Bookends 10 window layout-- bring back the keywords field

[hrashid]

Is it possible to split the "Notes" box with a resizable divider? That would allow easy access to the "Keywords" field and still keep "Notes" on the first pane for those who rely on it.

[thecritic]

I agree with the recommendation that keyword entry should be more accessible. Either the drawer or the first tab is fine. Perhaps reversing the "Abstract" and "Keyword" locations? I find I rarely use the abstract after I've read it.

I'm with you on this. Even if "abstract" is extremely important in the sciences, the field is far too small in the main window and so it should be in its own tab (which is easier to display than clicking on the field label in Main view to see the entire field contents.

I think that this is the best compromise

[Jon]

Hm, let's explore this...

Do you mean to have three fields at the bottom of the main tab, with two splitters, as in Keywords: Notes : Abstract?

Or simply combine Notes and Keywords into one tab?

If the latter, that doesn't help those who want keywords in the main tab.

Or do you mean something else?

Jon
Sonny Software

[Jon]

No, the abstract field is, like the notes field, adjustable in the main tab. And it is the perfect size (abstracts tend to be around 400 words or less).

Jon
Sonny Software

[thecritic]

The ref window is now balanced and nicely sized. I don't see adding fields to the main tab.

I'd like to see Call Number and ISSN/ISBN in the Main tab in place of "short title" (they would seem to fit in the space nicely). Is "short title" a very important field in the sciences?

[hrashid]

I was thinking of:

Abstract : Notes/Keywords (this field would be split horizontally with a resizable divider)

However, using a 1024x768 screen, I think a vertical split as you suggested might work as well. However, I don't know what that would do the "Abstract" field since that's sized for an average abstract.

[hrashid]

In the humanities. I can't imagine not having the "short title" easily accessible. Articles and books have short titles, but then long subtitles. Since the first reference in Chicago must include everything, I'd need both.

[ozean]

I think this is a very tricky decision and as you see Jon has spent quite bit of thought on this issue. If I would have to decide between the notes and the keywords field, then I must say that I use the notes field less often, it is mostly a “dumpâ€

[Jon]

It seems that only the original poster feels strongly that the keywords should be on the main pane. One thing that I hasn't been articulated (so I will) is that the way Bookends 10 can display information is now incredibly flexible, especially the List View, where any information you have can be shown in the concise view or the formatted view. And that entry of notes can be accomplished in three different places (well, I did mention that before). I think it's worth revisiting the issues that have been discussed in a few weeks after people have actually had a chance to work with Bookends 10.

Jon
Sonny Softawre

[Dixiedog]

My rank order of interest (and preference for top level) is as follows (first is highest priority)

Keywords
Abstracts
-------
Notes
Series editor

I must say, however, that needs and preferences vary a lot and I can't claim that mine is better or more general.

[Jon]

Don't forget that Ser. Editor is Editors for Edited Books. I don't think anyone would want that in the drawer.

Jon
Sonny Software

[Gerson]

It seems that quite a few people would prefer to have the keywords field on the main page, rather than the notes or abstract field. I think Jon's right-- there are lots of ways to access the notes field now. Given a choice, I'd rather lose the notes field than the abstract field from the main page.

It's important to keep in mind that keywords have to be entered as well as read, so having them in the drawer is great, but I still have to call up the field for entry purposes.

[Dixiedog]

I agree that no one would want to lose the entry for editors of edited books.

[jmdelane]

Two point: First, I for one don't mind seeing the notes removed from the main tab. I don't like making or reading notes with all of the other fields around it. And I do like the idea of having keywords on the main tab.

Second, I would hate to see the drawer changed to a tab, for the very reasons that John mentioned. I would like to see all of the citation-relevant data at once.

Oh, and a third point: GREAT release, Jon. I'll be upgrading in a matter of minutes.

Jim Delaney

[matthias]

When testing Bookends 10 two days ago, I felt, like the original poster, that I wanted the keywords field back in the main tab.

But I am not so sure about it anymore. First it is a priority for me to have all those fields that include (essential) bibliographic information of a reference in one place; i.e. in the main tab. Because this is what I enter or edit (after downloading form a library) in one "run". The Notes, Abstract or Keywords fields don't fall in that category though. All three fields rather hold information that materializes in another step of the research process: When reading the referenced book, article or what ever publication else.
Regarding the reference window it would therefore seem to be obvious to have these three fields not separated but rather kept together. This could well be in one tab called "Analysis" or "Conclusions". Pushing this thought a little further, in the face of Bookends' great new PDF-reader I feel that these three fields should also be editable in list view, since this is the place where I might read my PDFs. And I don't want to switch windows in order to enter information in the analytical process. Having the Notes, Abstract, and Keywords field handy when reading on-screen would thus facilitate the annotation process.

So, I concur with those pleading to wait and work with Bookends 10 for a while an see what we actually need in the face of the new feature version 10 brought about.

Matthias

Apart from that: Bookends 10 rocks!