Yearning
Posted by ureadit
on 5/15/2004
ureadit
5/15/2004 9:28 am
Today, this site has virtually become a real-time chat room. Clearly there are many of us searching for our "perfect PIM." It seems to me that even if there were a super programmer out there who could create whatever we asked, each of us has two, tough questions we need to think hard about:
What functionality do I really want in MY PIM?
How (by what mechanisms) would that functionality be achieved?
Perhaps those of us who are seriously thinking about this should start a thread on this topic...or, perhaps, a weave of threads. For example, for messages related to this subject, we might begin each Title heading with two asterisks,**.
For example, JP's message 1905 listed a couple of functionalities:
"Lastly, I'm still thinking about the question you pose at the top of this thread. Suppose we completely ignore the existence of all the software tools discussed so thoroughly here. What if we just concentrate on the work we do, and how we do it. We outline to write coherent and organized documents, and deploy information (retrieved from databases?) to flesh out our writing. So outlining (hieracrhy) *must* come first. Secondarily, keywords inside the outline can link to other information and turn those skeletal outline elements into full sentences/thoughts. So when you say "Hierarchy doesn't exclude key words" you're absolutely right. I just think that the outline (hierarchy) must always come first.
"Organizing thoughts for writing and storing/retrieving information are different activities, and I think these deliberations (and all that powerful, confusing software) confirm that. Fun to think about, though!"
On the mechanism side, I've suggested that a tree serves as a highly flexible table of contents, while a good FIND function can be thought of as having the functionality of a sophisticated index.
Any thoughts?
What functionality do I really want in MY PIM?
How (by what mechanisms) would that functionality be achieved?
Perhaps those of us who are seriously thinking about this should start a thread on this topic...or, perhaps, a weave of threads. For example, for messages related to this subject, we might begin each Title heading with two asterisks,**.
For example, JP's message 1905 listed a couple of functionalities:
"Lastly, I'm still thinking about the question you pose at the top of this thread. Suppose we completely ignore the existence of all the software tools discussed so thoroughly here. What if we just concentrate on the work we do, and how we do it. We outline to write coherent and organized documents, and deploy information (retrieved from databases?) to flesh out our writing. So outlining (hieracrhy) *must* come first. Secondarily, keywords inside the outline can link to other information and turn those skeletal outline elements into full sentences/thoughts. So when you say "Hierarchy doesn't exclude key words" you're absolutely right. I just think that the outline (hierarchy) must always come first.
"Organizing thoughts for writing and storing/retrieving information are different activities, and I think these deliberations (and all that powerful, confusing software) confirm that. Fun to think about, though!"
On the mechanism side, I've suggested that a tree serves as a highly flexible table of contents, while a good FIND function can be thought of as having the functionality of a sophisticated index.
Any thoughts?
zeoli
5/15/2004 3:40 pm
Holy Smokes! I go away for a couple of days and this site lights up like a Christmas tree. How exciting!
Some thoughts: As has been mentioned or alluded to already, there are really two aspects of outlining we are discussing. A. As a data storage and retreival tool; and B. As a writing composition tool/thought processor. GrandView, in my opinion, was unique in that it did both these tasks fairly well, though it was really as a writing compostion tool and thought processor that it remains unmatched. It was easy to write AND edit your text in GV -- as easy as any word processor. Plus you could move your topics around almost effortlessly. The fact that each topic could contain a document "beneath" it (what I will call sub text, because I forget what, if anything, GV called it), which could be viewed as part of the outline or hidden from view, made GV very flexible. For instance, you could outline every thought, doing all the composition within the topic headings, or you could outline major topics, then just compose sub text within those topics. And with one keystroke you could be in a full-screened word processing window focussed only on the sub text for any specific topic was extremely useful. (Am I making my meaning clear? Probably not.) This is what NoteMap lacks. All your writing is in a topic. On top of that, GrandView allowed you to catalog your topics with columns, so you could set priorities, add due dates, create categories. This increased its functionality to a genuine PIM and even a project manager. Hot links to other outlines was also a plus.
So nothing does what GrandView did, as far as I can tell. Certainly ADM does not do this. ADM is an information organizer, and a good one. But it does not provide an enhanced environment for composing writing... at least not for me. Right now, the best writing outliner in Windows is NoteMap, but as mentioned above, it is still a far cry from GrandView.
Anyway, I think this is the crux of the debate: are we talking about an information organizer or are we talking about a composition tool? How you answer that question will impact entirely what outliners you will find most useful.
Steve Z.
Some thoughts: As has been mentioned or alluded to already, there are really two aspects of outlining we are discussing. A. As a data storage and retreival tool; and B. As a writing composition tool/thought processor. GrandView, in my opinion, was unique in that it did both these tasks fairly well, though it was really as a writing compostion tool and thought processor that it remains unmatched. It was easy to write AND edit your text in GV -- as easy as any word processor. Plus you could move your topics around almost effortlessly. The fact that each topic could contain a document "beneath" it (what I will call sub text, because I forget what, if anything, GV called it), which could be viewed as part of the outline or hidden from view, made GV very flexible. For instance, you could outline every thought, doing all the composition within the topic headings, or you could outline major topics, then just compose sub text within those topics. And with one keystroke you could be in a full-screened word processing window focussed only on the sub text for any specific topic was extremely useful. (Am I making my meaning clear? Probably not.) This is what NoteMap lacks. All your writing is in a topic. On top of that, GrandView allowed you to catalog your topics with columns, so you could set priorities, add due dates, create categories. This increased its functionality to a genuine PIM and even a project manager. Hot links to other outlines was also a plus.
So nothing does what GrandView did, as far as I can tell. Certainly ADM does not do this. ADM is an information organizer, and a good one. But it does not provide an enhanced environment for composing writing... at least not for me. Right now, the best writing outliner in Windows is NoteMap, but as mentioned above, it is still a far cry from GrandView.
Anyway, I think this is the crux of the debate: are we talking about an information organizer or are we talking about a composition tool? How you answer that question will impact entirely what outliners you will find most useful.
Steve Z.