Author Topic: NoteFrog Pro (clipboard information manager) - Mini-Review (Read 219,525 times)

rjbull · « **Reply #25 on:** January 04, 2012, 10:34 PM »

Quote from: berry on January 04, 2012, 12:32 AM

Quote from: rjbull on January 03, 2012, 10:23 PM
Do you intend to offer something like EverNote does, so that one can paste part of a Web page into NoteFrog and have it look reasonably like the original, in particular, with links intact?

We tried this with ClipGuru. It was problematic primarily due to the different methods each of the various browsers utilize to render the content - Firefox renders as an approximation of HTML, IE as rich text, etc.

The maintenance of the capability across the browser base was impeding our ability to improve the base functionality of the core program. It's not currently on our implementation schedule, but we will revisit it.

Note my modifier "reasonably"

Neither EverNote nor AllMyNotes seem to give a perfect rendition of a page. However, would it be possible to have a plain text format that at least includes the links? I.e., stripping out HTML tags but preserving URLs?

berry · « **Reply #26 on:** January 05, 2012, 01:11 AM »

Quote from: rjbull on January 04, 2012, 10:34 PM

Note my modifier "reasonably" Neither EverNote nor AllMyNotes seem to give a perfect rendition of a page. However, would it be possible to have a plain text format that at least includes the links? I.e., stripping out HTML tags but preserving URLs?

It is definitely something we will consider. As mentioned on the site, we built this tool due to an unsatisfied need and use it ourselves. A url feature like you mention would be usefull. We'll add it to the top of the features list.

cheers

IainB · « **Reply #27 on:** January 06, 2012, 07:33 AM »

I installed and started the NoteFrog v2ß for testing today, and am feeding back via email to @berry.
I could post the feedback here if anyone is interested.

rjbull · « **Reply #28 on:** January 06, 2012, 10:36 PM »

@berry:

Are you intending to add internal hyperlinks, from note to note?

Please, what's the function of the narrow column on the right of the titles window, see screenshot?

I've been wondering - not very coherently - about the titles list again. I presume that NF works like EverNote and CintaNotes in that the only "organisation" of the note stack is by date. That means that "live search" won't look quite right, because the results won't be in alphabetical order. If the main and recommended way to access data is via the search feature, would it make sense to relegate the titles list to a popup, and to make the search feature more prominent? That would be a radical departure from the existing look, of course. It would also make NF a little like a Windows form of Memory Mate for DOS (a wonderful program sold first by Brown Bag and then by Broderbund), an indexed free-form notekeeper, very fast at finding things. Many of us liked its clean simple interface, preferring it to the InfoSelect of the same era. MM loaded with a screen blank except for the main controls at the top. Apart from moderately powerful Boolean search, you could step through your note stack note by note. See screenshots... ahhh, that takes me back! And to make the screenshots, I found my copy and ran it in a console under Vista Home Premium!

berry · « **Reply #29 on:** January 06, 2012, 11:33 PM »

Quote from: rjbull on January 06, 2012, 10:36 PM

@berry:

Are you intending to add internal hyperlinks, from note to note?

That capability exists now via a rightclick menu from the items list "Save link to item" - paste the link into an item via the rightclick item "Insert saved item link"

Quote

Please, what's the function of the narrow column on the right of the titles window, see screenshot?

Originally to display a "Notation". Unused at present.

Quote

I've been wondering - not very coherently - about the titles list again. I presume that NF works like EverNote and CintaNotes in that the only "organisation" of the note stack is by date. That means that "live search" won't look quite right, because the results won't be in alphabetical order. If the main and recommended way to access data is via the search feature, would it make sense to relegate the titles list to a popup, and to make the search feature more prominent? That would be a radical departure from the existing look, of course. It would also make NF a little like a Windows form of Memory Mate for DOS (a wonderful program sold first by Brown Bag and then by Broderbund), an indexed free-form notekeeper, very fast at finding things. Many of us liked its clean simple interface, preferring it to the InfoSelect of the same era. MM loaded with a screen blank except for the main controls at the top. Apart from moderately powerful Boolean search, you could step through your note stack note by note. See screenshots... ahhh, that takes me back! And to make the screenshots, I found my copy and ran it in a console under Vista Home Premium!

Items may be sequenced by item number = date created, or by date updated via an "Option". Within a list, items may be grouped into one of four sub-groupings, top, high, normal and bottom.

We've found that grouping items with the most recently updated at the top along with the sub-grouping capability, provides reasonably good access for non-search conditions. A layout as you describe would be possible and was even considered since the original capability we were seeking was an InfoSelect like search/retrieval. Once a search in complete, it's possible to step through the list of matching items, one at a time in the resulting list. Elimination of the list would buy some space and possibly even a speed improvement for very large lists. It's something we haven't considered so far.

cheers,
berry
01/06/2012

cranioscopical · « **Reply #30 on:** January 07, 2012, 01:25 AM »

Quote from: IainB on January 06, 2012, 07:33 AM

I installed and started the NoteFrog v2ß for testing today, and am feeding back via email to @berry.
I could post the feedback here if anyone is interested.

Sure, the topic is NoteFrog, so the more information about it the better.

IainB · « **Reply #31 on:** January 08, 2012, 01:39 PM »

Feedback from ß testing:
I installed and worked with NFß "01" as I shall refer to it.
I reported back to @berry with:
4 positive points
8 negative issues (a couple of may have been due to my lack of knowledge of NF).

The issues have been addressed where repeatable, and a new NFß "02" has been issued, which I have downloaded and installed and am using now with NF running all the time.

So those issues that could be replicated have been fixed in NFß "02", so have now gone away.
There was one obscure issue that could not be replicated, and that also seems to have gone away (or has not yet recurred, at any rate).

I also have CHS running all the time, so this involves duplication, but I'd rather be safe than sorry - I know that CHS has shown itself to be pretty much rock solid. Neither proggy seems to get in the way of the other, so far, and I am learning more about NF as I continue to use it.

rjbull · « **Reply #32 on:** January 08, 2012, 05:50 PM »

Quote from: berry on January 06, 2012, 11:33 PM

Quote from: rjbull on January 06, 2012, 10:36 PM
Are you intending to add internal hyperlinks, from note to note?

That capability exists now via a rightclick menu from the items list "Save link to item" - paste the link into an item via the rightclick item "Insert saved item link"

Ah - thanks, I'd noticed the menu item, but thought it referred to external links to files on disk.

Quote from: berry on January 06, 2012, 11:33 PM

Items may be sequenced by item number = date created, or by date updated via an "Option". Within a list, items may be grouped into one of four sub-groupings, top, high, normal and bottom.

OK, thanks.

Quote from: berry on January 06, 2012, 11:33 PM

We've found that grouping items with the most recently updated at the top along with the sub-grouping capability, provides reasonably good access for non-search conditions.

I think I agree, though I don't have much data in NoteFrog yet. I'd still like to see the Search Control Area made more prominent. Eventually I'd like to see more advanced Boolean searching, something of this kind:

Find: (paper OR clip OR paperclip) AND (pen OR pencil) NOT (nuggan or nugganite)

That might become more valuable with bigger datasets.

rjbull · « **Reply #33 on:** January 09, 2012, 09:33 PM »

Is NoteFrog indexed? If not, how fast will search be with large databases?

berry · « **Reply #34 on:** January 09, 2012, 11:28 PM »

Quote from: rjbull on January 09, 2012, 09:33 PM

Is NoteFrog indexed? If not, how fast will search be with large databases?

A NoteFrog stack is stored in memory as an array. The search is very fast. On a very large database the limiting factor, speed wise, is displaying a very large list of "matching" items - the list display just takes a while (relatively). If you type fast, so we're not trying to display a new list on each character, but rather only a reasonably sized list of matching items, it will be very fast.

Since it's processor dependent, the speed will also vary somewhat based on processor speed.

cheers,

Incidentally, "and" searching is incorporated via ending a search term with an "enter".

IainB · « **Reply #35 on:** January 09, 2012, 11:59 PM »

Quote from: rjbull on January 08, 2012, 05:50 PM

I think I agree, though I don't have much data in NoteFrog yet. I'd still like to see the Search Control Area made more prominent. Eventually I'd like to see more advanced Boolean searching, something of this kind:

Find: (paper OR clip OR paperclip) AND (pen OR pencil) NOT (nuggan or nugganite)

That might become more valuable with bigger datasets.

Do you recall when I wrote in the thread above that I had suggested that the FAQ be included in the default stack (database) for NF?
Well, by that time I had already copied all the FAQ into my main stack.
So, in order to find a documented answer to your Q, I did this:

typed in "search" to the search field box
pressed "Enter"
typed in "notefrog" to the search field box
pressed "enter"

This was the result:
[attach]

IainB · « **Reply #36 on:** January 10, 2012, 12:47 AM »

Quote from: berry on January 09, 2012, 11:28 PM

A NoteFrog stack is stored in memory as an array. The search is very fast. On a very large database the limiting factor, speed wise, is displaying a very large list of "matching" items - the list display just takes a while (relatively). If you type fast, so we're not trying to display a new list on each character, but rather only a reasonably sized list of matching items, it will be very fast.

Since it's processor dependent, the speed will also vary somewhat based on processor speed.

I thought it might be useful to expand on this.
A common term for this kind of search is a "live" search. That means that the search proceeds as you type each letter of the search string.
It uses the actual data in the records, not a previously-built search index/table.

Generally speaking:

Slow typing in the search field in NF starts a fresh incremental search with every character that is typed in. This slows things down quite a bit and is a waste of processor resource. This can sometimes feel "laggy".
Fast typing does not allow enough/much time for NF to start a fresh incremental search and to properly proceed with that search as each character is typed in. This speeds things up a bit.
Pasting a search term into the search field is thus the fastest, since it avoids all the incremental search palaver.

You will tend to notice this effect of typing speed on the search speed when you are searching larger stacks (i.e., databases containing lots of records).

You can see the same kind of NF search behaviour in InfoSelect and CHS. Usually pretty fast.

IainB · « **Reply #37 on:** January 10, 2012, 03:40 AM »

Quote from: rjbull on January 08, 2012, 05:50 PM

Find: (paper OR clip OR paperclip) AND (pen OR pencil) NOT (nuggan or nugganite)

This search term could be simplified by removing redundant terms, thus:
Was: (paper OR clip OR paperclip) AND (pen OR pencil) NOT (nuggan or nugganite)
Change to: (paper OR clip) AND (pen) NOT (nuggan)

The modified search will filter "paperclip" and "pencil" and "nugganite" in the way you want, by default.

I don't think NF or CHS can do this in "live" search, because they are not boolean and they default to (AND). Boolean terms such as (AND), (OR), (NOT) are not usable.
However, CHS can (as we know) apply a boolean filter - i.e., including boolean terms - in its Virtual Folders.
InfoSelect will perform a "live" boolean search filter (if you want it to), thus:
[attach]

berry · « **Reply #38 on:** January 10, 2012, 03:57 AM »

A discussion of various search capabilities along with their respective value might be interesting.

As mentioned, NoteFrog currently contains an "and" capability. Incorporating an "or" capability in an "as you type" search capability becomes slightly impractical as it requires re-searching all list items once an "or" is incorporated - thus you whittle a list down only to begin again as an "or" is incorporated. You also need to agree on how to escape terms to easily identify the boolean components - e.g. presently, pickle "or" would search for the entire term - pickle "or" -. Interpreting an entire expression and then searching would be possible, but would negate the "search as you type" capability.

Some combination of both? It becomes difficult determining what has the most value while still keeping the search capability simple and usable for your average, not power, user.

cheers,

IainB · « **Reply #39 on:** January 10, 2012, 04:14 AM »

Yes, I think the boolean search would be a non-trivial feature to implement.
For interest, this is the Help about Search copied from InfoSelect v8 Help Manual:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Quote

The Search Dialog Box
The Search dialog box appears when you issue the Tools | Search (F5) command.
[attach]

rjbull · « **Reply #40 on:** January 10, 2012, 08:50 PM »

Quote from: IainB on January 10, 2012, 03:40 AM

This search term could be simplified by removing redundant terms, thus:
Was: (paper OR clip OR paperclip) AND (pen OR pencil) NOT (nuggan or nugganite)
Change to: (paper OR clip) AND (pen) NOT (nuggan)

The modified search will filter "paperclip" and "pencil" and "nugganite" in the way you want, by default.

In NF's current implementation, that's true. But... I'm implying that a later version might/should offer exact terms, not just treat every term as a wildcard.

rjbull · « **Reply #41 on:** January 10, 2012, 09:08 PM »

Quote from: berry on January 10, 2012, 03:57 AM

Incorporating an "or" capability in an "as you type" search capability becomes slightly impractical as it requires re-searching all list items once an "or" is incorporated - thus you whittle a list down only to begin again as an "or" is incorporated. You also need to agree on how to escape terms to easily identify the boolean components - e.g. presently, pickle "or" would search for the entire term - pickle "or" -. Interpreting an entire expression and then searching would be possible, but would negate the "search as you type" capability.

The example of a Boolean search I gave was exactly the kind of search you did in the aforementioned Memory Mate, a DOS program dated 1989. It gave you a "command line" to do this. AND, OR, and NOT were all reserved words. It also had a separate Narrow command to refine your search if you got too many hits. I see that full Boolean logic would be problematic in a "search as you type" interface, but if you hid the titles list as I mentioned before, and relied on the main searching feature, it would make more sense. However, that seems to imply that you have to make search terms exact rather than every term a wildcard, and if you need wildcards, deliberately specify them (as * or ?). It also depends on what sort of application you see NoteFrog becoming...

[Rant]

Quote from: berry on January 10, 2012, 03:57 AM

It becomes difficult determining what has the most value while still keeping the search capability simple and usable for your average, not power, user.

I was doing Boolean searching back in 1988. All users had to learn fast or perish. I find Windows dumbs things down; the average user has become defined as a complete beginner with very little brain or application.
[/Rant]

IainB · « **Reply #42 on:** January 11, 2012, 07:31 AM »

Quote from: rjbull on January 10, 2012, 08:50 PM

Quote from: IainB on January 10, 2012, 03:40 AM
This search term could be simplified by removing redundant terms, thus:
Was: (paper OR clip OR paperclip) AND (pen OR pencil) NOT (nuggan or nugganite)
Change to: (paper OR clip) AND (pen) NOT (nuggan)

The modified search will filter "paperclip" and "pencil" and "nugganite" in the way you want, by default.
In NF's current implementation, that's true. But... I'm implying that a later version might/should offer exact terms, not just treat every term as a wildcard.

Sorry, I didn't see that exact strings or "Whole Words Only" were necessarily implicit in your search, and so I labelled them as redundant search terms. (Normally, they could be redundant.)

That was why I provided the images of the Infoselect boolean search, where you could pick options - for example, exact strings in the form of "Whole Words Only" - and if you didn't specify that option, then the strings would be looked for by default as whole words AND if embedded in larger strings.
Otherwise, I would suggest that having your search look for "whole words only" by default is likely to be a pain in the proverbial.

Had you specified that (exact or "Whole Words Only") as a default requirement in CHS? If so, then I think I must have missed that. Otherwise, I'm pretty sure I would have said something about it.
Do you really want it as a default in NF? (I wouldn't - I'd want it as a defined option, as in InfoSelect. And it would be "nice to have" in CHS.)

IainB · « **Reply #43 on:** January 11, 2012, 07:35 AM »

Quote from: rjbull on January 10, 2012, 09:08 PM

I find Windows dumbs things down; the average user has become defined as a complete beginner with very little brain or application.

I wonder how that definition could have been arrived at?
Maybe it's just the Lowest Common Denominator approach?

IainB · « **Reply #44 on:** January 11, 2012, 07:44 AM »

@berry: Nothing much to report on the NFß v2 (02).
Only one odd thing so far:
I have NF "frog-croak" sound turned on for clip capture, and it works fine.
However, NF will frequently do a frog-croak when it has not been used for a while, and is not being used - including when keyboard is active or keyboard is idle. It's not capturing anything on these instances - at least, nothing new is appearing in the stack. I wondered, but It doesn't seem to be occurring when the screensaver engages either.

rjbull · « **Reply #45 on:** January 11, 2012, 02:17 PM »

Quote from: IainB on January 11, 2012, 07:31 AM

I didn't see that exact strings or "Whole Words Only" were necessarily implicit in your search

Perhaps not, but I used to search Derwent World Patent Index via the Dialog host system. With tens of millions of complex records to search, precision was vital. Dialog has very advanced search features, but you usually have to specify wildcards as such. I sometimes find Google's "over-wildcarded" beahviour irritating. I often want an exact match, and would rather have no matches than a load of false drops (maybe I should check its advanced search feature again).

Quote from: IainB on January 11, 2012, 07:31 AM

Had you specified that (exact or "Whole Words Only") as a default requirement in CHS?

I don't remember so doing. It was only when writing my post with the Boolean search that it struck me that Boolean search seems to imply whole words.

Quote from: IainB on January 11, 2012, 07:31 AM

Do you really want it as a default in NF? (I wouldn't - I'd want it as a defined option, as in InfoSelect. And it would be "nice to have" in CHS.)

I'd accept it being on an Advanced Search tab, rather than the default.

berry · « **Reply #46 on:** January 11, 2012, 06:42 PM »

Thanks Ian. I will look into the "frog-croak". Since the other beta testers are not experiencing any problems either, I'll probably be firming up for a V2 release, thus the "croak" fix may not make it into V2.0 unless it's a very simple fix.

Thanks again for your input.

cheers

Edit. The sound is only played within the clip collection routine, which requires a "Clipboard notification" message sent by Windows. However, duplicate clips - that is, another copy of the previously collected clip, are not collected, so it's possible a message is being received from Windows but NoteFrog is not saving the item. Some applications send a clipboard notification when they close, so, for instance, if you had copied data from a webpage and later closed the browser, NoteFrog would receive a clipboard notification and recognize a duplicate.

I will look into moving the "sound" so it occurs after the check for a duplicate.

IainB · « **Reply #47 on:** January 12, 2012, 07:14 AM »

Quote from: berry on January 11, 2012, 06:42 PM

However, duplicate clips - that is, another copy of the previously collected clip, are not collected, so it's possible a message is being received from Windows but NoteFrog is not saving the item. Some applications send a clipboard notification when they close, so, for instance, if you had copied data from a webpage and later closed the browser, NoteFrog would receive a clipboard notification and recognize a duplicate.

Thought I should mention this, because it relates to the accumulation of duplicate text and image clips, which could lead to potentially unnecessarily bloated stacks:
NF will (correctly) not copy a duplicate of the last clip to be copied, but it apparently will copy a duplicate of any other clip captured before the last one. (Is that correct?)
Is there some way this duplication could be avoided/prevented in NF?

I think this same issue was addressed during the last 12 months in CHS. Now in CHS I think text clips are not duplicated, and there was also an improved CRC check of image clips to avoid making duplicate clip copies of those.

berry · « **Reply #48 on:** January 12, 2012, 11:10 AM »

Quote

NF will (correctly) not copy a duplicate of the last clip to be copied, but it apparently will copy a duplicate of any other clip captured before the last one. (Is that correct?)
Is there some way this duplication could be avoided/prevented in NF?

It would be possible. It's never been reported as an issue. Would need to give some thought as to the action taken when a duplicate was detected and skipped, such as not to confuse the user and cause additional issues.

cheers

IainB · « **Reply #49 on:** January 15, 2012, 12:27 PM »

No major issues to report with NFP ß 02.
The search and scroll operations still feel nice and fast with 1,927 items in the stack.

Minor problems:

When I start NFP from the Quicklaunch icon, it shows up in the systray and closes as minimised to the systray - which is what I expect it to do. However, it doesn't seem to start with windows even though I have selected that option, and when I put it in my startup folder to force it on startup, it started OK, but did not show in the systray and disappeared on close (though the process was still active).
After entering the Registration Code, the menu item "Go Pro - Purchase NoteFrog Professional" is greyed out, but when you restart NFP, the same item has been restored to black (i.e., is not greyed out).