Messages - Jimdoria [ switch to compact view ]

Pages: prev1 ... 45 46 47 48 49 [50] 51 52next
246
General Software Discussion / Re: video editing software
« on: May 12, 2006, 05:57 PM »
I use Sony Video Studio (which was Screenblast, which was the lite version of Vegas video.) It cost me $90 but it's very capable and fully featured.

For someone looking for something free, and with the patience to figure out a bit of a weird interface, there's Zwei-stein from Thugs@bay, which is now in beta for V4. This is almost more of a video compositor than a straight editor, although you can certainly use it for editing. Very powerful and extremely cool - check out their videos on the site: http://www.zs4.net/

247
There yet? I don't know, do you have a shipping version ready?  ;D

There is precedent, of course, superboyac. (Does that mean one should never do something unprecedented?) ;) The UI idea isn't actually all that far from something like the Visual Studio.NET interface, where you can dock multiple panes in different parts of the application window. And I didn't know you were an EE, though I'm not too surprised. I just threw it out because of the reputation of engineers to be very focused, logical and orderly in their thinking. And performance artist I just chose as a kind of opposite: expansive, intuitive and nonlinear in theirs.

At its barest level, the Frankenote UI would be something like a blank canvas. But since that's too scary for a lot of folks, ideally you'd have the idea of templates incorporated into the product. When you created a new page, you'd be given a choice of which template to base it on, one of which would be the blank canvas. Others would be templates analogous to the some of the UIs of existing apps. So you could have an "outlook" template, a "one note" template, an "evernote" template, etc. Since they're just pre-defined layouts, they would be immediately usable but also immediately tweakable.

A "note" should be able to store any kind of content, almost like a Word document. I can see the need for a few basic note types: formatted text, bitmap graphic, vector graphic. There would probably be a few specialized sub-classes of these, too. Everything else is a view. The trick would be this: as soon as a note is called on to contain more than just formatted text, it silently and transparently changes itself into a view!

So you’re typing away, and you decide to paste in a picture. Behind the scenes, the text becomes its own note and the "note" you were working with becomes an aggregator view containing your original text note and your pasted picture. If you continue typing text under the picture, that text becomes (internally) a third text note displayed in the view, but stored separately behind the scenes. This is all invisible to the user. As far as they are concerned, the "note" consists of text-picture-text. They will never see it represented in any other form.

Inside a view, there can be notes, other views and links. Views need a killer memory as to how they are constructed. Part of a view is its query, or what database items it uses to build itself. Part of it is its formatting rules. Part of it is its nesting rules (what kind of view can I be inside? What kinds can be inside me?) And part of it is its collection of links.

There are two types of links: hard and soft. Hard links are created and maintained by the system. Soft links are user-configurable. Take the above example of a text-picture-text note. The links in that view are hard links. The user never knows that it is actually a view - to them it is just a single note and they work with it as such. But to the program, it's a view with hard links to the two text notes and the bitmap note. Another example of hard links is a table. The table is really just an aggregation of notes (each cell is a note) with hard links that keep them together in the table layout. When you paste Excel data into Frankenote, the program converts it into a native table view and embeds that view in your current note, just like it handled the picture.

Soft links are used by the user to "wire up" the UI. Suppose you start with a blank canvas. You add a tree view - which is a type of aggregator. Now you have a tree view inside a canvas view. The tree view has some default contents - lets say it shows a node for every note in the database (and it shows what the USER considers "notes" - pure notes and views that contain only hard links.) Those tree nodes are notes linked to the view by a soft link. The user could change the soft link and have the tree show only the notes that were created in the last week, or only the picture notes, or whatever. (The notes appear as tree nodes because a tree view's formatting rules specify that this is how it displays the notes it contains - it takes their "title" attribute, assigns an icon based on some criteria, and creates a hierarchy based on some other criteria.)

Now you want to be able to select a node in the tree and view it in the canvas. So at the top right corner of the tree view is a small icon that looks like an electrical plug. You drag this icon out and drop it onto the blank canvas. This creates a soft link and wires the two views together. Now when you select a node in the tree, the note is displayed in the canvas.

This is the simplest case, but it pretty much encapsulates the whole concept. This concept of views is powerful because it is recursive. There would have to be an arbitrary limit on the recursiveness though, or things could get really ugly.

I absolutely DON'T think a SQL back end would be the way to go. I'd say a free-form database engine along the lines of AskSam is a better choice. Take a look at this page if you're unfamiliar with askSam. Especially the part under "Why People have chosen AskSam." Trying to map a beast like this to a rigid field/key/index structure is asking for heartache.

248
@Rover:
One Note does the grab-and-tuck-away thing pretty well, too. You can paste in text from a website, and it will automatically include a hyperlink back to the site you grabbed it from. It also retains much of the formatting. Of course, this is all assuming you're using Internet Explorer. If you try it using Firefox, the text just comes out as:
 :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P
(kidding... sort of.)

@Superboyac
I think your post makes a very important point. It is VERY subjective. On another board I frequent, there was a discussion about 3-D modelling software and how many different titles and ways of working there are. Someone commented that it was the most personalized kind of software - that there was no "works best for everyone" solution.

I think note taking of software has the same issue. If the software is supposed to model, at some level, the way you think, then there can't be a one-size-fits-all answer, because people think very differently. You wouldn't expect an electrical engineer and a performance artist to have the same thought processes or approach to their work.

So it seems to me that the "ultimate" note taking software either can't exist, or would have to be some kind of super-morphing application, with the user taking a hand in the construction (or selection) of the UI. Perhaps this would look like some kind of free-text database back-end coupled with a dead-simple GUI builder front end that shipped with a number of common GUI configurations out of the box. Maybe you'd start out with pages or tabs (a la KeyNote or OneNote) but you could choose a default UI for each one - the "tree on the left" UI, the "sticky notes" UI, the "scrolling column" UI, the "cloud of tags" (del.icio.us) UI, etc. Then you could tweak the templates, mix and match, or construct your own from scratch.

It would be a pretty major project. Programmatically, though, it shouldn't be impossible. Essentially, you are dealing with two different types of objects that interact with the database. Let's call them "views." You'd need "content" views which show individual database items, and "aggregator" views which show high-level groups of items. There would be a number of these - a tree view, a list view, a tags-only view, a "canvas" view (for those sticky notes), etc. Then you'd need the underlying structure to position and link the views in the application window.

Data interchange is the other bugbear of this project. Ideally, you would want Google Desktop to work with it, because no matter how good it is, you're always going to have some of your data stored elsewhere - in Word files, in presentations, in e-mail, etc. A closed search system would be less than optimal. It should play well with others.

249
Living Room / Re: Anyone actually use rewriteable media?
« on: May 10, 2006, 12:53 PM »
Carol said:
" Why do people feel the need to use CD-RW and DVD-RW as large floppies with the need to format them??? When I use DVD-RW (I don't bother with CD-RW these days at all - partly because of compataility issues with CD players) I just use it as a standard DVD-R disc."

Which is kind of my point, except for the reformatting part. If you are just using a CD-RW like a CD-R, why bother with it - why not just use CD-R? The ability to re-use disks by reformatting is a plus, but traditionally I want to be able to add to and delete from a removable disk as I go, like the floppys and zip disks I used to use with such ease. I've got a thumb drive now, and it works great, but size is an issue and it's pretty expensive on a per MB basis.

As for the "bleh" issue, from everything I've read on the subject, compatibility between computer DVD burners and consumer DVD players is still spotty at best. It depends on a number of factors, including the drive used to burn the disk, the media, the type of player, burn speed... there's no universal compatibility. Even with combinations that "should" work, sometimes it just doesn't work.

This is based on articles I've read, though. My actual DVD burning experience is pretty limited. But I just bought my first DVD burner a few weeks ago, so hopefully that'll be changing.

250
Wow, this thread is STILL going!

I've tried out a number of the apps I've seen mentioned here. When I first encountered this thread, I was using KeyNote. I liked it because it was free, and because it had a nice basic feature set, and because it was free. However, I didn't actually find myself using it that much.

I tried Surfulater and I did like the way it worked, loved its handling of web content, but I found creating original information with it a bit cumbersome. And then the trial ran out. I felt my ability to evaluate it was hampered a bit by not being able to create my own file - I always had to kind of work around the canned content that was in there. I guess that this is the trade-off with offering an unlimited-time trial version, though.

I've got Evernote installed now, but other than some initial futzing I haven't really been using it.

What I actually AM using is One Note. (Which is scary, 'cause when the trial runs out, it'll cost me more than the others.) OneNote has some serious shortcomings, and I have almost zero confidence that MS will continue to support and refine the app for very long. As always, unless it's Office, Windows or IE, you embrace an MS product at your peril. But I suppose we'll see.

OK, well, that's a fair amount of blathering, but it's background for the question I'm asking myself, which is WHY did OneNote win? What compelling feature does it have that makes it usable (for me) the way the others are not? I've come to the conclusion that it's not organizing or searching the information - ALL the programs can do this very well, even if not equally well or in the same way. No, it's PRESENTING the information where OneNote excels.

I'm a very visually-oriented person. While all the programs give me the ability to structure information STORAGE in a way that suits me, only OneNote gives me the ability to structure information PRESENTATION easily. Its interface is almost like a desktop publishing program - you can position multiple blocks of information on a page, whether they are text, tables (sort of) or pictures. Re-arranging things is easy and quick (although often frustrating, as the program often thinks it's smarter than I am and it's "guidance" actually hinders me while I'm working. Another common M$ flaw.  ::))

I have about a dozen pages in my OneNote notebook, broken down by the projects I work on plus some general purpose categories such as Reference. The page I "live on" is the To-Do list page for the project I'm most involved in at work. On this page I have four different checklists (which are super-easy to do in OneNote) that I keep updated. As things are done, they get moved to another "completed" page in the same notebook. If I need to annotate an item, either with text or a quick image, I can add that right on the page and draw a line between the two, or juxtapose them visually. The important thing is, I've been able to create a single view that organizes several different categories of info. I don't have to hunt through a tree or even search - it's just there, all at once, in my face. I can print it off to take to meetings, or just to archive as a snapshot of what I'm working on.

Evernote's "single chronological column only" layout feels a bit like a straitjacket to me, even with the great filtering they offer. And with tree-based metaphors, the display of info is always modal - I might be able to quickly and easily find the four nodes that contain info I want, but then I can only look at those nodes one at a time. OneNote has some of the best features of "sticky notes" type organizers, but wraps them in a more consistent and manageable interface. And now looking back, I recall that this was one of the most appealing things about Info Select - the information was displayed in discrete chunks that you could arrange and re-arrange to your liking.

Ok, that's enough of a rant for now. But it occurs to me there's been little discussion about presentation in this thread. I know some people will see this as a non-issue or even an anti-issue, but for me I think it boils down to being THE issue. It turns out I'm not willing to live with inflexible presentation, no matter how good the organization behind the presentation might be. Does that just make me shallow?  :-\

Pages: prev1 ... 45 46 47 48 49 [50] 51 52next
Go to full version