Kinook Software Forums

Go Back   Kinook Software Forums > Ultra Recall > [UR] Suggestions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-08-2007, 12:14 PM
bkonia bkonia is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: 11-23-2004
Posts: 98
XStandard - Replacement for Built-in Editor

There has been much discussion on these forums regarding UR's very limited built-in editing capability. Kinook has taken the position that there are no Visual C++ RTF components available that can work with UR. While I find this hard to believe, let's assume that Kinook is correct. Another user has suggested that an HTML editing component would be just as good as RTF for most purposes and I agree that a WYSIWYG HTML editor would be great. It would allow for all the fancy editing that users want to do within UR and HTML is actually more standard than RTF anyway, so it appears that there is no downside to this.

I would like to propose that Kinook include the XStandard - http://www.xstandard.com - component within UR as an optional alternative to the existing RTF editor. XStandard is the most popular and most standards-compliant XHTML WYSIWYG editing component on the market. Notice, I said XHTML, not HTML. Having XHTML editing capability built-in to UR would be hugely beneficial as it would allow people to create XHTML-compliant web pages in UR, in addition to using it for simple document editing purposes.

As you can see from the following web page, XStandard is definitely available as a Visual C++ component:

http://www.xstandard.com/en/document...tegration/vc6/

While it's possible that Kinook might be able to get away with using the free version (XStandard Lite) the licensing fees for the Pro version are quite reasonable and the Pro version adds several important features including spell checking, embedded images, etc... When licensed in bulk, the price drops down to $1.60/user. You can review the license fee chart at the following URL:

http://www.xstandard.com/en/purchase/xstandard/

I'm quite sure that if Kinook did a mailing to its users and offered to integrate this component for $10 extra, they would get at least 100 users who would be willing to pay for it. Since the license fee at the 100 user level is $5.99/user, this would obviously be a win/win for everyone involved. How about it, Kinook???
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-08-2007, 01:47 PM
quant's Avatar
quant quant is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: 11-30-2006
Posts: 967
sounds nice, and reasonable pricing ... look forward what Kinook has to say on this ...

there would be another plus in all this -> effortless HTML (tree) export, ... finally

all in all, I'm looking forward for UR to get better and better, knowing that they have already bought another components that will allow them to add powerful calendar features (hopefully soon)
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-10-2007, 01:26 PM
kinook kinook is online now
Administrator
 
Join Date: 03-06-2001
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5,758
We'll look at it, but it's doubtful that we would use a product requiring licensing per UR end user.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-10-2007, 01:38 PM
janrif janrif is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: 07-08-2005
Location: Ridgefield CT USA
Posts: 852
Quote:
Originally posted by kinook
We'll look at it, but it's doubtful that we would use a product requiring licensing per UR end user.
Just for me edification, why is that?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-10-2007, 01:38 PM
bkonia bkonia is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: 11-23-2004
Posts: 98
Quote:
Originally posted by kinook
We'll look at it, but it's doubtful that we would use a product requiring licensing per UR end user.
OK, then here's a suggestion. Integrate it into UR and include the free version as part of the UR install. In the preference settings, allow the user to choose between using the RTF component or the free XStandard component as the default editor.

Now, if an individual user wants the enhanced features of the Pro version, he can buy an individual license. You can buy a 10-user license for $179 and then resell the licenses to those users who want them for like $25 each. The point is, the freeware version is completely usable and for many users would be preferable to the built-in RTF editor.

I really believe that many UR users would be thrilled to have an advanced WYSIWYG XHTML editor built-in to UR.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-10-2007, 02:00 PM
quant's Avatar
quant quant is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: 11-30-2006
Posts: 967
one question

would copying (part of the website with formatting and pictures) and pasting work? (like it works beautifully with google notebook)

That would be greeeeeeeeeeeeat!

Last edited by quant; 09-10-2007 at 02:04 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-10-2007, 02:31 PM
bkonia bkonia is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: 11-23-2004
Posts: 98
Quote:
Originally posted by quant
one question?

would copying (part of the website with formatting and pictures) and pasting work? (like it works beautifully with google notebook)

That would be greeeeeeeeeeeeat!
This would not work with XStandard. The reason is that XStandard is a strict XHTML editor and many web pages do not yet conform to the XHTML standard. If you copy/paste part of an HTML page into XStandard's WYSIWYG view, it would past it in as plain (unformatted) text. If you copy/paste the actual HTML code into XStandard's code view, it would report that the code is not XHTML compliant and you would have to go through the code manually and correct each of the errors.

However, this discussion is moot, because UR already includes the capability to paste in partial (or complete) web pages and store them as document Info Items.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-10-2007, 02:57 PM
quant's Avatar
quant quant is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: 11-30-2006
Posts: 967
Quote:
Originally posted by bkonia
This would not work with XStandard. The reason is that XStandard is a strict XHTML editor and many web pages do not yet conform to the XHTML standard. If you copy/paste part of an HTML page into XStandard's WYSIWYG view, it would past it in as plain (unformatted) text. If you copy/paste the actual HTML code into XStandard's code view, it would report that the code is not XHTML compliant and you would have to go through the code manually and correct each of the errors.
thanks for explanation

Quote:
Originally posted by bkonia
However, this discussion is moot, because UR already includes the capability to paste in partial (or complete) web pages and store them as document Info Items.
yes, but
1. those cannot be edited directly (not a big problem for me, cause you can always open it externally and edit in your favorite (wysiwyg) editor)
2. the main problem is that I need to copy part of the website inside another item text, with preserved formatting and images. I understand the problem behind, but this seams really like the VERY ESSENTIAL feature that any aspiring PIM soft should have, because
a. most of the information is on the web
b. you want to structure your note so that you understand it, add only relevant part + be able to add your own comment, I'm really surprised that this seems too much to ask for ... and seeing that some simple web application like google notebook does it seemlessly, makes me sad
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-10-2007, 03:04 PM
quant's Avatar
quant quant is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: 11-30-2006
Posts: 967
... and thinking about it, can one open item note for external editing???
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-10-2007, 09:54 PM
TMF TMF is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: 04-02-2007
Posts: 57
Quote:
Originally posted by janrif
Just for me edification, why is that?
I of course can't speak for Kinook. But their licensing striked me the first thing, it's clearly targetted at business users, not at shareware developers.

It would mean disclosing the number of UR users (pretty valuable data).

It would mean locking in a third party control by investing a lot of time into incorporating it. Yet at some point in the future, new decisions will be made and it will be decided that now it's crucial for the xhtml editor to be incorporated for all users. Which means you either lost the development time, or lot of money because now you need to pay for hundreds more licenses.

Also imagine if every control used by Kinook had such pricing structure, what would be left for Kinook out of the UR price.

I only took it quickly, and these are just disadvantages of course, not fundamental barriers.

Clearly, as a user, I would like to have XHTML in UR as well.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 09-10-2007, 10:15 PM
bkonia bkonia is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: 11-23-2004
Posts: 98
Quote:
Originally posted by TMF
I of course can't speak for Kinook. But their licensing striked me the first thing, it's clearly targetted at business users, not at shareware developers.]
Not necessarily. The license is simply based on the number of users. At $1.60 per license, purchased in bulk, that would have a negligible effect on the end-user pricing for UR.

Quote:
It would mean disclosing the number of UR users (pretty valuable data).
Eh....come on. I don't think the developers of XStandard are going to run around posting the number of licenses sold to Kinook on some public forum! And I don't think anyone outside of Kinook really cares. If anything, publicizing lots of users is good PR for a software company. Many companies make a big deal about stating how many users they have.

Quote:
It would mean locking in a third party control by investing a lot of time into incorporating it. Yet at some point in the future, new decisions will be made and it will be decided that now it's crucial for the xhtml editor to be incorporated for all users. Which means you either lost the development time, or lot of money because now you need to pay for hundreds more licenses.
First of all, it's not a lot of time. If you look at the Visual C++ integration instructions on the XStandard website, it looks like it would take about 15 minutes of programming time to integrate it.

Next, I suggested that they include the Lite (Freeware) version of XStandard with all copies of UR sold. There's no downside to this. It's free, it's easy to integrate and it would immediately provide XHTML editing capability to all UR users. Any user who wants the additional features provided by the Pro version could pay for the XStandard Pro license. I believe the component is identical. It's just a matter of unlocking the Pro features.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-03-2008, 10:31 PM
MrAnalogy MrAnalogy is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: 02-18-2007
Location: Blacksburg, VA
Posts: 56
Would Kinook pay for a licens for every TRIAL user?

If kinook used the "pay" version would they have to pay for every TRIAL user? How would the component vendor know their HTML editor was in a trial vs full version?

$1.60 doesn't sound like much IF every UR user got some benefit. But not every user may want that feature. And their net profit might only be $10 per user (after paying development, support costs, etc.)


To those of us who want this feature, it seems like THE most important feature, but it may not be everyone's #1 option.


btw, I'd very much like to have the editing feature. I'm seriously considering Evernote.com which captures easily AND has a great built in web edtor. Oh, and it's free. And you can sync it online so it's available everywhere.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:26 PM.


Copyright 1999-2019 Kinook Software, Inc.