Request for a more appealing writing environment

[Varen]

Too many on this thread have misinterpreted a request for a “more attractive writing environment” as a suggestion that DT somehow put resources into creating a full-on word processor (or MD editor). No such thing was ever suggested.*

As creator of this thread, I’d like to point out (again) that absolutely no suggestion was made for anything more that a few simple tweaks to the writers view of RTF and other documents, not their output. This would make DT a more appealing place to write so people like myself could avoid using external editors.

I understand that some on here want to dismiss this suggestion by saying I (we) could use an external editor. To all of you… I’m glad that works for you but it doesn’t work for me. I don’t have the will or mindshare to learn different programs to accomplish a task one program should be good at. Is this really too much to ask for?

The only essential change (for me) would be generous white space between the edge of the document’s ruler and the edge of the window (including the top of the document) but there are endless ways DT could make the writer’s view more attractive without much programming effort.

After the big version 3 refresh, DevonThink is close to what I and others here would like to see… a single app that isn’t just powerful but a pleasure to use. It only needs a few tweaks not ‘reinvention of the wheel’.

[Blanc]

@jasonekratz

If they didn’t provide the tools this would all be moot.

That is actually a worry for me: removing functions is one possible way forward when users are unhappy with what is available. The way I see it (specifically only responding to this one point, whilst acknowledging that you made several more) is that DT excels at it’s main functions, and offers a couple more things at base level. I (and I speak only for myself) am happy for it to stay that way, as I acknowledge that the egg laying wool milk pig (yeah, that’s German) often doesn’t fulfil anybody’s needs. However, I don’t spend much time writing in DT, so of course I am biased. And yes, if I did spend more time doing so, I’d probably add a butterfly or something to my sea shell.
.

[rkaplan]

@Varen

The only essential change (for me) would be generous white space between the edge of the document’s ruler and the edge of the window (including the top of the document)

Is there some practical/functional benefit of this, or is this simply a visual aesthetic?

[Varen]

@rkaplan,

On one hand, I have a fairly severe case of Amblyopia (lazy eye) and this makes it difficult for me to keep focus and discern between various parts of the screen for long periods of time. That’s why having white space around what I’m writing/seeing is of great importance to me. Without white space, the screen can quickly become a literal storm of visual clutter and I simply cannot stay focused on what I’m doing; mentally or visually.

DT offers very, very little white space around it’s documents; complicating my use of it.

On the other, I also appreciate beautiful design and aesthetics. To some people a computer and it’s applications are simply tools, like a toaster, and it doesn’t matter what they look like; they just need to work. That’s a valid approach and one that many on this thread take but that’s not the final word.

Many others, like myself, simply put up with unappealing interfaces as a means-to-an-end but would benefit greatly from spending our days with applications that give a sense of visual satisfaction.

A good analogy would be a car. If a car is just a vehicle to move us from one place to another than why do we care what color it is or whether it has comfortable seats or a good instrument display? My computer is just the same. I spend all day here and I want it to be visually appealing, it’s that simple.

[jasonekratz]

Last bit from me in this thread because the horse is beyond dead and clearly there seems to be a sore spot being poked by making suggestions for updates.

Apples and some other fruit, I think. DT is a document management system. Where it to provide editing capabilities for all documents it manages (and you cannot seriously prevent RTF/PDF/HTML users from wanting what you want for markdown), it would become an unwieldy behemoth. Let’s not forget that some people store source code in DT. Maybe it should become an IDE? Integrate a debugger?

Except nobody is asking for it to provide editing capabilities for all documents it manages. I can store Windows dll files in there (and do). Do you really think I’m suggesting they add MS Visual Studio in there? My suggestion, if you read what I actually wrote, was provide some built-in CSS themes for the previewer that already exists. I didn’t suggest a single change to any editor (but they added new options to the Markdown editor editing bar just recently).

That being said because you did call me out for something I never asked for I’m going to be a bit pedantic here. They continue to add features to Markdown rendering like:

Improved: Checkboxes are now supported by Markdown rendering and conversion. The syntax is - [ ] or - [x] at the beginning of a line.

or

For Markdown users, DEVONthink uses CriticMarkup more extensively for formatting, conversion, and when creating summaries. We added support for some alternate highlighting and strikethrough Markdown syntax as well as support for Mermaid.js so you can create diagrams in Markdown documents.

Oh and lets not forget the addition back in version 3.5 of Prism.js support for code syntax highlighting (along with a couple of updates to add more languages) in, you guessed it, the Markdown preview.

A specific document type in the menu…updates to the rendering for the preview to support more non-multimarkdown syntax. Added support in the annotations view for CriticMarkup. Added a new Daily Journal template and table of contents in markdown. Almost sounds like they expect people to, I don’t know, not only write in Markdown in the app but also look at it in the previewer.

So somebody on the team is listening even if it’s not the bouncer at the door here in the forums. Back at the end of 2019 Bluefrog suggested that it just wasn’t possible to support ~~ for strikethrough because

We can’t account for other flavors of Markdown, especially proprietary ones.

A bit over a year later oddly enough now they do. Same goes for checkboxes. No support in Multimarkdown yet now it works.

Is it becoming an unwieldy behemoth now? No, its just that someone on the team is either responding to customer requests or one of the devs decided to just have a go at it (or both because Markdown is popular). Either way two of my biggest gripes about DT Markdown support were handled in the latest updates.

As to the suggestion that it should be turned into an IDE because people store source code in there: I store recipes in there maybe it should turn into Paprika? Again this has nothing to do with the simple suggestions that have been made in this thread.

[KevinCoates]

On the specific issue of Markdown syntax highlighting (which would affect the edit window, rather than the preview window), Gruber has - just today - spoken:

I created Markdown to use in BBEdit without any syntax coloring at all, and to this day, I do most of my Markdown editing in MarsEdit, which doesn’t color or style Markdown syntax at all. (It should though! Markdown is even better with some syntax coloring and styling.)

[lerone]

+1 for a better aesthetic experience and evolution of the MD editor (in terms of – optional – CSS-like customizability).
– See Ulysses for a good example

I see / hear a lot of people desperately looking / asking for this over the years and distributed over some different threads here; … and count myself into that circle of people a little saddened by DT not matching up the editing and the reading experience, when it comes to MD – … and, acknowleding MD as one of the central text-'formats´ (mark-up languages) theses days, and appreciating all the (other) things DT is capable of!

(– … plus, btw: thanks for writing all that up and trying some deeper, honest engagement and extra miles for attempts to clarify communication, communicative roles, keep things to the point / real topic, and such, @Varen and @jasonekratz! All makes total sense, in terms of thread topic, IMO. Also in dimension of communication styles. Unfortunately forum culture is regularly such, that such constructive proposals / legit requests often encounter these kinds of deflecting and tawdry tonality here in the forums, at least where they deviate from some specific personal taste-politics and gatekeeping … and where really some constructive and welcoming moderation would be in order… but there we are… hope it doesn´t strike you down, otherwise Keep it up!)

[cgrunenberg]

@lerone

and count myself into that circle of people a little saddened by DT not matching up the editing and the reading experience, when it comes to MD

In the end Markdown is only one of the supported file formats as DEVONthink isn’t just another Markdown editor. DEVONthink’s primary task is information/document management and we usually try to improve all of its common usage scenarios over time, not just one.

[lerone]

thanks,Christian, for that reply.

First, I feel it is not really to me, personally – but rather a very fundamental reaction to this thread (i.e. the OP and all others interested), and some others here. As that I appreciate it.

Then, of course nobody was / is questioning the main focus, and primary function of DT.

I do think, though, that such a request (and a lot of similar ones) should not be treated (voiced) as simply ‘out of scope’, or out of line on this ‘principle grounds’ (technology, ‘primary functions’), as DT itself has editing functions, promotes itself partly as environment also allowing for “writing” (Webpage), promotes use cases like Zettelkasten note-taking etc.

With MD having become the format of choice for a lot of (knowledge) people, where in former times (when DT came to the rise) rtf might have been that, I think it is reasonable for the non-techie people to look for similar comfort as e.g. with the DT rtf-editor, and other editors they are familiar with.

With people like you and John stating in the forums that you yourself use DT for ‘99% of your own notetaking’, and loads of forum discussions etc about using DT as botetaking, or writing environment etc, I think there just could be some articulation of acknowledging the legitimacy and constructive intent of people asking for some ammendments to the MD-editing (editor) experience (– as no one is asking for a full fledged MD-editor; see above).

Of course the DT-team can still rule out such wishes. But people shouldn’t have to ‘fight through’ secondary arguments and technological lecturings (themselves not always precise, or on point) like MD as ‘purely structural language’, ‘IDE editors’, or Ansel Adams as comparison etc instead of simply being acknowledged, accepted as legitimate and treated like on eye-level … and then DT-team (you) can still souvereignly make all kinds of decisions on priorities, styles of development etc.
That’s all.

[cgrunenberg]

@lerone

Of course the DT-team can still rule out such wishes.

I’m sorry if there’s such an impression, that’s not what I wanted to say. In the end Markdown is not the only feature and we can’t focus the limited to resources just to this one. But of course there will be improvements in the future but maybe not as fast as some people might prefer (as we have basically an endless list of suggestions).

[lerone]

Understood, and appreciated.
I wasn´t referencing your latest reply in particular.
But there is some pre-history of discussion(s). And it sometime less than encouraging…

But thanks for those clarifications / statements!

[chrillek]

Just to clarify: Some (most?) of the arguments you cited here came from me. And I’m not affiliated with the company in any way. So whatever I say does not necessarily reflect the thinking of the people behind the product.

And I still do think that I have the right to voice my opinion here like everybody else. Even if you don’t like it two years later. Labelling one’s own opinion as “constructive” and thereby others as the opposite doesn’t say anything about the validity of the argument(s).

[lerone]

hey @chrillek, thanks also for weighing in on that!
– Sorry if the things that came from the top of my head reading the thread (and reminding me of some other threads), were all associated with you. I wasn´t aware of that. So, no singling out was intended – especially as I see this as a question of forum culture and atmosphere, and ‘dropping’ names or targeting individual forum people, doesn´t help, really.

Actually, there were different directions this came from (here and at other places).

You actually find me – like Varon and Jason tried here – always resoponding to (and as such acknowledging) all opinions and arguments – esp. where they relate to the original proposition.

What I often take issue with (like in this discussion) is that some people, being faced with a well-intended proposition, start (preface) any further discussion with very self-confidently claimed ‘technical’ arguments (presented as ‘factual’), or ‘principles’ of DT – … where a) they are not per se authoritative, and b) adequate to the points raised (and c) in some cases – arguably – false). And I am the last to disqualify any expression of opinion, point of view, or argument per se. My observation – and critique – is on the level of communicative adequacy, and atmosphere of acknowledging genuine proposals.

Of course there can always be ‘arguments against’. But there should also be interest, and acknowledgement. And actually, as there are different opinions everywhere, there should be moderation, which leads beyond the ever present dangers of two-sideism, personalization, or non-welcoming / slanted / biased atmospheres.

That´s all.

But if you want, we can also further discuss arguments, like:
• whether MD is simply and purely a ‘structural language’, and what that – if it were ‘true’ – means to people working with it as basic note-/write-format
• whether DevonThink can be adequately described as serving one, clear-cut purpose – also in the light of it´s self-understanding (or at least self-representation), in the light of it´s actualized bundle of functions (quite a lot!), but also in light of all the use cases discussed in the forum – … and whether this ‘one purpose’ is easy to circumscribe and delineate (making certain propositions less legitimate in effect)
• whether the proposition to improve on the markdown editor a bit (in the case where a lot of people – including its team – use DT as their go-to note-taking tool), amounts to asking for a full-fledged IDE, or debugger; and whether raising the conceptual stakes in such (‘principled’) ways is always adequate / constructive…

I am not per se dismissing any of these as positions / arguments. Even if I think they are either not really correct, or – more importantly – not so clear cut, as they are presented. And I am ready to debate them seriously on-on-one.

But as there have been other arguments, that all basically – either implicitly or explicitly – question (or undermine) the legitimacy of the original request ‘per se’, I thought I rather stay on the level of discussion culture. Which is my real concern after reading through this thread.

In that respect I am quite content and at peace with Christians latest reaction(s); and still think anyone reading this thread and others – and not being self-confident on the level of technological tinkering, or self-affirmation – will rather feel estranged and / or discouraged to raise ideas, proposals or engage as there always seems to be a ‘technical (sounding) block’, that – in sum – feels like ‘tackling’ constructive, well-intended, and well-motivated proposals on secondary grounds, instead of first acknowledging them.

[chrillek]

Discussion culture in a forum … I’d go with “perceived” discussion culture. And for that, this forum is a glowing example of good behavior (compared to the Net in general, that is). Textual communication is always more complicated than one-to-one talk. Especially, if there are people with different language capabilities (not everyone, including me, is a native English speaker!), cultural and technical background. In general, people here tend to be nice, there are no ad hominem attacks and seldom snide remarks.

OTOH, I’m German: Opinionated, direct and not overly friendly. At least, I try not to whine all the time like some of my compatriots But cultural differences exist as well as personal preferences in communication style. We have to live with them.

As to what Markdown was, originally:

Markdown is a text-to-HTML conversion tool for web writers. Markdown allows you to write using an easy-to-read, easy-to-write plain text format, then convert it to structurally valid XHTML (or HTML).

In the words of its inventor, 2004. Since HTML is structured, I’d conclude that MD is structured, too. Of course, we have long deviated from that original state of affairs. I agree that many people consider MD to be a basic writing format. But in my mind, that’s stretching it a bit far. And from the discussions in this forum, I see many people stumbling over perceived shortcomings of MD or even DT (“How do I scale my images? Why can’t I click on the checkboxes?”) that are, I think, simply misconceptions.

I think that some use MD because it is simpler than Word, Pages, TeX, whatever. There’s not much to learn conceptually, you don’t need to start a huge program, all that. And then they, understandably, want to do more (images, tables, checkboxes, layout). That’s why we don’t have a single MD format nowadays but many dialects, some of them incompatible, some with “amendments” that make things more difficult.

That’s where we stand today: MD is ubiquitous, people like it and want to do things with it for which it wasn’t intended (like in the good old days when NeXT used PostScript for screen graphics – possible, but not the brightest idea). Consequently, there will have to be compromises. Especially, when we’re looking at a product that was not devised to be an MD editor. We’re looking at a small group of developers working on two products (DT and DTTG, not to mention Server).

I think they hear all the wishes for improvement. But they have to prioritize. And if there are dedicated MD editors out there that work perfectly fine with DT (or even DTTG), that’s fine for me. Being a Unix person, I do not expect one tool to do everything – having a working tool chest is important (again: for me).

As to my IDE/Debugger argument: MD is not in any way a preferred format in DT. It’s just one of many. Like for PDF, there are some functions to work with it, but not a fully blown editor. And a request for that is not any more legitimate than for a fully blown PDF editor (just take a look at all the problems people are describing here with the current PDF support due to PDFKit issues). I do store scripts in DT, but I wouldn’t expect them to be in any useful way editable there.

Interestingly, this just came up: Questions about editing word (docx) files
illustrating my point.

The debate is, BTW, two years old. Some things have changed since then. And I do not use DT for note-taking, just as a document management system. As, I have the impressions, do others.

[Varen]

It’s been 2 years since I started this thread. Obviously if DT developers had any inclination to listen to its user’s request for a “more attractive writing environment” they would certainly have done so by now.

This thread has repeatedly arcs back to a discussion of MD and the merits of whether DT should be a full-featured editing application. It was not my intention to suggest that it should be that. Unfortunately this side conversation has taken away from the original request.

I still want now what I wanted 2 years ago — margins around all sides of the text editing/viewing area; whether it be MD, RTF, PDF or WTF! I’m going to repost a screenshot from Scrivener which perfectly illustrates a simple change that would vastly improve the writing experience.

If the developers actually tried to understand this request I think they’d realize this is a simple improvement and doesn’t require the non-existent resources others have used as an excuse in previous posts.

I know quite a bit about programming and UX/UI design and adding whitespace around a document really isn’t such a difficult or time consuming thing to do. It’s the lack of understanding and/or will on the part of the Devonthing team that is the issue.

Perhaps the reopening of this thread will encourage the team to take another look at the request and they will be more open to the idea.

Until then, DT is simply a shoebox for me and will never be anything more than that.

[Silva]

Interesting. After spending some time with Bear, Scrivener, Ulysses, etc., I am doing all my writing in DT, and I love it. I created a template with the rtf style that I like, and that is it.

As far as I know, DT is the best integrated “ecosystem” for research and writing available for Mac.

Maybe Jim should write several tips on how to use DT as a writing tool :).

[Varen]

What can say? We all have different sensibilities and aesthetics are one of them. I’m glad you’re pleased with the current writing environment but I’m not. There seem to be many others who support the idea of enhancing the DT experience with a modern and aesthetically pleasing place to write.

[rkaplan]

@Varen

There seem to be many others who support the idea of enhancing the DT experience with a modern and aesthetically pleasing place to write.

If you do not like the writing environment then you can right-click within DT and choose “Open With” and then use any editor of your choice but the resulting edited file will remain in DT. So it’s the best of all possible worlds.

Or customize your DT Toolbar and 1 click will be all you need to open any document in the system default app for that file type. That is basically the equivalent of being able to infinitely customize the DT writing environment however you wish.

[Amontillado]

This is where I fall at the moment. I would kind of like a spiffier UI but it’s just a vague kind of yearning for shiny things.

I don’t think DT’s developers want to get into desktop publishing, for example, and why bother? I have Affinity Publisher files in DT databases. I can tag them, replicate/duplicate, and use my new favorite feature, annotation documents.

My vote would be for DT to concentrate on organization features, not editing complexity. Let Word bloat up on editing features, not DT.

Or, maybe I’m overlooking serious use cases. That can happen.

[Varen]

My God, margins around text are NOT bloat!