Sonny Software

I have attached several annotated PDFs to my references. Annotations including text highlights, rectangles and text notes.

All annotations are displayed normally in the main Bookends window if the "attachments view" is selected. Curiously, however, no annotations are displayed in the "attachments" pane of the reference window.

Is there a fix? Is Sonny Software aware of this? Any plans for a fix?

Thank you.

Hi,

That's because you have the option of use WebKit to display attachments in the list view (which will show annotations), but you don't in the reference window (we us our own pdf viewer control). I don't plan on using the WebKit viewer in the reference window for performance reasons, but might reconsider if there was a lot of interest in it.

Jon
Sonny Software

Thanks, Jon. I guessed that would be the answer.

I have personally never experienced any performance issues by invoking the WebKit for PDF display in the main window. Neither have I noticed any related complaints in the forum.

Even if there were a minimal performance hit, I don't think it would be of such magnitude as to irritate users, even it were palpable (which is actually questionable). For those of us who annotate our PDFs, however—and I am sure many of us do as annotating is something we're all conditioned to do with study material—this is a non-negligible limitation.

Perhaps I belong in the minority, but I have thousands of articles attached to Bookends, and most of them are extensively annotated. It is a pity not to be able to view those documents properly in their dedicated reference window. One of my reasons for loving Bookends is that it acts not only as a bibliographic manager but also as a hub for all my scholarly activities, including note-taking. I understand, however, that my workflow may be unusual in that sense.

Would you perhaps consider making the "Use WebKit" option global in scope, affecting all methods of PDF display in Bookends? Or adding a hidden, "try-at-your-own-risk" entry in some pref file, if you are extremely concerned by the risk of performance degradation?

Thanks again.

Sure I'll consider it. I thought you said Bookends was feature-complete? :-)

Jon
Sonny Software

Well, that only attests to my enthusiasm for Bookends 11!

On a related note, I see that annotations made in Preview are recognized while those made in Skim aren't. Are Skim annotations fundamentally different in nature?

Interesting. I use Acrobat rather than Skim for annotations.

rickl wrote:Are Skim annotations fundamentally different in nature?

Yes, they Skim stores annotations as extended attributes to the PDF file, not in the PDF file itself (this also means they can get lost when you copy or e-mail your Skim-annotated PDFs). See their FAQ: http://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/s ... ?title=FAQ

rickl wrote:On a related note, I see that annotations made in Preview are recognized while those made in Skim aren't. Are Skim annotations fundamentally different in nature?

Yes, they have their own 3rd party API. Bookends can read Skim notes.

Jon
Sonny Software

Bookends can read Skim notes.

Strange. I'm not seeing them. Are there any tips/workarounds, and is everyone else seeing them OK?

Darn. Type. Bookends cannot read Skim notes. Sorry.

Jon
Sonny Software

... strongly agree with macula.

Seeing my annotations in the attachment pane of the reference window is very important for me, too.

Note that if I do this, the window must be a composite window. In that case, the submarining cursor issue will remain. It's either one or the other.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2554

Jon
Sonny Software

That's a tough call… I would probably opt for a healthy cursor, but I can only speak for myself. That way we will at least have a choice in the application between the cursor and the annotations.

Thank you.

Well, that's a lot easier for me. :-)

I'd like as many comments on this as possible so that whatever change/addition we make is only done once.

Jon
Sonny Software