|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
2007 Roadmap Discussion
Do you have any comment on
http://www.kinook.com/Forum/showthre...s=&postid=9456 ? |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
regarding
# Export multiple item notes as combined RTF document - I suppose in the language of UR, it was meant "item text". Please provide an option to include "item notes" in the export, just after each "item text". Thank you. |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
Finally!
The "Open New Tab as Blank" update is something I've really been anxious for. Glad to hear it will be in the next release.
This may ease the carpal tunnel I've developed from excessive clicking on the "close tab" button every time it opened yet another copy of an existing item. Not to mention the tendency to curse like a sailor after discovering I'm staring at the wrong copy (missing edits) of a document I was working on..... Life is good! Kinook support is THE model for other software development companies..... PIMfan |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
And, BTW, once the mechanism is in place, could be manipulated to export as HTML. (Perhaps seeing the term "HTML" might spark more interest.) Although, IMHO RTF is enough since there are heaps of editors around with which you can easily open RTF and save as HTML. (PS: why is this in General Discussion and not in Suggestions?) Last edited by zargron; 06-29-2007 at 12:26 AM. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Hope search for DBCS text will be added in the next release.
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Can't believe that Filtering the Tree has dropped so far down the priority list. Seems so fundamental to the concept of UR. Every other feature seems like a bell or whistle by comparison.
Among other things, task management is so cumbersome without it. Time to abandon all hope and find another program for task management. |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
I agree. All the "other stuff" is what has kept me using UR for task management. Unfortunately, lately I have had a lot more tasks to manage and it is to the point where the benefit of the other stuff is outweighed by the difficulty of managing tasks.
I have explained my reasoning for this ad infinitum on previous threads so won't reiterate yet again here or on another thread, but bottom line is tree filtering would give me the power to deal with large numbers of tasks with varying attributes... to be able to focus on different subsets of tasks and related info items while maintaining a hierachical view and without requiring spaghetti-like multilinks, which are too cumbersome to maintain. I realize that UR is not a task manager and probably won't ever be as good at task management as a dedicated task management app. But this one feature would better allow me to keep all task management in UR and thus also enable me to keep it integrated with all the other great info management features. My frustration comes from the fact that the more I have asked for this feature, the further down the priority list it has moved! |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
Thanks for taking time out to respond xja. Thanks also for your long list of contributions to UR in the way of comments and suggestions in the forum. Good luck with where ever your task management challenge takes you.
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Maybe Kinook will see the greater use of tree filtering & move it up the list. Development time could be relatively short.... or long.... I don't know. But what I do know is that it would be a shame for you to have to go to the trouble of migrating to another program only to discover that tree filtering has been implemented. Maybe Kinook will respond to this thread, your frustration or a private post from you. Seems to me to be worth a try. I can only speak from my experience of migrating from: Lotus Agenda -> Ecco Pro -> Zoot -> ADM + Ariadne -> Ultra Recall. While I am keeping my eye on MyInfo, if the UR roadmap is implemented on a reasonable schedule, I think I'll stay where I am for the foreseeable future because of the above. If you, in fact, decide to go elsewhere, I hope you'll join the outliner/PIM list where we keep each other up to date on what's out there, what' s working & what's not. Good luck. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
xja,
We're doing our best to accommodate everyone's requests (it would help if every user didn't have a different pet feature :^), and we'll think about adjusting the priority of the filtered trees request. The problem with this feature is that there haven't been that many requests for it and it's a lot of work. To optimize loading, the tree is currently loaded from the root down, only processing expanded nodes. Filtering will have to load bottom up, or at least process every single node to determine whether it and its parents should be shown in the tree. And performance will be impacted significantly, since every node must be processed and a query performed for each to filter properly. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Currently, URp takes a while to load in on my system -- not too long, mind you -- just long enough. To add significantly to that time frame would make me feel like I was using (god forbid) Outlook or an Adobe product -- something I try to avoid because it is such a PITA to start up. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Right--adding to the complexity is that the old behavior must continue to be used when not filtering to avoid unnecessarily impacting performance.
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
My plea is to not add features that would negatively impact on performance. UR is way too lethargic in my opinion. You have committed to improved performance for the next release (I cannot wait - when is it coming?), so why add a feature that will detract from your efforts?
Just my opinion though. Jon |
|
|