Greetings to the dynamic community of DEVONthink! This is my first post on this community – I have read a lot of what’s here, but please be patient if I am asking things that are already addressed elsewhere. Essentially, I am wondering how my use case (developing a dissertation on architectural history) would best mobilize DEVONthink and Bookends in conjunction with either (a) TinderBox, or (b) Curio.
I am in that position right now of, using DEVONthink with the trial of both Tinderbox and Curio over the past month, and hesitating to commit to either of the two latter software. As I mentioned at the beginning, I am starting up a PhD project in architectural history. My project spreads across several periods and geographies, focussing on questions of connectivity. (Specifically, I am looking at the reception of a more syncretic [i.e. beyond Greek and Roman] antiquity at stake within nineteenth-century European architecture. Specifically looking at the reception of global archaeology, anthropology, and geology as forms of “deep history," which are (I am proposing) accounted for as a more “global” classicism within certain architectural texts and buildings produced in C19 France and Germany.) So it’s all about systems of connectivity, exchange, and portability.
TinderBox seems to have the long-term possibility of producing a synthetically networked repository of these inquiries into the movements of objects and patterns across geographies. But, at the moment, I do not understand TinderBox! However, what seems clear is that it has an extremely fine-grained ability to sort and tag and display timelines and mind maps and different views. I am a (hopelessly) visual thinker, so the potential to not only visual connections between objects and ideas, but to reframe the materials in terms of different relationships, seems extremely useful for my project.
This visual dimension is what attracts me, likewise, to Curio. (I saw in a Forum post that @kseggleton has chosen Curio over Tinderbox.) To me, Curio has the advantage of being more attractive to look at; more user-friendly, and, ultimately, more efficient to use, in the sense of not having to constantly deal with maintenance and tinkering in quite the same way as seems (??) to be necessary with Tinderbox. And yet: I sense that that Curio’s emphasis on individual pages (even with links) would perhaps not produce quite the same result of a fractal representation of exchanges, which is so appropriate to my project.
And BTW, I am posting this here because I have the sense that DEVONthink needs to be in the picture, and presumably users here have experience working across DEVONthink and either TinderBox or Curio. (And, admittedly, I wanted to address both @beck and @kseggleton, and they are both users of this particular forum, but they are not both members of either the TinderBox or Curio fora). If this seems to anyone more like a TinderBox question, then please say so and I will post over there instead.
Thank you so much for any thoughts and direction you can offer here! Especially links to reading or just any kind of advice would be great.
All my best,