GUI and more fields- a discussion

[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.

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

Thanks. I knew about the way to enlarge fields. Had not yet realized the new edit possibility in 8.1.3. I guess what i would like is a bit more preview of the notes field in the standard ref window but that is admittedly a case of personal preference..

Gerben

[danzac]

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.

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

Thanks. I knew about the way to enlarge fields. Had not yet realized the new edit possibility in 8.1.3. I guess what i would like is a bit more preview of the notes field in the standard ref window but that is admittedly a case of personal preference..

Gerben

Gerben, do you like the idea of the note field beside the Abstract field the way it is in the pictures?

I can't remember who said to get rid of the Abstract field and put that too the drawer, but I would also have to agree. The Abstract field needs to stay in the Bib window, and the more I look at it, the more I like the Abstract and Notes field side by side.

Jon, I'm interested to hear what the 'aesthetic upgrade' is- please let us know as soon as you can. Danny

[tharpold]

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

OK -- I've already put my .02 re the need for more fields in earlier threads on the subject, but I have to add in here -- no, no, no (!) Amazon pics of book covers. No disrespect meant, but I think it's a lousy idea.

- Maybe I'm unusual in this regard -- I think not -- but most of the entries in my Bookends database are (by far) articles and book chapters. A book cover gets you little or nothing in those cases.

- How to store/append the images? What to do for books (and nearly all scholarly articles) for which there is no image available? I think these problems would add significant overhead to the database for a very minor benefit.

- Book covers on Amazon are often poor in quality and irregular in size, and tend to have unreliable association with publisher and edition information; the covers shown are often incorrect.

- Relying on Amazon as a primary conduit for citation information means having accepting their inconsistent and half-a**ed methods in this regard, or building in all kinds of one-off, special-case corrections to try to fix things. (This is the biggest operational flaw of Delicious Library: the program's authors seem to have accepted Amazon as a good source for citation information, when it is -- even if the only game in town in some respects -- a very poor source.) On principle, I think this is best to avoid.

[danzac]

Tharpold,
Thanks for that. I can understand the limitations you see. My second suggestion in the info drawer may make sense for those of us who still like the picture, but it does not cause any 'blank spots' for the entries which are journals (my db is primarily articles as well). As to the info from Amazon, I've never had incorrect stuff from Amazon yet, but I don't doubt you. Info always needs to be checked. It sounds like Jon has a better solution than any of us could think up. Danny

[Jon]

The solution for images I'm working on is an Image tab in the Info Drawer that will display not only a graphic but also the first page of a pdf. I think some folks will find this useful, and it is unobtrusive for those who won't.

Jon
Sonny Software

[Shayne]

Hi,

I too have come late to this discussion, but fully support the addition of extra fields--thanks for raising the issue again Danny.
I would also like to second Markau’s comment as to the necessity “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.â€

[Tacitus]

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

OK I can see the point. Not sure how much trouble this would be, but why not create two tabs at the bottom of the window. That way the abstract field could remain the same size, and the user could toggle between abstract and notes, the latter gaining more space.

cheers,

Tacitus

[Jon]

You mean have one field that shows either Abstract OR Notes, depending on which tab is active?

Jon
Sonny Software

[TLS]

Hello all! I just wandered in from the Mellel forum and wanted to add a few points of my own.

First of all, I am not a Bookends user, though I am pretty sick and tired of Endnote. The primary reason that I am not an Bookends user is that there are absolutely not enough fields necessary for the typical bibliographic styles I use. These can be easily made in Endnote, but are impossible in Bookends. For example:

ibn Muhammad al-Suri, Abd al-Malik [ARABIC TEXT]. AH 1401/1981 CE. "Tarikh al-dawlat al-anbat [ARABIC TITLE]." In _Festschrift Manfried Edel_, edited by Jan van den Berg. Volume 1: _The Nabataean State_. Orientalia lovaniensia analecta 15, ser. eds. J. van Houten and P. De Waal. Rupert Jones, translator. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters. (Reprinted 2002. New York: Thames and Hudson). 123-457. Available online at http://invalid.com/invalid.html ; current as of 11 November 2005.

There is absolutely no way this is going to work in Bookends (even if you leave out fields that never end up in a biblio (such as Language, Notes, Call Number, ISBN, etc.), yet for all its other faults, Endnotes can do this. Yes, this is an extreme (and made up) example, but I have large numbers of citations that just about reach this level of complexity in various parts.

Ideally I would like to have a bibliography program with unlimited user-defined fields. In the absence of that, I will be happy with all the usual fields, plus Series Editor, Series, Series Volume. Total Number of Volumes (for multi-vol. works, not series). Reprint Year. Reprint City. Reprint Publisher. Language. Translated Author (for non-Latin text). Translated Title (ditto). URL visited date. and approx. 7-10 User fields.

I don't need the cover photos, esp. from Amazon. There are other products for book collectors that do that sort of thing much better than a bibliography program.

A side problem I have with Bookends it that it only allows one abbreviation per Journal title. Unfortunately for me, in my field (Egyptology) there are 2 major systems, and they are not at all the same.

[danzac]

That way the abstract field could remain the same size, and the user could toggle between abstract and notes, the latter gaining more space.

You mean have one field that shows either Abstract OR Notes, depending on which tab is active? Jon

I don't really like this idea, as someone else said, the notes and abstract field are often looked at close together, so being able to see them simultaneously in the bib window is a good thing I think. The abstract and Notes can be seen in a 'tabbed' sort of view in the list view info drawer.

I knew Jon's idea for cover pics would be better, and I think it is. If a third tab is in the info drawer showing the amazon pic and the PDF (Jon, will it show both or just one?), will the PDF be able to be opened in Preview with a simple click? This would be a great thing.

There have been more than a few comments on Sente's ability to have unlimited fields, hinting that Bookends should go this route. I don't need unlimited fields myself, but apparently some would like it. Jon, are you actually aiming to go this route, or just making alot of new fields?

So here's the third GUI pic, not much different and I won't make any more (I'll leave it to Jon now). This pic has 40 fields total, 22 in the main window and 18 in the drawer. My suggestion if Bookends actually went towards unlimited fields is a scroll button at the bottom of the drawer where any extra fields could go (I didn't put the scroll button in the pic).

[Jon]

If a third tab is in the info drawer showing the amazon pic and the PDF (Jon, will it show both or just one?), will the PDF be able to be opened in Preview with a simple click?

It will show the first attachment it finds (if there is more than one), any QT-compatible format. Yes, you will be able to open the pdf in Preview (double-click, not single-click, or via a contextual menu).

There have been more than a few comments on Sente's ability to have unlimited fields, hinting that Bookends should go this route. I don't need unlimited fields myself, but apparently some would like it. Jon, are you actually aiming to go this route, or just making alot of new fields?

Not unlimited.

Jon
Sonny Software

[kvmagruder]

I do own Bookends, and hope to be able to use it someday when it supports a sufficient number of fields for humanities research (I'm an early modern historian). For now, however, I just want to say ditto to TLS: "I will be happy with all the usual fields, plus Series Editor, Series, Series Volume. Total Number of Volumes (for multi-vol. works, not series). Reprint Year. Reprint City. Reprint Publisher. Language. Translated Author (for non-Latin text). Translated Title (ditto). URL visited date. and approx. 7-10 User fields." All of these are in my current old database, which I'm trying to move away from, and I would hate to lose them when transfering to Bookends. Regardless of what happens, though, thanks to Jon for making Bookends so attractive in other respects.

[danzac]

Not unlimited
Jon

I'm no programmer but it does seem like that would be alot of hassle for little benefit.

The use names TLS specified a very long type of reference, requiring 20 fields. For that type of work we would also add keywords, notes, abstract,
language, price, ISBN. That's 26 fields. Is there any user that would have a more complicated reference type than the one TLS has shown? 35-40 fields would be more than enough I would think.

Danny

[markau]

So far most of the discussion seems to have focused primarily on the reference window. I pretty much said what I wanted to say earlier on that (just get the extra fields in there, make them easily accessible and not too cluttered), but I wanted to add a couple of comments and suggestions about the list view and its info draw.

As I mentioned before, once an item has been entered for the first time I'm more interested in how it get used after that (so, as long as the extra fields as there, good). With that in mind, one thing that I suspect could be useful is to make the 'concise' page customizable. Most of the information there just looks like a custom format (except for the list of groups which the item belongs to which couldn't be done with a format, but is very useful). However, maybe it would be possible to have the 'concise' page displaying data according to a specific format. That way, people could put whatever they like there. So, you could put the reference in your favored format, followed by the notes, followed by the abstract (which groups it belongs to should definitely be in there, perhaps at the top, but that can't be specified with a format so would have to be treated some other way, like just automatically display it at the top).

Then, just as there is an editable notes page on the info draw, maybe there could be an editable abstract page too, or even put the two on the same page together in separate fields, but be able to adjust how much of each is showing (one above the other, with a movable slider between the two adjusting how much of each is showing).

[Jon]

It's not editable, but already have the ability to have reference info displayed in any form you want, by Type as well.

Create a format for what you want to see (e.g. authors, title (bold), abstract, notes, whatever). Then use the View Formatted drawer at the bottom of the List View to see it.

We already provide one such format, Ref with Abstract. You can modify that if you like to suit your needs.

There is a popup menu to select formats, so it is a simple thing to move back and forth between a "display" format and one you might use for a bibliography.

Jon
Sonny Software