My mental jury is still out on whether Scrintal will evolve into an app that I found useful for my needs. However, I do admire the work they are doing. This article by Ece Kural, a co-founder of Scrintal, is interesting as it describes the knowledge management process. This quote from early in the article captures the essence of the creative process:

"That was when I realized that being creative requires chaos, and then it requires order."

This isn't profound. We all understand this. But I thought she encapsulates the process as succinctly as I've seen it expressed.

If this interests you, here's a link to the whole article. It is not a hard sell on Scrintal:

https://blog.scrintal.com/why-we-build-scrintal-8472f2672e0

Steve

Follow-up articles led up to the launch of the finished product in October; the end result is presented here:
https://blog.scrintal.com/playground-for-the-mind-is-here-heres-what-changed-in-scrintal-5bd7fd82b6cc

Still testing it, as I am doing with several others.

I've walked up to Scrintal's front door many times, then walk away because I don't want to provide credit information and pay to check out the app.

I liked Obsidian's Canvas, but it was never enough. And I stopped using Obsidian anyway.
So in 2022 I decided to check Scrintal out with a year's subscription (I'm always slow, trial periods are never sufficient for me). And then thought to make it meaningful that I ought to do the same for Heptabase.

I liked Scrintal's description better than Heptabase, and its described workflow. In practice, I found Heptabase always worked better. My impression was that Scrintal had launched before its engineering had caught up; maybe that's changed, idk. I liked many things about Heptabase. But I couldn't persuade myself that there was a productive workflow in either program - or that they were working towards one. So I never renewed either subscription.

I'm not surprised to see Heptabase describing itself now as "empowering you to visually make sense of your learning, research, and projects", and Scrintal being "playground for the mind".
Doesn't sound as if either have any intention of contributing to a workflow.

I have been gradually, slowly, reluctantly moving to using Lattics in a substantial way. Mostly because what it has does contribute to a productive workflow for me. (There are substantial glimmers of my reluctance here - https://www.donationcoder.com/forum/index.php?topic=54676.0 ). It says it has a whiteboard in the works.

But even without it, you can achieve similar outcomes.
There's a card view (view options are summary, summary with image and preview).
Any you can load any cards you want onto a mindmap. Join them with arrows. Use colours. Add new ones for new thoughts. And finally build out the mindmap itself - using transcluded text from the cards as desired. Finally switching to the outline, filling out, completing and editing the text before exporting into formatted docx, pdf etc. Admittedly the cards on the mindmap aren't as pretty and don't have as many options as with Heptabase and Scrintal, but it all leads to a product. And maybe the whiteboard feature when it comes will be much better.

Of course my product is words in sequence. If your needs are different, it may be no more helpful than Heptabase or Scrintal. And I'm willing to accept the limitations that come with the program.

Dormouse, don't take this as a criticism of what you've written here. I intend a sincere discussion of what we mean when we say, "workflow."

To be honest, though I've used the term myself, I really don't understand the concept of workflow.

Yes, I get that projects that are identical in nature can have similar processes that we can think of as workflow. An author gathers ideas, chooses one, collects research, noodles the research into something coherent, writes the first draft, edits until complete (I've undoubtedly left out a few crucial steps). But that is a far cry from the process the editor goes through to edit that piece, or a publisher goes through to bring a new book to press. I go through all three of those types of work and others in my job. I can't have a "workflow," but need several different workflows, each needing different software tools.

So yes, I guess I am taking exception to your characterizing Heptabase and Scrintal as having no intention to contributing to a workflow. Of course they can contribute. Scrintal for instance could be used to plan a writing project, gather the research, build an outline or first draft. I wouldn't actually write the final draft in Scrintal, but it certainly could fit a writing workflow.

I'm not trying to tell you or anyone else you should use Scrintal this way -- I don't myself. I am just trying to make a point that -- in my opinion -- the term "workflow" is very squishy and feels meaningless to me unless it is put into the context of the job at hand.

Does that make sense or am I just howling in the wilderness?



Dormouse wrote:

I liked Obsidian's Canvas, but it was never enough. And I stopped using
Obsidian anyway.
So in 2022 I decided to check Scrintal out with a year's subscription
(I'm always slow, trial periods are never sufficient for me). And then
thought to make it meaningful that I ought to do the same for Heptabase.

I liked Scrintal's description better than Heptabase, and its described
workflow. In practice, I found Heptabase always worked better. My
impression was that Scrintal had launched before its engineering had
caught up; maybe that's changed, idk. I liked many things about
Heptabase. But I couldn't persuade myself that there was a productive
workflow in either program - or that they were working towards one. So I
never renewed either subscription.

I'm not surprised to see Heptabase describing itself now as "empowering
you to visually make sense of your learning, research, and projects",
and Scrintal being "playground for the mind".
Doesn't sound as if either have any intention of contributing to a
workflow.

I have been gradually, slowly, reluctantly moving to using Lattics in a
substantial way. Mostly because what it has does contribute to a
productive workflow for me. (There are substantial glimmers of my
reluctance here -
https://www.donationcoder.com/forum/index.php?topic=54676.0 ). It says
it has a whiteboard in the works.

But even without it, you can achieve similar outcomes.
There's a card view (view options are summary, summary with image and
preview).
Any you can load any cards you want onto a mindmap. Join them with
arrows. Use colours. Add new ones for new thoughts. And finally build
out the mindmap itself - using transcluded text from the cards as
desired. Finally switching to the outline, filling out, completing and
editing the text before exporting into formatted docx, pdf etc.
Admittedly the cards on the mindmap aren't as pretty and don't have as
many options as with Heptabase and Scrintal, but it all leads to a
product. And maybe the whiteboard feature when it comes will be much
better.

Of course my product is words in sequence. If your needs are different,
it may be no more helpful than Heptabase or Scrintal. And I'm willing to
accept the limitations that come with the program.

I'm sympathetic to Stephen Zeoli's thoughts about "workflow". To me, it smacks of Taylorism, which is not a good model for intellectual pursuits. I don't think the term is going way in so-called "PKM" forums any time soon, however. ("PKM" is another cringe.)

The article sounds like an ad-hoc collation of pseudo-inspirational soundbites. Reading it gave me a headache. It might as well have been written by ChatGPT. Nauseating stuff.

Stephen Zeoli wrote:

I guess I am taking exception to your characterizing Heptabase
and Scrintal as having no intention to contributing to a workflow.

'twas not me that defined them thus, 'twas the developers themselves

Heptabase describing itself now as “empowering
you to visually make sense of your learning, research, and projects”,

- that's defining the app's purpose as a form of self development

Scrintal being “playground for the mind”.

- that's play not work

I can understand them changing focus (Ece's article implied helping with the production of theses etc; I regard 'playground' as indicating a change of focus - at least in its marketing): Obsidian (now about 'sharpening your thinking') has always got more traction from users playing with the settings and plugins than the utility of the notes. And to an extent I commend it because it matches my own experience of using the programs.


Stephen Zeoli wrote:

To be honest, though I've used the term myself, I really don't
understand the concept of workflow.

Compound word, two elements. One implies a a productive outcome from effort; the other implies a flow - an easy move from one stage to another. A production line is a better flow than workers carrying half-made products from one bench to another.

Scrintal for instance could be used to plan
a writing project, gather the research, build an outline or first draft.

This is a chunk of work without the element of flow.

You could, for instance, choose Mindomo for that chunk.
But with Mindomo you would also get a flow. The map can be exported as a formatted docx with different levels of headings, body text and even with notes that show as margin notes in Word.
The developers have spent time considering this use of the program and designed features to make it quicker and easier to move from the Mindomo chunk to the Word chunk.

I wouldn't actually write the final draft in Scrintal, but it certainly
could fit a writing workflow.

You can of course use it however you want. I can hammer with a screwdriver. But I find it best when the vision of a program's developers align with my own intended usage. Especially in the case of early stage programs where current functionality is a very limited indication of what there will be in two or three years time.

Paul Korm wrote:

("PKM" is another cringe.)

Yeah. And it's not as if there's a clear definition.
Is it just bi-directional links in a collection of notes? Are tasks, calendar and journal required? Images, handwriting and drawing?

I'm not convinced by the association of workflow with Taylorism. Significant usage of the term only started in the computer age. And from the P pov, it's a helpful concept - moves the focus from programs and feature lists to content and the interactions between programs. Everyone's workflow will be different, but thinking about the flow and the content is individual-centred which is quite the opposite of the optimal standardisation in Taylorism.

Fascinating discussion!

I don't pretend to have clear, comprehensive definition of workflow independent of the specific job at hand. Nevertheless, I personally consider that a tool positively contributes to my own workflow(s) when it has the flexibility to support various information flows.

To give an example: as much as I despise the bloatware called MS Word, I find that it can support just about any work related to producing longform "rich" (integrating formatted text and images) documents. Most importantly, it does not impose a specific workflow —e.g., finalise text first, then format— as one can go back and forth, drafting, editing, enriching, refining, versioning, etc.

Another —completely different— tool that comes to mind is Andy's Easy Data Transform, often revered here.

Being able to do a lot within the same tool is a major workflow advantage, because it reduces conversion/migration tasks, which can constitute bottlenecks and/or one-way streets, both of which impact flow efficiency.

We could consider Theory of Contraints, a definition of Lean as presented in https://thisislean.com/ ("Lean is an operations strategy that prioritises flow efficiency over resource efficiency"), or simply terms such as "seamless" often brought up in the forum.


Stephen Zeoli wrote:

So yes, I guess I am taking exception to your characterizing Heptabase
and Scrintal as having no intention to contributing to a workflow. Of
course they can contribute. Scrintal for instance could be used to plan
a writing project, gather the research, build an outline or first draft.
I wouldn't actually write the final draft in Scrintal, but it certainly
could fit a writing workflow.

I'm not trying to tell you or anyone else you should use Scrintal this
way -- I don't myself. I am just trying to make a point that -- in my
opinion -- the term "workflow" is very squishy and feels meaningless to
me unless it is put into the context of the job at hand.

Alexander Deliyannis wrote:

Being able to do a lot within the same tool is a major workflow
advantage, because it reduces conversion/migration tasks, which can
constitute bottlenecks and/or one-way streets, both of which impact flow
efficiency.

Theoretically true. But it assumes that the parts are good and work well together, which isn't always the case. I well remember Liquid Story binder which was a great deal less than the sum of its parts. And you have to make sure that the program you select isn't weighed down by features you don't need.

Alexander Deliyannis wrote:

To give an example: as much as I despise the bloatware called MS Word, I
find that it can support just about any work related to producing
longform "rich" (integrating formatted text and images) documents. Most
importantly, it does not impose a specific workflow —e.g.,
finalise text first, then format— as one can go back and forth,
drafting, editing, enriching, refining, versioning, etc.

I used to despise Word. It was always bloated from a writers pov because it was a program designed for typists. And it actually missed many features useful to writers. I only used it when I had to and for the later stages of reviewing etc.
But then I learned other ways of using it and discovered that many of the desired features that I remember it not having were now there. And it robustly worked with massive documents that some plaintext editors struggled with. And focus modes were actually great. And it worked well with OneNote (still an acquired taste, but better than the note features in most editors). I'm not sure when that happened. And I don't find the "bloat" weighing it down. I have great respect for it now.

If it weren't for Lattics I'd be doing most of my writing with it. With outlining/planning in Mindomo. There were two big reasons for switching. One being that I don't work only in one long document for days on end - I have many projects and I tend to switch between them according to pressure and inspiration (or the lack of it) - Lattics is designed to manage multiple projects. The other being the going back and forth: my optimal workflow isn't outliner/planner > editor, it's going back and forth between them. That works in Lattics but not so well in Mindomo/Word.

I'll second this - nice topic.

(Insert standard fanboy gushing about Easy Data Transform here, all the stronger and an even more incredible resource in its new release. Tyrants quail before data disambiguated with Easy Data Transform.)

Alexander Deliyannis wrote:

Fascinating discussion!

We could consider Theory of Contraints...

I had a license for Flying Logic for a while. Interesting concept, but the problems I untangle aren't good candidates for ToC analysis. It seemed more of a presentation tool, actually, than a design utility.

I'll second this - nice topic.

(Insert standard fanboy gushing about Easy Data Transform here, all the stronger and an even more incredible resource in its new release. Tyrants quail before data disambiguated with Easy Data Transform.)

Alexander Deliyannis wrote:

Fascinating discussion!

We could consider Theory of Contraints...

I had a license for Flying Logic for a while. Interesting concept, but the problems I untangle aren't good candidates for ToC analysis. It seemed more of a presentation tool, actually, than a design utility.

I am in the writing-up stage for a research paper I have been working on for several months. I am trying Lattics out, but I became frustrated when there was no sync option for iCloud (I use a Mac) or most other popular cloud services other than OneDrive. So, I am using Scrivener and have found that it seems to get me through the job of writing. Looking back, Scrivener was the tool I turned to get my last research paper written. This time, I am making heavy use of the "Composition Mode"; a focus mode. However, I can understand why there are so many users frustrated with the compile features. I look forward to trying Lattics again when it is more developed. I have purchased a year subscription in the hope it does. :)

Dormouse wrote:

If it weren't for Lattics I'd be doing most of my writing with it. With
outlining/planning in Mindomo. There were two big reasons for switching.
One being that I don't work only in one long document for days on end -
I have many projects and I tend to switch between them according to
pressure and inspiration (or the lack of it) - Lattics is designed to
manage multiple projects. The other being the going back and forth: my
optimal workflow isn't outliner/planner > editor, it's going back and
forth between them. That works in Lattics but not so well in
Mindomo/Word.

Darren McDonald wrote:

I became frustrated
when there was no sync option for iCloud (I use a Mac) or most other
popular cloud services other than OneDrive.

Even the OneDrive option is relatively recent. Since I've been using it, WebDAV has been the main one, with one Chinese alternative. Sync doesn't seem to have been a primary concern; not a problem for me. I assume iCloud will come, at least by the time the iOS app appears: going by the OSs for Zine, and that they've stated that an iOS ( but not Android) version is in the pipeline, they appear to be somewhat Applecentric. Updates seem frequent rn, feels like more than one a week.

Apparently WebDAV access can be set up for iCloud via third party services such as Multcloud:
https://www.multcloud.com/tutorials/icloud-drive-webdav-0121-gc.html

I've bought the lifetime license for Multcloud under the current 70% promotion, and found it to work well in bridging various services, though I don't have iCloud.


Darren McDonald wrote:

I became frustrated when there was no sync option for iCloud (I use a Mac)

Scrivener is highly recommendable.

That said, I don't use it for the reasons you cite and there's one other thing, very silly of me.

There is a style in Scrivener called No Style. I really like styles, and having a style that is advertised as not being a style is jarring. And silly of me not to just get over it.

I like to open Devonthink and call that my Scrivener-esque Research folder. I like Mellel, so I open it up and think of it as the Draft folder.

Mellel's Outline (navigator) works in some ways like Scrivener's binder. I can drag and drop in the Outline, rearranging the manuscript.

Funny, too, how much I use Mellel.

When I outline, I like to be a little expansive. I have a style set for outlining that puts a page break in before every heading (auto-title) in the manuscript. When I click on an entry in the Outline, I see the related text in the edit window. It's not unlike a two pane outliner, used in that fashion.

And yet, as much as tools that are as comfortable as old friends serve me well, I still yearn for the perfect outliner.

Darren McDonald wrote:

I can understand why there are so many users
frustrated with the compile features. I look forward to trying Lattics
again when it is more developed.

Since I work on my MacBook when I am at home and my MacBook Air when I am out working in a café or research site or at university, sync is important for me.
I am glad to hear that the progress is moving along quickly. I wrote to the developers and were they quick to respond.
The developers told me much the same as you and that I try out OneDrive while they work on iCloud.
(Unfortuately, OneDrive is provided by my university and tech support does not currently allow services such as Lattics access).
I look forward to other sync services options in the (near!) future. Then I can put Lattics to test when writing me next research paper. :)

Dormouse wrote:

Sync doesn't
seem to have been a primary concern; not a problem for me. I assume
iCloud will come, at least by the time the iOS app appears: going by the
OSs for Zine, and that they've stated that an iOS ( but not Android)
version is in the pipeline, they appear to be somewhat Applecentric.
Updates seem frequent rn, feels like more than one a week.

Thanks for this Alexander. I was thinking about looking at ways I could link other sync services to WebDav and you showed me the way!

Unfortunately, Multcloud is over budget for me (even more so with the weak yen I would be paying in at the moment).
If you have any other recommendations I would welcome them.
I need this type of thing to solve the sync problem with Lattics. All the other software I use already syncs up nicely.
(Though, I will not be able to look into anything till have the present paper out of the way).


Alexander Deliyannis wrote:

Apparently WebDAV access can be set up for iCloud via third party
services such as Multcloud:
https://www.multcloud.com/tutorials/icloud-drive-webdav-0121-gc.html

I've bought the lifetime license for Multcloud under the current 70%
promotion, and found it to work well in bridging various services,
though I don't have iCloud.

Mellel! Thanks for reminding me of this app! I should try it out properly when I work on my next paper.
For now, I will continue with Scriviner. I can quit put my finger on it, but it is something with the layout and navigation that gels with the productive part of brain.
I can relate to some feature (or lack of a feature) in an app that stops you from exploring it further.
Your experience with No Style in Scrivener parallels my experience with Mellel in the way pallets appear as detached windows. Also, the design of icons is grating on my eye.
I know in my rational mind this is not a big issue, but it is distractive enough for me to continually quit Mellel. It is the first thing I check when a new release comes out.
I repeat what you say that this is a silly issue for me. I should really try to give Mellel a better chance.
If an app works for you, then that it is the obvious choice for you. :)

Amontillado wrote:

Scrivener is highly recommendable.

That said, I don't use it for the reasons you cite and there's one other
thing, very silly of me.

There is a style in Scrivener called No Style. I really like styles, and
having a style that is advertised as not being a style is jarring. And
silly of me not to just get over it.

I like to open Devonthink and call that my Scrivener-esque Research
folder. I like Mellel, so I open it up and think of it as the Draft
folder.

Mellel's Outline (navigator) works in some ways like Scrivener's binder.
I can drag and drop in the Outline, rearranging the manuscript.

Funny, too, how much I use Mellel.

When I outline, I like to be a little expansive. I have a style set for
outlining that puts a page break in before every heading (auto-title) in
the manuscript. When I click on an entry in the Outline, I see the
related text in the edit window. It's not unlike a two pane outliner,
used in that fashion.

And yet, as much as tools that are as comfortable as old friends serve
me well, I still yearn for the perfect outliner.

Some of Mellel's own literature says it's not for everyone, and my addiction to it is not entirely product based.

When I first looked at Mellel, either version 3 or 4, I had the pleasure of a short email dialog with Ori Redler. At one point, I said that what I was looking for was a word processor with "rational" styles. On later re-reading, my wording was ham handed and harsh.

Ori's response was gentle and light hearted, suggesting I would have to be the best judge of Mellel's rationality.

Ori passed away. Fortunately, I had the chance to apologize for unintended offense.

I felt I owed them a license purchase. Mellel's Auto-titles and other un-Word-like features were confusing. I got a copy of Nisus and was happy.

Mellel kept drawing my attention, though, and I had a need for page styles, something Nisus has never supported. A few things clicked, I finally grokked Mellel, and I'm totally hooked on it.

It's the styles support that has me happily trapped in the Mellel camp.

Mellel supports global and local styles, and if you copy a document based on a global style to another computer you'll never notice that what was global on computer #1 looks like a local style on computer #2. Style changes on computer #2 will reflect on computer #1 as local style elements unless you decide to incorporate them into the global style set.

If I'm using a global style, I can make style changes that either apply globally or just to the document. I can fork a style set, basing a new style set on the old one.

Quoting Henley (William Ernest, the poet, not Don, the rock star), it matters not how strait the gate, how charged with punishments the scroll, I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul.

Or so it seems.

The proprietary document format is wonderfully understandable, too. I wrote my own mail merge utility in Python, for example. I started with no knowledge of Mellel's file format at about noon. By about 3 PM I had mail merges running.

Mail merge is handy, and since I can read and write Mellel documents from Python, I figure my work is about as future proof as plain text would be.

But it's not for everyone. It is not Word, even though Mellel is Hebrew for "Word."

If you hit a stumbling block and want extra eyes on something in Mellel, hit me up.

Darren McDonald wrote:

Mellel! Thanks for reminding me of this app! I should try it out
properly when I work on my next paper.
For now, I will continue with Scriviner. I can quit put my finger on it,
but it is something with the layout and navigation that gels with the
productive part of brain.
I can relate to some feature (or lack of a feature) in an app that stops
you from exploring it further.
Your experience with No Style in Scrivener parallels my experience with
Mellel in the way pallets appear as detached windows. Also, the design
of icons is grating on my eye.
I know in my rational mind this is not a big issue, but it is
distractive enough for me to continually quit Mellel. It is the first
thing I check when a new release comes out.
I repeat what you say that this is a silly issue for me. I should really
try to give Mellel a better chance.
If an app works for you, then that it is the obvious choice for you. :)