Well, I only recently subscribed to this mailing list and do not know all the history of this extension debate (I passed up on reading the hundreds of messages that seem to have been written about this topic). 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. I really see only one way to allow the user to differentiate between audio and video files: using a different file extension. At the same time this would solve issues like the filtering for file type in P2P networks as has already be mentioned on this mailing list. .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. 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. I apologize if I have restated arguments that were already brought up (looking at the amount of mails there is a pretty high probability that I have done that). I just thought you might want to know the point of view of our commercial "we need the average user to understand" side of the issue. --- >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@xiph.org' containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body. No subject is needed. Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.
Beni Cherniavsky
2003-Jul-17 00:53 UTC
AW: [vorbis] Why the commotion about file extensions?
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@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@xiph.org' containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body. No subject is needed. Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.