Blogs

Why We Still Rely On (aka Like) Folders

By Lisa Ricciuti posted 10-31-2015 18:19

  

About two years ago I posted a blog on AIIM titled “Are Folders Still Necessary?” Much to my surprise, the post generated a lot of discussion inspiring me to pursue the topic.  I presented the topic twice at two separate conferences each time accompanied by lively, spirited discussion amongst the attendees. 

Using folders seems like a paper-based, antiquated method for organizing and retrieving information.  So why is it still so popular?  Why do people defend using folders so passionately, shaking their heads at alternative folderless systems that are more efficient and sustainable?  

What I’ve realized, through analyzing my own habits and from conversations with fellow professionals, is that people still rely on folders, and like them, for a few reasons. 

  1. They’re easy to create and use.  The folder, as a concept, is intuitive to understand.
  2. People, it seems, often rely on location as a primary way to find something once it’s been filed away.  We may not always remember what a folder is called, but we can remember that it’s about halfway down the list of options, or that it lives in the lower RH corner of the desktop, for example.  
  3. Folders offer a sense of security for many people.  Once a document or object is safely filed away into the confines of a folder, we maintain the impression that it can be found again because it lives in a designated place.  To some people, this also gives the impression that the document is unique because the title of the document becomes integrated with the folders under which it is filed. 

Folders are reliable in a way that feels comfortable and familiar for people.  Using metadata requires us to think about organizing, searching for, and retrieving information in a different way.  Rather than relying on the secure and known location of a folder to find something, we must rely on new skills focused on filtering or searching. 

Gmail, for example, doesn’t use folders.  Instead all email is organized with labels offering users the option of either leaving everything in the inbox with one or more labels attached, or moving emails to “label folders”.  Moving emails to “folders” is essentially filtering certain labels from displaying in the inbox.

 Both times I presented I felt very passionate and secure to say, no, folders are not necessary.  That was about 20 minutes before presenting.  About 5 minutes before presenting when I would create an untitled desktop folder to clear away active docs and shortcuts I would think, YES, absolutely necessary.  How else could I have cleaned everything up so quickly? 

Most of the time, however, I often find myself arriving at a qualified yes.  Yes folders are necessary, but not in the way we currently use them.  I would prefer a system more like the one used by Gmail where folders are really filters based on metadata values.  This type of system could appease both the die-hard folder advocates and those of use who wish to use a more robust, efficient, and sustainable way to manage records and information. 

What are your thoughts? 

 

 

 

 

2 comments
602 views

Permalink

Comments

11-05-2015 10:46

Hi, I think you capture it well in your last point - the issue is not about folders being good or bad. They are certainly an organization scheme with merits. The problem is more about the single dimension that the traditional file systems gives us to work with (and possibly our inability to break out of that mindset). Due to the physical constraint of the one dimension, we spend a lot of time coming up with hierarchical schemes (compromises between different points of view) and then struggle to get people to understand the scheme and use it properly. Given that we are dealing with electronic files, the one dimension constraint should be completely artificial. We care too much about “where” it is when that is the only avenue to find it. Why can’t we have virtual folders, virtual views, personal views, meta-data based views, tag based views, better search (facets), etc? Or will that just make a bigger mess (still need schemes, just flexible ones)? Seems tech needs to do some catch up (enter ECM I suppose).

11-05-2015 04:39

Hi Lisa,
There was an interesting discussion on this topic (and around this topic!) in the AIIM Global Community of Information Professionals LinkedIn Group (http://bit.ly/1Hb8vB0). Some interesting points raised
Regards
Steven