Forum Posts Feed
Markdown vs WSYWYG
< Next Topic | Back to topic list | Previous Topic >
Pages: < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 > Last ›
Posted by Dr Andus
Sep 3, 2013 at 08:23 PM
MadaboutDana wrote:
>am gradually
>concluding that once I dip my toe into 8” tablet waters, I shall
>probably go for an iPad Mini. Simply because so many of my favourite
>apps are available for it.
This dilemma would probably deserve its own thread. I have an iPad 1 and have been pretty happy with it, but recently I ran into the first app (Calca) that wouldn’t run on it because it recquires the next OS version, which would only run on a newer machine.
And then the question is whether to go with Android, Windows, or iPad… I’m wondering what I’m missing with Android. Re Windows, I’m only considering it because I could run ConnectedText on it. But ultimately I’m so happy with my iOS apps that I don’t really have a strong reason to switch platforms (other than the premium price tag for the latest iPad…).
Posted by MadaboutDana
Sep 4, 2013 at 11:08 AM
I’ve been running an iPad 2 for the past couple of years, and to be honest? Once you’ve reached a certain age, the Retina display (while impressive) really isn’t worth the extra dosh, because you don’t really notice it anyway. And you can buy iPad 2s for very reasonable prices nowadays. How long they’ll continue to be compatible with iOS 7, of course, is a moot point (I believe a couple of Apple apps in iOS 7 - like Siri - will only run on the latest machines; but then again, who needs Siri?!).
Posted by 22111
Sep 4, 2013 at 01:44 PM
“I’d argue that markdown (and other markup notations such as ConnectedText’s own) is faster than WYSIWYG. The latter is only seemingly faster. Remember that you need to take your hand off the keyboard to a) highlight the text with the mouse and b) to click on the Bold icon, and c) put your hand back on the keyboard. By that time a fast typist has typed those two (or four) asterixes.”
For CT not being an outliner to begin with, mentions of that program seem to be quite frequent here? This is perfectly ok with me, but info and pr about any program here should not be that biased as in this citation?
To begin with another example, CT was pushed here for its ability to gather text bits, more or less with their respective source indications, into new text compounds - very good info to have indeed. But then, it became evident that this was for texts only, any numeric processing being impossible with this solution, when in fact other solutions mentioned there did not have such limitations. Now what’s interesting here, as soon as it became evident that CT didn’t do it, the very need to have such analysis became inexistant.
Here, quite similar: CT does not have wysiwyg, so it’s classified irrelevant, and furthermore, programs that have wysiwyg, in 2013, are deemed to ask for your fingers leaving the keyboard and do weird things with your mouse… or then, have your fingers do control-i (quite ok albeit not really easy) and control-b (which is outright awful). When in fact, you just do a macro, for having these commands on your 8, and 7 keys, respectively.
And yes, the same would be possible with CT’s special signs, but the topic was not ease of entering those, but that they are ugly, all the more so in 2013.
I am always eager to hear good things, but then, for the less good ones, it’s just a little bit exasperating, in the long run, to have them systematically denied by fanboys.
Posted by MadaboutDana
Sep 4, 2013 at 02:01 PM
Hm - slightly contentious post. I think ConnectedText certainly qualifies as an outliner under the very broad criteria generally applied to the apps/solutions discussed by this group. A ConnectedText “database” can be broken down into sections (documents), and further broken down by tags - and then cross-related by links. In my book, that’s more than enough to qualify as an outliner, and hey, I’m not even a ConnectedText “fanboy” (although how such a term could be applied to our eclectic collection of CRIMPers I’m really not sure).
We’ve had some fascinating discussions of ConnectedText on this forum, but we’ve discussed a vast selection of other applications, too, and a number of users have provided valuable - because based on personal recommendations - references to a whole heap of analytical apps that could by no definition be characterized as “outliners”. That’s known as “value added” - not something to criticize.
So I think you’re getting your money’s worth. Oh, hold on - you don’t have to pay anything to belong to this forum.
So what were you complaining about, exactly? You’re a bit cross because nobody has provided you with a precise answer to your particular problem? Perhaps you would care to define it so we can have a go, rather than falling into the troll trap and criticizing “fanboys”.
Posted by MadaboutDana
Sep 4, 2013 at 02:05 PM
Sorry, I should have added to my very broad definition of an outliner that the breakdown of a “database” (for want of a better term) into segments or sections should be accompanied by some kind of central navigation concept, either in the form of a tree or some other ingenious overview. That, for me, is what an outliner is. Oh, and a good search engine helps, but isn’t necessarily part of the definition. There’s a big difference between an outliner (by this broad definition) and “your perfect outliner” - each person individually has to decide what additional features s/he would also like in their ideal outliner.