Forum Posts Feed
ConnectedText; any case studies?
< Next Topic | Back to topic list | Previous Topic >
Pages: ‹ First < 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 >
Posted by Dr Andus
Mar 18, 2012 at 11:24 PM
>Dr Andus wrote:
>Here is a great CT case study from Manfred, complete with screenshots:
>http://connectedtext.com/forum/index.php?topic=2389.msg10041#msg10041
What I find particularly interesting is the small number of files that he’s using (14 over 7 years, and usually working with 4 main files), and that how a single file has almost 9000 topics. With Scrivener I have already got to a point that I needed to create new files for the same project because I couldn’t see the forest from the trees.
Posted by Alexander Deliyannis
Mar 19, 2012 at 02:13 PM
Dr Andus wrote:
> With Scrivener I have already got to a point that I needed to create new files
> for the same project because I couldn?t see the forest from the trees.
This is a limitation of the hierarchical tree approach that many of us have run into.
Also, Connected Text can indeed handle thousands of items, and link them together without limitations, but I wouldn’t say that it provides a way to actually display / visualise those links outside the near vicinity of each item.
I don’t think there are many real solutions to show “both the forest and the trees” aside for zoomable interfaces like Treesheets.
Posted by Dr Andus
Mar 19, 2012 at 05:08 PM
Alexander Deliyannis wrote:
>I don’t
>think there are many real solutions to show “both the forest and the trees” aside for
>zoomable interfaces like Treesheets.
Speaking of Treesheets, I tried it back in November 2010, while needing to accomplish an urgent task for which it seemed appropriate. However, I got frustrated when I couldn’t find an answer to something basic in the help file, like whether it was possible to merge cells horizontally or vertically, I can’t remember. Is there anyone here who’s been using Treesheets on a consistent basis? What’s the verdict? I see there have been some updates since then…
Posted by Daly de Gagne
Mar 21, 2012 at 02:04 AM
Dr Andus, thanks for the reference to Manfred’s description of how he’s used CT.
I have no doubt, based on the reports of people such as Manfred, that CT is a phenomenal product, and that I could make really good use of it. Unfortunately, I cannot get my brain around how to use it. While I think part of my problem has to do with how the instructions for use are presented, I have come to realize that a major stumbling block is my inability to figure out how to begin using it. And that is not something unique to me and CT, but to any wiki program I have tried, and some other programs as well.
Recently I again trialed the product (fortunately I hadn’t already tried it on my current laptop).
Again, I’m unable to figure it out, although I have no doubt it could be a killer app for me.
I need someone to talk me through the initial stages of getting going with CT. If I had such a person, I’d gladly buy CT.
I suspect if there was a CT for Dummies book, that chunked everything down, and explained some of the implicit assumptions about working with wikis in general, and CT in particular, I’d be OK. But since Wiley hasn’t published such a book in the Dummies series, I need to be able to work with a live person.
That’s a lot to ask, I know.
But if anyone’s interested in such a process it could make some good blog copy for ExuberantEclectic.com - as well as the other person’s blog (if s/he had one). Or it could even become the basis for a joint proposal to Wiley for a CT for Dummies book.
Cheers,
Daly
Posted by Dr Andus
Mar 21, 2012 at 02:34 AM
Daly de Gagne wrote:
>Dr Andus, thanks for the reference to Manfred’s description of how he’s used CT.
>I
>have no doubt, based on the reports of people such as Manfred, that CT is a phenomenal
>product, and that I could make really good use of it. Unfortunately, I cannot get my
>brain around how to use it. While I think part of my problem has to do with how the
>instructions for use are presented, I have come to realize that a major stumbling
>block is my inability to figure out how to begin using it. And that is not something
>unique to me and CT, but to any wiki program I have tried, and some other programs as
>well.
Daly,
I can completely empathise with you because I had the same problem. Over the past 6 years I’d downloaded it several times and then gave up in frustration because I didn’t even know where to begin and I similarly couldn’t understand the instructions. Eventually it was Steve’s blog post earlier in this thread that led to the breakthrough for me.
Now that I understand a little bit about it, I think the source of this problem is also CT’s main strength. Basically it is such a versatile and flexible piece of software that it allows you - but also requires you - to invent your very own version of it. So it’s a catch 22: in order to understand the software, you need to invent a use for it, but you can’t invent a use for it, unless you know how it works at least a little. It’s almost a zen-like problem and requires some form of sudden enlightenment when both things happen at the same time (at least for a non-programmer type like me :). For me the zen situation was provided by the fact that I had some specific data-analysis and writing-related problems for which wikis seemed perfect, and then came Steve’s post, and I just suddenly realised how I might just be able to figure out how to use it.
Then came the next phase, which meant actually starting the work in CT, without spending too much time reading the Help file. And I’m progressing step-by-step, looking up the Help file or the CT forum or actually asking for help as and when I need it. And so learning about CT has been incremental and totally in parallel with inventing my own version of it (i.e. my own desktop layout, arrangement of tools, creating logical relationships between documents (topics) and categories etc.). So I recommend 1) finding a problem you need to solve (a writing or organisational problem), 2) get stuck into CT, and 3) learn about the features as you go along and ask for help when needed.