Forum Posts Feed
A Lot of Buzz about ConnectedText, but what about Mac users?
< Next Topic | Back to topic list | Previous Topic >
Posted by Nhaps
Nov 1, 2013 at 06:18 PM
You’re right about Tinderbox, but the developer’s expectation is just too high. He charges too much for a software that has a difficult learning curve. Double problem.
Posted by Nhaps
Nov 1, 2013 at 06:27 PM
Very interesting… Makes me think TB as a premier conceptual software versus CT’s swiss-knife capabilities (wiki, themes, outlines, sub-outlines, and mind mapping diagrams etc…) It would be very informative to have the opinion of specialists who use or have used Tinderbox and ConnectedText together.
Posted by Dr Andus
Nov 1, 2013 at 06:30 PM
Nhaps wrote:
>Another
>is that I am in the middle of my dissertation, and most probably this
>migration to CT would hamper me, although I am having problems with my
>Scrivener-Omnioutliner-Sente-DevonThink workflow.
I think you’d need to define first what information management problem you need to solve exactly (what is the bottleneck in your process?), and then determine what the right tool for solving the problem is. Then the question of cost and learning curve is secondary, as it will solve your problem in the end and you will gain new skills.
Otherwise there is always the risk of becoming distracted with a tool (for distraction’s sake). Yes, speaking from experience… :)
Posted by Nhaps
Nov 1, 2013 at 07:00 PM
I am new to the website, so the moderator is taking more time to post my replies. Sorry if it does not appear in order.
My bottleneck is the lack of outline capability in Scrivener plus the lack of ease for wiki/link creation throughout the document. The outliner is geared for only first and second levels, including a synopsis. It does not go deep enough for paragraph levels, for example. Internal links work only for documents. For this reason Scrivener staff recommends splitting up your project into smaller documents, so one could use labels, keywords, etc…
But the lack of integration is still there because the outliner is enslaved to the binder, and these work only at the surface of the project. The Reference pane is helpful, but cannot be implemented into a useful sub outlines to structure the project. Now, even without trialing I can see CT addressing this:
http://connectedtext.com/forum/index.php/topic,2778.msg12462.html#msg12462.
The concept of an outline “within” an outline is a killer feature, with the option to link part of a second outline to the project outline (or in its entirety for that matter) references, with
Posted by Stephen Zeoli
Nov 1, 2013 at 07:23 PM
I’d like to know what you feel is lacking in your current work flow that you expect CT to improve. CT is an outstanding all-in-one application, but I don’t think it is a better writing environment than Scrivener. It’s not a better outliner than OmniOutliner. It’s not a better reference manager than Sente. And it is not a better free form database than Devon Think.* You could probably eschew all those other programs and just use CT, but I’m not sure that will make you more productive, especially when you add in the learning curve. I’m just curious. Is there a specific issue you need to address, or are you just suffering from CRIMP?
I would agree with Moritz that Tinderbox would be worth taking a look at, again depending on what is absent from your current work flow. It is an outstanding outliner, and it plays nice with Scrivener. I know you can drag bibliographic references in from Bookends, but not sure it it works with Sente.
Anyway, that’s just my two cents.
Steve Z.
*I understand CT may have some advantages over those other apps in certain respects, but I’m mean that they are generally better at the dedicated jobs they are designed to handle.