Mail.app without folders (or tears)
CNXN has published a detailed tutorial 
on using Outlook without folders. It aims to overcome the drawbacks of folders — they obscure as well as organise, and filing things into them can take a lot of time.
Folders, it argues, are to blame for the following time-wasting and stress-inducing situations:
- This message relates to “Training†and “Expensesâ€â€¦… better put a copy in each folder.
- I found the message but can’t remember my response? Now I have to search my sent messages!
- Let’s see, what’s a good folder name….. hmmmm….
- *&%$# it! Throw it in “To Be Filed†and file it later. (mental note: stay late on Friday, again)
- My folder list is HUGE! This is tougher to navigate than the emails!!
- Can’t find it – quicker to rewrite it.
- Folders, within folders, within folders……..
The tutorial is based on a white paper (PDF ) from the Information School at the University of Washington.
Researchers at UW interviewed 14 people (most of them UW academics) about how they used folders for organisation and whether improving Desktop search utilities could convince them to live without folders.
In the main, the answer is no. Participants valued folders for security (don’t trust searches), for control (ensuring files are all in one place) and “understandability” (folders indicate the relationships between things).
Above all the researchers are convinced that hierachies (i.e. your Mail folders) have basic limitations. In a hierarchy each information item can only belong in one place, although it may have information relationships with many other items elsewhere in the hiararchy. More flexible or nuanced models of organisation (tagging, metadata) are required, they argue.
Hence a long tutorial on a folder-less Outlook, using colour and sorting instead for organisation.
A folder-less Mail.app is also easy to create. Mail Act-on can supplement Mail’s in-built rules feature by allowing to you to colour emails on the fly. MailTags offers the easy tagging of emails with metadata, which can form the raw data for Smart Folders or searches within Mail.
Related posts
June 10th, 2006 at 11:13 pm
I think there’s still a place for folders, even in these metadata days. I like having a fairly high-level hard sort in place, which I can then supplement with tags.*
But what I’d really like to see — and am hoping to see in a future release of MailTags — is hierarchical tagging, which would have all the advantages of folder filing (precision and granularity) without the disadvantages (a given message can only be in one place). I’d like to be able to tag a message as Work:Projects:[Specific project], and thereby have it inherit the Work:Projects and Work tags as well. You can do something like this at the moment, but it requires either redundant tagging (three tags, Work, Work:Projects, Work:Projects:[Specific project], and making sure you remember to put all three on each message) or needing to stitch together many tags in the Search window when you need an access point higher up the hierarchy.
*. Actually with categories, since I’m still using Entourage, after trying several times to switch to Mail and being driven back in frustration each time.
June 11th, 2006 at 1:39 am
A folder-less Mail.app is also easy to create. Mail Act-on can supplement Mail’s in-built rules feature by allowing to you to colour emails on the fly. MailTags offers the easy tagging of emails with metadata, which can form the raw data for Smart Folders or searches within Mail.
Actually the next version MailTags will come with the ability to associate color to projects (though not keywords as it would be abiguous to determine which keyword takes priority for setting the color) priority and due dates. For Example, any message labelled “Report” would show as llight blue. But a report message that is due today would show bright red. Changing colors associated with tags will recolor all messages on the fly.
Also tags such as projects, keywords, duedates etc will show up in the list view and you will be able to replace the subject line on messages with your own notes.
And yes — I know people want to beta test — I have a few things to get working (in the IMAP department) before it is ready for initial testing.
As for hierarchies of keywords — conceptually easier thought off than thought through especially once you start getting duplicate keywords in different hierarchies (and less easily done!) Simple way to do this is to just tag messages literally with the heirarchy (eg work:projects:specific) you can still search for parts of a keyword. (eg work:projects:)
June 11th, 2006 at 1:47 am
Ok — I just looked at the article
and quickly left — this is supposed to make people’s lives easier? Tim, now I know why you switched from Windows + Outlook to Mac+Mail.app !
June 11th, 2006 at 2:50 am
I use folders (a networked .pst) because my inbox is pruned at 60 days by my helpful mailserver.
June 11th, 2006 at 3:59 am
The big caveat about not using folders is that most mail clients (including Apple Mail) can have issues when mailboxes get too large - this is especially the problem with Mail in 10,3,x since it uses one mbox file per mailbox and cannot deal with files larger than about 1GB (due to the way the table of contents is stored). Even though Mail in 10.4.x uses one file per message, there still is a limitation:
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=25812
June 11th, 2006 at 8:12 am
@Scott: hehehe…. It is complicated, isn’t it? I found the white paper interesting though, in particular the undercurrent of frustration in the writing.
The researchers, who came to the study deploring the way folders constrain and fossilise information storage, seem puzzled that their interviewees are so attached to their folders (as I am to mine).
@Andreas: I knew about the technical limit of 2GB mentioned in the Apple technote. Obviously that’s almost the size of a Gmail account. I wonder what the practical limit is.
June 13th, 2006 at 7:15 pm
Interesting comments guys. I’d love to hear more about version 2 (same link). I realize that most of the people here are Mac users, but the AntiFiling logic is the same.
To the point of PST size becomming too large, is this not the case with or without folders? We’ve also addressed that by moving space hungry attachments out of the messages with EZDetach and providing a method of “capping” the PST size. Comments?
Of particular interest to me is the hierarchy thing. We’re building an email tagger as well and the views on hierarchies are very important. We can actually mimic a hierarchy with and/or functions (select this tag AND that tag to give the intersection, or this tag OR that tag to give the union) Folder B within A would contain the same files as tag A AND tag B with a shift-select. We’re also working on thematics to display tags with more files as bigger in relation to those that intersect them. In the previous example A is bigger than B.
One thing that I’m researching is why people file (further to the white paper you spoke of). When pressed, it appears that messages can be found just as easily without folders, so there must be some other reason that people like them. Jones talks about the hierarchy structure that is info in itself, but I believe this may be a throwback to a paper paradigm. Do people just like the warm fuzzy feeling of organization like a clean desk, or is there more to it? In the paper world this is essential as you don’t have a magic string to pull out the specific bits you need, but with computers this is quite a bit different. Comments?
As far as complicated… take a minute to try it. I used to use folders in a past life until I gave up in trying to keep up with the filing. Some reasons are stated in the tutorial. The real clincher is when I’m on the phone with someone and we’re looking for the same email. They use folders and I don’t and 9 times out of 10 I can find it quicker.
Thanks again for the input.
Mark
June 14th, 2006 at 1:47 pm
@Andreas: it’s 2GB, actually. But a sane person should indeed be concern as soon as 1-1.5GB is reached.
@Mark: It’s been my strong view that Googles’s “Don’t file, search” motto has more emphasis on the search part, rather than don’t file. I file, and file quite a bit. Off the top of my head I’ve got over a 100 folders. Still takes me seconds to find things — thanks to Lookout (I’m still in OL2K era).
@smorr: Folderless Mail.app would be extremly easy indeed. In fact, Mail.app is the only other place (besides Gmail) where I file very little. But this, I think, is mostly function of low traffic. That said, Spotlight searches are fast and having MailTags accessible in them is a blessing.
June 14th, 2006 at 2:32 pm
Andrei: what function do the folders serve if you use Lookout to find something? OL2K doesn’t have search folders, but if it did would those be more beneficial for you than the standard kind?
Question to group (who use MS products): One of the features we’re testing in our email tagger is that you can use the same tag for email, web favorites and files so if you have a project that spans these three apps there is no need to duplicate the categorization scheme across them all. Would anyone else here find this useful? Why/why not?
Mark
June 14th, 2006 at 3:29 pm
@ Andrei
The problem in 10.3.x is not actually the file size itself but rather the fact that the starting offset for the individual messages in the table_of_contents file is started as a 32bit signed number which limits the size to just over 1GB - not sure why the offset would not be stored as U32 instead but that’s the way it is…
June 14th, 2006 at 9:40 pm
@Mark: Absolutely — tags that are accessible across a system in many different applications is a holy grail. I think that SpotMeta shares this vision as well and I want to integrate SpotMeta tags into MailTags. Ideally, a efficient/effective system would have application specific tags, system wide tags, and in a LAN, workgroup specific tags. — ie a project manager can specify tags for different facets of a project and people would be able to access these tags for files, folders, emails, etc. I hope that apple unveils something in this manner in WWDC. If they don’t I will have to get off my buttocks and write it myself :)
June 15th, 2006 at 3:11 am
@Mark: how do you keep your paper files? Do you pile them all in a single cardbox or do you try to segregate them with dividers and such? This is a primary distinction. I like my project-wise messages segregated from my HR correspondence, from my budget planning stuff. In the end of the day — this is my preference. Others may well prefer it all in a single place — a perfect case of TIMTOWTDI this is!
Oh, and all of my sent items are in one place — that is where we sure do match! :))
Search folders (like Smart Folders that Mail.app and friends had for some time, and Linux’ Evolution had for a bit longer) — these are fine, but I suspect (though cannot be sure — have not tried OL implementation of them) that there is a performance impact, compared to plain folders.
June 15th, 2006 at 3:39 am
Andrei: Man, if only I could keep all of my paper files in a box. Actually, for ease of filing I’d like to be able to come home from work and throw all of my mail on the living room floor. It would be extremely easy to file but I think my wife would kill me! :-) Seriously though, you still haven’t answered my question: What purpose do the folders serve? Do you like them because they give a warm fuzzy feeling of organization like a clean desk or do they actually add more function? The fact that you need Lookout to find a message implies the former. If performance wasn’t a factor, would Search Folders suffice or would you still prefer the location type?
This is a touchy subject for many. Please understand that I’m not saying folders are “wrong” or attacking anyone’s method of organization, I just have yet to understand the value they provide over not using them. For all of the reasons I stated in the tutorial, it mostly appears to be the “clean desk” feeling that people like. It is a major paradigm shift to not feel uncomfortable with a MASSIVE pile of stuff to sift through. Before I started AntiFiling, I must admit it did seem overwhelming. It took a little while to get over that initial “fear” for lack of a better word, but eventually it went away as I came to realize how easy it is. It’s this uncomfortable feeling that I really want to understand as we build our email tagger.
June 15th, 2006 at 4:31 am
@Mark: Maybe you should open up a discussion forum over at CNXN.ca, eh? Not to spam Tim’s blog? ;)
If performance of Search Folders were adequate, I suppose I would not be as reliant on physical folders — but this is what I mentioned before, when cross-referencing your approach and Google’s “Don’t file, search” motto.
Truth of the matter is that no folder-wise setup is perfect, things aren’t always where you think they might be, information content of certain items may change over time, sometimes things may want to fit many places at once…
June 16th, 2006 at 6:37 am
So many positively provocative comments here to discuss and further “spam” Tim’s blog …
No kidding! Boundary-dissolving tagging, mmm.
That well summarizes the main usability problems I have with traditional nested file/folder hierarchies.
Seems to me the hierarchical filesystem is responsible for impinging its location-dependent structure on UI design as a primary data organization component even in cases where it’s clearly not an ideal approach. I was surprised that the UW paper made no mention of the filesystem considering how significant its influence is that way.
The file/folder/desktop metaphor is so pervasive and taken for granted that it’s hard for many people to consider viable alternatives (excluding obviously irrelevant computing contexts). And most “Finder sucks” discussions get stuck on tedious, redundant file/folder management aspects supporting that metaphor, with PathFinder possibly the current king of the Yet Another OS X File Manager castle.
The trouble with “files” is they can’t easily exist in multiple folders. The trouble with “folders” is they can’t easily have multiple parents.
Will certain kinds/amounts of (meta)data eventually be more effectively managed/organized using UIs/tools operating with a unified abstraction for creating arbitrary relationships unconstrained by the limited dimension of files/folder hierarchies?
Sorry for the length… I always get carried away when there’s a chance to discuss this topic.
June 16th, 2006 at 5:28 pm
OK Andrei, here’s a good “spam” post for ya :P. Valid point on the blog, we’ll be setting up one at CNXN.C-eh soon. You know, sit around in our igloos, talk ABOOT back bacon, hockey playoffs, curling at the Breyer, etc. Maybe even talk a bit about our email tagger.
We’ve set up a survey to allow product direction from the general public to add or subtract features you think are important. One of the points mentioned here is hierarchical tagging so ya’ll can vote on that.
Thanks Tim for allowing me to post. I’ll go and spam my own blog now with the invitation open to the people here for a spam jam.
Mark
August 15th, 2006 at 10:49 pm
[...] Regular Hawk Wings readers will remember recent research on how hard it is for people to give up folders for their email. [...]
September 4th, 2006 at 10:36 pm
[...] Others are more controversial - tagging or folders or a mixed marriage? Glenn is a folders man. [...]
October 27th, 2006 at 8:07 pm
The process of creating and filing mail into folders is about PROCESS as well as the final product.
I’ve used careful folder / mbox structure to learn the entire organization of a large natural sciences school at a major university. This has allowed me to bootstrap an academic job out of thin air.
BUT now I am in a quandary, I also use search when looking for emails.
I have recently switched from PC EUDORA to mail.app (along with a fujitsu to macbook pro switch). I have used Eudora Mail Cleaner and imported all my 400+ filters that dutifully filed my messages for me AFTER having read them (it isn’t a problem to create a filter or two a day in EUDORA).
But the Rules based method in mail.app assumes you’ll want to automatically apply rules upon receipt of a message. When unchecked, rules don’t apply (as far as I can tell) and even manually applying them doesn’t give consistent results. Rule copy-to targets are lost and there are no tools for organizing or automatically creating rules (and mbox’s to target from within the rule pane).
So although I would like to preserve the way I work (filing via filters manually augmented by search) I cannot easily do this in mail.app.
What do you think the recent “Eudora goes open source” will mean for “filtering” in Thunderbird?
:)
DDK
November 10th, 2006 at 10:44 pm
[...] UPDATE: Patrick Rhone has some interesting thoughts on the new tags in Yojimbo 1.3 vs. traditional sorting by sub-folders, part of the great “tag in one archive vs. file in folders” debate. [...]
December 28th, 2006 at 7:17 pm
phentermine…
news…