On the Aesthetics of Outliners, Pims, and Personal Knowledge Applications

Posted by Lucas
Oct 22, 2009 at 05:42 PM

Since this topic began with Peter’s comment about the lack of aesthetic appeal of ConnectText (CT), I’ll comment briefly.

I have been using CT for a couple weeks now. I just made a comment in the other thread about my CT workflow:

http://www.outlinersoftware.com/messages/viewm/6227

CT is the sort of software I used to think I would never use. It’s quite complex, and it encourages the user the think like a programmer, to get under the hood and relate more directly to the some of the computational processes underlying writing software. Like a modern-day DOS, it’s almost the polar opposite of the Apple approach to UI. However, in it’s own way, it is beautiful. Eduardo Mauro, the developer, seems to have put care and thoughtfulness into every element of the software, and if you are willing to meet it half-way by “learning to speak CT,” it’s starts to become a really enjoyable and exceptionally powerful environment. And it is not by any means an example of software in which beauty is considered irrelevant, in which function is all that matters. A better example of that, in my opinion, would be Nota Bene. CT, on the other hand, has a very modern, polished, snappy feel. Aesthetics seem very much to be a concern of the developer, but I think he’s appealing to the aesthetic sensibilities of the geekier types who aren’t wowed merely by eye-candy. In other words, I would say that CT has a well-developed “functional aesthetic.”