Recent Posts

3876

Image Manager Shootout / Re: Idea for this week, 6/20/05: Graphics Viewers

« Last post by nudone on June 17, 2005, 06:05 AM »

if you can postpone the graphics viewers review for another week or two i'll be up for doing a full guest review - i just can't commit to doing such a thing over the next few days.

this is assuming that no one else comes forward and that you can find a different topic for the review of course.

3877

Image Manager Shootout / Re: Idea for this week, 6/20/05: Graphics Viewers

« Last post by nudone on June 17, 2005, 05:15 AM »

don't get me wrong. i like ACDSee but it's jpeg2000 support is pretty rubbish. so, i'd like to find something better - it's just that i can work around it's faults at the moment.

3878

Image Manager Shootout / Re: Idea for this week, 6/20/05: Graphics Viewers

« Last post by nudone on June 17, 2005, 05:04 AM »

with ACDSee, at least, you can assign rankings, labels or notes to individual files or groups of files that are then stored inside the ACDSee database.

so, as an example, you could have several different folders that contain a variety of different images but you have assigned a label of 'hats' to some of the images inside each of these folders.

by clicking on the correct button you can then view all the thumbnails that have been labelled as 'hats' as a collection inside the normal thumbnail viewining panel as if they were all inside a single folder.

also, ACDSee allows you to click more than one folder to view in the directory tree - the contents of each folder are then collected together in the thumbnail viewing panel, just like they were all part of one folder.

the combination of being able to select several folders, labels, rankings and notes all at the same time is an extremely powerful feature - of course, this all depends on how methodical you are at categorising things in the first place.

(i don't feel up to doing a full review but i'll offer opinions on ALL the programs that end up being in the list - if it helps.)

3879

Image Manager Shootout / Re: Idea for this week, 6/20/05: Graphics Viewers

« Last post by nudone on June 17, 2005, 04:40 AM »

i agree with JeffK, any SERIOUS graphics viewer has got to have the ability to simultaneously view thumbnails from more than one directory.

and categorise them.

and add notes.

and a work basket would be nice.

anyone else using 'ACDSee'?

3880

Unfinished Requests / Re: IDEA: movable grouped windows

« Last post by nudone on June 11, 2005, 11:57 AM »

i think i know what you mean mouser but i was thinking more along the lines of the windows being dockable or lockable in their respective layout within the group. the group then acts as a single window would allowing you to move the whole lot around the screen.

useless for a group of windows that cover the majority of your screen but i thought it would be handy when you have layed out a few smaller windows that only take up a small area.

the virtual desktop thing is something i never really got into but i know you are a firm believer in it, mouser. i suppose i should stop bleating and just try using the virtual screen method instead.

(i'd still like to know if there is a util that fits the description i was after, though.)

3881

Unfinished Requests / IDEA: movable grouped windows

« Last post by nudone on June 11, 2005, 08:22 AM »

i can well imagine that this has already been done as it seems quite obvious but if not then here goes...

would it be simple to make a little util that allowed you to select a few windows that you have carefully arranged on your screen and then assign them as a group.

the 'group' feature would then allow you to move all these windows simultaneously with each window remaining in it's respective 'group' position.

of course being able to minimise and restore the 'group' of windows would also be helpful.

when using dual monitor displays i think this 'group' feature would be quite handy. well, i'm sick of dragging things around from one place to another and then have to neatly lay them out again.

i'm sure there are plenty more obvious features that could be incorporated but the main thing would be to just keep the way it operated quite simple - just clicking or right clicking to assign windows to groups in some way.

as i said, this seems quite an obvious thing to desire so i wouldn't be surprised if something like this was made years ago.

if anyone knows of anything can they please let me know...

thanks

3882

Cheat Sheeter / Re: New Program Idea: Cheat Sheeter

« Last post by nudone on June 11, 2005, 02:57 AM »

you could try here, mouser...

www.techonthenet.com/clipart/keyboard/

  just be carefull of all the popups whilst you are at it.

(just clicked on the link myself and no popups appeared 2nd time around ????????)

3883

Find And Run Robot / Re: Anti-Naffness Request?

« Last post by nudone on June 10, 2005, 10:05 AM »

hahaha. brilliant.

3884

Unfinished Requests / Re: CTRL - Enter or CTRL - doubleclick file in Explorer opens file in predefined app

« Last post by nudone on June 09, 2005, 01:33 PM »

it doesn't appear to be part of win2k as standard so unless you find the the name of the program you've lost or it's zip file then you won't have much joy.

could it be that you are looking for this...

OpenExpert www.baxbex.com/openexpert.html (free for personal use).

3885

Unfinished Requests / Re: CTRL - Enter or CTRL - doubleclick file in Explorer opens file in predefined app

« Last post by nudone on June 09, 2005, 11:34 AM »

hmm, i see what you mean. i never thought about the actual bit about double clicking on a file being the problem, i.e. autoit would be acting as the associated program for that file type - i can imagine this being difficult. but hey, i wouldn't have a clue where autoit is concerned.

the thing you are describing, dragonrider, with the right click on a file and 'open with', etc, etc. is part of windows xp as standard i think.

if it isn't then i'll have to work out where i got it from but i seem to think it's been there since day one of installation. if it wasn't then maybe it was simply ms tweakui and if not that then i would have put it on whilst running autopatcherxp.

hehe, just thought i better check the above by running the old vmware virtual clean installation of windows xp - it does appear to be part of the operating system from day one.

3886

Finished Programs / Re: DONE - IDEA: change wallpaper at specific time - not timed intervals.

« Last post by nudone on June 09, 2005, 02:49 AM »

sounds good.

i'm currently working on a wallpaper set that i'll upload when i can finally finish it - it will be universal in appeal (depending on how much you hate microsoft) so anyone should be able to appreciate it.

now i've announced it i'll have to pull my finger out and get it done.

3887

Unfinished Requests / Re: CTRL - Enter or CTRL - doubleclick file in Explorer opens file in predefined app

« Last post by nudone on June 09, 2005, 02:45 AM »

well i never. i didn't know you could do that with directory opus - i've been cursing for years, thinking that it's a feature that ought to be included but no one has ever done it (with any explorer). i suppose when you don't read the manual you never learn all the features.

anyway, regards to the above problem - there is a little util that you can get that intercepts your double click on an file action.

instead of opening the associated program it brings up a little menu with a list of several programs you've associated with that file type so you can then click on the program you would prefer to use in that particular instance.

unfortunately i can't remember the name of it - i thought it a very clever idea but i think it was a bit buggy so gave up on it (hence i can't recall it's name).

i'm sure someone around here will know what it is.

as a side thought: does anyone know if a similar thing coule be made with 'autoit' - any thoughts dragonrider?

3888

Best ScreenCaster / what an outstanding review.

« Last post by nudone on June 07, 2005, 03:44 AM »

fantastic work done on the screencasting review, mouser. i knew you would be pulling out all the stops to analyse them in detail but i'm still surprised with how much you managed to cover - do you never sleep?

excellent conclusion - i don't think i would like to try and pick just one overall winner but now that you've brought 'bb flashback express' to everyones attention i think that stands out on price alone (and if it produces results like the full version then that is brilliant).

the truth is that i'm biased in that any screencasts i'm likely to make will just be simple movies in style, so bb flashback express is more than perfect for me. i do believe that this will also be true for the vast majority of people wanting to make screencasts judging by what i've seen over the years.

my xvid results look down right dirty compared with the crisp clean screencasts you've uploaded. i don't feel too bad about it, though, as my movies only look as nasty as the ones i'm used to watching by more professional and established outfits.

anyway, before i start rambling, i can see you've put an enormous amount of effort into the review and arrived at a very just conclusion. thanks for taking the time with that one, mouser. you deserve five, yes five, gold stars for that one.

(if you want to see one of my filthy xvids, WITH AUDIO and made using only free tools, then check out my blog.)

3889

Best ScreenCaster / Re: Opinions?

« Last post by nudone on June 05, 2005, 03:25 PM »

this will probably be my last post before mouser gives the final verdict.

after messing around a bit more i still appear to get the same sort of results as already mentioned but i have to confess that xvid isn't the smallest file size.

there is obviously a point where the size and duration of the area captured makes it clearly better to use swf for screencasting.

that said i still find these results to be true:

camtasia - produced smallest swf output whilst still looking okay (i say this as viewletcam almost did the same but the color space wasn't so good).

bb flashback - produced larger swf files but smaller xvid. i suspect with tweaking, these video encoded files could be made smaller still with a little practise.

viewletcam - it is nice and simple to use. very immediate and direct if you want to add extra symbols like text boxes, etc. to your movie. some of the settings are kind of hidden away in the menus and it seems to be a bit unstable (on my machine at least) but it is quick to use and the results are good enough - if your system is  working in the right color space.

as i don't really need to do any of the extra annotation type stuff - for final file output quality and size i'd have to pick camtasia but for price it would be viewletcam (i'd tollerate the crashes and find a compatible set of screen colors for it to grab). but bb flashback is kind of fun to use - maybe not that good a reason to use it.

anyway, mouser, i hope you manage to arrive at a conclusion without too much of a headache. good luck.

3890

Best ScreenCaster / Re: Opinions?

« Last post by nudone on June 05, 2005, 12:45 PM »

well spotted mouser. it appears we have a late contender.

viewlet cam appears to be just the right kind of screencaster. straight forward to use and not extortionate in price.

it did crash once but i won't hold that against it.

maybe this is the 'one'.

3891

Best ScreenCaster / Re: Opinions?

« Last post by nudone on June 05, 2005, 12:12 PM »

ah yes, i see your point about removing frames making the cursor not match up - that is a very good reason for being able to edit movements  after you've done the recording.

i'm pleased you've still got camtasia in the list of four. i would have to say, though, that the final quality of the output screencast movie and it's related file size ought to be a priority deciding factor on what is 'best' regardless of how it was made.

i shall do a few longer, more colour intensive and animated screencasts to compare camtasia's swf output alongside the others to see if the small sizes were a fluke.

the truth is, i've been downloading and watching video tutorials for years (downloaded from www.lynda.com and vtc.com on a 56k modem) and non of these are created using flash. they are usually quicktime at 5 frames per second and seem the standard way of doing things to me. so that is perhaps why i don't share the same bias against video encoded screencasts.

there is also the ability to resize video to a lower resolution to reduce the final file size even further (i know this blurs the image but sometimes the result is more than good enough).

i've been back to test captivate and i'm not impressed with the file size output. it also seems to be a little slower in doing the compression.

i've also found a way of doing free xvid screencasts with sound using free utils which i'll mention after your conclusive review on monday.

mouser, if i need to persuade you about xvid screencasting or using camtasia to produce swf output all i can say is: so far they have produced the smallest file sizes with little detriment to the quality of output. i think quicktime and wmv are a waste of time as they take far to long to encode - xvid encodes fast enough for me to find it usable and, like i say, the image quality is more than good enough.

believe me the xvid results i'm talking about aren't blocky pixellated rubbish.

there is a perhaps a flaw in all of my testing though and that is i've been doing things within a 800x600 area - but i would have thought this about right for most things (i'll do some 1024x768 tests to be sure).

if the final winning screencaster can produce swf files smaller than xvid then i'll be a happy bunny whoever it is made by. if it can't then i won't really be able see the point of the flash based screencasters other than they can produce 'streaming swf output' so you can begin watching as you download. okay, i agree, i'm an idiot - that is a very good reason for using swf over xvid.

i've lost the plot. i'll let the judge and the rest of jury decide.

i'm now going to investigate 'viewlet cam'...

3892

Best ScreenCaster / Re: Opinions?

« Last post by nudone on June 05, 2005, 08:52 AM »

just a quickie...

when comparing maximum quality settings i get smaller swf files when using camtasia than from bb flashback - not really what i was expecting.

it takes longer for camtasia to do the encoding but the lower file size is remarkable - about 3.5 meg compared to bb flashbacks 11 meg. the screencast looks perfect but it is at 15 fps rather than 25 fps which i think bb flashback is doing for it's high quality setting.

one problem i've found with camtasia is that i can't export a compressed audio output when trying to encode with xvid and mp3 so the file sizes are too big - a bit of a shame that.

i've not really played around with the other screencasters but if they are anyting like these two then i think the final review winner could be anything. i find it a bit odd that the 'video' style editor produces smaller swf files than bb flashback and in turn bb flashback produces smaller xvid files than camtasia.

i was going to start praising camtasia rather heavily but i think it lets itself down by not being able to mix between 2 video tracks. other than that i think the swf output it performs means it deserves more recognition than what it is currently getting.

another thing i'm sure mouser will have picked up upon is there are different styles of screencast editors on review - some like camtasia are pretty linear in that you can't really edit single frames for repositioning cursors if you needed to. this is unlike how the 'flash' style content editors work were you can repostion recorded elements on screen in the individual frame/slides.

i can't really see when you would want to reposition the recorded cursor movements, though. so the difference in styles between these two types of editor is merely academic.

i've not revisited 'captivate' yet - i have a sneaky feeling that it will produce the smallest swf files of all. if not, then i'm backing camtasia for swf and bb flashback for xvid and wink because it's free.

3893

Best ScreenCaster / Re: Opinions?

« Last post by nudone on June 05, 2005, 05:51 AM »

thank you very much Shangnyun.

how's it going mouser - i hope you're coping with all the screencasting comparisons.

i've been playing with bb flashback and wink and thought you might like to know what i've found interesting.

with bb flashback:

using the same project i've been comparing different output settings to see what offers the best quality compared with file size.

quite surprising is that 256 colors produced a larger file size than 16bit - and i do mean noticably larger.

for an 800x600 sized 2 minute recording i got a final swf output file of about 11 meg with the highest settings  .

  on the lowest settings: 5fps, 16bit color, 11khz 8bit mono, i got a final output file of just over 2 meg.

quite a difference and the quality isn't that reduced - the color space isn't perfect but it's better than the 256. the sound still seems good to me at this lowest setting and the 5 frames per second is pretty standard as far as i've encountered when downloading tutorials.

but...

if you output the same project to xvid at the same low sound setting and 5fps you can make the final screencast even smaller (i used the default xvid settings so it would be possible to make it even smaller still).

  using xvid i got a file of 1.6 meg.the video is slightly darker than what it should be and it's not as sharp as a swf movie but for how much smaller it is i think it's worth it.

at the sacrifice of longer encoding times i think double pass encoding with better compression settings and you would get the file size down even further.

from experience i've found that the techsmith codec used with camtasia always produced larger files than using xvid and this proved to be the case when using techsmith and bb flashback.

  the final techsmith encoded file was just under 4.5 meg - it looked brighter than the xvid version but it wasn't any sharper.

anyway, that's it for the moment - can't wait to see what mouser and anyone else testing these apps out has to say.

3894

General Software Discussion / Re: Finally, a robust keyboard shortcut app!

« Last post by nudone on June 04, 2005, 02:10 PM »

i honestly thought that only windows and other hotkey manager utils used the winkey - i suppose i'm just lucky in that i use programs that don't use that keyboard shortcut.

won't it be fun when we can discuss what our favourite hand waving shortcuts are when we're using the 'minority report' style interfaces. at least it will keep everyone fit. what a stupid idea.

3895

Best ScreenCaster / Re: Opinions?

« Last post by nudone on June 04, 2005, 09:49 AM »

i've been playing around with wink and reading the forum over at http://www.debugmode...userforums/index.php (you'll have to sign up to enter them).

Emilio Le Roux has made a post over there describing how to use a swf loader file to combine a wink swf file with an mp3 narration track - i've included the file. there are restrictions to what you can use (800x600 screen capture size wink movie, don't include wink navigation controls) but it appears to work quite well.

i was using 'audacity' http://audacity.sourceforge.net/ to record the audio to mp3 (using lame encoder) as they are free to use but have since discovered this other free little app, 'step voice recorder' http://www.snapfiles...m/get/stepvoice.html that will create a smaller mp3 file (though of course sound quality will be reduced).

if you are quick you can pretty much get everything in sync when you start both wink and the audio recorder going - use the mouse to click start on the sound device and press your hotkey to start wink. this should reduce the amount of messing around trying to get things matched up with your final screencast.

the controls on the winkloader don't appear to work fully but i would have thought any average user of Flash could create something along the same lines that worked better - and then of course share it with everyone for free.

it also appears that if you use the 'optimised octree' palette you can reduce the final output file quite a bit without it looking too bad.

just thought this might help anyone wishing to have a go with screencasting and keep it all free to do.

i hope that someone with a bit of flash knowledge can create a better swfloader though - that is pretty much the final link in the chain that needs fixing.

anyone trying bb flashback recorder may like play around with the output settings - it appears you can more half the size of the final swf file if you reduce the quality settings. you'll need to experiment but i would say that 256 color and 1/4 frame rate aren't worth using - the next settings up produce a better looking result without any real addition to output size (not on what i was doing anyway).

3896

Best ScreenCaster / Re: Opinions?

« Last post by nudone on June 03, 2005, 06:58 PM »

right, here's what i've thought so far - i may not have been entirely fair in judging these 'screencasters' on their full version capabilities but i didn't wish to get bogged down doing comparisons when some of these programs managed to annoy me within a few short minutes.

it's also difficult trying to compare the only totally free product against programs that cost around $300. there appears to be a massive gap in the market just waiting for someone to release a lower priced alternative to the current crop on offer.

firstly the ones i don't like:

viewlet builder:
forced to register on line, which i didn't do, before being able to render out a final movie file - okay, this isn't such a big deal but i wasn't in love with how the program worked. without the forced registering i would have given it more of a chance for sure - anyone who has used the program will no doubt have positive things to say about it. totally annoying but i admit i may have dismissed this one unfairly.

envision:
cheap but only if you already own macromedia flash as it has to work within it. didn't like the on screen icons it used for illustrating that mouse clicks had occurred, etc. main annoyance was the 25 frames limit on the demo version - hardly enough time to give it any real world kind of testing. only advantage is that you could edit your movie to your hearts content right there inside flash - but how much editing do you want to do when making 'screencasts'? i suspect, not a lot.

turbo demo:
i couldn't decide if i was doing something wrong with this one. the audio recording was absolutely terrible - it keeps pausing between frames so you end up with a stuttering screencast.  the menu of the actual editing program was buggy also - just appears black on my screen. loads of output options (can't do pdf with the demo) but i wonder how many people will be wanting to make a java screencast - well i suppose someone will, in which case good luck to them. in the bin it goes for me.

now, the ones i thought average:

wink:
it's free. it's good but not brilliant. if you don't need audio recording then this is the place to start. you can place annotation style text boxes and things onto the frames but they aren't anything fancy - but it's free.

i tried doing simultaneous recording with wink and the inbuilt windows sound recorder with the hope of combining the .swf and the .wav file to make a full fledged audio/visual screencast. this could still work if i could find a totally free .swf editor (maybe i didn't look hard enough). i don't see much point using this method if it's not going to be free or at least very cheap to do.

of course when wink starts recording audio itself in a future version then it will be hard to beat for the price.

instant demo:
this just seemed a bit odd. editing the movie requires exporting out frames to external image editing software. not very good if you want to edit a section of frames. bit of a weird interface too. sounds like i don't like this one at all.

captivate:
i didn't think that i would find anything wrong with the big daddy. it's got loads of editing ability, all the things you would expect from the price but i found the audio editing very impractical. the movie is split into sections depending on what actions were recorded on screen - this may make it a more efficient file to compress but it means that the audio stream is also split into sections too - maybe i didn't look hard enough but it seemed impossible to rerecord an audio track for the whole movie. if it wasn't for this strange audio restriction then there probably wouldn't be anything else to complain about. i was expecting captivate to do absolutely everything you could wish for with 'screencasting' but as it didn't i'm disappointed with it.

this leaves a pretty weird bunch for what i liked:

demobuilder:
has a potentially great feature if you don't wish to use audio in that it can automatically add bubble and text box pointers that tell you the action to perform before you see it carried out. other than that it looks nice but i didn't really go into the sound recording side of this one (i've only just discovered it does sound whilst i've been writing this).

camtasia:
yes, i still like this one even though it records in that obscenely large file format we know as video. to be honest i don't think the file size matters that much. you can still create relatively small files with the techsmith codec. the advantage with this capture method is that they just seem to look right and you know you aren't going to miss any frames out when you are recording movements in image editing programs. the truth is that you do have to scale down your window that you wish to record though - you wouldn't want to capture something full screen at high res. the file size probably wouldn't be worth it then. another possible advantage is that you can add annotation bubbles and other graphical helpers whilst you are recording the movie. either by pausing and adding on screen content then continuing to record or by pressing the appropriate camtasia menu buttons to add the same things whilst the action is being recorded. (i didn't get as far as doing post editing with the camtasia studio but i would imagine this to be able to add and mix or re-dub extra audio tracks if required.)

bb flashback:
something about this one just made me think i was onto a winner within a few short minutes. the interface feels right. the way you can drag the direction of the bubble points around is a classy idea (give it a go), the popup thumbnails on the time-line and the adjustable playback preview speeds - all quality ideas. re-dubbing audio was simple enough to do also but i'm not sure if you could mix between the tracks. the playback buttons included with your final rendered screencast were also better than any of the other programs here as they would autohide (captivates were terrible as they actually covered parts of the movie playback). and to top it off - when i checked the 'bbsoftware.co.uk' website i noticed that Zaine had already given them i 5 star award from the Greatest Software List.

you'll notice i've not done any comparisons for compression ratios. well, this is mainly because i didn't notice any major differences that would worry me (i didn't go to great lengths to test them in this way though). the quality of the outputs from all these programs seems pretty much the same minus the audio ability. the overall feel of the editor and the way the screencast file played back seemed the most important thing to me - after all you want to enjoy the editing procedure if you have to do it and you want the final movie to look like it was done professionally to impress your audience.

if money is the main concern then wink wins it. sound isn't essential after all as you can still demonstrate what you need to do with the message boxes. but if you've ever watched a few 'screencasts' that include audio you will know that it makes a great deal of difference to how much information can be conveyed - the narrators will often explain details that would just not be practical to try and include in a soundless movie. it's also sometimes good to get a sense of the character who is doing the demonstration (some of the free movie tutorials over at 3Dbuzz.com use two or more commentators at a time to explain things and their personalties do add to the experience. and there's non more enthusiastic and entertaining than Russell Brown for photoshop tutorials).

so, if i could ignore the prices of these programs which would i choose? most likely bb flashback. using it felt the quickest way of working and the output was like what i'm used to seeing with real movies from camtasia. the auto bubble thing with demobuilder is a nice touch but i don't think it's something that essential - maybe if you want to create the smallest screencast possible by not including audio then this is the one to go for. and what of captivate? it does everything other than a practical overdub as far as i could see so maybe this isn't really anything to complain to harshly about.

i'll be very interested to see what mouser's final verdict is as i'm sure he will have gone over these programs with a fine toothed comb by the time of the 2nd review. with a more thorough investigation i'm sure there will be different points of interest to what i've glanced over here.

3897

Best ScreenCaster / Re: Opinions?

« Last post by nudone on June 02, 2005, 01:47 PM »

i'm very interested in the final verdict for this one as i want to make some 'screencasts' myself so i'll have a look at some of them over the next couple of days if that's of any use.

i've used camtasia - but not for any particulary good reason other than it's what i had and it was before all these flash based things came out (i think).

anyway, i'll try my best to give some time to testing them properly.

3898

Cheat Sheeter / Re: Finally, a robust keyboard shortcut app!

« Last post by nudone on June 02, 2005, 01:36 PM »

i'm more than happy to work and collaborate on any cheat sheets related to photoshop and probably a few other adobe products - possibly other things like cubase, soundforge and maybe a few macromedia things but i think there will be someone better qualified for that.

this might not be what people have had in mind but if you look at the visibone www.visibone.com stuff they manage to get a hell of a lot of information onto a page - what are your thoughts on that kind of approach?

personally, i would be trying to make the sheets as easy to understand as possibly - this pretty much means using graphics, whether that just means using little icons or large diagrams i'm all for it if it makes things almost immediate to identify and understand.

of course this would have to be optional - not all programs would need explaining with diagrams and icons and not all people would want to include them when composing a cheat sheet.

maybe we could design the sheets to come in two forms - one with nice graphics were suitable and another similar sheet with the graphics removed but essential the same text (maybe even a bit more text).

i'm just inclined to think that a cheat sheet that was absolutely full of tips, quick keys and other text without any graphics will be hard to glance through - it's not going to be much fun if you've got to hunt for 5 minutes to find the reference to the shortcut key you are after (or whatever cheat you were after).

3899

Cheat Sheeter / Re: Finally, a robust keyboard shortcut app!

« Last post by nudone on June 02, 2005, 07:01 AM »

that is a brilliant set of features straight away - html layout with CSS ability and user costomisable edits to the cheat sheet: ingenious.

only one thing i'd comment on is the holding the 'winkey' down feature - wouldn't that keep bringing up the windows 'start' menu also?

it all sounds fantastic, mouser, i can't wait to see the first version - and start creating cheat sheets.

3900

Cheat Sheeter / Re: Finally, a robust keyboard shortcut app!

« Last post by nudone on June 02, 2005, 05:37 AM »

i think that potentially is one of the greatest ideas for a util ever.

if you make it so that the cheat sheets are easy to make by anyone then i can see it growing into a program that everyone with a computer could use.

i have a few html type cheat sheet poster things for sticking on my wall and a few that you just lay on your table - i don't use them as it's too much messing about - but to have something there that works with the program you are using would be almost essential.

to me, it seems like one of those ideas that are so obvious now you've said it that it should be included with all software anyway - just like the help files.

if you can make it so that it has adjustable transparency and is just as easy to hide as it is to start up then i think it will make more sense than using just another standard window that has the cheat sheet information in it.

there are certainly a good few cheat sheets i'd like to write straight away for such a thing. i think you should do it before someone else makes it and takes over the world with it.

(could you include a quick key or button that would swap to another page of the cheat sheet so that you could have multipage cheat sheets?)