get with this "spatial" metaphor, compared to just working directly with the hierarchy (e.g. list view or miller columns)?
You're right -- a lot of people who yearn for the spatial Finder don't remember how many fewer files/folders we had in the past, with a lot less hierarchy.
But for those who loved the spatial Finder and did indeed have nontrivial numbers of files, well, some people just have exceptional visual memory. Think of those who have thousands of books in their house with seemingly loose-to-no organization, yet can quickly retrieve any volume. Or cooks with pantries that seem to lack any rhyme or reason, yet they can immediately find any ingredient.
The one person I know who loved the classic Mac OS spatial Finder and dealt with nontrivial numbers of files worked exactly like that. Their files were organized in haphazard piles across an incredibly cluttered desktop and a handful of folders, yet they could always track down what they needed. Their brain was essentially a flat key->value store that mapped files -> screen coordinates. It didn't map files -> filenames (lots of "memo_1.doc"), and it certainly had no notion of hierarchical keys.
But for those who loved the spatial Finder and did indeed have nontrivial numbers of files, well, some people just have exceptional visual memory. Think of those who have thousands of books in their house with seemingly loose-to-no organization, yet can quickly retrieve any volume. Or cooks with pantries that seem to lack any rhyme or reason, yet they can immediately find any ingredient.
The one person I know who loved the classic Mac OS spatial Finder and dealt with nontrivial numbers of files worked exactly like that. Their files were organized in haphazard piles across an incredibly cluttered desktop and a handful of folders, yet they could always track down what they needed. Their brain was essentially a flat key->value store that mapped files -> screen coordinates. It didn't map files -> filenames (lots of "memo_1.doc"), and it certainly had no notion of hierarchical keys.
> Only folders inside the Documents folder are affected.
That's quite a caveat. The reason for it is:
> size and position are stored in a hidden .framedata.json file in that folder. When a folder is opened, this file is used to restore its state.
Couldn't this information be stored centrally in the user's home for any folders opened/moved/sized, avoiding this limitation?
That's quite a caveat. The reason for it is:
> size and position are stored in a hidden .framedata.json file in that folder. When a folder is opened, this file is used to restore its state.
Couldn't this information be stored centrally in the user's home for any folders opened/moved/sized, avoiding this limitation?
I don’t like littering the filesystem with these crumbs, especially when the folders are synced with iCloud so you have two machines with possibly different screen sizes arguing about the saved location. I’d much rather store everything in a single SQLite file.
There's already a ds_store file littered around, and presumably these must be backwards compatible. So if the format were reverse engineered (maybe it already is) you could probably stuff in some data in there.
Oh that’s not a limitation, it was a choice. You can remove that restriction by changing the appropriate line to scan ~ instead of ~/Documents.
While the Finder really sucks, this is jarring. I just wish the Finder remembered the view type (List, Icon, etc), but jumping the window size all around is difficult to look at and may block other elements (windows, desktop) I do want to see.
I just wish Finder was able to remember that I want the "Desktop" entry on the sidebar. I go to preferences and add it back and it forgets that I want it there all the time. It is annoying bugs like this that made me conclude, Apple will never recover in terms of software quality.
Ah yes, that may be an issue. But that is solved by not installing the "window_title_changed" hook, so that the scripts only take effect when new Finder windows are opened. In that case, windows never move around. All the points you mentioned are issues with the default behaviour of Finder (e.g. when opening a new Finder window as is, you cannot predict where it will open and so it may block other elements).
Yes, when opening a new instance of Finder, I expect that the position won't be what I expect. But moving folder to folder it will stay the same. Sadly the Finder doesn't seem to respect previous types of views (List, Icon, etc) but I see you have a solution for the window size changing.
Thanks!
Thanks!
If you open a Finder window and customize the view, then immediately close it, it remembers your settings. It's an odd design decision, but it works. It doesn't always carry over to network shares after they've been disconnected and remounted.
This looks useful! A lot of the time, I open a Space to work on a project and I want all my folders arranged in a certain way. Until now, I’ve been using Shortcuts, but it would be nice if Finder just remembered where everything should go.
Finder still supports spatial navigation mode. You just have to turn off the sidebar.
Ever since iTunes, I've always wanted to do this for music. Realizing I'm probably not going to get around to build that. Nowadays, would love it for Spotify.
Why on earth does macOS support files being dragged into random locations at all let alone per directory?
macOS not remembering finders window size at all is a never ending source of annoyance for me. This is neat - but disabling SIP to use it is a no-go for me at least.
- folders remember where they were on the screen
- folders remember how big they were
This enables you to utilise the brain's superb spatial memory for file management.