I enjoyed your article, but I think it misses the scenario I talk about above, “professional” computing. A family trip is one thing, but building a complex business critical web application is totally another. Besides, there are already systems that allow us to organize on those principles, like Evernote. Even so, they take effort. I have to think about the content I’m generating, decide what’s a notebook and what’s not, and think about what tags to assign.

And even if we had some magical timeline that I could go back along via semantic processing, that would be difficult too. First off, I usually dont remember what I was doing when (much to the chagrin of people who have to parse my time sheets Second, I’ve got so much junk going on at once that any semantic processing algorithm would think that a chat with my wife about vacation, a proposal for new work, a prototype for my current project, and an email thread about my SXSW submission were all related because they were all open at the same time. It’s just too hard to teach a computer the complexities if human meaning-making. That’s why we have folders.

A folder says, these pieces of information are related. Simple. People get it, computers get it. I think it’s the ease of folders, and not the file metaphor, that keeps the filesystem stuck in people’s minds.

Now that I’ve installed and begun to uses Lion, here’s what I think is going to happen. I think we’ll have files and folders for a long long time, but what will go away is *file management*. Imagine storing everything on the cloud by default. Hard drives would be relegated to backups for thte increasingly few situations in which we are offline. Versioning and saving have already gone away in Lion, the big hurdle now is collaboration. You’d create a folder, add a spreadsheet that is the project estimate, a word processing document that contains the proposal, and a diagramming document full of various charts. Then, somehow, you’d indicate who you are collaborating with, they’d be notified, and would then have access. You would never have to save multiple versions again, because you’d all be working on thet same files by default. Then the folder can be moved around as it’s own discrete object as the project lfiecycle changes.

The benefit here is that that it remains simple. It’s not a database, it’s just a folder. And really, any other method of organizing project work like this is just a folder by another name.

Andrew: You are right on. I think that what’s coming (partially heralded by the iPad) is a very strong separation between personal and professional computing. There was recently an article on Daring Fireball that articulates this view very nicely: http://daringfireball.net/2011/03/the_chair

In a personal context, a file system and structure really doesn’t make a lot of sense. But in a professional environment, anything can be required. You mention passive tagging, which is a great idea because you’re right, people can’t be relied on to manage their content. What I’m thinking, though, is that we need to place the burden on technology and create some sort of protocol, an uber-XML that allows us access to content of different types within EVERY application.

DGEbel: I think you and I are thinking along the same lines. I’d go further though and abstract things beyond even the document level and into straight-up content. See above.

For many people play is a big part of their interaction with devices/applications and for them the file management issue is less relevant if at all.

But some productivity apps assist you with doing away with file management per se. For example, some apps keep track of “recent files.” It’s likely that the most recent files interest you most, and they keep circulating to the top. And apps like Lightroom to an extent hide file management from you; if you choose to you can view ALL photos and browse for what you need. I can even do this with the finder – browse photos – but only folder by folder.

Finally, don’t many of us simply have too much stuff on our computers (and devices)? Are the file structures really that organized and efficient. How many simply us search to find the file they need? I know I do a lot. If I can search or browse everything then how it is organized and hashing through that organization becomes less important.

But,as you point out, I would be concerned about longevity if docs are correlated only with apps. They should be separate unless they are exclusive to each other. If a better app became available then how could I transfer app-related files to the better app?

I like the idea of tagging to create dynamic groups, however that requires effort from the user and most people are lazy (I have nearly 20,000 photos in Lightroom and most are untagged). Passive tagging would be useful here.

Lots to consider.

Rob: Absolutely. Hell, the notion of a *file* is for the computer. But what’s going to be challenging is to solve for the need of an infinitely flexible taxonomy outside of this established metaphor. Because while the file system is mostly for the computer, humans have made use of it too.

Neil: My current thinking is much along the same lines as yours, but I’m more focused on content rather than capabilities. To me, an application as a set of capabilities is intuitive. An application is essentially a tool. When I want to build a prototype, I open Axure. When I want to write a letter, I open Entourage. What I’m most interested in is breaking down the *content barriers* between applications. Some do this already, like how you can access your iPhoto taxonomy from within other applications.

Remco: While tagging can be useful, it places a pretty high cognitive load on most people that I’d rather burden a machine with. It might be a component of the solution, but I’m pretty sure it won’t be the solution itself.

Eric: Yes, labels in Gmail are intriguing. They have the one-to-many attribute of tags, but also the locational aspects of folders. Assigning stuff to folders is a pretty low cognitive load task (hence the challenge of moving away from the filesystem), and rules (which most people probably WON’T set up) make it even easier to take advantage of their dual nature.

Stephen: If projects were the only organizing principle, sure. What I was saying in the article is that, in my research, I’ve seen people organize things (and not organize them, natch) in infinite ways to support both personal idiosyncrasies and overcomplicated business processes. The need for a taxonomic structure for digital data is clear, and my observations have led me to understand that it must be infinitely flexible. Maybe there are “presets” where you can choose an organizing principle, such as projects, events, people, dates, etc. Who knows… the future is wide open.

Rich: You’ve either been reading too much Bruce Sterling or playing too much Shadowrun. : ) But seriously though… isn’t that what a computer is? What a network is? It already augments our limitations on memory, communication, etc. For now, we’re much better at coming up with clever machines than we are at coming up with clever neurons. At our present level of technology, that type of thing is a great focus for research for neuroscientists. However, I’m not one. Besides, you wouldn’t want me to be one. I *have* played too much Shadowrun. : )