Talk:Desktop metaphor

Computing Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Software: Computing High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Human–Computer Interaction (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human–Computer Interaction, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Human–Computer InteractionWikipedia:WikiProject Human–Computer InteractionTemplate:WikiProject Human–Computer InteractionHuman–Computer Interaction articles

Dynamic access to documents?

I agree with the point that dynamic (i.e. search based) access to documents is becoming more important than using a file system tree, but what does this have to do with the desktop metaphor? In other words, since when does the filesystem sit on the desktop? --Hullbr3ach 18:42, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I found this text in the article:

The addition of ‘smart folders’ and the like leads to a method of locating files that is based on search criteria important to the user, rather than its physical arrangement on disk, which, according to recent thought, is of no importance to the user.

Normal folders also have nothing to do with the physical arrengement of the files on the disk. A folder is only a entry in the file system. --Qaywsxedc (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article really necessary? Maybe it cold be merged with Desktop environment? --Sigmundg (talk) 15:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Technically they are different topics, since the metaphor refers to the design while the environments refer to the particular implementations. But in their current form this distinction is not made in the articles, so I agree that they could be merged.Diego (talk) 11:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Historical interest

I looked in vain at Commons for an image of an inbox/in-box/outbox/out-box/in-basket/out-basket/in-tray/out-tray or even a desktop equipped with such. Pretty soon the notion that this is a metaphor will be lost: people will know the current digital meaning and forget the historical analog source. Maybe it doesn't matter, but I'd have thought it helpful to remind folks of how paper-based offices worked, especially the features that were used in UI metaphors. The main key words are desktop, folder, file, inbox, outbox, type (verb), archive. I think 'file drawer' and 'file cabinet' were used for a time as well. The world of drawing/illustration was a related source of metaphor. DCDuring (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Non-spatial file browsing" ?

(For the benefit of us non-geeks) would some-one please explain (or insert a link to) the meaning of "Non-spatial file browsing" (Section: Paper Paradigm, last paragraph) ? I am a (reasonably competent) computer user, but to me this is nonsensical jargon ! Many thanks for your help ! Darkman101 (talk) 08:34, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful images needed

The several OSes mentioned that use the "desktop metaphor" could each use screenshots in this article. Removing one (admittedly mediocre) image is going the wrong direction. I can't imagine that any of the vendors would object to historical images or even current ones. DCDuring (talk) 16:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]