|
It would not be "additional panes", it would be the possibility to have in the panes what you really need within your sight for your real work, instead of having things there you don't want, when having problems to get to those you need. I, for example, don't need the calendar, do not need the child items - especially when it replaces the search results list against my will!!!!!!!!!!! -, and I don't need the attributes panes either, but I need the item parents since this is, for the moment and perhaps forever, the only way to access clones by search, in two steps that is, where one step should suffice (see the current thread on this please), and I would so much need a history pane (when favorites are not so important, since you can put shortkeys to them, and they are always the same).
So it's not that I'm not happy with 10 panes and want 15 of them; it's just that it would be kind and nice of yours to allow us some decision on behalf of the CONTENT of those panes available in order to organize our work the way we happen to feel best for best results.
Panes questions have been appearing in this forum FOR YEARS, and without a solution that technically would then not be so far away, I suppose.
So, could those panes questions be resolved in the professional version at least, in order to make it interesting for Kinook to implement them, after years of asking from various users for them?
UR is the best information manager I know, but it's just that this pane question has been there for many years, and every time somebody has brought it on, he's got your polite "NO" as I do now. Where's the REAL problem of all this, I wonder then?
Couldn't you just be nice, finally, knowing for years that most of UR users would really be fond of you for getting some FLEXIBILITY in their pane use? Finally, all those lists are there, everywhere, in array form, so putting them into the panes of their choice could not be really difficult?
And then, WHO really needs the ever-self-imposing children pane where the children are in alphabetical (!) order, mandatorily (so that you need the tree on top of it in order to have them in the order of YOUR choice)? I suppose that those who need alphabetic children, here and there, have them in the tree like that yet.
Right?
|