Title says it all, over at http://connectedtext.com/ is a new version to be seen. I am waiting for Steve Z. to point out what has improved etc.

Prion wrote:

Title says it all, over at http://connectedtext.com/ is a new version to
be seen. I am waiting for Steve Z. to point out what has improved etc.

Looks like one of the links on the home page is still pointing to v.5 features. Here's the direct link to "What's new in v.6:"
http://connectedtext.com/version6.php

Not to preempt what Steve's got to say about it ;) from a writing and outlining point of view, the most important changes to me are:

1) floating windows - ability to see multiple topics while editing another topic.

2) The "named blocks," which is effectively a qualitative data analysis feature to mark up passages and gather them in another topic.

3) Table of Contents pane turned into more of an outliner (working as a two-pane outliner with the edit window), being able to move around heading sections with their associated text. Auto-numbering of headings.

4) Improvements to the Outliner pane, being able to drop files and folders onto the tree, save outlines as templates to be used in edit window, Ctrl+C and Crtl+V shortcuts now working within the Outliner.

5) Ability to disable inclusions (transclusions) for a project, which enable faster navigation of complex projects with long daisy-chains of inclusions that require a lot of processing time.

6) Ability to remove nodes (topics) from the Navigator view allows for purposeful analysis of the network relationships between linked topics (by eliminating unimportant links from the picture, to reduce 'noise').

I tried most of the above in the beta. What is new to me is "Insert Text command now accepts CTO and OPML files. Outline is converted to a bulleted list." I'm really curious about this one.

But I'm sure more sophisticated users will get more excited about other featured such as the new regex engine :) (which I wish I knew how to use).

Prion wrote:

Title says it all, over at http://connectedtext.com/ is a new version to
be seen. I am waiting for Steve Z. to point out what has improved etc.

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but Dr Andus is by far more expert about CT than I am at this point. I will be writing about CT6 at some point, probably.

This is great news, though.

Steve Z.

Stephen Zeoli wrote:

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but Dr Andus is by far more expert
about CT than I am at this point. I will be writing about CT6 at some
point, probably.

Kind of you to say, but I'm still a fairly basic user (esp. compared to the folks on the CT forum), and if it weren't for your posts on CT, I wouldn't even be that! I'm also looking forward to your thoughts on it.

My opening comment was merely a disclaimer that I wanted to leave the evaluation of the various merits of CT v6 to people who are far more knowledgeable and experienced with this program than myself. At the last count that included, umm, almost everybody on this forum, it was certainly not a deliberate exlusion of Dr Andus whose blog I have read with great interest (thanks for that). But Steve had historical precedence for *me* hence I thought of him as one exemplar of CT gurus. No offense meant :-)

I love ConnectedText, but have not been using it much, as my workflow at the office just doesn't fit it in, and I use a MacBook for personal work. I keep trying to resurrect my use of CT, because I am so impressed with it, but right now I find TheBrain serves those needs better. Sometimes I even imagine buying an inexpensive Windows laptop just so I can use CT at home, but that just seems like CRIMP gone wild... And I don't like using the Windows emulators on my MacBook. Too slow and cumbersome. With the new version out, I will have an excuse to put CT through its paces. Looking forward to that.

Steve Z.

Prion wrote:

But Steve had historical
precedence for *me* hence I thought of him as one exemplar of CT gurus.
No offense meant :-)

None taken, we're not that sensitive over here :) I just jumped in, thinking Steve might still be sleeping on the other side of the pond :) But as I said, if it wasn't for one of his eye-opening posts over here and on his blog, I wouldn't be a CT user either.

Dr Andus wrote:

2) The "named blocks," which is effectively a qualitative data analysis
feature to mark up passages and gather them in another topic.

This alone is a very good reason for CRIMPing along. Hmmm...

Here is Manfred Kuehn's take on the new and improved features in CT v6:

http://takingnotenow.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/connectedtext-6.html

I haven't been using CT much at all. That being said, I upgraded to 6.0 yesterday. Brainstorm can output OPML so I tested with CT and it works great. I have a licensed copy of Scrivener that I don't use very often -- too cluttery or something??? My new best friend is WriteMonkey. So, my plan is to play with ideas with Brainstorm until they gel enough for a good outline. Meanwhile I'll be writing with wm and linking back into CT.

This is for creative fiction writing. I'll put my workflow to the test during the next two months, October to get ready and November to crank out my 50,000 plus word novel for this year's NaNoWriMo. Now it's time to get back to playing with my new toys.

John

johnmcde wrote:

I have a licensed copy of Scrivener that I don't use very often
-- too cluttery or something??? My new best friend is WriteMonkey. So,
my plan is to play with ideas with Brainstorm until they gel enough for
a good outline. Meanwhile I'll be writing with wm and linking back into
CT.

Interesting. I have very similar emotions about Scrivener and WriteMonkey. And I probably use WorkFlowy the way you describe Brainstorm (can also output to OPML).

But my challenge is to write focused academic prose within strict word count limit. I've been toying with the idea of using Gingko to break down the planned paper into index cards, along the lines of the "staircase method" described here:
http://blog.gingkoapp.com/essays/sketching-with-words

Dr Andus wrote:

johnmcde wrote:
>I have a licensed copy of Scrivener that I don't use very often
>-- too cluttery or something??? My new best friend is WriteMonkey. So,
>my plan is to play with ideas with Brainstorm until they gel enough for
>a good outline. Meanwhile I'll be writing with wm and linking back into
>CT.

Interesting. I have very similar emotions about Scrivener and
WriteMonkey. And I probably use WorkFlowy the way you describe
Brainstorm (can also output to OPML).

But my challenge is to write focused academic prose within strict word
count limit. I've been toying with the idea of using Gingko to break
down the planned paper into index cards, along the lines of the
"staircase method" described here:
http://blog.gingkoapp.com/essays/sketching-with-words

Akin to the 'Snowflake Method' for fiction? It's described here: http://www.advancedfictionwriting.com/articles/snowflake-method/

Hugh wrote:

Akin to the 'Snowflake Method' for fiction? It's described here:
http://www.advancedfictionwriting.com/articles/snowflake-method/

Thanks for the link. I've heard the term but didn't realise this is what it meant. Yes, it does sound more or less the same as the aforementioned "staircase method."

And I see there is also a Snowflake Pro software that goes with the method. Has anyone tried this? There doesn't seem to be a trial version:
http://www.advancedfictionwriting.com/product/snowflake-pro-software/

It looks like it would be possible to emulate this process with Gingko to some extent (a kind of a free-form alternative to Snowflake then).

I used to use the Snowflake method but not Randy Ingermansons software. There was no need for me as the method is pretty straightforward. If I am not mistaken, there is also a Scrivener template for the Snowflake method.

Franz

Here is the link to the Snowflake template::
http://wordinprogress.com/2012/02/technology/snowflake-method-template-for-scrivener-2-x

And here is a link to Word template (and the Scrivener template):
http://www.belindacrawford.com/2012/11/scrivener-templates-for-you-and-me/

Dr Andus wrote:

Hugh wrote:
>Akin to the 'Snowflake Method' for fiction? It's described here:
>http://www.advancedfictionwriting.com/articles/snowflake-method/

Thanks for the link. I've heard the term but didn't realise this is what
it meant. Yes, it does sound more or less the same as the aforementioned
"staircase method."

And I see there is also a Snowflake Pro software that goes with the
method. Has anyone tried this? There doesn't seem to be a trial version:
http://www.advancedfictionwriting.com/product/snowflake-pro-software/

It looks like it would be possible to emulate this process with Gingko
to some extent (a kind of a free-form alternative to Snowflake then).

Yes, I tried it a few years ago.

A similar if slightly more awkward result can also be achieved with MS Excel* (which I seem to remember Randy Ingermanson himself recommended at some point).

*As, of course, can a number of other simple outlining effects - as someone once remarked in the days before products like Gingko emerged, Excel may be more useful to a writer than Word.

@ Franz - thanks for the Scrivener and Word templates. I checked them out, but I still prefer Gingko for the simple reason that you can see at least the top 3 levels of the "snowflake" side-by-side horizontally, and Gingko's "fruit machine" interface makes it very easy to quickly switch between parts > chapters > sections etc.

Hugh wrote:

A similar if slightly more awkward result can also be achieved with MS
Excel* (which I seem to remember Randy Ingermanson himself recommended
at some point).

Yes, in the end Excel is a large table of index cards. When it comes to single lines of text, I do use it a lot (especially for project planning). But with Gingko one can actually start writing the text. I do have other index card based software (Outline 4D, Story Turbo, Scrivener, even OneNote), but each have some limitations in their use of the cards.

Okay, we've gone a bit off-topic re CT v.6 ;)

Dr Andus wrote:

@ Franz - thanks for the Scrivener and Word templates. I checked them
out, but I still prefer Gingko for the simple reason that you can see at
least the top 3 levels of the "snowflake" side-by-side horizontally, and
Gingko's "fruit machine" interface makes it very easy to quickly switch
between parts > chapters > sections etc.

Hugh wrote:
>A similar if slightly more awkward result can also be achieved with MS
>Excel* (which I seem to remember Randy Ingermanson himself recommended
>at some point).

Yes, in the end Excel is a large table of index cards. When it comes to
single lines of text, I do use it a lot (especially for project
planning). But with Gingko one can actually start writing the text. I do
have other index card based software (Outline 4D, Story Turbo,
Scrivener, even OneNote), but each have some limitations in their use of
the cards.

Okay, we've gone a bit off-topic re CT v.6 ;)

One more bit of off-topickery (because it may be of use to somebody), and then I'll stop: there was at one time a plug-in/add-on for Excel that helped considerably with the task of writing text in its cells. I used it before I abandoned Windows, and I remember somebody boasting that they'd written a novel with it. But I couldn't find the software in a quick skim of Google yesterday evening.

Sorry - back to CT v.6.

Ah... if I may delicately insert another off-topic suggestion here: anybody thinking of using Excel for writing would be much better advised to use LibreOffice Calc or OpenOffice Sheet, which both have the same word-processing functionality built in as LibreOffice Writer (including e.g. proper spell-checking, more or less unlimited text entry in cells - obviating the nasty and apparently arbitrary text losses that so often mar the Excel experience - and proper text formatting). We get a lot of stuff to translate in the form of Excel spreadsheets, usually a convenient intermediate format for CMS administrators, but we always use LibreOffice to process them! It's easy to forget just how integrated the OpenOffice/LibreOffice heritage actually is (anybody who can remember their much-loved but often unstable ancestor StarOffice will know what I mean).

All translators - without exception, in my experience - cordially loathe Excel...