Forum Posts Feed
Text expander and clipboard enhancer tools
< Next Topic | Back to topic list | Previous Topic >
Pages: ‹ First < 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 > Last ›
Posted by Franz Grieser
Dec 1, 2013 at 04:29 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
Posted by 22111
Dec 1, 2013 at 06:03 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.
Posted by jaslar
Dec 1, 2013 at 06:09 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.
Posted by PhraseExpress
Dec 3, 2013 at 11:47 AM
Franz Grieser wrote:
>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. .-)
Posted by Franz Grieser
Dec 3, 2013 at 12:19 PM
PhraseExpress 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.
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?