Non-intuitive term "Move to trash"

[mati]

Binary package hint: nautilus

When browsing through file context menu, I've noticed that I couldn't find a command to delete it. Only after examining each item, I found "Move to trash".

IMHO it's unintuitive. An user doesn't want to move a file/folder, but to remove it (the fact that there's an undo - a trash, shouldn't change the terminology). The term "move" misses what user wants to do.

Simple "Delete" would be *much easier to spot*, especially when the menu has many items (16 in my case). It would be simpler and it would be shorter.

When user enables permanent deleting in preferences, the term could be "Delete permanently".

The issue was already raised many times before in some places
(e.g. http://<email address hidden>/msg03430.html - see 4. "Move to Trash"
or http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1007979 - task "Search sample document from a specific option, delete and then restore it.") but no action was taken.

[ShawnJGoff (shawnjgoff)]

This is certainly worth discussing.

[Twisted Lincoln, Inc. (twistedlincoln)]

I totally disagree. First off, there are are good number of people in the Windows world that think "delete" means "gone forever." I've seen quite a few people that have no idea what the recycle bin does, and are shocked to find their files are still there. We don't want to have the same issues here.

Secondly, "delete permanently" as a description for the direct removal method is a bit misleading. All that option does is remove the hardlink to the inode -- it doesn't actually wipe the disk space the way the "wipe" command does. As a result, it is often possible to recover a "deleted" file. Having the label suggest that the item is gone permanently gives a false sense of security.

[mati (mati-wroc)]

Twisted Lincoln, Inc.:

Ad. 1. Default installation contains the trash in a panel, so that should do the "teaching" stuff, but... I'm pretty sure that Windows has a recycle bin too! And 99% of Windows users is familiar with a concept :)

Ad. 2. I'm not good in English, but since I haven't seen an easy ext3/ext4 file recovery tool, and the item isn't named "Delete securely", IMHO this would be a good term. I don't use that option, so maybe there are better ideas.

[Aryeh Gregor (simetrical+launchpad)]

I have a friend who uses a Linux computer occasionally, and he complained it wasn't very usable. I asked him for an example, and he said that when he wanted to delete a file, he right-clicked and couldn't find any option to do it. He's not very computer-savvy and didn't think of trying other ways (like hitting the "Delete" key), so he blamed Linux. I'm glad to see someone else agrees that this is a problem.

The problem is that people expect to see "Delete" and will look for it; they might not spot "Move to Trash" at all, or if they do, they might be unsure what it does. It makes it less clear that the file is easily recoverable, but that's not an advantage for users who can't find the option to begin with. The sort of user who doesn't know what the Recycling Bin/Trash is is exactly the sort of user who will probably get confused if standard options' names change.

We have at least three anecdotal accounts of confusion over "Move to Trash" and even a usability study, so IMO the evidence is firmly on the side of using "Delete". This could always be changed back later if it causes demonstrable problems; apparently they aren't significant enough for other OSes to change the terminology.

(Konqueror (KDE) seems to use "Move to Trash" as well, FWIW, but Thunar (Xfce) uses "Delete", and so does every version of Windows AFAIK. What does Mac do, out of curiosity? I'd bet "Delete".)

[Danielle Foré (danrabbit)]

@ Aryeh Gregor

Mac OS uses "Move to Trash"

I don't believe it would be the correct decision in this case to "do what Windows does". This is just one of those things where users have been trained to do it a weird way. I'd argue that people coming from a Mac would say "oh noes why will it delete, what if I want it back later?"

[markba (mark-baaijens)]

> I don't believe it would be the correct decision
> in this case to "do what Windows does

Well, in fact, 'Delete' in Windows *actually* means 'Move to trash', because that is what is does. If we take it this way, we could say that only Windows is not intuitive (not describing what it actually does), and Ubuntu and Mac do the job well. But because everyone is 'trained' in Windows, I guess we take that for granted. Kind of a paradox.

BTW, in Windows Shift+Delete bypasses the trashbin.

[Matthew Paul Thomas (mpt)]

In the original usability@ mailing list thread, I cited this ridiculousness from Microsoft, and it bears repeating: "When you delete a file or folder, the file or folder is not deleted right away." <http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows-vista/Delete-a-file-or-folder> Whatever we do, it shouldn't be that.

This might be a case where we have to suck it up and suffer unfamiliarity for the sake of truthfulness. Maybe, though, there are other things we can do to make the item easier to see. One would be shortening the menu, for example by removing the "Send To..." item, and removing the separator between "Open" and "Open With". Another would be putting the item towards the bottom of the menu (where a terminal item would logically go), rather than in the middle.

[Aryeh Gregor (simetrical+launchpad)]

There are two obvious choices:

1) Use "Move to Trash". This will confuse some users initially, and therefore cause a bad first impression. However, regular Ubuntu users will be more likely to understand what deletion actually does.

2) Use "Delete". Users used to Windows will have an easier time, creating a better first impression. However, regular Ubuntu users will be more likely to assume that deletion from Nautilus is irreversible.

Right now, IMO, we need to put top priority on first impressions. It's much better for a user to not know about the Trash, than to not use Ubuntu at all. Little things like this do add up and create an overall impression that Linux isn't as easy to use as Windows -- that's what Hundred Paper Cuts is all about.

In the long run, Bug #1 should be fixed, and then we can switch back to correct terminology and educate users with nothing lost. Also, the concept of Trash should become obsolete in two or three years with a switch to btrfs and snapshotting. So I would suggest that we switch to "Delete" for the time being and see what happens. We can always switch back later with nothing lost.

This is assuming we only have two options, though. What if we used "Delete", but gave a strong visual cue that the file was going to the Trash? For instance, have the icon shrink and fly over to the Trash icon in the corner, like when a window minimizes in some setups? This would possibly be the best of both worlds, but might make it too hard to do to really be a paper cut.

[Alex K (levviathor)]

I'm in favor of the solution presented by post #7. The solution is not to change the name (delete isn't a whole lot easier to see, in my experience) but to fix the context menu. Clearing out cruft and moving "Move to trash" to the bottom of the list gets my vote.

[Twisted Lincoln, Inc. (twistedlincoln)]

If "Move to Trash" is changed to "Delete" (which, as I stated above, it shouldn't be), PLEASE make this a changeable text via gconf. That way those of us who have users that do understand the distinction between "delete" and "move to trash" don't have to deal with an unintuitive and inconsistent interface...

[Tomasz Chrzczonowicz (tch)]

Since "Delete" is lying and "Move to trash" is correct, but awkward, how about something else?

*Trash (it)
*Discard
*Put (file/it) in trash
*Throw away

[mati (mati-wroc)]

"Delete" isn't lying, it's correct. Trash is just a name for the "undo" engine.

The "Cut" operation in text editor isn't named "Move to the clipboard", right?

[Tomasz Chrzczonowicz (tch)]

Deleting a file means removing it from filesystem, not moving it around.

[Tomasz Chrzczonowicz (tch)]

"Cut" operation is a metaphor and so is "Trash". Deletion much less so.

[Aryeh Gregor (simetrical+launchpad)]

The only reason to use "Delete" is because users are familiar with it from other platforms, IMO. I don't think "Move to Trash" is awkward, it's just that it will add to Windows users' confusion when using Linux for the first time, and right now that's a bad thing.

"Delete" isn't lying, either, but it's misleading. Many users will expect that the file is gone forever. "Move to Trash" is a clear hint that the file isn't really gone. "Cut" is different because it has a conventional meaning that users are familiar with -- no one will mistake "cut" for "delete forever". This isn't an issue of dictionary definitions, it's a matter of user expectations.

So it's a tradeoff. I think the tradeoff right now tilts strongly in favor of usability for Windows users, and we should use "Delete" for now but reconsider the issue when our overall usability is good enough that we can sacrifice a few things like this (like Mac can). For now it's a very easy-to-implement usability fix that has only a minor downside.

[phoinx (phoinx)]

Just let the term be customized/changed then!

[Todd Zankich (tzankich)]

Does anyone ever say this in an office setting: "Hey George, where'd you put the file I was looking at this morning?"

"Oh, that one? I moved it to the trash. But I can restore it."

No, of course not. That's stupid. If anyone said that I'd think they were an idiot. So why does my OS come off that way, especially one that got almost everything else so right, to the point where I am continually amazed? It makes me feel sad and disgusted.

Congrats for not flat-out copying Microsoft, but is copying Apple any better? As someone who has had to use a Mac for almost 2 years at work, I'm absolutely positive that OSX is not an extremely worthy model to imitate, either.

We don't need a system of metaphors designed to completely obfuscate the terms that have evolved to describe things most accurately already. On a computer when you get rid of a file, regardless of any potential holding bin, the concept is that you have decided to part with it forever. That fact that it can still be restored, somehow, is NOT a conscious part of the workflow at hand. It is merely an artifact of the virtual nature of computers. A file can be restored, sure, but that fact exists outside of the conscious workflow. So why does my OS make me consider irrelevant information?

The fact that computers are virtual and operations can be reversed or undone is immaterial. If you're working on a song, you can delete a note. If you're writing a story, you can delete a paragraph. Conceptually, it's gone at that point, erased from your conscious work. Likewise, you can delete/erase/remove/discard a file, in terms of a file management app. It's NOT a movement or a relocation, conceptually.

The operation I have in mind when I throw something out is not to store it. It's to DISCARD it, generally forever. I'm DONE with it. It's no longer in the picture. "Move to trash" by no means describes what I'm doing. For all I care, the janitor can take whatever I put in there, and haul it away, all without any further consideration from me. (Besides, trash cans in real life have discarded gum and tissues. Sick!) So aside from just being irrelevant, the metaphor being used doesn't even correctly describe the situation.

It's a unix system, so maybe the item should be "Remove file." That'd be fine. "Delete" is fine, too. It corresponds with the "undelete" operation. The reverse operation of remove would be "restore."

[Jeremy Orme (uc-jer4mh-f0)]

I agree with Todd. When you want to delete something you don't expect to want it back - otherwise you'd move it somewhere specific or rename it - when you delete an item, you want rid of it (even if your future self might want it back!). Also, isn't there an inconsistency with hitting the "Delete" button on the keyboard to move an item into the trash but having to select "Move to trash" from the menu? Finally, I think that the concept that you can get your deleted files back out of the waste basket is pretty well known (even by inexperienced users) because the recycle bin / trash folder has been around for so long so why inconvenience the 99% that do understand this principle to maybe educate the 1% that don't.

[Sebastien Bacher (seb128)]

upstream closed the bug with that comment "I think this is pretty straightforward. OS X uses the same phrase."