Stephen R. Diamond wrote:

I _meant_ collapsing (the word had slipped my mind), although "folding" often (and
perhaps in best usage) refers to yet a fifth way: by showing only the first line of an
item.

That was #3 on my list. But thanks.

So is there a 5th way to hide info?

I seem to recall that Framework would show you what was on the *back* of a topic. (The data is in the front; I think some sort of script was on the back?)

I guess showing and hiding columns could be a way too, though it's a stretch.

David Dunham wrote:

So is there a 5th way to hide info?

I seem to recall that Framework would show you what was on
the *back* of a topic. (The data is in the front; I think some sort of script was on the back?)

One could say that metadata is a way to hide info. In UltraRecall, you can have the item 'Details' pane (i.e. document) taking most of the window space up front, and stack various tabs underneath it (or wherever), including Notes (which is an RTF document itself), and Attributes (metadata).

So the tree is just one way to organise the info. At the item level, you can organise additional info around it, without needing to see it all the time.

alx

David Dunham wrote:

Stephen R. Diamond wrote:

>I _meant_ collapsing (the word had slipped my mind),
although "folding" often (and
>perhaps in best usage) refers to yet a fifth way: by
showing only the first line of an
>item.

That was #3 on my list. But thanks.

Yes, I see - Shriking. I think those four exhaust the means of hiding topics in a tree, but perhaps they are exhaustive for the trivial reason that "filtering" can subsume anything.

The question might actually be put as 'What are the possible means of filtering headings in an outline.' Included would be 1) the means available to specify filters; and 2) the default filter operations. 1) is more important in a database program and 2) in pure outliners. The default filter operations that have found recurrent use in outliners are; collapsing (if it can't collapse, it isn't an outliner); hoisting (focusing); and folding (shrinking). Additional default filter operations appearing in some publicly available software have included double hoist (two independent heading hoisted at the same time -ADM) and hoist on hoist (hoist relative to hoisted headings - NoteMap).

Filtering a tree (in the sense of excluding or including headings satisfying content-based critera) is one of the things missing in ndxcards. (Not nearly as important a possible addition, in my opinion, as hierarchical key words).

So is
there a 5th way to hide info?

I seem to recall that Framework would show you what was on
the *back* of a topic. (The data is in the front; I think some sort of script was on the
back?)

I guess showing and hiding columns could be a way too, though it's a stretch.

One other default filter operation worth comment - Hide. I haven't seen this in outliners, but the mind mapper VisiMap includes it. Whether it is a unique default filter, I don't know.

Hide simply makes the selected items temporarily disappear--the most degenerate case, I suppose, of filtering. If it isn't clear what I mean by a default filter-- you select items, and then can optionally apply the presets such as collapse branch, expand branch, hoist branch, or hide branch.

So I think the most relevant answer to your question, David, is that an additional way of hiding items is by Hiding them. That's a filter, but all these operations involve filters. The important distinction is whether filtering is based on content (data or metadata) or purely on position and selection status. Hide applies to whatever items are selected.

Stephen R. Diamond wrote:

double hoist (two independent heading hoisted at the same
time -ADM) and hoist on hoist (hoist relative to hoisted headings - NoteMap).

OK, the first makes sense (though the way Opal defines focus excludes this). Though I suspect it makes more sense if the topics in question are sisters.

I'm not sure i understand the second. In Opal or MORE, you can focus, then focus on one of the still-visible topics. Unfocus goes back one level (I can't remember if MORE had this but I think it did), to the previous focus. Is that what you mean by hoist on hoist -- nesting?

Yes, that's all I mean, nesting as you say. These are actually, I admit, pretty minor embellishments or variants of Hoist or Focus. (Double hoist can be emulated by splitting windows, if the outliner allows it. (Actually, not many do.)

More interesting, perhaps, are combined operations, using collapse/expand; hoist; fold; and maybe hide as potential elements. One such combined operation that I think is particularly useful (it is actually the operating mode of BrainStorm) is to hoist and then collapse from the new second level. Combining the basic elements into patterns that are practically useful or part of a structured way of using the software - this may me more fruitful than inventing new filters.

I and others touched on this earlier, but I think it bears repeating with emphasis, and it also relates to focusing on specific material in the outline or seeing the material in its full context. That is, the ability to create content for a heading that is not in itself a heading. For example, your heading might be "Marvin Gaye." Under this heading, you might have a short biography of Mr. Gaye, thusly:

Marvin Gaye
Marvin Gaye was an R&B singer popular in the late 1960s and early 1970s. His best work was recorded as duets with Tammy Terrell. Mr. Gaye was killed by his father.

Now, you may want to view the content of this heading along with the heading and in context of the other related material. Or you may want to just focus in on the content of the heading so you can concentrate on expanding it. Or you may want to hide the content and just view the heading, so you can concentrate on the structure of your overall piece.

This may yet be another type of focus in an outline.

Steve Z.

Stephen Zeoli wrote:

the ability to create content for a heading that is not in
itself a heading.

Right -- I think MORE called this "notes," and I think a number of other outliners have this as well. (I think in some early outliners, topics could only be one line, so notes were the only way to get multiple lines of text in a topic).

Opal does not (since in my opinion shrinking multi-line topics to the first line gives you very similar functionality), so I forgot about it.

That was my first thought in when I read Steve Zeoli's post: it is a variant of Folding or Shrinking, with approximately equivalent functionality. Personally, I have preferred the "Notes" approach, but is this only because my Word/More "early software experience" (on the pre-X Mac)?

"Notes" and Folding/Shrinking are close to functionally identical, and including both probably only makes practical sense (as opposed to marketing sense) if, like MS Word, you allow "Notes" to be folded to the first line of each paragraph.

Elegance of design surely involves avoiding functional redundancies, dictating or at least encouraging a choice between Folding and Notes, as opposed to including both features. What are the arguments for one choice or the other? To me, traditional Folding/Shrinking is arbitrary. Who cares what's on the first line of the paragraph? Maybe the important information is on the third. Of course, you can engineer your first line so that what appears is a viable heading. This is really a workaround, though, it seems to me. It restricts the size of headings to one line, or at least requires that useful information occur in the first line. The workaround, in other words, does not completely eliminate the arbitrariness of requirement.

Does the Folding approach have compensating virtues?



David Dunham wrote:

Stephen Zeoli wrote:

>the ability to create content for a heading that is not in

>itself a heading.

Right -- I think MORE called this "notes," and I think a number of
other outliners have this as well. (I think in some early outliners, topics could only
be one line, so notes were the only way to get multiple lines of text in a topic).

Opal
does not (since in my opinion shrinking multi-line topics to the first line gives you
very similar functionality), so I forgot about it.

Stephen R. Diamond wrote:

That was my first thought in when I read Steve Zeoli's post: it is a variant of Folding or
Shrinking, with approximately equivalent functionality. Personally, I have
preferred the "Notes" approach, but is this only because my Word/More "early
software experience" (on the pre-X Mac)?

"Notes" and Folding/Shrinking are close
to functionally identical, and including both probably only makes practical sense
(as opposed to marketing sense) if, like MS Word, you allow "Notes" to be folded to the
first line of each paragraph.

Elegance of design surely involves avoiding
functional redundancies, dictating or at least encouraging a choice between
Folding and Notes, as opposed to including both features. What are the arguments for
one choice or the other? To me, traditional Folding/Shrinking is arbitrary. Who
cares what's on the first line of the paragraph? Maybe the important information is on
the third. Of course, you can engineer your first line so that what appears is a viable
heading. This is really a workaround, though, it seems to me. It restricts the size of
headings to one line, or at least requires that useful information occur in the first
line. The workaround, in other words, does not completely eliminate the
arbitrariness of requirement.

Does the Folding approach have compensating
virtues?

In using an outliner for its intended purpose (as the skeleton for the eventual document), BOTH folding AND notes are required. (unless I'm misunderstanding the use of the term "note") When an outline entry is folded, only the "Note" for that entry should be displayed.... when expanded, the "note" should be hidden.

When I initially create an outline, each entry is a "note" that will NOT appear in the final document... or they become/tweaked to become the "heading" for that section.

Using this approach, an "expand all" function will hide the underlying outline and simply display the document, while a "contract/fold all" function will reveal the outline structure.

If you are talking about outlines as data organizing/PIM functionality, then feel free to disregard what I've written.

I think there is a functional difference between a note and folding a header to a single line, which is this: If you have multi-line headers, having a separate note allows you to hide the note while continuing to see the entire header. Also, you may wish the header to have a different formatting than the text of the note.

Steve Z.

sracer wrote:

In using an outliner for its intended purpose (as the skeleton for the
eventual document), BOTH folding AND notes are required. (unless I'm
misunderstanding the use of the term "note") When an outline entry is folded, only the
"Note" for that entry should be displayed.... when expanded, the "note" should be
hidden.

You are mosconstruing the use of "Notes" in this discussion. The "Note" is the text, distinguished from the heading. The term "Note" comes from More on the pre-OSX Apple Macintosh. Perhaps we should use the term that MS Word uses, because it should be more widely known: "Body Text." Folding is shrinking of the Heading (and perhaps Body Text paragraphs) down to one line.

Several of us (you, me, Steve Zeoli) agree that Body Text is useful, even with available Folding, although David may disagree. What we don't have any arguments for is retaining Folding, when Body Text is available.

When I initially create an outline, each entry is a "note" that will NOT
appear in the final document... or they become/tweaked to become the "heading" for
that section.

Using this approach, an "expand all" function will hide the
underlying outline and simply display the document, while a "contract/fold all"
function will reveal the outline structure.

If you are talking about outlines as
data organizing/PIM functionality, then feel free to disregard what I've written.

Stephen R. Diamond wrote:

sracer wrote:
>In using an outliner for its intended purpose (as the skeleton for
the
>eventual document), BOTH folding AND notes are required. (unless I'm
>misunderstanding the use of the term "note") When an outline entry is folded, only
the
>"Note" for that entry should be displayed.... when expanded, the "note" should
be
>hidden.

You are mosconstruing the use of "Notes" in this discussion. The
"Note" is the text, distinguished from the heading. The term "Note" comes from More on
the pre-OSX Apple Macintosh. Perhaps we should use the term that MS Word uses, because
it should be more widely known: "Body Text." Folding is shrinking of the Heading (and
perhaps Body Text paragraphs) down to one line.

That is what I thought that you meant. I was indeed using Note = Body Text.

sracer wrote:

Stephen R. Diamond wrote:
>
>
>sracer wrote:
>>In using an outliner for its
intended purpose (as the skeleton for
>the
>>eventual document), BOTH folding AND
notes are required. (unless I'm
>>misunderstanding the use of the term "note") When
an outline entry is folded, only
>the
>>"Note" for that entry should be
displayed.... when expanded, the "note" should
>be
>>hidden.

Then, if Note = Body text, the above should read 'only the Heading should be displayed," (when an entry is folded). What confused me is that you have Folding SHOWING Notes (or body text).

>
>You are
mosconstruing the use of "Notes" in this discussion. The
>"Note" is the text,
distinguished from the heading. The term "Note" comes from More on
>the pre-OSX
Apple Macintosh. Perhaps we should use the term that MS Word uses, because
>it should
be more widely known: "Body Text." Folding is shrinking of the Heading (and
>perhaps
Body Text paragraphs) down to one line.

That is what I thought that you meant. I was
indeed using Note = Body Text.

Hello,
I'm working on building a new outliner (+ much much more). See www.sqlnotes.net. It is based on the Ecco Pro outline/grid concept, the original post subject, which had a specific form of ouliner, not always recognized as the best. This post has evolved in an interesting direction and I'm planning on implementing some of the comments read, namely being able to toggle between showing the summary heading and the rich body text. Thanks for the input.

The best (free and on PC?) outliner to simulate would be which one?

Stephen R. Diamond wrote:

Then, if Note = Body text, the above should read
'only the Heading should be displayed," (when an entry is folded). What confused me is
that you have Folding SHOWING Notes (or body text).

Oops, you're right. That is what I meant. :-)
When an outline entry is folded/hidden then the "heading" should be displayed.
When an outline entry is expanded/visible then the note/body text should be displayed.
It should be an either/or scenario...one or the other is displayed at any one time.

PPL wrote:

Hello,
I'm working on building a new outliner (+ much much more). See
www.sqlnotes.net. It is based on the Ecco Pro outline/grid concept, the original
post subject, which had a specific form of ouliner, not always recognized as the best.
This post has evolved in an interesting direction and I'm planning on implementing
some of the comments read, namely being able to toggle between showing the summary
heading and the rich body text. Thanks for the input.

The best (free and on PC?)
outliner to simulate would be which one?

As you can tell from this thread, there are a few of us who would dearly love a dedicated outliner. SQLNotes as it is, is just overkill in that regard. I'm sure it is a fine app for those who need an everything-including-the-kitchen-sink approach, but there is no viable single pane outliner available for Windows. (well, in retrospect there may be one or two... far far fewer than the number of 2 and 3 pane outliner/organizers out there)

The only good single pane outliner currently available for Windows is NoteMap, but and development on that seems to be stalled (and it's overpriced IMHO). Still, be sure to check it out if you haven't. The availability of multiple good single pane outliners was one of the things that pushed me over to the Mac side.

-- Chris

sracer wrote:

As you can tell from
this thread, there are a few of us who would dearly love a dedicated outliner. SQLNotes
as it is, is just overkill in that regard. I'm sure it is a fine app for those who need an
everything-including-the-kitchen-sink approach, but there is no viable single
pane outliner available for Windows. (well, in retrospect there may be one or two...
far far fewer than the number of 2 and 3 pane outliner/organizers out there)

but there is no viable single
pane outliner available for Windows. (well, in retrospect there may be one or two...
far far fewer than the number of 2 and 3 pane outliner/organizers out there)

SQLNotes was originally a single pane outliner supporting rich text in the outline itself. And automatic formatting based on outline level is planned and will be implemented soon. In outine mode, a 2nd pane (the HTML Editor) can be used to create the body text.

The addition based on what was discussed in this thread is to allow each item to be displayed in one of 2 modes:
1-Outline summary (as it is now), or
2-Full rich body text (editable directly in the outline or in the separate edit pane). In that second mode, the outline summary is hidden, being replaced by the body text (as was suggested my other contributers)

I really appreciate your work on SQLnotes. You've done a fantastic job already, and I look forward to where it's going.

To answer your question, unfortunately there aren't any good free pure outliners for the PC. It's IMHO not worth imitating much of what's out there. Ecco is good in terms of usability (it's the data model, not the interface, that people find too complex). Other than that, root around to see if you can find an old copy of GrandView, or run an OS 9 emulator and try More, which was released to the public domain a while ago. Both are exceptional outliners. Try the demo of NoteMap.

For more ideas, it's worth borrowing someone's Mac for a weekend, and give the modern single pane outliners like TAO, OmniOutliner, and Opal a try. OmniOutliner Pro in particular has an interesting way of dealing with collapsing long items interactively, which is related to the discussion here but hasn't been mentioned yet. You're cutting yourself off from a lot of good ideas if you don't take a look at some of these programs, and there certainly is room in the Windows market for someone to bring a good, modern, fully functional single-pane-capable outliner to the Windows platform.

-- Chris

PPL wrote:

Hello,
I'm working on building a new outliner (+ much much more). See
www.sqlnotes.net. It is based on the Ecco Pro outline/grid concept, the original
post subject, which had a specific form of ouliner, not always recognized as the best.
...
The best (free and on PC?)
outliner to simulate would be which one?

Chris Thompson wrote:

To answer your question, unfortunately there
aren't any good free pure outliners for the PC. It's IMHO not worth imitating much of
what's out there. Ecco is good in terms of usability (it's the data model, not the
interface, that people find too complex).

I disagree. As a PIM, the interface to Ecco is only as complex as you make it. It works very well as a simple PIM as set up right out of the box. Its notebook functionality has never been duplicated. I've heard constant calls for a good Ecco replacement since 1997 and I think many people like the interface.

Just my 2 cents.

Tom S.

There is a nice little one-pane outliner for Windows called TKOutline:

http://tkoutline.sourceforge.net/wiki/

It is a simple, but useful little outliner without any bells and whistles. Development seems to have stalled, however.

Steve Z.

I absolutely agree with you Tom. I didn't mean to imply that the Ecco data model was too complex -- in fact, it's the model of something that was carefully thought out for maximum functionality with minimal complexity -- only that the Ecco data model is *perceived* by many as too complex. You only have to read through the Ecco mailing list(s) over the years to see that confusion. The genius of Ecco's UI is that it hides that complexity well. The notepad metaphor is fantastic, I agree, using tabs to function both as views to the underlying database *or* as freeform outlining pages to less sophisticated users.

I wish the Chandler developers had taken some time to study the elegant Ecco data model early on in their design, rather than developing a baroque data model based on schemas and stamps. All that additional complexity buys them literally nothing.

-- Chris


Tom S. wrote:

Chris Thompson wrote:

Ecco is good in terms of usability (it's the data model, not the
interface, that people find too complex).

I disagree. As a PIM, the interface to
Ecco is only as complex as you make it. It works very well as a simple PIM as set up right
out of the box. Its notebook functionality has never been duplicated. I've heard
constant calls for a good Ecco replacement since 1997 and I think many people like the
interface.

Just my 2 cents.

Tom S.

Chris Thompson wrote:

I wish the Chandler developers had taken some time to
study the elegant Ecco data model early on in their design, rather than developing a
baroque data model based on schemas and stamps. All that additional complexity buys
them literally nothing.

Amen to that. I read "Dreaming in Code" with interest. I downloaded the latest version after I was finished. Interesting concept. Its coming along and I'm still waiting to see what develops but I have to say that it could probably be better. Effectively "stamping" an entry through the use of columns looks to me like a more efficient way to go. But maybe I'll rethink it when it gets closer to a finished product.

Tom S.

Pierre at SQLNotes.net is writing a piece of software called SQLNotes which uses ECCO as a jumping-off point for a really nice project. It's been referenced elsewhere on this site.

It's in beta testing right now with an integrated calendar and addressbook coming in the next few days. When fully implemented, it will synchronize with Outlook.

Pierre is looking for feedback and ideas about how the outliner should look and behave. From my testing, I think he'll be the one to pull it off.

Take a look, if you haven't done so already.

Mike