GUI and more fields- a discussion

[danzac]

I hope this post is not seen as abrasive, I'm hoping it will generate some feedback from users that may be beneficial to Jon. And hopefully it doesn't sound like I'm complaining, because I love Bookends.

I think the biggest thing us users are asking for is more fields (am I right?) and at the same time, I really like the layout of the Bibliographic window. So I was a little bored last night and decided to deface a jpg of the bib window to see what more fields might look like. here it is (see my comments below)-


- I know I keep saying this and Jon keeps resisting it, but I would really like to see the amazon pics of book covers. Perhaps it is because I'm young and bombarded with media and color, but I just find it esthetically pleasing. That is why the little arrows on the top are pulling the top matters to the side (but see mention below)
- This may just be me, but I don't like that I can't see a larger portion of my notes in the Bib Window, I often end up putting my notes in the Abstract field to see them better. Dropping the Notes field down beside the Abstract still gives a good chunk of space to see both of them.
- I think a number of fields could be added easily without looking squished. The fields that are 'sliced' in the picture are fields that don't need to be two lines high.
- I think a little drawer is the way to go for extra fields. I put 6 more fields there, but really the drawer could extend up most of the side of the Bib window and include 10 more fields- and this may be even a nicer place to make an Amazon image shown, that would be very cool. I think a drawer is good because there is much info that comes from Amazon, etc., that I find handy but don't have to necessarily see (like language, price, ISBN, etc.,).

The picture above has 32 fields, and really a drawer could have more than just 6. Are there any users that would still require more than 32-36 fields? I definitely would not, but I'm not sure about others. As of right now, 18 is not enough for certain books I have.

So what fields would be specified with 32 fields? Author, keywords, title, editors, journal, volume, date, place, publisher, pages, notes, abstracts, translator, edition, ISBN, price, reprinting, 2ndary page range, series title, series volume, series editor, Key (for BiBTex users), language, URL, 2nd title, 2nd book title, LOC #, Dewey #. That's 28, with more than a few being just recommendations that most people would rename and use on their own. But even with that list, there are still 4 more fields for User use out of 32 (and more if a drawer held more than 6).

Now, having said all of that, Jon is smarter than I am and knows more. I have no idea what kind of work would go into adding these fields to the program and GUI- I may be throwing things out and y'all are rolling your eyes. And odds are Jon has already brainstormed this and formulated a better plan already. Nontheless, I am still interested to hear what others think, and perhaps hear what plans Jon does have and when. How many fields do people need? Is the Bib Window proposed above too cluttered? do you care about clutter and aesthetic (like an amazon pic)?

Long live Bookends! Cheers

[Jon]

Hi Danny,

Thanks for this post.

Two from me:

1. You can add/edit Notes in the Info Drawer in 8.1.3, so that may address the that issue for you.

2. I have been thinking about ways to add fields, and have some ideas already, so I'm looking forward to comments as well.

Jon
Sonny Software

[jem]

Personally I would like to see more fields but I see one problem with the many fields in the picture: it can become difficult to differ between the fields, they are very close to each other. But I find the idea of a field drawer interesting.

[ozean]

I like the vertical split in the abstract field. I am using the note field more often than the abstract field (I do excerpts and abstracts in OmniOutliner and attach those) – a bigger notes field would be welcome and it would open up space for at least one more field without causing visual clutter in the upper part of the window. I also like having the notes close to the abstract, because they seem to be kind of related to me (more related, at least, than notes and title, editors or volume).

[markau]

I'd register my vote for additional fields. I find it the single most limiting feature of Bookends at the moment.

I certainly question any need to be able to see all of the fields (or in fact, even the majority of fields) at the same time in a single window. If extra fields were added, whether one goes for a drawer approach, or the ability to scroll the window down to get to additional fields interests me less than getting the fields there one way or another. However it is done though, I would want to be simple to get through all the fields (including any that may be in a draw) without having to use the mouse. In other words, tabbing through the fields and having the screen scroll down is ok. Tabbing through the fields, perhaps with some other keys to open a draw is ok. But tabbing through one lot of fields, having to use the mouse, and then keep going is much less desirable. If I had to chose though, I think I would say keep the dialog less cluttered, and make the user scroll down the screen to get to the less used fields. Cluttering up the dialog trying to fit more fields on may end up making it more difficult to use in various ways (e.g. visually hard, but also end up with fields only showing part of their text).

I used that other product (Endnote) for quite a while, and to be honest, not having all the fields on the screen at one time was of little consequence. You generally enter the data once (either manually or downloaded from somewhere), you might check it (if downloaded), and after that, you don't care about it anymore. Only a small number of fields get changed after that (like notes, keywords), but once the data is entered, seeing all the fields on the screen at one time is fairly irrelevant.

This is particularly the case in view of the 'info draw', which is a great thing, especially when combined with the 'View formatted' section at the bottom of the main dialog. Between these two, I almost never find it necessary to look at a reference's fields, except to edit the notes/keywords, once I have entered the reference the first time. Once I get in the habit of editing the notes via the 'info draw' then I imagine I will be looking at a reference's fields even less often.

[danzac]

I like the vertical split in the abstract field. I am using the note field more often than the abstract field (I do excerpts and abstracts in OmniOutliner and attach those) – a bigger notes field would be welcome and it would open up space for at least one more field without causing visual clutter in the upper part of the window. I also like having the notes close to the abstract, because they seem to be kind of related to me (more related, at least, than notes and title, editors or volume).

That is a good point about the Notes field that I never thought of, they are more logically connected with the Abstract field making the closeness of the two sensible.

It sounds like the first little GUI pic was a little too cluttered, here is my next creation, a little more professional looking (the wonders of Adobe Photoshop). What do people think of this? There are a few less fields in the main window, and 10 in the drawer.




Any thoughts?

[kvmagruder]

In my University Dept, we require our graduate students to use Turabian as a reference guide, and many journals in my field use it also. I have racked my brain trying to figure out how to construct different reference formats in Bookends to come up with the various reference types in Turabian. Maybe a few examples will help to show that additional fields are not esoteric, but are necessary for complete Turabian citations for humanities research and early modern books; I realize that other writers do not need these complex citation formats. Here are a few examples that are quite common for me, and not at all out of the ordinary for humanities research, I think:

1. A single volume in a multivolume work that appears in a numbered series with a series editor. The bibliography entry should appear like this:
Colish, Marcia L. Stoicism in Classical Latin Literature. Vol. 1 of The Stoic Tradition from Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages. 2 vols. Studies in the History of Christian Thought, no. 34, ed. Heiko A. Oberman. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1985.

2. A chapter in a specific volume of a multivolume work, with translators other than the authors:
Descartes, René. “Les Meteores.â€

[kvmagruder]

Danzac, Yes, aesthetics are important to me, also, and I do like your second (Photoshop) layout very much.

Markau: I completely agree with your post, especially this:
>>This is particularly the case in view of the 'info draw', which is a great thing, especially when combined with the 'View formatted' section at the bottom of the main dialog. Between these two, I almost never find it necessary to look at a reference's fields, except to edit the notes/keywords, once I have entered the reference the first time. Once I get in the habit of editing the notes via the 'info draw' then I imagine I will be looking at a reference's fields even less often.<<

[Jon]

Hi guys,

Just to let you know that I'm reading all of this with interest. The drawer solution is the one I have been toying with in prototypes on-and-off for the last several months, and looks like the best. No promises, but please know I am aware of the need and am thinking about solutions.

As for Danny's request for images, I've started prototyping a solution for that, too (not excactly the ones suggested, but (I think) better -- I'll leave it at that until I'm sure it will work well).

Jon
Sonny Software

[Tacitus]

Hi guys,

.............The drawer solution is the one I have been toying with in prototypes on-and-off for the last several months, and looks like the best. No promises, but please know I am aware of the need and am thinking about solutions.

............Jon
Sonny Software

I've come a little late to this but for my money the simplest thing would be to abolish the current abstract field to make more room for others. The abstract could then be accessed by means of a large button say at the top of the window which would produce a pop-up window.

I seem to remember suggesting something like this when Jon was creating v6 of Bookends. Yes folks I've been using it that long - in fact since v3. I think I still have the single floppy disk somewhere!

cheers,

Tacitus

[Jon]

Hi Tacitus -- thanks for sticking with us!

To me (and I think most scientists) the abstract field is the most important, which is why it is given prominence. I wouldn't make that info so painful to get to.

Jon
Sonny Software

[Gerben]

Well, just another small comment. I would indeed also favor more fields. Rather a pity to have migrated from Procite and see a lot of fields merged and in history we need more.

Another issue on the current note field: i would very much like it to become bigger, although the how is difficult. But it is as important as the abstradct field for me.

To end on a happy note> even though my university offers Endnote for free i decided to buy Bookends. Keep up the work, it is very very good!

Gerben

[Jon]

Thanks, Gerben.

BTW, you do know that in 8.1.3 you can view and edit the Notes field in the Info Drawer? You can make that as big as you like.

Jon
Sonny Software

P.S. Also, in case you missed it, you can always enlarge any field in the reference window by clicking on its name.

[Craig]

I'm also coming late to this discussion, so forgive any redundancy. Has any thought been given to making the interface user-customizable? I'm thinking of how many OSX toolbars can be customized by dragging and dropping icons to positions. This, I imagine, would be a much more complicated piece of programming, but theoretically at least everybody would be happy with the interface.

[Jon]

An interesting idea I've toyed with in the past. But I am afraid it require virtually a complete rewrite of the application, which is far too great a cost for the small benefit it would bring.

I think the solution we finally come up with will satisfy most people.

Jon
Sonny Software