AW: [vorbis] Why the commotion about file extensions?

[Beni Cherniavsky]

Hauke Duden wrote on 2003-07-16:

> I just wanted to make one quick point: from my experience, the average user
> does not know about file formats, only about content (my experience stems
> from working for ashampoo (www.ashampoo.com) who specialize in creating
> easy-to-use programs for non-tech savvy people). People don't quite grasp
> what an .avi is, or divx or the difference between an .mp3, .wav or Vorbis
> file. Especially on Windows where file extensions are hidden by default. It
> is all tech-babble for them - they think in terms of "music" and "movies".
>
> So the one thing that people seem to want to know is wether a file contains
> audio or video. And technical issues aside (like starting the correct
> program for a given file) this should somehow be made visible to the user.
> In Windows this would mean displaying a different icon in Windows Explorer
> for audio or video files. And this is where the problem lies if you use the
> .ogg extension for both. It would be possible to write a shell extension
> that examines the files and displays the correct icon, but that would mean
> that every single file in a directory has to be accessed when the directory
> is openend - not really feasible from a performance point of view if the
> directory contains the personal music collection of 1000+ files.
>
All true.  But note what the user wants according to these definition:
he wants different icons for audio vs. video.  Yes, he doesn't know
the difference between `.mp3` and `.ogg`.  But that's precisely why
windows hides the extensions from him by default.  If he does know, he
would have disabled this hiding.

> .ogg should probably be kept for audio, since it is already pretty well
> known. So one could use .oggv or .ogv or something like that for video files
> (theora, tarkin, and whatever else will come). In my opinion, that would be
> the reasonable thing to do.
>
Perhaps.  That would be the minimal distinction to satify users.
However, some users (like me) do care for various codecs.  And they
would like different extensions for Ogg vs. Flac vs. Speex and Theora
vs. Tarkin.  And (for windows users) different icons (perhaps only
slightly, e.g. color difference).

> And another opinion about using the codec name for the extension: I think
> .theora, .vorbis, etc. would simply be too confusing for the user. Joe
> Average just doesn't know about audio encoding or algorithms (not even what
> audio encoding or algorithms actually ARE), so these things would remain
> abstract for him. As is an extension like .oggv, of course, but at least
> that's only one thing to remember. If you inflate the extension namespace
> with all the codec names, it will be much more difficult for the user to
> remember which one's what and where the difference is.
>
The namespace is already inflated.  He has `.wav`, `.mp3`, `.wma`,
whatever RealPlayer uses.  He has a dozen extensions for playlist.  A
dozen extensions for movies.  We want make much difference with a few
more extensions for Joe Above Average that does know what extensions
are.  And Joe average that doesn't - he won't see extensions at all!
So why should we worry about these users?  For once, I appreciate M$'
decision about hiding extensions - it relieves the developer from
catering to the illiterate users masses.  Let's choose extensions only
for those who understand and care!


-- 
Beni Cherniavsky <cben at tx.technion.ac.il>

--- >8 ----
List archives:  http://www.xiph.org/archives/
Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/
To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'vorbis-request at xiph.org'
containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body.  No subject is needed.
Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.