skip to main content
10.1145/317456.317479acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article
Free Access

A comparison of symbolic and spatial filing

Published:01 April 1985Publication History

ABSTRACT

The traditional and still dominant form of object reference in computing systems is symbolic - data files, programs, etc. are initially labeled and subsequently referred to by name. This approach is being supplemented on some systems by a spatial alternative which is often driven by an office or desktop metaphor (e.g. Apple's Lisa and MacIntosh systems, or Bolt's 1979 Spatial Data Management System). In such systems, an object is placed in a simulated two- or three-dimensional space, and can later be retrieved by pointing to its location. In order to begin to understand the relative merits of spatial and symbolic filing schemes for representing and organizing information, we compared four ways of filing computer objects. We found location information to be of limited utility, either by itself or in combination with symbolic information. This calls into question the generality and efficacy of the desktop metaphor for information retrieval.

References

  1. 1.Bolt, R. A. (1979). Filing and retrieving in the future - spatial data management. Paper presented at lnfotech 'User Friendly Systems" State of the Art Conference, London.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.Cole, I. (1982). Human aspects of office filing: implications for the electronic office. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society - 26th Annual Meeting, Seattle, Wa.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. 3.Cristie, J. and Just, M. A. (1976). Remembering the location and content of sentences in a prose passage. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 702-710.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. 4.Malone, T. W. (1983). How do people organize their desks? Implications for the design of office information systems. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, 1, 99-112. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. 5.Mandler, J. M., Seegmiller, D. and Day, J. (1977). On the coding of spatial information. Memory and Cognition, 5, 1 O- 16.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.Rothkopf, E. Z. (1971). Incidental memory for location of information in text. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 10, 608-613.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. 7.Zechmeister, E. B. and McKillip, J. (1971). Recall of place on a page. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 446-453.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. A comparison of symbolic and spatial filing

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in
          • Published in

            cover image ACM Conferences
            CHI '85: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
            April 1985
            231 pages
            ISBN:0897911490
            DOI:10.1145/317456

            Copyright © 1985 ACM

            Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 1 April 1985

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • Article

            Acceptance Rates

            CHI '85 Paper Acceptance Rate35of170submissions,21%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader