Finding and Reminding
File Organization from the Desktop
Deborah Barreau and Bonnie A. Nardi
This paper summarizes and synthesizes two independent studies of
the ways users organize and flnd files on their computers. The first
study (Barreau 1995) investigated inJbrmation organization
practices among users of DOS, W~ndows and 0S/2. The second
study (Nardi, Anderson and Erickson 1995), examined the find-
ing and filing practices of Macintosh users. There were more simi-
larities in the two studies than differences. UJers in both studies (1)
pre~rred location-based finding because of its crucial reminding
function; (2) avoided elaborate filing schemes; (3) archived rela-
tively little ins~rmation; and (4) worked with three ~ypes of ins~r-
marion: ephemeral, working and archived. A main di~rence
between the study populations was that the Macintosh users used
subdirectories to organize infbrmation and the DOS users did not.
Introduction
Though personal computers have become increasingly impor-
tant in the workplace for the last fifteen years, studies of file
organization in offices have focused on the organization and
use of paper documents (Cole 1982; Malone 1983; Suchman
and Wynn 1984; Lansdale 1988; Blomberg et al. 1994). What
about electronic files? The authors of this report became inter-
ested in electronic filing practices at almost the same time, and
each conducted her own independent study, unbeknownst to
the other. Nardi discovered Barreau's work (mentioned in the
SIGCHI Bulletin, October 1994) after she had completed her
study. She contacted Barreau and suggested a collaboration.
The differences in the two study populations presented a tan-
talizing opportunity for a comparative analysis: Barreau stud-
ied a mixed group of primarily DOS/Windows users who were
not computer experts (Barreau 1995) and Nardi studied Mac-
intosh users with considerable computer experience (Nardi,
Anderson and Erickson 1995). This reports presents our anal-
ysis of the similarities and differences in filing practices across
the two user populations.
But why should we be interested in electronic filing and finding
practices? The first reason is that filing and finding are such
basic aspects of working with computers that while we scarcely
notice their existence - hence the lack of research - every com-
puter user spends time and effort in filing and finding every
time the computer is used. As designers we should be con-
cerned with optimizing finding and filing. The second reason
for this work is that with the greater connectivity made possible
by networks and servers, we are all poised on the verge on hav-
ing to manage and find vastly more information than we have
been accustomed to. Or are we? This paper considers the con-
ventional wisdom about the supposed coming information
overload in light of the activities of the users in our studies.
File Organization in Electronic Environments: Two
Studies
In the spring of 1993, Barreau conducted a study of seven man-
agers to observe how they organized and retrieved information
from their electronic workspace (Barreau 1995). Interviews
with the managers were audiotaped and transcribed. The man-
agers were also asked to provide a tour of their electronic direc-
tories. The goal of the research was to identify the types of
documents used and to determine the factors affecting individ-
ual decisions to acquire, organize, maintain and retrieve infor-
mation. Managers were selected because they supervise
multiple and varied projects, requiring the organization and
retrieval of a variety of information types. Five of the managers
were employed in the same company, a large information man-
agement company. Four of these managers used DOS and one
SIGCHI Bulletin Volume 27, Number 3 July 1995 39

worked on a Macintosh. Another study participant was a
project manager in a research depar tment at a government
agency and used OS/2. The final manager was a research scien-
tist at a major corporat ion providing services to the govern-
ment. He used Windows 3.0, which was not unlike D O S in
the limitations o f an 8-character file name (plus a three charac-
ter extension). The OS/2 and Windows users were experienced
computer users; the other s tudy participants were relatively
unsophisticated users. All users were networked to servers.
Exclusive o f servers, the amoun t o f disk storage available to
these users varied considerably. The OS/2 and Windows users
had more than a gigabyte o f storage, while three o f the D O S
users had diskless workstations and stored their files on the
servers or on diskettes. One D O S user with a 120 MB hard
drive stored most o f his files on servers, and the Macintosh user
with 300 MB o f personal disk space made heavy use o f dis-
kettes. At the time of the s tudy diskettes were used by some
because they did not know how to transfer files to one another
using the LAN and some felt more secure with diskettes. (They
have since learned to transfer files electronically.)
In the winter o f 1994, Nardi conducted an interview study o f
fifteen Macintosh users, most Apple employees (Nardi, Ander-
son and Erickson 1995). Study participants included manag-
ers, graphic artists, programmers, administrative assistants and
librarians. Users were asked to provide a tour o f their systems,
and a structured set o f questions was asked in a conversational
style to elicit information about jobs and tasks as well as
approaches to organizing and finding files. The interviews were
videotaped in users' offices or cubicles to allow close observa-
tion o f the desktop and to watch users as the interviewer
requested them to find files observed during the tour. The
number o f files and amoun t o f storage users had varied from as
many as 31,000 files and as much as 1500 megabytes o f per-
sonal storage (plus servers additional) to as little as 2 ,400 files
and 80 megabytes available. All users were networked to serv-
ers. In this s tudy some users, such as the professional program-
mer, were extremely sophisticated computer users, and all were
experienced users. Two users were new to Apple and the Mac-
intosh at the time of the study (one formerly U N I X , one
DOS) . This s tudy group may represent a sophisticated popu-
lation o f users at the leading edge o f filing and finding prac-
tices.
Similarities and Differences Across the Two Studies
To our surprise, we found striking similarities across the two
study populations. The similarities were:
• A preference for location-based search for finding files;
• The critical reminding funct ion o f file placement;
• The use o f three types o f information: ephemeral, working
and archived;
• Lack o f importance o f archiving files.
The main difference across the two study groups was:
• Use ofsubdirectories
In the Macintosh study, all users employed subdirectories in
their filing schemes. In what we shall call the "mixed" study
(DOS, Windows, OS/2, Macintosh), only the two experienced
users and the Macintosh user used subdirectories. We will no t
dwell on this difference in the use ofsubdirectories as it may be
largely attributable to level o f experience and a statistical study
would be needed to establish such a correlation. It is intriguing
that the Macintosh user in the mixed study used subdirectories,
even though she was not an experienced user, suggesting that
the Macintosh interface to filing functionali ty may make the
use o f subdirectories more readily understandable. Statistical
t reatment o f this question is needed.
We look at each o f the similarities across the two studies in
detail. More subtle differences arising f rom the different user
interfaces are also noted.
Location-based Search
There are two basic strategies for finding files which we shall
call location-based and logical. In location-based finding, the
user takes a guess at the directory/folder or diskette where she
thinks a file might be located, goes to that location, and then
browses the list o f files or array o f icons in the location till she
finds the file she's looking for. The process is iterated as needed.
Whi le users prefer to be able to go to the correct location on
the first try, they often view the files in the target location by
date, by name, or by some other characteristic in order to iden-
tify the file f rom the list they are scanning. In logical finding, a
text-based search with keywords or file names is used to locate
the file with such utilities as "Find" on the Macintosh or
"whereis," a D O S utility.
In both studies, users overwhelmingly preferred location-based
search. In the mixed study, managers often depended on appli-
cations to provide the tools for selecting the desired files; that is,
files were stored in the default directory created by application
software. For example, a user would pu t all his graphics files in
the Harvard Graphics directory. Most users in the mixed study
were not computer experts, so when separate directories or
groups o f files were needed, they were likely to subdivide the
information by locating it on separate diskettes or in top level
directories. Barreau (i 995) reported that software applications
"were accessible f rom the root directory o f hard drives or in
p rominent places on the menus o f networks." Thus users wh o
did not use subdirectories still had convenient access to their
files. These users rarely performed maintenance operations on
their directories, preferring to use additional storage media
rather than to archive, delete, or compress data no longer used
with frequency.
Barreau (1995) reported that users in her s tudy preferred
browsing lists o f files rather than trying to remember exact file
names. They did not use text searching techniques or used
them very infrequently. In one interview sequence, for exam-
ple, a user was scanning a list o f files to retrieve a file she had
only created that morning, saying, " W h a t did [ call that file?"
Scanning the list to recognize the file name was easier than try-
ing to remember the exact name, despite the recency o f cre-
ation o f the file. While more research on this topic is needed,
we hypothesize that users prefer location-based filing because it
more actively engages the mind and body and imparts a greater
sense o f control (see Nardi, Anderson and Erickson, 1995).
Users seem to prefer to actively search for an actual file that
40 July 1995 Volume 27, Number 3 SIGCHI Bulletin