![]() Scapple on the other hand requires no connections of notes to other notes, and can allow connections that do not produce a logical sequence, like a ring of notes linked end to end which occasionally tangentially link outside of the ring. What does dragging a note up and the left mean, in terms of where that note should end up in Scrivener's outline? This is one of the things that sets Scapple apart from the more familiar "mindmapping" software, which does use a hierarchy arrangement that can be expressed as an outline. Scapple on the other hand has no concept at all of linear order or nesting. Scrivener is founded upon a rigid outline model, where every item in the binder must have one (and only one) parent item and those items fall in a linear order. Even more important, there is a fundamental disconnect between the information models these two programs use.Where would these go in Scrivener's user interface? They would either greatly bloat the number of menu items, or the Scapple component itself would have to be stripped so bare of any advanced features that it would lose nearly everything that makes it what it is, turning it into something more like what already exists in Scrivener, the freeform corkboard mode. Consider all of the menu commands in Scapple, and all of the keyboard shortcuts. Embedding one program into another (not to mention one that is already quite feature-heavy) greatly increases the complexity of that program.There are many reasons why this idea sounds great on the surface, but the underlying problem behind this idea is twofold:
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |