Malone on How People Organize their Desks

Like Anna, I'd be curious to see studies comparing physical and digital organizational styles. On a related note: it seems to me that some existing digital tools (potentially) blur the line between "project management tools" and "object organization tools". For example, Trello allows users to visually organize "cards" (arranged vertically), within "lists" (arranged horizontally), within "boards". Each card can potentially point to a file, it may be associated with labels, notes, and due dates (which trigger visual task reminders and/or push notifications), and the spatial organization of cards and lists may provide information about priority. Furthermore, users may use lists and labels to cluster cards (files/tasks) along multiple dimensions, and separate boards can be used to create separate "desktops" for separate projects (multiple boards can then of course contain cards pointing to the same file). Trello is not quite designed to be used this way (i.e. without some modification, doing so can be a bit clumsy), but I frequently attempt to use it in place of a desktop for several of the reasons highlighted in this paper. This is not a radical departure from the "desktop model"... but, in line with Qian's suggestion of matching file structure to individual users' mindsets or task requirements, I'd be curious to hear about (or see research on) other methods of organization people use, to at least partially replace a standard virtual desktop.

This paper opens up a wider question to me about how we evaluating and make use of papers whose central contribution is a design implication. I think this paper is great, I like the classification of the major purposes for organizational modules within an office/desk. However, as many people have pointed out, the design implications that Malone pulled from these purposes and the weaknesses of the best practices of the time are a seemingly outdated model.

So how long can a design implications paper be considered useful or relevant? I think regardless of the relevance of this model today, we can agree that it is interesting and was an important factor in the design of modern desktops. So do the implications become obsolete once the goal of the design is achieved or once someone instantiates the design? Do we care more about impact - once a design becomes pervasive does it become necessary to reevaluate design principles we have unearthed through cognitive science methods? I recently submitted a paper that focused on design implications for game designers based on behavioral science theory around curiosity. If accepted, how long should game designers take my word that the tips I'm giving them are valid?

First, I'm not sure the desk is the best model to work from if we're trying to develop the best work environment. What would it look like if the modern PC was instead built around a "library" or "study" model? I guess it just doesn't make a lot of sense for computers to try to recreate piles when the notion of a pile seems like a suboptimal solution itself.

Second, I'm partial to the importance of spatially organizing information. I worked in a place once that kept meticulous records. We had to periodically fill out a form that they had used for 20+ years. And on a shelf in my office was every form from the past 20+ years, neatly stored in binders, organized chronologically. On the chaotic days, those binders were an ounce of orderly solace. I've never taken any solace in a an organized file system on a computer. I think there's some value of being able to see the data in a space that is larger than a 13" screen. 

I take Nathan's point about a purpose of organization being better future retrieval. And since you don't know what you'll need to search for in the future, how can you create a structure for it. I rely so heavily now on my email's search system. I never, I mean never, file emails, and I only sometimes delete them. I search for everything, which can sometimes be frustrating, especially when I'm trying to remember a particular word used in the subject or the body of the email.

I'm also thinking about how much things have changed when it comes to filing, databases and organization. When I first got out of college I worked designing and managing a company database in Access. My next job was as an archivist, maintaining and creating paper and digital databases (in Filemaker Pro). But even in the jobs I had that were not about databases, people had filing systems that didn't just make sense to themselves, but also to their co-workers or bosses/assistants. The file system actually communicated something. And in Malone's study, the act of not filing something also meant something--that a paper has not yet been classified or need's the workers continued attention. I wonder if in today's work paradigm (more individualized work on individual computers with individual files), not only does the file appropriately filed away communicate less, but the paper left out on the desk also means less. Perhaps that's why a document left on my desktop doesn't necessarily require my attention.

I wonder if it is not only the desktop GUI that has outlived it's usefulness, but also the filesystem concept itself. I basically work out of two main folders on my computer: Downloads and Documents. Downloads is for things downloaded through Google Chrome. Documents is for files that had "Documents" as the default save path when I used the program. There is no real organization, and as Mike says, search doesn't save me on my computer. I generally just find things by date or filename, neither of which is too compelling.

On the other hand, I have 128.571 emails in my Gmail account, and I don't seem to have trouble finding that one order receipt from a decade ago. What's different? Google search seems to work, and I can search by contents, fate range, participants, subject, etc. Inbox by Gmail actually improves this by pulling out information I'm likely to need like "my Aadvantage number". In the end, I think categorization is an absolutely terrible idea for computers, and it should all just be one big pile with amazing search functionality.

So if folders and subfolders aren't a great idea, are files themselves? What if we didn't interact with individual files, but just the underlying information. I feel like this is somewhat like what is happening with smartphones. How often do you browse your filesystem on your phone? Usually, people just interact with the data in their apps, and I think that has been one of the major innovations in software in the past 10 years. You no longer have to import music files into Spotify or open a photo to edit (Apple Photos). It's already in a pile waiting for you.