GUI sneak peek

[tharpold]

Here are screen snaps of the proposed new reference Types and fields. This will be the last opportunity to comment on this -- once the next version of Bookends is released, it will be difficult to change...

Hi Jon,

I can't tell this from the screenshots -- Will there be a way to open and close the drawer (where the additional fields are listed) when the header of the reference window is collapsed?

I keep it collapsed all the time, as I find the "Copy Citation" and "Attach" buttons visually distracting (YMMV), the Reference slider not that useful (I use searches to "move around" in my database mostly), and value the space saved by collapsing the header.

TH

[Jon]

I can't tell this from the screenshots -- Will there be a way to open and close the drawer (where the additional fields are listed) when the header of the reference window is collapsed?

Good point. I'll have to add a disclosure triangle on the right edge when the toolbar is collapsed.

Jon
Sonny Software

[Jon]

On review, it seems to me that we do NOT need a Vol # field in the drawer except for those references whose Volume field is used for some other data (e.g. the Book Title for a Book Chapter reference). OK?

Jon
Sonny Software

[frvs]

On review, it seems to me that we do NOT need a Vol # field in the drawer except for those references whose Volume field is used for some other data (e.g. the Book Title for a Book Chapter reference). OK?

Jon
Sonny Software

OK. But why not take this train of thought to the end. You are saying that in Book Chapter references, the Volume field is henceforth transposed to one of the new fields. Therefore, I suggest, this new field should be named Volume (not Volume #) and have the same capabilities as the regular Volume field, possibily including being a trifle longer than other new fields in order to accomodate volume titles, if any. (Granted, this is not crucial. But would it be hard to make just one of the new fields a bit bigger than the rest? I guess users might find all sorts of nice uses for this even when not working with Book Chapter references.)
Incidentally, Jon, to use the Series Title field for volume titles in Book chapter references (as you suggest in a previous post) is not an option. Users may have very good reasons to use the Series Title field for, well, its intended use.
Whatever your final decision is, the new fields will be most welcome. This said, I thought this Volume thing looked like a little more ponderation would do no harm...

[Jon]

OK. But why not take this train of thought to the end. You are saying that in Book Chapter references, the Volume field is henceforth transposed to one of the new fields. Therefore, I suggest, this new field should be named Volume (not Volume #) and have the same capabilities as the regular Volume field, possibily including being a trifle longer than other new fields in order to accomodate volume titles, if any. (Granted, this is not crucial. But would it be hard to make just one of the new fields a bit bigger than the rest? I guess users might find all sorts of nice uses for this even when not working with Book Chapter references.)

Yes, Volume would be fine.

And it may not be obvious from the image, but the drawer can be made a wide or as narrow as you like. So longer entries are not a problem.

One more thing. The drawer fields are more limited than those in the reference window. To wit: 1022 char limit, no styled text, and no links to Term Lists. So they are best used for entries that don't require any of these (e.g. names and numbers).

Incidentally, Jon, to use the Series Title field for volume titles in Book chapter references (as you suggest in a previous post) is not an option. Users may have very good reasons to use the Series Title field for, well, its intended use.

I'm sorry, Francisco, but I just don't get it. Book chapters now have three title fields: chapter title, book title (AKA volume title), and series title. When is this not enough?

Jon
Sonny Software

[Tacitus]

One thing it does do is clutter up the term list for keywords. If attachments are to be left in the keywords field, why not (if possible) exclude them from the keyword term list. I can see no advantage to having them listed in both places.

Having them in the Term List does no harm, that I can see (they all sort to the end). And you can use the Term List to quickly find them. Again, what harm?

Jon
Sonny Software

No actual 'harm' Jon, I just can't see any advantage in having them in both places. Not something that would come high on my list of priorities.

Tacitus

[Jon]

No actual 'harm' Jon, I just can't see any advantage in having them in both places. Not something that would come high on my list of priorities.

Hm, I don't know what you mean by "both places". The attachments are in the Keywords field, preceded by a bullet. And they sort to the end of the Keyword Term List. It would be exactly as it is now. No?

Jon
Sonny Software

[frvs]

And it may not be obvious from the image, but the drawer can be made a wide or as narrow as you like. So longer entries are not a problem.

Super!

Book chapters now have three title fields: chapter title, book title (AKA volume title), and series title. When is this not enough?

Well, they are enough for most purposes, and I'm very pleased. I'm just saying I hit the wall if I try to output book chapter citations that happen to have a relevant series title, and are edited in a multivolume work in which each volume has a title name. Admittedly, such cases are rare; but they do exist. Take this example:

Zahan, Dominique. L'Homme et la couleur. In Histoire des mœurs, ed. Jean Poirier. "Encyclopédie de la Pléiade no. 48." Vol. 1, Les coordonées de l'homme et la culture matérielle. Paris: Gallimard, 1990. 115–80.

Let me decompose this:
Author: Zahan, Dominique
Editor: Jean Poirier
Title: L'Homme et la couleur
Book title: Histoire des mœurs
Series title: Encyclopédie de la Pléiade no. 48
Volume: 1, Les coordonées de l'homme et la culture matérielle

The problem is that I would need a Volume field where the string "Les coordonées de l'homme et la culture matérielle" could be stored as styled text. Unfortunately, to place the Volume field of Book chapter references in the drawer will not allow for such possibility.
But, of course, I understand I can tinker with fields myself to achieve the result I want. I will probably go for storing the Volume field of book chapter references in User fields 1 or 4, so that I can output styled text strings in cases such as the one above.
Bottom line, I'm anxiously looking forward to the next version of Bookends. This discussion has been most useful to me. Thanks for the great work and for finding the time to be responsive.

[danzac]

sorry if this sounds like a stupid question, but the word 'style' is applied to so many different things. When you say 'no styled text' in the new fields in the drawer, what exactly do you mean?

[Jon]

sorry if this sounds like a stupid question, but the word 'style' is applied to so many different things. When you say 'no styled text' in the new fields in the drawer, what exactly do you mean?

No italics, bold, underline. I.E. Only plain text.

Jon
Sonny Software

[Jon]

Bottom line, I'm anxiously looking forward to the next version of Bookends. This discussion has been most useful to me. Thanks for the great work and for finding the time to be responsive.

Thanks.

Yes, this thread has helped me sort things out, too. We are not trying to come up with fields for every conceivable contingency, just the common ones. As you note, there are still lots of User-defined fields available for the odd-ball citations (that's what they're for!).

Bookends 9 is going to be a very nice release for people with exacting reference/citation requirements, I think.

Jon
Sonny Software

[tharpold]

...We are not trying to come up with fields for every conceivable contingency, just the common ones. As you note, there are still lots of User-defined fields available for the odd-ball citations (that's what they're for!).

Hi Jon,

Something for the wish-list among the new fields -- maybe User15? -- "Illustrator". One of the areas of my research is late 19th century French lit, and the illustrators of those editions constitute crucial bibliographic info. This is also the case for serialized publications of fiction and non-fiction -- which would count as "journal" references, sometimes as "edited" book chapters. I think illustrators' name(s) in these cases common and significant enough that it may represent a useful datapoint for others.

TH

[Jon]

Hi Tharpold,

This is a perfect case for designating User15 for your own use as Illustrator (just change the name in Preferences). And there is no advantage to you to have it "prepackaged", because none of the common formats list it. (In other words, you'd have to add this field to, say, the Chicago format yourself anyway).

Jon
Sonny Software

[tharpold]

Hi Tharpold,

This is a perfect case for designating User15 for your own use as Illustrator (just change the name in Preferences). And there is no advantage to you to have it "prepackaged", because none of the common formats list it. (In other words, you'd have to add this field to, say, the Chicago format yourself anyway).

Jon
Sonny Software

Right. That makes sense.

And a telling detail, really (not about Bookends, but about the Academy): illustrators so not get appropriate credit in the "standard" bibliography formats, unless you choose to treat them as co-authors.

A prejudice in citation conventions that needs correction. For those of us who work in genres in which illustration is taken seriously as an element of the whole work -- one of my research interests is the work of Jules Verne, esp the early illustrated editions of the novels -- this seems a silly oversight.

TH

[Jon]

We at Sonny Software can do only so much to right society's wrongs…



Jon
Sonny Software