Separate editing window

[Jon]

For those who want this feature back, don't worry, it's on its way. As I announced when it was removed, the standalone window was a separate tunnel into the entire application, and had become an obstacle to further development. It had to go. The new standalone window will be narrower in focus, and as a result two long-asked for features can now be implemented: (1) two or more reference windows can be open at a time, and (2) you will be able to rearrange the fields on the Main and Additional Fields tabs (not between tabs). I expect these features to appear in the next update.

Jon
Sonny Software

[Feanaaro]

It is a big improvement over the previous situation, thanks.
Three more things would be great, if they could be added:
• the window should remember the size it was set to. As it is now, it always open in the same (rather small/narrow) size, and it does not remember manual resizing
• it would be great if attachment could be added through this window, that is usually part of the data entry when adding a new reference for which one has the pdf
• it would also be great if fields could not only be rearranged, but also their size could be changed. For example, I don't care seeing much of the "note" field, it has its own tab anyway, but I would like to see more of the abstract (as it was, btw, in the old incarnation of the editing window).

Thanks.

[Jon]

If you set Bookends to use one editing window it will remember it's size between references (if it doesn't, you should report a bug to tech support). It's not remembered between launches, but is after the first time the window is opened and then moved or the size changed. If you tell Bookends to open a separate window for every reference you edit, each will open in the default location, which is probably what you're seeing now.

If you've followed the previous threads about this, you've seen that one of the drawbacks of the old window was that had to do too much. This new window is a dedicated editing window. You can make attachments to the reference by dragging and dropping on the library window (which represents the database).

Manipulating fields heights is an order of magnitude more complex, and there are not currently any plans to try something like that. Note that the Abstract and Notes fields do enlarge (get taller) once the window height exceeds the amount needed to view all fields. Also, don't forget clicking on the Abstract field label -- in addition to seeing the whole thing at once, the font size is made larger for easier reading. You can dismiss it with the Escape key among other methods.

Jon
Sonny Software

[Feanaaro]

I see. Maybe you could put "abstract" and "keywords" side by side, like they used to be. In this way increasing the width of the window would also increase the space available for the abstract field.
I understand that the old window was too many thing at once, but adding attachment is an action which is pretty ingrained in the routine of adding a new reference, or editing an existing one; it would made for a smoother workflow if it could be integrated in the same window.

[Jon]

Increasing the width of the window already does increase the space available for the abstract field (it stretches it). It shows more than twice as much now than if it were less than half the width of the pane and shared space with Keywords.

I may allow drag and drop of attachments on the editing window again, but that's about it (and it's no different from doing that on the library window. Maybe you have a small screen so that means shuffling windows?

Jon
Sonny Software

[Feanaaro]

I use a 15" retina macbook, so it is neither particularly small not particularly large. I like to keep the library window occupying the full width of the screen though. But in my opinion the issue would be the same even if I had the two windows side by side. It is just that doing all data entering (and linking to the pdf is part of the data entering for the majority of articles and many books too) on one interface makes for an easier workflow. Dropping the pdf on the editing window would be a small improvement on the current situation, but still worse than it used to be, since it would still require to shift the focus from the editing window to the finder, find the pdf, and then dropping it and re-focusing. That makes for a more cumbersome workflow. It's not a significant difference for one reference, but it becomes so when constantly repeated.

[Jon]

Dropping the pdf on the editing window would be a small improvement on the current situation, but still worse than it used to be, since it would still require to shift the focus from the editing window to the finder, find the pdf, and then dropping it and re-focusing. That makes for a more cumbersome workflow. It's not a significant difference for one reference, but it becomes so when constantly repeated.

As opposed to what? Personally, I hate having to go through the Open dialog (although they are not mutually exclusive options)...

Jon
Sonny Software

[rwg]

I have to say that I agree with Feanaaro. I was glad to see the separate editing window restored, but I was disappointed to find that the old button for adding attachments had been removed. For me, dragging-and-dropping is definitely more cumbersome than going through the Open dialogue.

[Feanaaro]

As opposed to what it was before.
It's not that I necessary LOVE the dialog, it's just that doing all the data-entry in one place is intrinsically less cumbersome than doing everything in one place, save for one thing which requires shifting the focus elsewhere. Then the matter of the better interface to doing things is very open to discussion, but having operations that are often done together accessible by the same interface is in itself better.

[Feanaaro]

Regarding the "abstract" field. I used to be able to see entire abstracts that now requires scrolling instead, while keeping the editing window roughly of the same size as it was before. So the field has lost space in switching from the narrow (split with keywords) but tall to the wide but short.

[Jon]

The Abstract field size was (and is) variable. So depending on the size of your old window it could have more or less height content displayable than what you see now. The current abstract also increases in height and length as the window (or editing pane) changes in size. In order to get it to increase in height, you have to make the editing pane larger than the minimum to see all the fields. Then Notes and Abstract get bigger. You can of course also click on the Abstract name to see it in a larger font in it's own sheet window.

But in the end, the editing pane is for editing, not looking at the contents of the reference.You can use whatever you like, but that's what the Summary view is for, and you can configure that to display anything any way you want.

Jon
Sonny Software

[Feanaaro]

The Abstract field size was (and is) variable. So depending on the size of your old window it could have more or less height content displayable than what you see now. The current abstract also increases in height and length as the window (or editing pane) changes in size. In order to get it to increase in height, you have to make the editing pane larger than the minimum to see all the fields.

I see, but there are so many fields that it is impossible to show them all without scrolling on my screen (I haven't found a way to hide/remove the fields from the editing window, that would help maybe). So that increase in height never happens for me (or anyone with a laptop, which is the majority of mac users).
I agree that things can be done differently, as you pointed out. Seeing the entire abstract at once is anyway useful also for editing. For example often copying and pasting the abstract produced some garbled text, missing spaces etc., and need some editing to be made straight. That is less cumbersome to do if the field is big enough to show the entire abstract, or at least not needing too much scrolling. The way it was before the change.

[Jon]

We're not going back to that awful window, nostalgia notwithstanding. It did let you see all fields at a glance, which was its major virtue, but in most other ways it had outlived its usefulness. If you want to get the most out of the new UI, think of how best to work with the flexible options Bookends has. To summarize for the last time, If you can't get the Abstract field large enough for your apparently frequent editing, use the enlarge view (click on the word Abstract) to edit (and get the bonus of large font size). Or edit it in the Summary pane (you know you can click on the Abstract there and edit, right)? The "All" view lets you edit, too, but the Summary is better IMHO. Move the Abstract higher up on the editing pane if you find yourself scrolling to it often. The interface is very flexible.

Jon
Sonny Software

[hareiko]

Hi Jon, and hi all,

I have just upgraded and I really miss the old editing window, and not for nostalgic reasons. In the old window it was possible to see everything at one glance. The summary pane may be nice, but it's not practicle and I do not like to use it. In the editing window everything is at a defined spot. It's easy to spot editor, place or whatever you're looking for, because you know exactly where to look. In the summary pane, on the other hand, the location of editor, place or whatever will depend on the number of authors, the length of the title, and so on. Which means you have to scan down the whole column, to find what you search. I could live with the new editing window, if it would allow me see everything at one glance. Clicking on the abstract heading to open a new window in order to see the whole abstract without having to scroll, is a nuisance, because then all other field are hidden. Also, it was nice to have publisher and place in two half-lines. Now they are spread over the whole width, which is never needed and costs space for the abstract field. The same applies to the four user field half-lines, which are now full length and cost space as well. To use full width for the keywords field, where we have usually one or a few words per line, causes the same problem. It was so nice when it was side-by-side with the abstract field and one could arrange the space for both. (A narrower and longer text block for the abstract also enables easier reading.) Finally I have no use for the notes field which was never on the primary editing field and which I (and probably many others) therefore rarely used. Is it possible, to rearrange the fields as they were with more half lines and more space for the abstract? (I understand that you can somewhat enlarge the abstract field by enlarging the whole window, but for me it is still too small.) Or is it possible to make the location and size of the fields editable? Until that time I'm afraid, I will have to go back to a previous version of Bookends and weep.

Best regards
Hans-Reinhard Koch

[Jon]

The location of the fields (top to bottom) is editable. Command-click on the field name, drag, and drop where you want it. I may tweak the field arrangements a bit still, but not make dramatic changes. Why is the summary pane "not practical"? It's intended just for this use (seeing everything at a glance).

Jon
Sonny Software