Here is one more vote for the return of the 3-pane-view.
I love DT for making things easier for me. The new interface, however, although it looks sleekly, is a step backwards in terms of productivity.
I would like to have a module-oriented, flexible interface like the one devised by Cocoatech for their file management solution Path Finder.
I’m moving a lot of files between the general inbox and their final destination, and it would be great, for instance, if DT offered a mini-inbox-module just for dragging and dropping between the different places.
Yes, I already have a lot of (or rather too many) Favorites in the sidebar …
If you don’t know Path Finder, please have a look at it. Maybe it’s inspring for DevonThink.
One thing that I really appreciate in Cocoatech’s approach is that you can choose one module almost as many times as you like. So I can have to preview windows, two sidebars and so on. Moreover, you can save the window arrangement in a set. I often switch between the sets to get the environment I need for my work. I love that.
Interesting how 3PV keeps coming up over and over. I won’t repeat what I have written in other threads, nor can I report any success in finding an adequate work around, but I would make the following observations:
The 3PV issue is pretty clearly impacting a lot of users, particularly if you consider some of the old rules of thumb regarding the ratios of those who care enough to participate in a public discussion vs those who just suffer in misery and/or say screw it and move on to other products. I am no marketing guy but I have heard ten or more people find something important for everyone who cares to directly communicate on an issue.
So far as I can tell, and please correct me if I am wrong, there is an unstated reason, either technical or of design philosophy, that makes this a hill the dev team is willing to die on (bet user retention.)
I would have no idea what might make killing off 3PV so important, but would note that in my own field of material science there are also issues of technical constraints and technical philosophies. Mother Nature is not malleable at times, but my own response to customers’ needs must be.
I have learned that I can indulge my technical philosophy internally to my work, but at the end of the day I need to deliver solutions that my customers are willing to pay for or I don’t keep them and the revenue they generate. If that means I add a feature or a configuration, or (my own pet bugaboo) need to communicate to them in their own jargon even if it makes me cringe inside at the lack of precision, so be it. I need to solve their problems so they will pay me the money that keeps the company alive.
DT3 reminds to another scientific related program that was “killed” by the developer without any reason.
First version was great. The 2nd version was the best one ever seen. The 3rd - and last one - killed it.
Maybe that’s a normal life cycle. Developers sometimes loose the perspective off the user: Blinky GUI beats usefullness.
I made the cut.
AND … My workflow is broken sind almost one year now !
What do you expect the users are doing meanwhile and don’t you take the role of DT serious enough ?
No company can afford such disruptions in essential operations.
Not all of us use the program exclusively privately and just sideline for fun.
Therefore you have unnecessarily promoted very fundamental questions regarding the software I/we use and whether one would like to afford such an effort for such a long time in the future again.
I don’t want to spend more time with all the pros here and discuss about new features and general data organization. Everything was fine and now I need to find out what to do best - change everything, new software, waiting!? Please help us.
My workflow is not usable and I expect a solution not only after one year (maybe)… maybe in the end I will find out, that all the waiting was in vain and I should have changed my setup earlier ?
I kindly ask you to hurry up with this or at least give some signals !
