Text expander and clipboard enhancer tools
Started by Franz Grieser
on 11/2/2012
Franz Grieser
12/1/2013 4:29 pm
We are in face of “learning software” (said 22111)
Interesting point. The reason why I stopped using PhraseExpress is its - can we say? - AI approach. Several times, the software tried to guess what I wanted - while it should simply have done what it was supposed (and told) to do. What really put me off was that PE sometimes misinterpreted my actions. When I undid an autocorrection for the second or third time (sometimes the autocorrection was not what I wanted), the software thought I wanted to completely disable the shortcut/autocorrection pair - and disabled it without asking. And there was no option to turn that behaviour off.
Off course, one could say that was not the fault of the AI but the programmer's.
But for now, I'd say: I prefer to do the thinking and have the software do the robot work.
Franz
22111
12/1/2013 6:03 pm
"And there was no option to turn that behaviour off."
Franz, I'm 100 p.c. on your side, and I even go one step further, by saying that a sole option, on/off of this behav or that, is not enough: Now, 30 years after the intro of the pc, sw should be able to BETTER LEARN, to learn like a human being, and not just like a dog would learn - no pun intended against animals, but the dogs learn in the line of that trigger - that response, and that's much too mechanical.
That's why I said, yesterday, that the text expansion sw should do this after 2 "confirms" of yours, and then switch further completion chars for this, and for other words, to new ones if presumed USE frequency will justify that. I certainly do not have any viable technical solutions here, but I immensely appreciate that trial-and-error which PhraseExpander, with a "little help" (with BIG help, in fact, but they're smart enough to accept that big help in that instance) from "Dr Andus", and which most probably also Gunnar Bartels (PhraseExpress), are both willing to endure.
I originally thought as you do, i.e. I thought, "sw, leave me and my decisions alone!!!", but that was because especially MS sw is DOOO DUMB, in trying to foresee what I would like to do - as said, we're 30 years into the pc game now, and it's time for applied AI, which is the contrary to "domination" or xyz (how do you call unwanted parenting again?)
It's evident that SMART AI will be of tremendous usefulness for all of us.
And I know there's a never-ending battle between what AI could do for us, and our memory leaks, meaning all those comportemental shifts AI will do in our favor, how best communicate them to them
See, Franz, I've not been here two times, last year and this one, but, as you will remember, three times. The very first time, two years ago, I fell into the trap of too much imitating your former Bundeskanzler, giving (sometimes unbearable) preposterous lecturings, so I had come back a year or so ago, but had thought to have learned from my previous experience, and then came my defamed Proust thread, in which I had thought to give real insight, i.e. giving the PERFECT example for that dualism "writing in a flow" vs. "writing in ordered bits", and which, totally unexpectedly, triggered an unprecedented hate storm into which many participants here, some even and additionally under their second, dormant accounts, participated - in fact, I was totally shocked (and this clearly appeared in my goodbye reaction).
This time, third try (well, there is no other forum worldwide where any outliner expert could try to exchange some ideas of him), I chose another approach, the core of it being, "don't be afraid of being/becoming alone again, stay constructive, them knowing that you're right whenever they don't contradict you must suffice."
Here a parenthesis is needed: Lately, I was a little bit harsh to Dominik(?) Holenstein, but he had replied in the same line of "quant" (who had done the same or similar two times before, and where I had reacted, both time, in a much too innocuous way:) It's simply not fair to try to invalidate viable delepments of somebody else by a simple "That might not be true, then" or something similar, and without giving any clues why you think so, and Mr. Holenstein, e.g. had said, "your argument is a decennial old", when in fact, he's a very smart guy (and an expert in crm but who never (?) bothered to share any of his expert knowledge about that here), and thus, I cannot imagine that he simply didn't grasp the great divide between a "well, the free version just lets you link one file per item" and my statement, "well, the free version just lets you link to one object, but see this under a totally new angle: it should not be considered a limitation anymore, it will force you to do the PROPER kind of linking: do the gathering of files within your file system, then link to that specific sub-folder (where probably most of the objects are just further links").
It's very easy to "invalidate" totally new ideas by mixing them up with other "ideas" that are already there and are of utmost simplicity: Vicinity in facts might not necessarily stand for conceptual similarity/identify, and often the opposite is true, and Dominik is smart enough to perfectly understand this, so when he's just "pretending", just manipulating third-parties, you'll understand I get angry: Our common interest should have been, should be, getting better outliners than we've got delivered today, and not to play sophism plays (as both did Mr. Holenstein and "quant", for the - very doubtful" - benefit of supposedly less smart bystanders, less smart than both of them are - the only chance for such moves to not be pathetic would have been that I, the intended victim of such sophism, had not been able to understand what they both tried, but sorry no chance, I'm perfectly aware.) It's all about group dynamics, lack of respect and my very probable inital errors in "approach" - and from then on, it's about invalidating arguments (and that, not by invalidating them but by "silencing" them) that should be backed in our common interest. In part, it's become a play in the end: Negative tit for tat, my tat being bigger than your tit if everything goes well - and if my respect for the achievements of others doesn't show at any time, it's precisely because we're entangled in that game where my expertise doesn't encounter any respect either, the "winners" here (= short-time pov) are lazy devopers... ;-)
Well, our/your point of departe here was, don't make the text expander interfere with what's MY intention to see on the screen, right? As said, I totally agree, and that's why (cf. thoses posts of mine) I had been very reluctant to pop-down lists to choose from, but I now think those developers try to move things in the right direction, and "Dr Andus" is asking them the right questions to get there even faster.
And I highly appreciate this, even if there has never been any "equilibrium" of some "Oh, good idea, xyz".
Btw, Franz, and speaking of envy: Of course, when you have put together some 70.000 lines of WORKING code in a (conceptionally) state-of-the-art sw, then sell 5 cheap lite versions of it, you feel some envy whenever you see that somebody, with rather stupid sw, realizes quite comfortable returns. So here again, you ain't wrong by saying that my look on "what do they deliver?!!!" indeniably got an economic element driven by envy... it's just NOT FAIR, you see? So you undeniably have a point there. (Cf. "quant" and Dominik who both thought to invalidate valid ideas, a page or two long, by a simple "perhaps you're mistaken, though", or by "well, that's quite old, you know?!") - it's about fairness with whom you erroneously consider your "adversary".
But, again, before having detailed (and backep-up!) my criticism with any outliner in particular, I had really tried to convice the developers in question to do better, incl. my proposals to even write the pseudo-code for them (which is the real work to do in programming, it's not the final coding) - and then only I got a little bit "nasty about them".
I repeat it here, our common enemy is the laziness and/or lack of trust into our willingness to really pay for really good stuff, of the relevant developers, and prentending, "but they are doing their work" when in fact they do not, is not the brightest policy to advance these stalling developments.
This being said, and whatever I might think of Gunnar's marketing strategies, I seriously think that if Gunnar had been in outliners, instead of text expanders, we would have better outliners today - since he's striving for excellence in the fields of his choice, and as he correctly claims, and since really outstanding "examples", even if they are not perfect, entice competitors to try in a similar way: Here again, I deeply regret that CT's developer isn't more interested in making his sw a real outliner, too: We all know that from several pov's, it's really outstanding, and it would make competitor's developers think twice.
In the past, several times, I had tried to trigger a discussion about the phenomenon that so few people worldwide are in our "outliners' camp" - I think if some real smart guys here bothered to lend a "thinking hand" to this phenomenon, too, we'd get to some conclusions that could greatly enhance outliner development.
They are SO BIG as an idea, and they are so extremely, so uncomprehensibly unsuccessful, that we might finally conceive there must be some hidden flaw in their general concept NONE of us ever got aware of - finding out why
"normal people don't outline"
would make the breakthrough "our industry" is in so much need of.
Franz, I'm 100 p.c. on your side, and I even go one step further, by saying that a sole option, on/off of this behav or that, is not enough: Now, 30 years after the intro of the pc, sw should be able to BETTER LEARN, to learn like a human being, and not just like a dog would learn - no pun intended against animals, but the dogs learn in the line of that trigger - that response, and that's much too mechanical.
That's why I said, yesterday, that the text expansion sw should do this after 2 "confirms" of yours, and then switch further completion chars for this, and for other words, to new ones if presumed USE frequency will justify that. I certainly do not have any viable technical solutions here, but I immensely appreciate that trial-and-error which PhraseExpander, with a "little help" (with BIG help, in fact, but they're smart enough to accept that big help in that instance) from "Dr Andus", and which most probably also Gunnar Bartels (PhraseExpress), are both willing to endure.
I originally thought as you do, i.e. I thought, "sw, leave me and my decisions alone!!!", but that was because especially MS sw is DOOO DUMB, in trying to foresee what I would like to do - as said, we're 30 years into the pc game now, and it's time for applied AI, which is the contrary to "domination" or xyz (how do you call unwanted parenting again?)
It's evident that SMART AI will be of tremendous usefulness for all of us.
And I know there's a never-ending battle between what AI could do for us, and our memory leaks, meaning all those comportemental shifts AI will do in our favor, how best communicate them to them
See, Franz, I've not been here two times, last year and this one, but, as you will remember, three times. The very first time, two years ago, I fell into the trap of too much imitating your former Bundeskanzler, giving (sometimes unbearable) preposterous lecturings, so I had come back a year or so ago, but had thought to have learned from my previous experience, and then came my defamed Proust thread, in which I had thought to give real insight, i.e. giving the PERFECT example for that dualism "writing in a flow" vs. "writing in ordered bits", and which, totally unexpectedly, triggered an unprecedented hate storm into which many participants here, some even and additionally under their second, dormant accounts, participated - in fact, I was totally shocked (and this clearly appeared in my goodbye reaction).
This time, third try (well, there is no other forum worldwide where any outliner expert could try to exchange some ideas of him), I chose another approach, the core of it being, "don't be afraid of being/becoming alone again, stay constructive, them knowing that you're right whenever they don't contradict you must suffice."
Here a parenthesis is needed: Lately, I was a little bit harsh to Dominik(?) Holenstein, but he had replied in the same line of "quant" (who had done the same or similar two times before, and where I had reacted, both time, in a much too innocuous way:) It's simply not fair to try to invalidate viable delepments of somebody else by a simple "That might not be true, then" or something similar, and without giving any clues why you think so, and Mr. Holenstein, e.g. had said, "your argument is a decennial old", when in fact, he's a very smart guy (and an expert in crm but who never (?) bothered to share any of his expert knowledge about that here), and thus, I cannot imagine that he simply didn't grasp the great divide between a "well, the free version just lets you link one file per item" and my statement, "well, the free version just lets you link to one object, but see this under a totally new angle: it should not be considered a limitation anymore, it will force you to do the PROPER kind of linking: do the gathering of files within your file system, then link to that specific sub-folder (where probably most of the objects are just further links").
It's very easy to "invalidate" totally new ideas by mixing them up with other "ideas" that are already there and are of utmost simplicity: Vicinity in facts might not necessarily stand for conceptual similarity/identify, and often the opposite is true, and Dominik is smart enough to perfectly understand this, so when he's just "pretending", just manipulating third-parties, you'll understand I get angry: Our common interest should have been, should be, getting better outliners than we've got delivered today, and not to play sophism plays (as both did Mr. Holenstein and "quant", for the - very doubtful" - benefit of supposedly less smart bystanders, less smart than both of them are - the only chance for such moves to not be pathetic would have been that I, the intended victim of such sophism, had not been able to understand what they both tried, but sorry no chance, I'm perfectly aware.) It's all about group dynamics, lack of respect and my very probable inital errors in "approach" - and from then on, it's about invalidating arguments (and that, not by invalidating them but by "silencing" them) that should be backed in our common interest. In part, it's become a play in the end: Negative tit for tat, my tat being bigger than your tit if everything goes well - and if my respect for the achievements of others doesn't show at any time, it's precisely because we're entangled in that game where my expertise doesn't encounter any respect either, the "winners" here (= short-time pov) are lazy devopers... ;-)
Well, our/your point of departe here was, don't make the text expander interfere with what's MY intention to see on the screen, right? As said, I totally agree, and that's why (cf. thoses posts of mine) I had been very reluctant to pop-down lists to choose from, but I now think those developers try to move things in the right direction, and "Dr Andus" is asking them the right questions to get there even faster.
And I highly appreciate this, even if there has never been any "equilibrium" of some "Oh, good idea, xyz".
Btw, Franz, and speaking of envy: Of course, when you have put together some 70.000 lines of WORKING code in a (conceptionally) state-of-the-art sw, then sell 5 cheap lite versions of it, you feel some envy whenever you see that somebody, with rather stupid sw, realizes quite comfortable returns. So here again, you ain't wrong by saying that my look on "what do they deliver?!!!" indeniably got an economic element driven by envy... it's just NOT FAIR, you see? So you undeniably have a point there. (Cf. "quant" and Dominik who both thought to invalidate valid ideas, a page or two long, by a simple "perhaps you're mistaken, though", or by "well, that's quite old, you know?!") - it's about fairness with whom you erroneously consider your "adversary".
But, again, before having detailed (and backep-up!) my criticism with any outliner in particular, I had really tried to convice the developers in question to do better, incl. my proposals to even write the pseudo-code for them (which is the real work to do in programming, it's not the final coding) - and then only I got a little bit "nasty about them".
I repeat it here, our common enemy is the laziness and/or lack of trust into our willingness to really pay for really good stuff, of the relevant developers, and prentending, "but they are doing their work" when in fact they do not, is not the brightest policy to advance these stalling developments.
This being said, and whatever I might think of Gunnar's marketing strategies, I seriously think that if Gunnar had been in outliners, instead of text expanders, we would have better outliners today - since he's striving for excellence in the fields of his choice, and as he correctly claims, and since really outstanding "examples", even if they are not perfect, entice competitors to try in a similar way: Here again, I deeply regret that CT's developer isn't more interested in making his sw a real outliner, too: We all know that from several pov's, it's really outstanding, and it would make competitor's developers think twice.
In the past, several times, I had tried to trigger a discussion about the phenomenon that so few people worldwide are in our "outliners' camp" - I think if some real smart guys here bothered to lend a "thinking hand" to this phenomenon, too, we'd get to some conclusions that could greatly enhance outliner development.
They are SO BIG as an idea, and they are so extremely, so uncomprehensibly unsuccessful, that we might finally conceive there must be some hidden flaw in their general concept NONE of us ever got aware of - finding out why
"normal people don't outline"
would make the breakthrough "our industry" is in so much need of.
jaslar
12/1/2013 6:09 pm
While re-reading the help files (recommended, every so often) of Notecase Pro, I see that it has a very handy "autoreplace" function -- easy to set up, easy to customize, easy to use. Basically, a built-in TextExpander.
PhraseExpress
12/3/2013 11:47 am
Franz Grieser wrote:
PhraseExpress does not delete/disable anything automatically and without your confirmation. You probably agree that it would be overly stupid if this would really be the case.
If you refer to the unwanted text replacement detection, this can be easily here: http://screencast.com/t/2QFF5l6WBHS
The feature detects if you undo a text replacement. PhraseExpress then assumes that you didn't want this text replacement in this particular situation and suppresses the text replacement the very next time you enter the associated abbreviation for one single time. Afterwards, it would execute the text replacement again. It is just for your convenienc and actually very helpful if you want to actually type the abbreviation without having it expanded. If you have a better idea how we can make life easier for you here, we are eager to learn more.
You can have it either way with PhraseExpress which is customizable in great detail. .-)
When I undid an autocorrection for the second
or third time (sometimes the autocorrection was not what I wanted), the
software thought I wanted to completely disable the
shortcut/autocorrection pair - and disabled it without asking.
PhraseExpress does not delete/disable anything automatically and without your confirmation. You probably agree that it would be overly stupid if this would really be the case.
If you refer to the unwanted text replacement detection, this can be easily here: http://screencast.com/t/2QFF5l6WBHS
The feature detects if you undo a text replacement. PhraseExpress then assumes that you didn't want this text replacement in this particular situation and suppresses the text replacement the very next time you enter the associated abbreviation for one single time. Afterwards, it would execute the text replacement again. It is just for your convenienc and actually very helpful if you want to actually type the abbreviation without having it expanded. If you have a better idea how we can make life easier for you here, we are eager to learn more.
But for now, I'd say: I prefer to do the thinking and have the software
do the robot work.
You can have it either way with PhraseExpress which is customizable in great detail. .-)
Franz Grieser
12/3/2013 12:19 pm
PhraseExpress wrote:
Well I found it annoying. And it DID happen several times.
I failed to find a way to turn that off. And I am not a newby, I've been in the IT business for almost 30 years. If I cannot find it...
Wait. Did I get it right?
I type an abbreviation. PE replaces it. I undo the replacement once. The next time, I type the abbreviation, PE does not replace it (but it will replace it the time after that).
Correct?
I don't get why you do that? And why you don't tell the user.
That's inconsistent behaviour on part of the software that makes the user think he is stupid. Because, when he retries, the software changes its behaviour. No wonder, why I could not reproduce the error.
I don't find it convenient at all. I find it annoying.
If I want to type the abbreviation without having it expanded, I type it and undo the expansion using CTRL+Z. That's it. That's fine with me.
Yes, I know it is customizable. But not the quirky behaviour you described above. Or what do I have to do to turn it off?
PhraseExpress does not delete/disable anything automatically and without
your confirmation. You probably agree that it would be overly stupid if
this would really be the case.
Well I found it annoying. And it DID happen several times.
I failed to find a way to turn that off. And I am not a newby, I've been in the IT business for almost 30 years. If I cannot find it...
The feature detects if you undo a text replacement. PhraseExpress then
assumes that you didn't want this text replacement in this particular
situation and suppresses the text replacement the very next time you
enter the associated abbreviation for one single time. Afterwards, it
would execute the text replacement again.
Wait. Did I get it right?
I type an abbreviation. PE replaces it. I undo the replacement once. The next time, I type the abbreviation, PE does not replace it (but it will replace it the time after that).
Correct?
I don't get why you do that? And why you don't tell the user.
That's inconsistent behaviour on part of the software that makes the user think he is stupid. Because, when he retries, the software changes its behaviour. No wonder, why I could not reproduce the error.
It is just for your convenienc
I don't find it convenient at all. I find it annoying.
and actually very helpful if you want to actually type the abbreviation
without having it expanded. If you have a better idea how we can make
life easier for you here, we are eager to learn more.
If I want to type the abbreviation without having it expanded, I type it and undo the expansion using CTRL+Z. That's it. That's fine with me.
>But for now, I'd say: I prefer to do the thinking and have the software
>do the robot work.
You can have it either way with PhraseExpress which is customizable in
great detail. .-)
Yes, I know it is customizable. But not the quirky behaviour you described above. Or what do I have to do to turn it off?
PhraseExpress
12/3/2013 1:51 pm
Franz Grieser wrote:
Franz, you probably mix up PhraseExpress with another program.
Please check how PhraseExpress works:
http://youtu.be/JhgYRCv4-Qc
Please really watch this video. It tells it all.
You find clear notifications including calls to action during each step. When clicking a call to action you will be guided directly to the program setting. It even points to the corresponding option in the user interface.
Please tell us how this could be done any clearer and easier to use?
Correct.
Franz, I tried to explain it in the very posting above. here it is again:
In other words: If you undo a text replacement it is not too far out of any imagination that you did that undo for a purpose: Because you probably didn't wanted the text replacement. We had no other idea why you would want undo the text replacement this way. That is why PhraseExpress ignore the abbreviation the very next time you retype the abbreviation.
I am happy to tell you that PhraseExpress actually is telling user in greatest detail. Please watch the video above.
How could this happen?
Excellent idea in theory. However, the way Text Expanders integrate in Windows, the classic undo feature doesn't always work the way it would be required. Please keep in mind, that Text Expander are working on system level and are not hooked deeply into the target application. However, undo is no Windows function but a application specific function.
I have actually included the screenshot in my earlier reply.
I failed to find a way to turn that off. And I am not a newby, I've been
in the IT business for almost 30 years. If I cannot find it...
Franz, you probably mix up PhraseExpress with another program.
Please check how PhraseExpress works:
http://youtu.be/JhgYRCv4-Qc
Please really watch this video. It tells it all.
You find clear notifications including calls to action during each step. When clicking a call to action you will be guided directly to the program setting. It even points to the corresponding option in the user interface.
Please tell us how this could be done any clearer and easier to use?
Wait. Did I get it right?
I type an abbreviation. PE replaces it. I undo the replacement once. The
next time, I type the abbreviation, PE does not replace it (but it will
replace it the time after that).
Correct?
Correct.
I don't get why you do that?
Franz, I tried to explain it in the very posting above. here it is again:
>The feature detects if you undo a text replacement. PhraseExpress then
>assumes that you didn't want this text replacement in this particular
>situation and suppresses the text replacement the very next time you
>enter the associated abbreviation for one single time. Afterwards, it
>would execute the text replacement again.
In other words: If you undo a text replacement it is not too far out of any imagination that you did that undo for a purpose: Because you probably didn't wanted the text replacement. We had no other idea why you would want undo the text replacement this way. That is why PhraseExpress ignore the abbreviation the very next time you retype the abbreviation.
And why you don't tell the user.
I am happy to tell you that PhraseExpress actually is telling user in greatest detail. Please watch the video above.
That's inconsistent behaviour on part of the software that makes the
user think he is stupid.
How could this happen?
>and actually very helpful if you want to actually type the abbreviation
>without having it expanded. If you have a better idea how we can make
>life easier for you here, we are eager to learn more.
If I want to type the abbreviation without having it expanded, I type it
and undo the expansion using CTRL+Z. That's it. That's fine with
Excellent idea in theory. However, the way Text Expanders integrate in Windows, the classic undo feature doesn't always work the way it would be required. Please keep in mind, that Text Expander are working on system level and are not hooked deeply into the target application. However, undo is no Windows function but a application specific function.
Yes, I know it is customizable. But not the quirky behaviour you
described above. Or what do I have to do to turn it off?
I have actually included the screenshot in my earlier reply.
PhraseExpress
12/3/2013 4:02 pm
Dr Andus wrote:
The “Smart” Complete feature seems to borrow from InstantText (http://www.fitaly.com
InstantText seems to be the best fit for you. It even works for partial phrases - It is an admirable master piece.
PhraseExpress also has a “Smart”Complete like-feature for a long time but we haven’t officially released it yet for a simple reason:
Popups distract you whenever you enter the 2nd letter of a word. You additionally get distracted by flashing popup updates with every additional character you type.
It gets ugly once your library grows larger. Video demo with a 22,000 words library:
http://youtu.be/PpH23B_qqso
(Don’t get confused by the strange highlighting. It is for internal purposes only. PhraseExpress does much more than just pattern matching here).
Instead of a “Smart”Complete feature we developed the “text prediction feature”: http://www.phraseexpress.com/autocomplete.htm
PhraseExpress listens how you use it: What you type, how often you type it, which suggestions you dismiss, which you accept and it prioritizes the suggestions accordingly. Additionally, it also takes into account how many characters each suggestion may save you to type. It also can be trained with stuff already written to get instant results.
If you want to check out our take on “Smart”Complete with some much more advanced extras, please drop us a mail: http://contact.phraseexpress.com
And as for the others, none of them seem to
have the SmartComplete-type functionality, which is the only thing that
really interests me.
The “Smart” Complete feature seems to borrow from InstantText (http://www.fitaly.com
InstantText seems to be the best fit for you. It even works for partial phrases - It is an admirable master piece.
PhraseExpress also has a “Smart”Complete like-feature for a long time but we haven’t officially released it yet for a simple reason:
Popups distract you whenever you enter the 2nd letter of a word. You additionally get distracted by flashing popup updates with every additional character you type.
It gets ugly once your library grows larger. Video demo with a 22,000 words library:
http://youtu.be/PpH23B_qqso
(Don’t get confused by the strange highlighting. It is for internal purposes only. PhraseExpress does much more than just pattern matching here).
Instead of a “Smart”Complete feature we developed the “text prediction feature”: http://www.phraseexpress.com/autocomplete.htm
PhraseExpress listens how you use it: What you type, how often you type it, which suggestions you dismiss, which you accept and it prioritizes the suggestions accordingly. Additionally, it also takes into account how many characters each suggestion may save you to type. It also can be trained with stuff already written to get instant results.
If you want to check out our take on “Smart”Complete with some much more advanced extras, please drop us a mail: http://contact.phraseexpress.com
Dr Andus
12/3/2013 5:32 pm
PhraseExpress wrote:
Thanks for the demonstration.
1) I didn't have any problems with importing with PhraseExpander so far, so I'm not sure what's happening in your example.
2) But, I'm using PhraseExpander's SmartComplete feature very differently from your example. I create my own phrases incrementally and strategically. I only need very specific frequently used terms. Currently I have about 800 phrases.
3) I don't find the popup distracting or ugly. The whole reason I'm using it because I find it useful.
4) Your video played too quickly, so I wasn't able to figure out your algorithm, but it seems to work quite differently from PhraseExpander's, as there seem to be a lot of not-so-relevant matches. The more highly relevant the matches are towards the top of the popup, the more useful it becomes.
Thanks, sounds like an interesting feature. But the big difference that comes across between your approach and PhraseExpander's approach is that you seem to want to predict what I want to write, while PhraseExpander allows me to instruct the software what I want it to offer to me, how I want it and when I want it.
Thanks, I might take up your offer when I have a bit more time.
Popups distract you whenever you enter the 2nd letter of a word. You
additionally get distracted by flashing popup updates with every
additional character you type.
It gets ugly once your library grows larger. Video demo with a 22,000
words library:
http://youtu.be/PpH23B_qqso
Thanks for the demonstration.
1) I didn't have any problems with importing with PhraseExpander so far, so I'm not sure what's happening in your example.
2) But, I'm using PhraseExpander's SmartComplete feature very differently from your example. I create my own phrases incrementally and strategically. I only need very specific frequently used terms. Currently I have about 800 phrases.
3) I don't find the popup distracting or ugly. The whole reason I'm using it because I find it useful.
4) Your video played too quickly, so I wasn't able to figure out your algorithm, but it seems to work quite differently from PhraseExpander's, as there seem to be a lot of not-so-relevant matches. The more highly relevant the matches are towards the top of the popup, the more useful it becomes.
Instead of a “Smart”Complete feature we developed the
“text prediction feature”:
http://www.phraseexpress.com/autocomplete.htm
PhraseExpress listens how you use it: What you type, how often you type
it, which suggestions you dismiss, which you accept and it prioritizes
the suggestions accordingly. Additionally, it also takes into account
how many characters each suggestion may save you to type. It also can be
trained with stuff already written to get instant results.
Thanks, sounds like an interesting feature. But the big difference that comes across between your approach and PhraseExpander's approach is that you seem to want to predict what I want to write, while PhraseExpander allows me to instruct the software what I want it to offer to me, how I want it and when I want it.
If you want to check out our take on “Smart”Complete with
some much more advanced extras, please drop us a mail:
http://contact.phraseexpress.com
Thanks, I might take up your offer when I have a bit more time.
Franz Grieser
12/3/2013 5:35 pm
Hi.
No, I don't. I even wrote a review about PhraseExpress in my magazine recommending it to my readers (that was before it showed the strange behaviour).
I exchanged emails with Gunnar Bartels several times (but not regarding the problem we're talking about here, because I could not reproduce it - because of PE's strange behaviour). I found him helpful - I even mentioned that in this forum .
I did not say the instructions in your videos were not clear. I even mentioned the videos in my review.
BUT the videos - at least at the time, I used PE - did NOT say anything about the strange behaviour.
I type the abbreviation, PE expands it. THIS time I do not want that, so I undo the expansion.
Next time, I type the abbreviation - chances are high that I want it expanded. After all, that's the reason why I defined the abbreviation-expansion combination.
If PE suddenly does stop doing what it was purchased for - that's annoying.
Even more annoying is: That the third time PE changes behaviour again.
Don't you understand that a user wants software to work this way: When the user does A, he wants the software to reliably do B. He doesn't want it to do C and then the next time again B. How do you expect your users to rely on the software, if it does strange things ("by design")?
Franz, you probably mix up PhraseExpress with another program.
No, I don't. I even wrote a review about PhraseExpress in my magazine recommending it to my readers (that was before it showed the strange behaviour).
I exchanged emails with Gunnar Bartels several times (but not regarding the problem we're talking about here, because I could not reproduce it - because of PE's strange behaviour). I found him helpful - I even mentioned that in this forum .
You find clear notifications including calls to action during each step.
When clicking a call to action you will be guided directly to the
program setting. It even points to the corresponding option in the user
interface.
Please tell us how this could be done any clearer and easier to use?
I did not say the instructions in your videos were not clear. I even mentioned the videos in my review.
BUT the videos - at least at the time, I used PE - did NOT say anything about the strange behaviour.
>Wait. Did I get it right?
>I type an abbreviation. PE replaces it. I undo the replacement once.
The
>next time, I type the abbreviation, PE does not replace it (but it will
>replace it the time after that).
>Correct?
Correct.
>I don't get why you do that?
Franz, I tried to explain it in the very posting above. here it is
again:
>>The feature detects if you undo a text replacement. PhraseExpress then
>>assumes that you didn't want this text replacement in this particular
>>situation and suppresses the text replacement the very next time you
>>enter the associated abbreviation for one single time. Afterwards, it
>>would execute the text replacement again.
In other words: If you undo a text replacement it is not too far out of
any imagination that you did that undo for a purpose: Because you
probably didn't wanted the text replacement. We had no other idea why
you would want undo the text replacement this way. That is why
PhraseExpress ignore the abbreviation the very next time you retype the
abbreviation.
I type the abbreviation, PE expands it. THIS time I do not want that, so I undo the expansion.
Next time, I type the abbreviation - chances are high that I want it expanded. After all, that's the reason why I defined the abbreviation-expansion combination.
If PE suddenly does stop doing what it was purchased for - that's annoying.
Even more annoying is: That the third time PE changes behaviour again.
Don't you understand that a user wants software to work this way: When the user does A, he wants the software to reliably do B. He doesn't want it to do C and then the next time again B. How do you expect your users to rely on the software, if it does strange things ("by design")?
Dr Andus
12/3/2013 5:42 pm
Franz Grieser wrote:
Actually that was exactly my point about PhraseExpander. What I like about it so far is the amount of control it gives me to manually set up the order of the predicted text letter-by-letter, so that when I type the first 2 letters of my intended word, it is very likely to be on the top of the list of offered phrases because that's how I set it up.
There is a box called Test Pad within the PhraseExpander app, and you can basically fine-tune the order of words in which they show up in the SmartComplete popup, simply by adding or removing letters from the shortcuts.
Don't you understand that a user wants software to work this way: When
the user does A, he wants the software to reliably do B. He doesn't want
it to do C and then the next time again B. How do you expect your users
to rely on the software, if it does strange things ("by design")?
Actually that was exactly my point about PhraseExpander. What I like about it so far is the amount of control it gives me to manually set up the order of the predicted text letter-by-letter, so that when I type the first 2 letters of my intended word, it is very likely to be on the top of the list of offered phrases because that's how I set it up.
There is a box called Test Pad within the PhraseExpander app, and you can basically fine-tune the order of words in which they show up in the SmartComplete popup, simply by adding or removing letters from the shortcuts.
Dr Andus
12/3/2013 6:04 pm
Dr Andus wrote:
Actually, the import problem in your video might have to do with the fact that the CSV file you are trying to import has different column names than the ones you use in PhraseExpress. So rather than just clicking on the "CSV File" button to import, click on the little arrow next to it, which tells you what the column headings need to be. Then just change the names of the column headings in Excel, save, and try importing it again.
PhraseExpress wrote:
>Video demo with a 22,000
>words library:
>http://youtu.be/PpH23B_qqso
1) I didn't have any problems with importing with PhraseExpander so far,
so I'm not sure what's happening in your example.
Actually, the import problem in your video might have to do with the fact that the CSV file you are trying to import has different column names than the ones you use in PhraseExpress. So rather than just clicking on the "CSV File" button to import, click on the little arrow next to it, which tells you what the column headings need to be. Then just change the names of the column headings in Excel, save, and try importing it again.
PhraseExpress
12/3/2013 6:25 pm
You can see from the video that it actually recognizes the contents properly as shown in its preview window (Direct link to that moment: http://youtu.be/PpH23B_qqso?t=2m2s So, everything is good with the file format. However, the actual import seems to take forever.
You may try the file we used (not our content, use at own discretion):
http://www.file-upload.net/download-8359470/22.000-English-words.csv.html
Have you ever imported a larger database? If you managed it, do you still find the "Smart"Complete feature useful?
Please don't fool yourself by sticking to abbreviations you are used to. Rather look at the CSV file itself, pick a random word and then try to catch it with the "Smart"Complete feature. Observe yourself, how much time your brain needs to analyze the popup and which steps you undertake to narrow it down.
It would be interesting if you would make a video about it.
You may try the file we used (not our content, use at own discretion):
http://www.file-upload.net/download-8359470/22.000-English-words.csv.html
Have you ever imported a larger database? If you managed it, do you still find the "Smart"Complete feature useful?
Please don't fool yourself by sticking to abbreviations you are used to. Rather look at the CSV file itself, pick a random word and then try to catch it with the "Smart"Complete feature. Observe yourself, how much time your brain needs to analyze the popup and which steps you undertake to narrow it down.
It would be interesting if you would make a video about it.
PhraseExpress
12/3/2013 7:39 pm
Dr Andus wrote:
It's about the database size. Many users want precompiled sets of phrases/words to get started quickly.
Indeed, this is a completely different and pretty much time-consuming approach. Our customer feedback tells us that not many users are willing to entertain such enormous efforts. YMMV
Nope, while it is not the same, it is quite similar.
Haha, you got it. This is EXACTLY the point. :-)
The video shows that such algorithm can't cope with large word libraries. It's simple logic. If you have 100 words beginning with "co" and ending on "ly" it becomes difficult to narrow one particular item. That is the whole point of our concern.
Please try to import the file and tell me if you are still happy with the feature.
This is correct for our text prediction feature but this is not what is shown in the video.
The video shows a prototype of our "Smart"Complete approach which is also based on a static dictionary. You can also change order, positions, priority, etc. You won't be able to analyze how it works as the algorithm has some floating parameters. It was just to demonstrate a popup that is constantly flashing with every character.
We will polish our approach and it would be exciting to have you test it - You seem to be exceptionally fascinated with this particular feature and it will be fun for you, too because it has some special sauce that will make you say "HOLY COW!". ;-)
PhraseExpress wrote:
1) I didn't have any problems with importing with PhraseExpander so far,
so I'm not sure what's happening in your example.
It's about the database size. Many users want precompiled sets of phrases/words to get started quickly.
2) But, I'm using PhraseExpander's SmartComplete feature very
differently from your example. I create my own phrases incrementally and
strategically. I only need very specific frequently used terms.
Currently I have about 800 phrases.
Indeed, this is a completely different and pretty much time-consuming approach. Our customer feedback tells us that not many users are willing to entertain such enormous efforts. YMMV
4) Your video played too quickly, so I wasn't able to figure out your
algorithm, but it seems to work quite differently from PhraseExpander's,
Nope, while it is not the same, it is quite similar.
as there seem to be a lot of not-so-relevant matches.
Haha, you got it. This is EXACTLY the point. :-)
The video shows that such algorithm can't cope with large word libraries. It's simple logic. If you have 100 words beginning with "co" and ending on "ly" it becomes difficult to narrow one particular item. That is the whole point of our concern.
Please try to import the file and tell me if you are still happy with the feature.
Thanks, sounds like an interesting feature. But the big difference that
comes across between your approach and PhraseExpander's approach is that
you seem to want to predict what I want to write,
This is correct for our text prediction feature but this is not what is shown in the video.
The video shows a prototype of our "Smart"Complete approach which is also based on a static dictionary. You can also change order, positions, priority, etc. You won't be able to analyze how it works as the algorithm has some floating parameters. It was just to demonstrate a popup that is constantly flashing with every character.
We will polish our approach and it would be exciting to have you test it - You seem to be exceptionally fascinated with this particular feature and it will be fun for you, too because it has some special sauce that will make you say "HOLY COW!". ;-)
PhraseExpress
12/3/2013 8:11 pm
I type the abbreviation, PE expands it. THIS time I do not want that, so
I undo the expansion.
Got it. This is the point where our idea and your use scenario starts diverging:
PhraseExpress: "OK, he wanted to type the abbreviation but didn't wanted the expansion because he undo it. So, when he types the abbreviation again to return to the state right before the text expansion, I will ignore it this time."
Franz: "I entered the abbreviation but NEITHER want the abbreviation nor the text replacement anymore on this occasion".
If this is correct, then indeed, the unwanted Autotext detection is not for you and you can/should disable it.
Even more annoying is: That the third time PE changes behaviour again.
If you undo a text replacement for three times during one session, PhraseExpress assumes that you actually do not want this particular text replacement at all and offers(!) you to remove the item from the library. This behavior is connected to the "unwanted Autotext detection" and can be disabled.
PhraseExpress best intention is: Why would anyone undo a text replacement for three times in a row while still wanting to have it in the library?
Don't you understand that a user wants software to work this way: When
the user does A, he wants the software to reliably do B. He doesn't want
it to do C and then the next time again B. How do you expect your users
to rely on the software, if it does strange things ("by design")?
Please put yourself into Joe Average's seat to understand the motivation of the feature:
Joe types "FBI" and PhraseExpress expands it to "Federal Bureau of Investigation". But on this specific event, Joe wants only the short form, so he undo the expansion and types "FBI" again.
Any other Autotext software we are aware of would enforce the expansion again. Joe would probably say "What the heck is going on? Haven't I just removed this ******-****** stuff. I don't want the expansion! Leave me alone. I want to write "F B I" and nothing else. Dammit! Get out of the way!".
Joe would probably even use stronger words after the third time of undoing the unwanted text expansion and throw his computer out of the window.
However, we don't like being hit by computers while walking on the street. So, with PhraseExpress, Joe simply undo the expansion and re-type FBI and Joe is happy because PhraseExpress holds back this time.
The next time, Joe might want the expansion again and PhraseExpress behaves as expected. If he doesn't like the expansion at all, he undo again and again and PhraseExpress reacts on it and suggest to remove this expansion from the database,
--
I have difficulties to understand why you enter an abbreviation, undo the expansion and then surprisingly completely give up entering the abbreviation again (as this is what you did firsthand). Why have you entered the abbreviation in first place at all?
Perhaps we really miss out a use scenario here? This would be really interesting to learn.
Franz Grieser
12/3/2013 8:44 pm
Perhaps we really miss out a use scenario here? This would be really
interesting to learn.
Oh yes, you do.
Joe types "FBI" and PhraseExpress expands it to "Federal Bureau of
Investigation". But on this specific event, Joe wants only the short
form, so he undo the expansion and types "FBI" again.
That's the point. When after the expansion Joe presses CTRL+Z to undo the expansion, he does not need to retype "FBI" because it's already there. CTRL+Z undoes the last action, which is the expansion.
That's how it works in Word, in Outlook and in OpenOffice/LibreOffice - and I guess in almost any Windows application.
Dr Andus
12/3/2013 9:24 pm
PhraseExpress wrote:
Well, it looks like I don't fit your target customer profile then :)
There is nothing "time-consuming" or "enormous" about building my own phrase list if I can simply highlight a word in any text and hit a hotkey and the word is added automatically to my text expander. On some days I add a few words, on other days none. The phrase list grows incrementally and organically over time.
I have no need for tens of thousands of random words in my text expander. Yes, I did try that approach and I stopped doing it because it doesn't work for me. I only want words that I have selected for specific reasons, and I want to use them from a pop-up box by the cursor, and I want to be able to manipulate the order in which they appear. And my current text expander does that very well.
Indeed, this is a completely different and pretty much time-consuming
approach. Our customer feedback tells us that not many users are willing
to entertain such enormous efforts.
Well, it looks like I don't fit your target customer profile then :)
There is nothing "time-consuming" or "enormous" about building my own phrase list if I can simply highlight a word in any text and hit a hotkey and the word is added automatically to my text expander. On some days I add a few words, on other days none. The phrase list grows incrementally and organically over time.
I have no need for tens of thousands of random words in my text expander. Yes, I did try that approach and I stopped doing it because it doesn't work for me. I only want words that I have selected for specific reasons, and I want to use them from a pop-up box by the cursor, and I want to be able to manipulate the order in which they appear. And my current text expander does that very well.
PhraseExpress
12/4/2013 8:47 am
Dr Andus wrote:
It is not about *random* word lists. It is about *large* word lists that fit to the user's work scope. Think of lists of medical/chemical substances, spare part numbers, topic titles of boilerplate templates e.g. for contract document generation, etc. Again, our video is using random data just for simulation purposes. It's not "real-life" data.
Your dictionary will grow, too. The video gives you a clue about what might happen .
Have you successfully tried to import the file just to simulate what happens with multiple similar words?
I don't want to evangelize you - It's just that your enthusiam about the feature is in straight opposition of our research. That makes it interesting.
Anyway, as you are a "Smart"Complete aficionado, then you really must check out InstantText. It's what I consider the "original" and it is really worth a look.
PhraseExpress wrote:
I have no need for tens of thousands of random words in my text
expander.
It is not about *random* word lists. It is about *large* word lists that fit to the user's work scope. Think of lists of medical/chemical substances, spare part numbers, topic titles of boilerplate templates e.g. for contract document generation, etc. Again, our video is using random data just for simulation purposes. It's not "real-life" data.
Your dictionary will grow, too. The video gives you a clue about what might happen .
Have you successfully tried to import the file just to simulate what happens with multiple similar words?
I don't want to evangelize you - It's just that your enthusiam about the feature is in straight opposition of our research. That makes it interesting.
Anyway, as you are a "Smart"Complete aficionado, then you really must check out InstantText. It's what I consider the "original" and it is really worth a look.
jimspoon
12/4/2013 1:28 pm
Dear PhraseExpress,
I used PE for awhile, but have switched over to a simpler solution, using Autohotkey "hotstrings".
I have an idea and would like to know what you think about it.
I think it would be useful to have a text expansion utility that would work as follows:
(1) to include a string of text as an "expansion", simply highlight, right-click it, then select an option to put it in the database of expansions. no need to define an abbreviation.
(2) to insert an expansion, type in a defined keystroke or sequence to signal the expansion utility "I want you to enter a text expansion. Please monitor the following keystrokes by which I will indicate the expansion I want." For example, I might use the string "///" to signal the utility that I want to select an expansion.
(3) start typing in characters that appear anywhere in the desired expansion. for example, to select the expansion "mary had a little lamb", one might type in "lam mar lit". As the characters are typed in, the expansion utility would search the database for all expansions that contain the all the space-delimited strings, until the desired expansion is found and selected.
(4) no list of expansions would be displayed until the number of matching expansions is below a certain number. (Until that point is reached, perhaps only the number of matching expansions could be displayed.) I suggest this in order to prevent a very large, flickering, and distracting display of matching expressions.
(5) in the list of matching expansions, the typed-in space-delimited strings should be highlighted as they appear in each matching expansion. This visual aid would aid the user in entering further strings to narrow down the list.
(6) when a small list of matching expansions is displayed, the user may select the desired expansion by typing a number, or by simply continuing to type in space-delimited strings that appear in the expansion. When there is only one matching expression, use the down-arrow to select it and press enter.
(7) this method would eliminate the need to define, memorize, and type in abbreviations. I find that I am reluctant to take the time to define an abbreviation-expansion pair. Also, as the number of abbreviation/expansion pairs increases, one quickly reaches the point where it is difficult to recall the appropriate expansion and to type it in accurately to invoke the desired expansion.
(8) the database of expansions would include only those specifically included by the user using the above method. This would prevent the utility from proposing unwanted expansions, and would make the search and selection process go faster.
(9) there would be no need to disrupt one's typing by using the mouse or arrow keys to select a desired expansion. Simply continue to enter characters that appear in the expansion until there is only one left, then press enter.
What do you think?
jim
I used PE for awhile, but have switched over to a simpler solution, using Autohotkey "hotstrings".
I have an idea and would like to know what you think about it.
I think it would be useful to have a text expansion utility that would work as follows:
(1) to include a string of text as an "expansion", simply highlight, right-click it, then select an option to put it in the database of expansions. no need to define an abbreviation.
(2) to insert an expansion, type in a defined keystroke or sequence to signal the expansion utility "I want you to enter a text expansion. Please monitor the following keystrokes by which I will indicate the expansion I want." For example, I might use the string "///" to signal the utility that I want to select an expansion.
(3) start typing in characters that appear anywhere in the desired expansion. for example, to select the expansion "mary had a little lamb", one might type in "lam mar lit". As the characters are typed in, the expansion utility would search the database for all expansions that contain the all the space-delimited strings, until the desired expansion is found and selected.
(4) no list of expansions would be displayed until the number of matching expansions is below a certain number. (Until that point is reached, perhaps only the number of matching expansions could be displayed.) I suggest this in order to prevent a very large, flickering, and distracting display of matching expressions.
(5) in the list of matching expansions, the typed-in space-delimited strings should be highlighted as they appear in each matching expansion. This visual aid would aid the user in entering further strings to narrow down the list.
(6) when a small list of matching expansions is displayed, the user may select the desired expansion by typing a number, or by simply continuing to type in space-delimited strings that appear in the expansion. When there is only one matching expression, use the down-arrow to select it and press enter.
(7) this method would eliminate the need to define, memorize, and type in abbreviations. I find that I am reluctant to take the time to define an abbreviation-expansion pair. Also, as the number of abbreviation/expansion pairs increases, one quickly reaches the point where it is difficult to recall the appropriate expansion and to type it in accurately to invoke the desired expansion.
(8) the database of expansions would include only those specifically included by the user using the above method. This would prevent the utility from proposing unwanted expansions, and would make the search and selection process go faster.
(9) there would be no need to disrupt one's typing by using the mouse or arrow keys to select a desired expansion. Simply continue to enter characters that appear in the expansion until there is only one left, then press enter.
What do you think?
jim
Dr Andus
12/4/2013 2:07 pm
PhraseExpress wrote:
I haven't tried this particular file but I have imported other large libraries in the past and decided against using them precisely because I didn't find them useful. Considering that in about 12 months I have added about 800 phrases, it's unlikely that I'm going to hit 20,000 anytime soon. A smaller library equals higher productivity in my case.
Possibly because I am not part of the standard category of your typical user. I'm not a GP or a customer relationship manager. I use text expansion primarily for academic writing, which is a slow process, it's not about banging out urgent letters with a boilerplate. Hence my needs are different, and a smaller but accurate phrase library is what matters to me.
Have you successfully tried to import the file just to simulate what
happens with multiple similar words?
I haven't tried this particular file but I have imported other large libraries in the past and decided against using them precisely because I didn't find them useful. Considering that in about 12 months I have added about 800 phrases, it's unlikely that I'm going to hit 20,000 anytime soon. A smaller library equals higher productivity in my case.
I don't want to evangelize you - It's just that your enthusiam about the
feature is in straight opposition of our research. That makes it
interesting.
Possibly because I am not part of the standard category of your typical user. I'm not a GP or a customer relationship manager. I use text expansion primarily for academic writing, which is a slow process, it's not about banging out urgent letters with a boilerplate. Hence my needs are different, and a smaller but accurate phrase library is what matters to me.
PhraseExpress
12/4/2013 3:05 pm
Dr Andus wrote:
Possibly because I am not part of the standard category of your typical
user.
This may be but you have a valid use scenario and if we can cover it (and we certainly can technology-wise!) we will do so.
Thank you for your feedback. Stay tuned.
PhraseExpress
12/4/2013 3:46 pm
jimspoon wrote:
It's almost like it is done in PhraseExpress: http://manual.phraseexpress.com#create
The only challenge is the "rightclick" thing. External programs barely can integrate into the context menu of independent programs (for good reasons).
In PhraseExpress, just press CTRL-ALT-C instead. It is easy to memorize. CTRL-C is to copy into the clipboard. CTRL-ALT-C is to copy into PhraseExpress.
Now THIS is a funny coincidence. Check out this video:
http://youtu.be/JOG7k6rLjy8
Please wait just a few days. It will be a new feature of upcoming PhraseExpress v10.
Ingenious! ;-)
(1) to include a string of text as an "expansion", simply highlight,
right-click it, then select an option to put it in the database of
expansions. no need to define an abbreviation.
It's almost like it is done in PhraseExpress: http://manual.phraseexpress.com#create
The only challenge is the "rightclick" thing. External programs barely can integrate into the context menu of independent programs (for good reasons).
In PhraseExpress, just press CTRL-ALT-C instead. It is easy to memorize. CTRL-C is to copy into the clipboard. CTRL-ALT-C is to copy into PhraseExpress.
(2) to insert an expansion, type in a defined keystroke or sequence to
signal the expansion utility "I want you to enter a text expansion.
Please monitor the following keystrokes by which I will indicate the
expansion I want." For example, I might use the string "///" to signal
the utility that I want to select an expansion.
(3) start typing in characters that appear anywhere in the desired
expansion.
Now THIS is a funny coincidence. Check out this video:
http://youtu.be/JOG7k6rLjy8
Please wait just a few days. It will be a new feature of upcoming PhraseExpress v10.
What do you think?
Ingenious! ;-)
jimspoon
12/8/2013 8:32 am
youtube video looks good ..
but I do think it would be really great to allow searching through saved phrases by typing in multiple strings - delimited by a space - which appear anywhere in the phrase. I couldn't tell whether this is implemented iin PE10 or not.
For example - if one typed in "sco ven our" - the hit list would contain the saved phrase "four score and seven years ago", among any other saved phrases that also contain those strings. No one would do the search that way - but one WOULD try to narrow down to the desired phrase by typing in strings that appear in the deisred phrase and only in that desired phrase.
but I do think it would be really great to allow searching through saved phrases by typing in multiple strings - delimited by a space - which appear anywhere in the phrase. I couldn't tell whether this is implemented iin PE10 or not.
For example - if one typed in "sco ven our" - the hit list would contain the saved phrase "four score and seven years ago", among any other saved phrases that also contain those strings. No one would do the search that way - but one WOULD try to narrow down to the desired phrase by typing in strings that appear in the deisred phrase and only in that desired phrase.
PhraseExpress
12/8/2013 11:38 am
We have that already in an internal version. You can find a demo video in another thread in this forum.
Dr Andus
3/19/2014 9:54 pm
Jim,
PhraseExpander 4 was released today, you may want to check it out, as a lot of what you had suggested below might now be possible:
http://www.phraseexpander.com/tour/phraseexpander-4-new-features/
Personally I was pretty happy with v. 3 due to its agility, and was a bit reluctant to try v. 4, as I was worried of feature creep. But being able to add a new phrase to the database without having to bring up the main software window (it's now done in a little pop-up box) won me over.
Another useful improvement for me is that the suggestion box (of the SmartComplete feature) can now be freely positioned in software that otherwise wouldn't allow the pop-up by the cursor (such as most browsers). In those situations in the past the suggestion box would be displayed in a fixed position around the top middle, which could obscure one's typing or be too far from the typing for the eye to follow.
I can't comment on the other features (clipboard extension, application launcher etc.), as I don't use those.
jimspoon wrote:
PhraseExpander 4 was released today, you may want to check it out, as a lot of what you had suggested below might now be possible:
http://www.phraseexpander.com/tour/phraseexpander-4-new-features/
Personally I was pretty happy with v. 3 due to its agility, and was a bit reluctant to try v. 4, as I was worried of feature creep. But being able to add a new phrase to the database without having to bring up the main software window (it's now done in a little pop-up box) won me over.
Another useful improvement for me is that the suggestion box (of the SmartComplete feature) can now be freely positioned in software that otherwise wouldn't allow the pop-up by the cursor (such as most browsers). In those situations in the past the suggestion box would be displayed in a fixed position around the top middle, which could obscure one's typing or be too far from the typing for the eye to follow.
I can't comment on the other features (clipboard extension, application launcher etc.), as I don't use those.
jimspoon wrote:
I have an idea and would like to know what you think about it.
I think it would be useful to have a text expansion utility that would
work as follows:
(1) to include a string of text as an "expansion", simply highlight,
right-click it, then select an option to put it in the database of
expansions. no need to define an abbreviation.
(2) to insert an expansion, type in a defined keystroke or sequence to
signal the expansion utility "I want you to enter a text expansion.
Please monitor the following keystrokes by which I will indicate the
expansion I want." For example, I might use the string "///" to signal
the utility that I want to select an expansion.
(3) start typing in characters that appear anywhere in the desired
expansion. for example, to select the expansion "mary had a little
lamb", one might type in "lam mar lit". As the characters are typed in,
the expansion utility would search the database for all expansions that
contain the all the space-delimited strings, until the desired expansion
is found and selected.
(4) no list of expansions would be displayed until the number of
matching expansions is below a certain number. (Until that point is
reached, perhaps only the number of matching expansions could be
displayed.) I suggest this in order to prevent a very large,
flickering, and distracting display of matching expressions.
(5) in the list of matching expansions, the typed-in space-delimited
strings should be highlighted as they appear in each matching expansion.
This visual aid would aid the user in entering further strings to
narrow down the list.
(6) when a small list of matching expansions is displayed, the user may
select the desired expansion by typing a number, or by simply continuing
to type in space-delimited strings that appear in the expansion. When
there is only one matching expression, use the down-arrow to select it
and press enter.
(7) this method would eliminate the need to define, memorize, and type
in abbreviations. I find that I am reluctant to take the time to define
an abbreviation-expansion pair. Also, as the number of
abbreviation/expansion pairs increases, one quickly reaches the point
where it is difficult to recall the appropriate expansion and to type it
in accurately to invoke the desired expansion.
(8) the database of expansions would include only those specifically
included by the user using the above method. This would prevent the
utility from proposing unwanted expansions, and would make the search
and selection process go faster.
(9) there would be no need to disrupt one's typing by using the mouse or
arrow keys to select a desired expansion. Simply continue to enter
characters that appear in the expansion until there is only one left,
then press enter.
What do you think?
jim
Wayne K
3/27/2014 12:06 am
PhraseExpress is 50% off today at BitsDuJour. I was going to post my experiences on BJD but I see they're screening posts for this offer, which means no negative comments will be tolerated.
PE is one of the most powerful and useful pieces of software I've ever used but it eventually became too much trouble trying to keep it working correctly. I was open to the idea of upgrading to the paid version but based on my experience with their tech support I decided to uninstall the software and move on.
Thanks for the suggestions in this thread. I'll give these alternatives a try.
Wayne
PE is one of the most powerful and useful pieces of software I've ever used but it eventually became too much trouble trying to keep it working correctly. I was open to the idea of upgrading to the paid version but based on my experience with their tech support I decided to uninstall the software and move on.
Thanks for the suggestions in this thread. I'll give these alternatives a try.
Wayne