Interface Suggestions

I’ve been using iOrganize as my main notebook, but I’m considering moving over to DEVONthink. However, I have issues with a number of small but crucial interface quirks I wish the developers would address:

  • Preference for hiding/showing the odd bottom “toolbar”. I’m using an iBook with limited screen resolution, and I’d rather have that area display more of my documents.  Why force me to look at a status bar if I don’t want to look at it?

  • Preference for setting the default HTML font. I can do this in Safari, so I should be able to do it in any app that uses the Safari WebKit engine, no?

  • Preference for single brower window operation, ala the Finder. I’d like to be able to double click a folder and have it open in the same browser window.

  • Preference for setting the font in the file list.  I’d personally prefer a smaller font.

  • Streamline the dock icon menu. Everything but the "New from Clipboard" submenu should be eliminated.  If I want to create a new blank document (not from the clipboard contents), why would I want to do that from the dock icon menu?  The whole purpose of the dock icon menu is for doing operations without switching to the app in question.

With some interface streamlining and options, this could become the best of breed notebook on the platform.

While DT definitely seems like it has much more “power” than iOrganize, if I’m going to use an app as my main window into my information, I’m going to be spending a lot of time in that app.  And so a smooth, simple, and useable interface becomes more important than “power” to me.

Also, I’d advise reducing the price slightly, maybe by 25%.  I’d suggest DN $15, DT $30, DT Pro $85.  But I’ll leave that decision up to the developers’ wisdom.  Implement the interface improvements, and I’d personally pay $40 with joy.

Thanks for the feedback, Steven P. Jobs :wink:

An option to “browse in place” will be added to version 1.9 and the possibility to customize fonts to a future release (can’t be more specific because this has a very low priority at the moment).

The Dock menu on the other hand provides commands requested by users. However, the next release (1.8.2) will further decrease the need to use this menu as there will be a floating panel (e.g. usable as a drag & drop destination).

And maybe the odd bottom “toolbar” will be collapsable in the future (as some users even want an extended “toolbar” for example - it’s difficult to fulfill all requests). Likely in version 1.9 too.

Finally, we think that the price is right - if you’re using it as an information manager, then DT is actually quite cheap but if you’re using it as a notepad, then it might be expensive and DEVONnote would be a better alternative.

Just curious - why should DEVONnote be cheaper than iOrganize although it provides more power and features?

Thanks for the feedback, Steven P. Jobs

no problem.  it’s always nice to take a few moments out of my busy Pixar schedule.  since you invited me to the forums here, i thought i’d go into depth on my suggestions, and tell you to keep up the good work, Christian.  implement everything correctly, and i’ll send you 25 XServes.

An option to “browse in place” will be added to version 1.9 and the possibility to customize fonts to a future release (can’t be more specific because this has a very low priority at the moment).

"Browse in Place" certainly would answer one of my suggestions.

My two cents are that you should place a higher priority on simple interface customization like font sizes.  

One of the compelling and unique features of DT to me is the HTML rendering.  But the font size specified in most web pages tends to be MUCH larger than I like.  So I’m forced to “Open Externally” DT web pages in Safari, which defeats much of appeal for me on viewing inline in notepad view.

I would think something like this would be so trivial to implement compared to the amount it would enhance the user experience for DT users that it would be a no-brainer.  But that’s just my two cents.

Likewise, making the font size in the font list be customizable seems almost comically trivial to implement, but would greatly improve the experience for many of your customers.  My eyes can handle 10pt text, so I’d be able to see MANY more entries in the right pane of the notepad view.  Most other (even very primitive) notebook apps have such such a preference.

The Dock menu on the other hand provides commands requested by users. However, the next release (1.8.2) will further decrease the need to use this menu as there will be a floating panel (e.g. usable as a drag & drop destination).

This is a pretty low item on my list of complaints (I mean suggestions…).  Just in keeping with some basic UI theory, stuff in the dock menu should be reserved for operation that don’t require bringing the app frontmost.  Look at iOrganize for an absolutely perfect and streamlined dock icon menu.  

If I want to do something that requires bringing DT to the front, the dock icon menu seems a rather inelegant way to do that.

And maybe the odd bottom “toolbar” will be collapsable in the future (as some users even want an extended “toolbar” for example - it’s difficult to fulfill all requests). Likely in version 1.9 too.

I keep returning to the concept of why I should HAVE to stare at an interface element I don’t want to look at.  I’m guessing I’m not the only one who’d prefer a more iOrganize-style simplicity of interface, where I’m looking at my entry titles on the left, and my entry contents on the right, with no extraneous elements to distract me.

More generally, a UI should be very obtrusive for newbies, to show them the app’s functions and power. But then as they become more proficient with the app, all that UI busyness should be able to be dismissed, leaving the user alone with his data, and no distractions.

And again, I’d imagine that implementation of a show/hide status bar pref would be quite trivial.


[b]Finally, we think that the price is right - if you’re using it as an information manager, then DT is actually quite cheap but if you’re using it as a notepad, then it might be expensive and DEVONnote would be a better alternative.

Just curious - why should DEVONnote be cheaper than iOrganize although it provides more power and features?[/b]

i almost wish i’d avoided the pricing issue in the first place.  a correct pricing structure is what brings in the greatest revenue for your company.  If it were my company, (and it ain’t) i’d kill DN, sell DT at $25 to compete with iOrganize/Alepin/MonkeyPad, etc, etc.  And I’d sell DT Pro at $100 for the folks for whom it’s cheap at any price.

But I have no dog in that fight.


One further note for you.  With all props I give to you for the work you’ve done on DT, I respectfully suggest you could learn some interface usability from the humble iOrganize.  As you’re well aware, the import/export is atrocious.  And while the search works, it’s not as nice as the DT search.  But the dock icon menu is more usable.  The favorites drawer is quite handy.  And The ability to view my data in a window customized to my needs and wants counts for a lot for many users.  I can set the entry list font size to determine how many entries to see vertically.  Not even to mention how much speedier iOrganize can load an RTF or TXT for viewing.

Interface should be extensive and overgrown for new users.  But eventually power users want to drawback the interface and be faced with a spare view of their data without extraneous distractions.  iOrganize does this perfectly.  Alepin is also a champ at this, despite lacking a search and a dock icon menu.

In DT, I often feel like I’m fighting the interface, and I don’t think that’s merely a learning curve issue at this point.

At the end of the day, the more comfortable I’d be spending lots of time in DT to write and read, with an interface I don’t even have to think about, the happier I’d be with the app, and the more likely I’d be (and others like me, I’d guess) to throw over the Alepins and ScrapitPros and iOrganizes.

Don’t forget that many folks end up on the Mac platform specifially because they value interface over power.

Best,
-Petey

I do agree that the interface could be tightened. A text formatting/styles drawer (as opposed to palette) would be nice for those who create documents in DT, as would in-document outlining (and outlining keyboard shortcuts). The webpage sucking is a feature I’m very much looking forward to, as are better browser controls. If DT is to be considered an information manager, I think DT should include commenting/annotations on any kind of document (RTF, webpage, PDF) in the database, as well as a more granular approach to wiki linking, and there has been some discussion on these topics in another thread in these forums.

As I see it, DT does (or purports to do) some pretty unique things. It’s not exactly a notepad app, though it can be used as one. It’s more of an information manager, but one that works and organizes like a notepad app.

DT won’t, in my opinion, really define itself as an application until 2.0. This isn’t a criticism of DT–I think most apps are this way. There are times when I feel I don’t really “get” DT–it’s not clear to me whether it’s a place to keep stuff or a place to create stuff–it doesn’t do either as well as separate apps which do those things specifically. DT kind of operates in a space between application genres, and as it becomes more full-featured, will [hopefully] incorporate more of the kinds of controls and features that users of more conventionally-defined applications know and need to continue, within DT, the work they already do in other apps.

For the moment I just put everything into DT with the faith that it’ll eventually (and hopefully soon) become the app that I need it to become. It’s clear that I need a central repository for data I create and stumble upon, and it’s clear that I need to be able to comment on that data and create data, and it’s clear that I need a way to search and relate that data efficiently. DT does some of these things, but I still rely on other apps: Acrobat for commenting and webcapture, Safari for web browsing, OmniOutliner for outlining, etc. So for me, DT is a pretty expensive scrapbook that kind of works like a notepad (or a pretty expensive notepad that kind of works like a scrapbook), but I see the price I paid for both DT and DA as an investment in DEVON’s technology, which I think and hope will suit me well in the long-term, especially if the application “space” which defines DT expands, as already mentioned, to include the salient features from the apps I just mentioned (with an interface that makes sense out of the consolidation of such apps).

I agee with the postings in this topic very much – I too think that the DT interface needs to become more streamlined. In general, I am less interested in new features than I am in more transparency. As is well-known, I cannot wait for automatic wiki linking, as I desperately want to avoid having to interact with the app to make links. Similarly, it bugs me no end how much windowing, palletting, and so on I have to do to change font size for documents.

I think there’s probably a schism at work between two types of DT users – people who are sucking content into DT, using it as the aforementioned information manager, and people who are creating content in DT, using DT as a ‘writer’s tool.’ It must be crazy trying to make an app that fulfills such disparate needs! In that spirit I’d also respectfully suggest that interface tweaking, and making it easier to optimize and customize the interface, is really key, so that the app can accommodate its two basic constituencies. I haven’t used iOrganize in any serious way – my hobby horse notetaking app is VoodooPad – but both of those apps are characterized by interface transparency, which is a key feature for note-takers. By contrast, information-hoarders need easy access to many interface elements to make the app work quickly. My intuition as a former software project manager is that these two constituencies are really different, and a customizable interface, full of hidable and showable drawers, toolbars, etc., is the only way to make the app easy for everyone.

Maybe you already know this stuff! I love the program, but am also waiting anxiously for it to hit its stride, which for me is less about the undebrlying technology and is more about (a) transparency (automatic wiki linking! with keywords!) and (b) an easier interface. If DT 2.0 or Pro or 1.9 had a more transparent interface, I would gladly register again.

jrothman writes:

I haven’t used iOrganize in any serious way – my hobby horse notetaking app is VoodooPad – but both of those apps are characterized by interface transparency, which is a key feature for note-takers. By contrast, information-hoarders need easy access to many interface elements to make the app work quickly. My intuition as a former software project manager is that these two constituencies are really different, and a customizable interface, full of hidable and showable drawers, toolbars, etc., is the only way to make the app easy for everyone.

I couldn’t have said it better myself.


One more note:

As I mention above, I don’t read most of my HTML docs inline in DT because of the inability to set a default HTML font.  

I neglected to mention that I also don’t read most of my PDF docs inline in DT because of the inability to view with “Continuous Scrolling”, as is an option in Preview.  Add a Continuous Scrolling for PDF’s option to my wish list.


And lest there be any confusion, I offer criticism for DT precisely because I think it’s such a promising app.

I took a second look at SkinkHunt Notes today, which is the only other notebook I’m aware of that offers inline HTML and PDF viewing.  And it has the added advantage of directly storing its database as standard files in the Finder filesystem.

But good lord, does SkinkHunt have an awful interface.  All the little things are wrong.  Focus keeps jumping to a different place than you’d want it.  I’d never bother offering suggestions to its developers, as they obviously don’t have the first clue about how to create a decent UI.

That "odd" toolbar at the bottom of the page provides access to some of the tools that put DEVONthink many leagues ahead of apps such as iOrganize.

Yes, I want to look at the data. But the data isn’t just the item being displayed at the time. The “See Also” button is something I use a great deal, because DT can suggest to me items that may be interesting and relevant. Sometimes that offers surprising new insights into a topic.

The "Words" button lists the words used in the open item. Double-clicking on one opens the DT Search window, and is another way to explore topics. In the Search window, the buttons for similar words based on "Spelling" and "Context" can be very useful in exploring topics. Sometimes this helps add a whole new understanding of topics that I thought I already understood well.

The "Keywords" button produces results that still seem mysterious to me (why these words and not others), but this afternoon I got that Ah Ha! feeling from clicking on a couple of keywords for an item.

I’ve got no problem with making the bottom toolbar collapsible. I would keep it visible, because I use it frequently. And I will observe that DT users who don’t try out these features are missing much of the richness of DEVONthink.

I’ve got no problem with making the bottom toolbar collapsible. I would keep it visible, because I use it frequently.

Since I use the Address Bar in Safari infrequently, I keep it hidden, and only make it visible when I want to use it.  I appreciate having the choice.  Folks who use the Address Bar frequently would probably want to leave it visible, and would also appreciate having that choice.

The beauty of implementing easily implementable preferences is that it allows different people to use an application differently.  One size rarely fits all.

Here are a few more specific interface suggestions before I leave you alone, Christian.

These should be reasonably easy to implement:

  • Continuous PDF Scrolling.  I’m assuming that since this is an option in Preview, it’s built into the system PDF display engine, and would be easy to implement.

  • Retain Scroll Position.  In other words, if I’m looking at Entry 1, scroll halfway down, go look at Entry 2, and then return to Entry 1, I’d like to be put back at the same halfway down scroll position in Entry 1.

  • Move/Paste to Group with nested Group.  In other words, say I’m moving an entry to a different location using the contextual menu.  If I’m moving the entry to a group that has other groups nested within it, currently selecting the folder icon does not do anything.  Currently, you must burrow into that folder to select the arrow icon.  I’d like to be able to just select the enclosing folder icon to do the move.  This also applies to the New with Clipboard submenu of the dock icon.

  • New with Clipboard dock icon menu item.  In addition to the New with Clipboard dock icon submenu, I think there should be a simple menu item to create a new entry without having to deal with the submenu.

  • "Replicate To" Contextual Menu Submenu.  This would be just like the "Move To" submenu.

  • More Standard Terminology.  I’d suggest going from some idiosyncratic DT terminology to more familiar Finder terminology.  In other words, rename “Group” to “Folder” and “Replicate” to “Alias”.

These should be slightly more difficult to implement:

  • Favorites.  See iOrganize for a decent implementation of this concept.  Have a menu item, keyshortcut, and toolbar icon to select an entry as a favorite.  Have a drawer to display these favorites.

  • Address Book Entries.  I believe there is a system framework for display of Address Book Cards.  It would be nice to have the ability to have an Address Book Card as an entry.  You’d need to use the PeoplePicker to let folks select the card, of course.  See Crm4Mac for an example of an app that can show Address Book Cards.

And finally, of all the suggestions I’ve thown out, here are the ones that are the highest priority to me, in order of how much they would improve my personal experience with DEVONthink:

  • Ability to set a default font and font size for HTML documents.

  • Ability to set continuous scrolling for PDF documents.

  • Ability to hide the bottom toolbar.

  • Ability to Browse in Place.  (Glad to see you’re on board for this one.)

  • Ability to reduce/set the font size and font for the entry list in Note Pad view to view more entries.  (Upon reflection, I think this would probably require hiding the icons in the entry list.  Or more precisely, have no icon for entries, and just an arrow for groups.)

If I may add three more suggestion’s to pete’s list (other than the ones I’ve mentioned in this and other threads):

  • The ability to select text in a PDF: If we’re not going to see pdf commenting “for some time”, perhaps you can enable us to use, within DT, the pdf text/image/marquee selection tools that are available in Preview. This would allow us to at least take information from pdfs to use in separate  note documents for those pdfs.
  • Some kind of "label" (a la Finder) functionality for documents. I would like to be able to color document titles/thumbnails/etc to classify them. If you can implement this to work just like the finder, that would be fantastic (and would streamline the interface)
  • The ability to set “open with…” for each document (and perhaps the ability to change default settings). Sometimes I want to open a .pdf with Acrobat or a plain text file with BBEdit. Currently I have to show in finder then open with the desired app. Being able to set this on a per-document basis would be fantastic, since there are also some .pdfs I want to open in Preview (those within which I haven’t saved Acrobat comments).
  • The option to wrap text in both the document list (in notepad view) and the “see also” pane. Some of my document titles are necessarily long, and there are definitely times when viewing fewer whole-title documents is much preferred to viewing many truncated titles. This problem gets particularly bad when there are several nested groups. I know I could use a different window, but I’d much rather keep DT to one-window use, especially since I have to use it with other apps (i.e. easier to minimize one window than several).

Thanks.

I like the "Replicate To" Contextual Menu option very much.

But a Group of related items is much more meaningful than a mere Folder of items. Contextual recognition is one of the more awesome powers of DEVONthink, and it is enhanced or degraded, depending upon how well one groups related items. (Generally speaking, the Finder doesn’t care about grouping when new folders are created.) SO: Think groups, not folders – it’s important, really.

And a Replicant is not an alias. It IS the original file – and there’s more than one of it. That’s not the same as the Finder’s File/Alias distinction. The differences are meaningful, conceptually and operationally. Suppose, for example, that I’ve created two instances (replicants) of a file, then decide to delete one of them. Whichever one I delete, the other is still whole – so neither is an alias. :slight_smile:

Bill,

A Group of related items is much more meaningful than a mere Folder of items.

more meaningful than a folder or not, it still walks, talks, and quacks like a folder.

it’s got the folder icon. it’s got the folder disclosure triangle. when you export it to the Finder, it IS a folder. inside DT, it acts like a folder.

there’s an advantage to keeping your metaphors consistent. not only is it incredibly useful for newbies, but even experienced users tend to appreciate UI consistency across applications.

And a Replicant is not an alias. It IS the original file

you’re absolutely correct that a replicant isn’t identical to a Mac OS X alias. it’s much more like a UNIX hard link, which is kind of a cousin of an alias.

i guess i wouldn’t use “alias” for this after all.

Petey:

Let’s agree to disagree on the groups/folder issue. :slight_smile:

But newbies do need to understand that organizing material by relationships or meaningful (to the user) groups and sub-groups will make an enormous difference to the performance of DEVONthink as the database grows.

For example, if the organization of document storage in DEVONthink is well thought out and consistent when the newbie starts out, DEVONthink will become able to auto-classify new items with remarkable accuracy – it will become an intelligent assistant to the user. And those "see also" and "similar context" features can become mind-blowingly good.

DEVONthink isn’t the Finder; DT brings contextual recognition/pattern recognition features into play that are not available to the Finder. This means that, while a DT Group does look and quack like a Finder Folder, it is also capable of “behavior” that isn’t available to a Finder Folder. The UI metaphor doesn’t tell the whole story, or even the most important  parts of the story.

My DT database, if printed out on paper, would more than fill the entire cubic volume of my study. Fortunately, it all fits on the 60 GB HD in my TiBook. So it’s a storage medium and repository that occupies little physical space. I could export it to the Finder, and it would sit on my HD within Finder folders, still occupying little physical volume. But that collection of documents is incredibly more valuble and useful to me under DEVONthink than it would be under the Finder. Much of that value and utility comes from the initial grouping of related material in the database, which helps DT “make sense” of the material and become a very good research assistant.

Got a question about arsenic contamination of groundwater in Bangladesh? How about cheap and quick analyical techniques to test wells? What would be the public health results if surface water were used instead of contaminated groundwater (much worse, by the way)? What are some really cheap techniques to remove arsenic from drinking water? Should we expect similar groundwater problems in Nigeria? Or what about regional differences in nighttime conditions in airsheds concerning ozone formation?

I use DT as a knowledge manager to pull answers to these and a great many other topics. It’s often smart enough to suggest relationships drawn from different fields, in new and unexpected ways (sometimes it makes dumb suggestions, but so do I).

By the way, I do most of my writing in NoteTaker (Circus Ponies NoteBook also works well for me). NoteTaker and DEVONthink interface very well. I can initiate a DEVONthink search from within NoteTaker (or a NoteTaker search from within DT), and easily send text and/or graphics from DT to NoteTaker (or vice versa). I’m pleased with the print output and the PDF and HTML output from NoteTaker. But it would take a considerable staff of research assistants to substitute for what DEVONthink and it’s companion for Web searches, DEVONagent, do for me.

Bottom line: Start out with appropriate groups and sub-groups (or put things in appropriate folders, if you will). Your DEVONthink database will just get better and better, smarter and smarter from that point forward.

By the way, I do most of my writing in NoteTaker (Circus Ponies NoteBook also works well for me).

we have very different taste in applications.  i find the NoteTaker Twins to be worse than useless for my purposes.  you have much more patience for "busy" apps than i do.

It’s often smart enough to suggest relationships drawn from different fields, in new and unexpected ways (sometimes it makes dumb suggestions, but so do I).

while i suspect that a high percentage of the “enthusiast” users in these forums are interested in features like this, i also suspect that there’s a much larger market out there of folks like me, who don’t care much about these types of features.

i’m in the market for an iTunes for text.

i’m looking for an app that can handle lots of formats, has a clean and simple interface for viewing and organizing, and has a kickass search.

DEVONthink is pretty close to being that app - it’s got 2 1/2 out of 3 right.  it just needs some tweaking to make the interface a bit more clean and simple, especially for viewing.

unfortunately, i suspect Christian’s own interests in creating the app are closer to yours than mine.  but it’s a tribute to him that he’s managed to create something with the potential to satisfy us both.  i’ve just stopped by to remind him of the potentially large customer base of folks like me who highly value interface transparency (taken from jrothman’s nice formulation).

Petey,
I know exactly where you’re coming from, and up until very recently I largely agreed. The thought of trusting to features like See Also and Auto Classify made me nervous, and i had a tendency to dismiss them. Much like you, I just wanted to dump all my various documents (esp. outlines) and be able to find them quickly and cleanly. iTunes for text indeed. And as we French say, I haven’t kept my tongue in my pocket about criticizing DT.

I’m not so sure anymore. I’ve been exploring DT beyond my preconceptions lately and have found that “features like this” work amazingly well if the database is set up properly. I’m starting to see Bill’s point of view on this and I wonder if your distinction between “enthusiast” and “larger market” is not in fact the difference between Bill’s “God” and your “Newbie” on this forum. I suggest you forget Iorganize for a moment, give yourself a chance to get used to DT’s interface quirks, and actually USE the advanced features of DT.
Like me, you may be pleasantly surprised.

Who knows, you may become an enthusiast yourself.

If I may also suggest–

In notepad view, double-clicking a document in the document list should open the document in a new window without changing the focus of the notepad browser. This would allow one to easily open and review other documents without losing place in the document in which one is already working.

I’ve recently been jumping between documents quite a bit lately, and since DT doesn’t yet remember one’s last position in each document, I find myself wasting a lot of time moving back and forth, trying to find my place.

This reply combines feedback on several topics of interest discussed here.  Might have been easier had this been split across multiple threads.

And I’m the guy who mentioned in a comment to your DEVONthink feedback on VersionTracker that this forum was a good place to get developer and user feedback on comments/requests.  I see you dove right in here. :slight_smile:

[size=125]Re: Fonts sizes, PDF viewing[/size]

Minimally, I’d prefer smaller fonts for item lists in different views.
Yep, PDF viewing in DT is awkward.

[size=125]Re: "Replicate To" CM[/size]

Immediately useful; nice suggestion.  Maybe add “Duplicate To”, tho’ I’d use that less often.  As the interface evolves it may take some rethinking of what really belongs in the CM so it isn’t overloaded.  User-defined CM items would be ideal.

Btw, I’ll take credit for originally making the analogy of replicated DT items to UNIX hard links which has since been repeated a few times. :slight_smile:  That analogy is shaky for DT groups when compared with the behavior of hard linked UNIX directories.

[size=125]Re: Interface "transparency", etc.[/size]

Regardless of current UI shortcomings I’ve been satisfied with changes that have helped make DT easier and more comfortable for me.

I generally disagree.  An extensive, overgrown interface can be intimidating for new users, especially those with minimal background with computers.

I prefer starting with simple, sparse interfaces that I can quickly and “intuitively” master, then later extend with new functionality without compromising usability.  UIs have the tendency to increase in complexity as new features are added while only adding value for a decreasing percentage of users.  At times software seems like it’s growing mandatory, hardware-like appendages.  Is that bloatware phenomenon actually necessary or will it be reduced as software design/implementation improves?

Christian has said he intends keeping DT preferences to a minimum.  I favor that strategy as DT evolves if it means attention is given to making UI improvements without them.  Some developers would dismiss that possibility because it’s non-trivial (with “unspecialized” software for a wide diversity of users, like DT) and easier reverting to feeping creaturism in an attempt to satisfy as many customer wishes as possible.

[size=125]Re: iTunes for text[/size]

Including "smart groups" (also mentioned here and here)?

“iTunes for text” sounded a bit contradictory to what you (petey) wrote about wanting Group renamed to Folder (ick!).  Bill’s feedback eloquently parallels most of my own thoughts about that.  And I wouldn’t want iTunes playlists, iPhoto albums, or Gmail labels being called folders. :wink:

I use DT primarily as a data collector, which improves as an information manager with each release.  There’s a distinction between traditional file/folder hierarchies as limited data containers/organizers and DT, which is capable of transforming the same data into collections with more powerful informational views.

Right now DT groups mostly look and act like "folders", yet I already use them like "playlists" by moving replicate items to/from them.  I imagine eventually using results from searches, classify, see, etc. to construct "ephemeral" groups as temporary containers for items I want to focus on.

I’m thrilled that Google’s Gmail “conversations” offer a different way of organizing/viewing e-mail threads.  We’re overdue for more concepts like that to be brought into mainstream attention for widespread scrutiny and push the envelope of current UIs, whether or not “we” realize it yet? :wink:

And to finally wrap this up,

Threads like this are an example for why the forum is a great place to discuss likes/dislikes/wishes for DT.  Distillation of key ideas into off-forum “reference material” can have more long-term benefits than topics that remain trapped here, destined to be covered again later in new threads by folks who’ll never read the original ones ('cept possibly via links).  Refinement of previous ideas/topics is more fun, interesting, and productive than duplicating them.  More about that after the DEVONtechnologies web site is redesigned this summer…

This has been already modified in the latest build.

I’ll get back to all the other feedback soon - have to implement a completely new “History” panel first and iron out the remaining DT Pro scripting bugs :wink:

Agreed.  It’s probably not obvious, but that relates to my suggestion to have a method of selecting link and HTML items without WebKit rendering them.  The delay often isn’t long enough to stop the “distracting” rendering when all I want to do is select and delete something.  There’s a “number of clicks vs. item type” issue that ain’t always right.

More generally, transitions between different select/focus/move/navigate/open/view “states” are still bumpy and if it weren’t for a few changes Christian’s made I probably would have found it intolerable by now.  I’ve adjusted to DT’s “quicks” as much as possible yet still can’t always anticipate how it’ll behave in response to certain basic interactions with it, which is an important criteria for how comfortable I am with an application.

I suspect a similar “browser-like” quality of usability is what petey and others are struggling with, too.  Obviously it’s impossible anticipating how everyone (including yourself :slight_smile:) will use an app but I’m sure we’d find a large degrees of some consensus on several issues, some which I know Christian is already aware of.

Thanks!  Glad that’s fixed since it had become an increasingly annoying issue without any workaround.