Disappointed in DT4 lack of writing/note taking features

DEVONthink
21

Just my 0,02€: WYSIWYG is, imo, mute in the context of HTML. The concept originated in the print industry, where you have fixed paper sizes, white background, the fonts were determined by the layout etc.

With HTML, there is no fixed display size. Nor can you even be sure that the user will use the same fonts as you did. Or in the same size. They may even decide to use a dark-on-light mode.

What you might want to have with DT is that it uses “kind of the same settings” in edit as in preview mode. But that will probably not work in every situation with every CSS employed for rendering the MD. Imagine before:: pseudo-elements in the CSS. Or numbered headings.

Instead of clinging to a useless buzzword, it might be more productive to suggest those points were improvements are felt to be needed and sensible. I don’t see the point in pimping the editor until it displays the HTML as it would be rendered by the CSS.

A “modern” editor, in my opinion, is much more about functionality (eg advanced search/replace options) than about videos noise. But then I’m one of these “coding people” and find much of the visual stuff distracting when I write. For which I use VS Code nowadays.

1 Like
22

thanks, @chrillek .

first, your post reads like addressed equally to DT-team (who actually introduced WYSIWYG as term, even in UI) as to me.
saying that bec I want to talk about substance, and too often these discussions here are derailed by slight ad personam drifts.

also saying this, bec I agree large parts.
I also would prefer to talk about a ‘modern MD-editor’, especially as relates to its functioning in the DT-environment.

but then, there is no shortage in the forum about (me or others) having raised concrete points of improvement. and often you were present for those discussions, I remember. but in my long experience (almost) any proposition raised was mostly matched by a ‘principled answer’ or ‘stance’: either along the lines ‘it works for me’, ‘this is the way an MD editor should function’, ‘DT is not a notetaker’, ‘go look for external editors, if you want (x)’ with x = anything.

happy if you point me to discussions that have escaped this ‘generalization’/‘totalization’/‘personalization’ bias.
in that light, the current improvements were a pleasant surprise to me, esp as these things never seemed to have registered in the many different forum discussions (as to my impression)

then, deeply agreeing with your (hinted) sentiment that improvements are (should be) – of course – about functionality as about UX (actually this is not mutually exclusive, anyways)

so, as to the new improved editor, as I already said, my (very personal) expectation would be that a WYSIWYG, ‘modern’, ‘adequate’ whatever quality includes:

  1. hiding/ separate coloring of markup
  2. separate font-setting for headings

and, I would add now, as little luxury :slightly_smiling_face:
3) being able to define paragraph spacing.

– all that as part of the ‘editing – = writing – experience’, which is basically what these discussions are really about.

(also, the OP mentioned toggling headings, which I think is ‘super luxury’ :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:)

I also pointed to the Ulysses editor-theming…

so, would be happy if, finally, things like this are discussed in a concrete, open, non-dualistic, and non escalating/disparraging way… :grinning_face:

let’s see.

PS-edit @chrillek: – on a personal / terminological note: there is the ‘extended sense’ of WYSIWYG ‘metaphorically’ blending the old type-oriented scenario to the digital interface–and-document-scenario. and as language and terms ‘live’ a lot of people (and actually ‘experts’, resp established industry players) are using the term in an extended sense now.
Wikipedia:

Blockquote
WYSIWYG implies a user interface that allows the user to view something very similar to the result while the document is being created.

– actually, you yourself sometimes seem to use it like this.

Generally, though, I think such ‘labeling’ discussions are a good example of getting sidetracked in relation to obvious proposals/requests as to improvements in UX in editing + writing.

23

Well, version 4 includes several Markdown improvements suggested right here too, e.g.

  • synchronous scrolling in side-by-side mode
  • automatic updating of preview in side-by-side mode
  • settings for font, margins & line spacing
  • WYSIWYG images & links

We consider almost every request but some have a much higher priority than others and many will never make it into the app. Even if we had the time & resources because that would create one hell of a bloated app :slight_smile:

5 Likes
24

I appreciate(d) that.

so, that is – out of the question – plainly good.
it helps me a lot.

I just tried to make sense of threads like this one. and I was explicitly referring to ‘discussions’ and acknowledgements (in the forum) – while simultaneously lauding the practical progress now introduced (what you bring up once more).

so, therefore, I only pointed to:
a) some ambiguities in labeling and description (like ‘WYSIWYG’; see also @chrillek s argument)
b) dissonances between those very improvements and the way ideas / proposals – which, as you say, have flown into this – have been and still are met in the forums (most of the time). there seems to be a huge disconnect
c) the need to acknowledge the real tension btw DT as an often de-facto (and actively scaffolded) notetaking environment and its reluctance to embrace such a role / reality or acknowledge the challenges in discussion (opting often either for non-acknowledgement or sometimes pseudo-concrete ‘arguing against’ on ‘principles’ … which luckily, just have been slightly reformed)

… and I made hands-on proposals, like @chrillek also asked for, in another turn… :grinning_face:

I’d also strongly oppose a notion that editor improvements are equal to ‘feature bloat’ :grinning_face:

25

Likewise others would prefer a full-blown PDF editor, better image editing, real spreadsheets with support for formulas, better automation and of course even more AI possibilities :wink: Usually we try to improve most aspects of the app instead of focusing all resources on one.

2 Likes
26

I get the resource argument
I reacted to the real communication linking this discussion of editor improvements to feature bloat.

… and a lot, obviously, is about communication here :wink:

27

I generally write in other apps, primarily Mellel. Generally, I keep the files in DT whether or not I edit them with DT’s native editor.

Devonthink’s editor always outshines external editors in a couple of categories. That may not make it your choice, of course.

When you open a document in a separate window, you have access to adjust Devonthink tags without leaving the edit window.

Links automatically search for targets as you enter them. Transclusions, too.

You can open the inspector pane in each document you have open in its own window. Links, backlinks, and see-also are there per open document.

I’m still gimping along in DT3, getting closer to the once-farsical goal of getting a new Mac, so I can run a new OS, so I can run DT4.

I’m surprised the AI node graph hasn’t gotten more mention. I haven’t seen it first hand so I’m trying to keep hopes in check. I’m all for that kind of AI.

Generative AI is cool, too, just so long as it can be defeated thoroughly without any possibility of it intruding. Keep off my lawn, that sort of old guy thing, that’s my take on generative AI in a nutshell, possibly with emphasis on “nut”.

3 Likes
28

The only bit I agree with in the original post is “ For document organization and archiving, DEVONthink remains unmatched” and long may it remain that way.

A multipurpose tool is never as good as a specialised tool for a particular job. DEVONthink is the tool at the heart of my iMac and as such is indispensable.

Major updates to DEVONthink will be necessary from time to time as Apple improves and changes the underlying operating system but the core capabilities of DEVONthink should remain substantially the same.

3 Likes
29

Agree that DT should guard its core functionality of storing and organizing.

And nobody, I think, questions that as core.

but then there is also the ‘work with your documents part’ also part of ‘core functionality’ – at least according to DTs self-description: " DEVONthink # Store, Organize, Work" – with the details on “work” being given as:
" Take notes, e.g., as Markdown, plain text, or rich text documents. Add thoughts, observations, or references to your documents as annotations.
Edit documents in supported formats directly in DEVONthink or open them in other apps of your choice."
– that’s all heading 1 and page 1 of the DT website & self-presentation!

that being stated, I think it’s fair to also discuss it, what it means, how things can be improved from user perspective. … especially in light of changes to document culture and its practices itself all around us.
this still leaves room to disagree w/ individual points raised.

but I find this back-and-forth btw overly technical, fast-changing and overly ‘principled’ refutations, w/o ever discussing the specifics being raised, a little unhelpful – and irritating.
nobody would for example say (or support) the notion that the full-scale introduction of generative AI text manipulation or transcription in DT ‘threatens’ its ‘storing & organizing’ paradigm, or constitutes ‘feature bloat’ – even though other outside apps for this exist, just as well.

I think it’s kind of interesting – and indicative – that whenever the inherent note-taking and editing experience of DT is discussed, that proportionality goes out of the window.
… and everything else is discussed but concrete points related to editing/writing/note-taking experience …

(the question of images as documents, and their organization, also raised by OP, is a whole 'nother field; but also an interesting and wortwhile one for “document culture”.

these things should be discussable w/o anyone feeling threatened. or think DT is threatened…

30

And that is our intent and trajectory as well.

3 Likes
31

It’s 1-click to open a document in the editor of choice. Edit, save, and it’s ready to be filed in the most suitable location, manually or by suggestion, and then later retrieved from the haystack by a superb search system.

2 Likes
32

I just want to say that if we could have something close to markedit app inside DEVONthink, this would be a mind blowing solution.

33

Sadly, Markedit is GitHub markdown, not multimarkdown which DT supports in full.

34

For me, one of the key benefits of DEVONthink is not having to open separate files in separate editors. Yes, you can easily open a document in another editor. But working simultaneously with multiple docs like this is much clumsier than “one click”. Each edit becomes a multistep process: open the file, find where I was reading, make the edit, save the file, return to DT, repeat.

Instead, editing within DT is what allows DT to shine. The superpower of DT is that I can jump among all of the text documents in my database and edit them on the fly. I can focus on the content instead of the document management. This kind of multi-document work is why I use DT.

I rely on the RTF editor, which uses Apple’s TextEdit code. And alas that code is getting pretty hoary. I hope one day Apple (or Devon Tech…?) can give it some love. A more modern and elegant RTF editor, for me, would be more revolutionary to my workflow than AI. :wink:

8 Likes