Why Ultra Recall is so great!

[srdiamond]

It seems that when one opposes the addition of a feature, it is dictatorial. How else to explain why my position makes me an "ultimate arbiter," while your position is something else? People usually have greater investment in getting their pet features added than in having features excluded, so it follows that the impetus behind opposing features is dictatorial. The consequences are well known. But opposition to features is usually more disinterested than advocacy.

I don't start with the assumption that in-context links are of no use. That would be as "ridiculous" as your beginning with the assumption that they are needed, with the only 'argument' being that "it doesn't take a genius to see the value of being able to link from within a document, rather than creating child links outside the document and having to search through all your child links to find the one document that is related to the keyword of interest." The problem lies your belief that no analysis, no rigor, is required to figure out what features to include, that they can be left to an opinion poll. After all, if software developers think about the product in an integrated fashion, they may end up causing people to change the way they think!

Let's stick with UR instead of MyInfo. Some ways UR would suffer if hyperlinks were introduced and users applied them in place of logical linking is 1) The user would lose a synoptic overview of his data structure, because some linkages would fail to be revealed in the child or parent windows or in the data explorer. A separate listing of linked items would fail to disclose the existing hierarchical relations the hyperlinks conceal; 2) Additional procedures that could capitalize on logical linking would either not be developed or would be stunted in their application. For example, logical linkages could be involved in searches, particularly if simultaneous searches on multiple categorical attributes are eventually developed in the program. This would be less apt to get developed, because it would be less powerful and therefore less inviting, if users were tucking away their linkages in hyperlinks.

The ability to easily spot things, like the textually based linkages among the child info-items, is what flags are for. Again, make use of what the program offers at its core and develop it, not a string of extraneous ideas imported from NoteStudio.

No, I'm not dictating anything. I'm just being cognizant of the complexities of integrating features, including the lack of synergy between some feature sets, as opposed to representing my personal preferences as ideal, without serious argument, and supported only be the popularity of certain features. To me, pounding the podium for certain features because YOU want them is the dictatorial practice. My _argument_ that your style of work is unsound could be weak, but it isn't dictatorial. It only seems so because it is directed against what you WANT.

Stephen R. Diamond

Originally posted by bkonia
Actually, I enjoy arguments that change the way I think. The problem is that your argument is weak and your tone is dictatorial. I'm not sure who appointed you the ultimate arbitrer of outliner software design, but I flat out disagree with your assumptions and I find your logic to be flawed.

You accuse me of discussing this at "too concrete" a level. I'll counter that by stating that you are discussing this at too theoretical a level and furthermore that your underlying theory is simply wrong. This is because you start with the assumption that in-context links are of no use. OK, that's your opinion and perhaps you yourself have no use for these types of links. Many other people would disagree with you and would find these links extremely useful.

You then go on to state that if "you need to be able to easily access matter related to particular references in your note, you might conclude as I do that the most efficient and effective way to do that is with child logical links." YOU might conclude that, Stephen. I might conclude otherwise!

Yes, logical linking has its place and yes it's a very useful feature. However, it doesn't take a genius to see the value of being able to link from within a document, rather than creating child links outside the document and having to search through all your child links to find the one document that is related to the keyword of interest.

Ultimately your primary argument seems to be that adding hyperlinking capability to UR would somehow detract from its logical linking capability. Once again, you're in realm of the abstract rather than dealing with reality. It would be no great programming task to add hyperlinking capability and it would not detract in any way from logical linking. I wonder if you could explain to me how the hyperlinking in MyInfo has detracted from its cloning capability?