I know that a new word processor is planned and I just wanted to reiterate the fundamental importance of having a fully-functional and robust word processor for Biblioscape’s ambitions for notes and compositions to work. The current implementation is very idiosyncratic, consequently, I never had confidence fully committing to Biblioscape, however tempting, even when writing shorter pieces. I am still largely using it as a reference manager, which is a pity. Apart from the robust text editing and viewing functionality, I would like to see robust handling of image files because in my line of work they are routinely included into every piece of writing.
If other users would like to add suggestions/comments here, it would be great...
I would like to reiterate my
I would like to reiterate my suggestions of last year regarding bulleted lists (see http://support.biblioscape.com/node/1215 ). Until now there seem to be no major improvements in BS8 (version of 29 Jan). The bullets are still huge, indents for first and subsequent levels are not of the same size, and clicking the indent-button several times is tedious.
Furthermore, there seems to be a problem with numbered lists:
1. text 1
2. text 2
3. text 3
Trying to indent element 2 by clicking the indent-right-button gives the following result:
1. text 1
Itext 2
1. text 3
Clicking the button again ( _ = blank spaces):
1. text 1
1._____text 2
1. text 3
Clicking the button again:
1. text 1
_____1._____text 2
1. text 3
The desired result after ONE click would be:
1. text 1
___a. text 2
2. text 3
(i.e. continue numbering after indented element; for indented elements use a pre- or user-defined format, possibly different from the first level)
Thanks. Lars
Is this really what BS users are needing?
Hello,
Do we really need another word processor? I am still wondering what is the need for developing just another word processor. The first thing to do is to significantly improve the integration between BS and Word 2003, Word 2007, OpenOffice 3.0.x (try out Bibus with OOo for example).
For manuscript formatting in Word 2003 or 2007, the only way is the use of the the Bib_Word9.dot macro which is dated 08/10/2004. If you intend to use this macro you should avoid placing the document into the revision mode. The macro operates by converting/back converting the native document to/from the rtf format. Furthermore, many formatting bugs occur with numbered of bulleted lists.
The BS development team should develop macros to format native .docx and .odt files as soon as possible.
Because this integration is far from being considered as a priority, were are now reassessing wether to switch from BS to another BMS. We will not wait new formatting macros for an additional 5 year-period.
Thanks. Philippe.
Word processor
I wouldn't use a Biblioscape word processor. I originally bought BS because of its integration with WordPerfect, which is the word processor I use. And the best integration is doing the formatting within WordPerfect, rather than translating to RTF. This integration is done through the open source macros which hadn't been updated, so I ended up taking on the task of updating them. It seems to me that the open-source macro project (which I think also includes Word) is one of the underappreciated aspects of BS. It is definitely the main thing that has kept me with BS.
In any case, a new word processor would not induce me to shell out money for a BS upgrade. The integration with WordPerfect works well (at least with the open source macros), and the rudimentary word processor that is built in to the notes module works well enough for me (with the exceptions of the difficulty of inserting characters from a different font and of embedding MathType objects).
Yehuda N. Falk
Associate Professor of Linguistics
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
There will not be a "word
There will not be a "word processor" in Biblioscape. We will only improve the "rudimentary word processor that is built in to the notes module". Thanks, Paul
Composition module
As I understand it, the composition module is supposed to at least partially replace a separate word processor. I prefer to stick with my separate word processor, which has all sorts of features that I like.
Yehuda N. Falk
Associate Professor of Linguistics
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Idiosyncracies of BS
For word processing I just surrendered to using MS Word then pasting into Notes module. Saved me a lot of time and botheration to learn another word rocessor.
Philippe, we have finished
Philippe, we have finished version 8 development. Unfortunately better Word integration is not included. But we will redo the Word intergration. It will be in version 9. It is indeed the top priority for us after version 8. Thanks, Paul
Just to say that I do not
Just to say that I do not think that the development of a full word-editing program by Biblioscape team is justified either. However, as far as I know, this has never been the case because Biblioscape integrates existing software as its modules. Given this strategy, why not integrate something of a greater standing than what we have now? E.g., OpenOffice Writer? I have no idea of licensing implications here but there must be alternatives out there. I do think that for notes and compositions to be useable a very robust and reasonably featured editor is a must. What is reasonable here is open for debate of course. I would mostly like to see the tools for navigation, tagging, versioning, optional display and rearranging of text. Basically, the tools for early- to mid-stage writing, not for final production. As my work is visual, integrating images (for reference, not for beauty) is also important. Currently, the use of images is very constrained and unreliable. I am not interested in having the tools for graphic design in Biblioscape but I would love to be able to keep my notes and make conceptual compositing there. So far, I have not switched an am still, largely, using it as a reference manager.
Notes versioning is added in
Notes versioning is added in version 8. Tagging is possible in all modules. Biblioscape editor can handle graphics. But saving and load large high resolution graphics is slow because Biblioscape saves graphics in RTF format. A better integrated editor is planned for future release. Thanks, Paul
Hm, I do know of the
Hm, I do know of the features you mention. I guess my terminology is a little confused.
When talking about tagging, I meant visual and organisational tools within a note, not tagging of notes themselves which I know Biblioscape, usefully, supports. For example, something similar (but simpler) to Conditional Text in Adobe products. I.e., I would like to be able to write several paragraphs and supply them with inline comments/headings/questions/assosiative thoughts that I would like to be able to show or hide as I wish. Other programs that have this type of annotation for text are qualitative research softwares like NVivo. In Word, when I have to use Word, I usually make a special style for this that I make visually different (e.g. with yellow background) and while I cannot hide it there (a big limitation), I can at least select all instances of this style in one go and delete them.
By the way, simple styles would be of use too.
As for the graphics, InDesign management of external content is great. I would like to be able to link to files instead of embedding them and have full control over linking/relinking/updating, etc. Refer to InDesign CS4 for the set of capabilities. We could also, for simplicity, have a set folder, similar to Attachments, where all images could reside and be linked to. Then, only displaying and formatting them within notes will be a new challenge.
Thanks for listening.
We do have some ideas about
We do have some ideas about adding qualitative research software features. Instead of storing those text inside a note, I think it would be better to store each of them separately as another note. This will make content re-use easier. This feature cannot be added in version 8. Linking graphics instead of storing it inside RTF is planned for later release. Not in version 8. Thanks, Paul
Well, as long as they are
Well, as long as they are created, stored, displayed and hidden on-the-fly from within a note, they can be separate notes too, why not. However, what I had in mind were just temporary comments that are always necessary when one is beginning to write and a text is grows from disconnected bits of various lengths into a coherent whole. These ideas, bits of citations, rough paragraphs or sentences are not yet note-worthy. Therefore, I would like to see some in-note tools that would help me to quickly code and differentiate between different types of text. E.g., I could associate background coloring with paragraphs that need more work, or need further research, or need references, or are doubtful. After a note improves internally, it can be reorganized into several notes (if needed), that can have more permanent/reusable external relationships of the kind you are suggesting...
Am looking forward to further developments...
+1
Counterintuitive bullet lists is one of the idiosyncrasies I have also suffered from.