Kinook Software Forum

Go Back   Kinook Software Forum > Ultra Recall > [UR] General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-25-2005, 10:45 AM
Daly de Gagne Daly de Gagne is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: 01-22-2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 120
Roadmap Changes

I may e mistaken, but it seems to me there have been some significant changes to the roadmap when it was updated earlier this month.

For example, I had thought there was going to be Firefox integration with the Q4 release -- but now I see it has disappeared completely.

It also seems the hoist feature, which I recall being skedded for Q4 has been moved down in priority.

My memory may be mistaken, so it would have been very helpful, and perhaps more honest, to have posted an all new item for roadmap that would have indicated the change date on the message listings. If one doesn't go into the roadmap and see where it says revised Nov. 10 it is not obvious there have been changes because in the message list it shows April 7. It would have been helpful to have both the old road map and the new one so they could be compared.

In any event, I am disappointed. The lack of a hoist feature is most inconvenient for any of us who have more than a few dozen items in the tree.

As well, it would have been so good to have Firefox integration, a feature the competition is quickly realizing the importance of.

Can you comment on when these features might appear?

Thanks.

Daly
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-28-2005, 10:31 AM
kevina kevina is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: 03-27-2003
Posts: 825
The only item removed from the 1.4 roadmap was Firefox integration (as you mention) which is now available via Launchy and other methods (see http://www.kinook.com/Forum/showthre...?threadid=1336 for details).

The only other changes to the 1.4 roadmap was the addition of several other entries, including:
- support external editing of item rich text
- printing of item notes
- option to not bold selected item
- option to wrap cell text
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-29-2005, 12:21 AM
Daly de Gagne Daly de Gagne is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: 01-22-2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 120
Thanks for your response.

Why was it decided to go with a third party approach to dealing with Firefox, rather than doing it directly? I would have taken a look at Launchy some time ago if I had realized the reason it was being discussed was the fact you had abandoned your original plan.

Was there not some intention stated at one time to implement a hoist feature? It is kind of crazy to create a product that is capable of handling 1000s of items, and not provide a hoist capability.

And again, when there is a change in plan, is it not better to announce it, rather than revising an existing post and keeping the original date?

Daly
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-29-2005, 01:00 AM
srdiamond srdiamond is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: 11-23-2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 126
How have you been Daly,

"Hoist" is still in the planned features that aren't slated for a specific release. I take that to mean it will be implemented but not in the next version, as the chart doesn't specify versions beyond 1.4. To me, hoist is a change of full-version magnitude. After all, only one extant multi-pane outliner currently has it, and it's in a whole different price range.

There may be room for argument as to the order for future-version improvements, but the ones that are ahead of hoist aren't frivolous. I only see one that I would consider it plainly irrational to place ahead of hoist: the favorites toolbar.

I'm not enamored with Firefox, so perhaps the following should be taken with a grain of salt. But I think that although this is probably not the reason why Kinook canned the Firefox integration, my perception is that Microsoft's response with tabbed browsing features has dampened Firefox's appeal considerably, that along with Firefox's well-publicized security breaches and Microsoft's security improvements. In any event, my personal and only semi-informed opinion is that at the present time, IE is a more secure browser than FF. I use iRider and Netcaptor myself.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-29-2005, 08:57 AM
Daly de Gagne Daly de Gagne is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: 01-22-2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 120
Stephen, I'm doing well, thanks, after fighting with a cold last week.

I think IE with tabs may take some of the appeal from Firefox. It remains to be seen how well MS will deal with its security issues on an ongoing basis, and whether Firefox can keep its issues to a minimum.

IE with tabs may take away from Firefox's appeal, but I don't think it will that much. For a few years it has been possible to get IE overlays which had tabs and worked, in some cases, better than IE irself.

I am not sure I want to fool around with what is a work-around for not having Firefox integration -- but it looks as though I'll have no choice.

I consider hoist virtually essential, almost with the same passion you have for unlimited undo. Hoist makes it so much easier to work with material from a tree that has many folders.

But what still peeves me most is that if I hadn't gone back to re-read a post dated some months ago, I wouldn't have discovered the roadmap changes. I didn't even know that you could change a post without having it show the date it was modified. I think as a matter of policy any roadmap changes need to be given their own post so there is not ambiguity about when it was written and/or changed.

Daly
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-29-2005, 09:56 AM
kevina kevina is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: 03-27-2003
Posts: 825
We will ensure that better notification occurs when modifications take place of forum entries such as the v. 1.4 roadmap post.
By default when a forum admin edits a post in the FAQ section, the edit is not indicated as otherwise occurs. In hindsight, it would have been better to take the effort to make the edit be more visible, but this omission was not intended to be deceptive, rather just an oversight on our part.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-29-2005, 10:19 AM
Daly de Gagne Daly de Gagne is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: 01-22-2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 120
Kevin, thanks for your post. I didn't think there was any intention to be deceptive.

Now, however, having spent about half an hour trying to get Launch to work, ie. to open links in UR, I am rather frustrated.

Can someone post their working launchy file so I can compare it with what I have, and hopefull find out why it is not doing what it is supposed to do.

As a by the way, I wonder how many UR users who had wanted integration with Firefox have tried to use Launcy without success, or have simply chosen not to go that route?

I am hoping that through Launcy I can save a page from Firefox directly into UR -- I am not sure that is possible, because Launchy talks about opening a page in UR. Does that mean I have other steps to take to save a page?

Thanks.

Daly
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-29-2005, 01:04 PM
dasymington dasymington is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: 06-15-2005
Posts: 287
Daly,

I got Launchy 4.1.0 to work by following the instructions in

http://www.kinook.com/Forum/showthre...hlight=launchy

I'm just using the launch.xml file found in that thread. Initially I'd downloaded the earlier version of Launchy because there seemed to be some reports about problems with the latest version and I couldn't get it to work. I haven't had any problems with 4.1.0, though; it actually works more reliably with Launchy and Firefox than saving pages from IE did.

Dave
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-29-2005, 08:48 PM
Daly de Gagne Daly de Gagne is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: 01-22-2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 120
Thanks for the post. I used the same links, and had Launchy automatically generate the script for me. I believe I have done everything right, but I'l go through it all one the weekend again when I have some time.

And I hope the folks at Kinook will forgive me for what I'm about to say: I am frustrated and angry that I have to waste time fooling around with a plug-in because of a decision to reverse a commitment that was made to your customer base to integrate UR with Firefox. That commitment was part of what influenced me to stick with UR. It was a commitment that recognized, as a growing number of software developers are recognizing, that increasing numbers of users are voting with their feet and abandoning IE in favour of Firefox. So to ask us to use a free third party plug-in seems a little underwhelming, especially after the very professional and competent performance we have seen from Kinook prior to this. It is to your credit that I am able to say, without any irony at all, that I expected more from Kinook.

Daly
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-29-2005, 10:00 PM
xja xja is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: 01-06-2005
Posts: 146
I've been disappointed by the lack of certain features as well, but while I don't mean to start a debate, I would like to express my appreciation for the fact that Kinook has been willing to share the detailed roadmap in advance. That is fairly unique and helpful to me in understanding in what direction UR will evolve... especially valuable since putting all one's info into UR is not an insignificant commitment. We (especially myself) throw a ridiculous amount of feature suggestions (sometimes not always fully thought out) at Kevin and he does a great job of dealing with them amicably and integrating them.

I am confident that Kinook did not intend to mislead anyone. The Roadmap post does say "tentative", "rough", "no guarantees", etc., and even if it didn't, that should be assumed. Planned product features are going to change over time based on many factors... that's just part of any product development process.

I hope that Kinook continues to share its product feature plans in advance, as well as continues to have a forum like this where users can express their needs and wishes, even if it means that sometimes our expectations may not always be met. That is what makes UR such a unique application. While UR doesn't do everything I'd like it to, it amazes me that such a small company can make software that is so much better than what Microsoft puts out.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 11-30-2005, 10:55 AM
Daly de Gagne Daly de Gagne is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: 01-22-2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 120
XJA, I agree with you completely -- so I don't think we have a good chance of having a debate (grin). Yes, it is good that the roadmap is shared, and I agree that Kevin does a good job of dealing with all that we throw at him.

But...if anyone can help me to get Launchy working, I'd appreciate it.

Thanks.

Daly
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-30-2005, 07:00 PM
Daly de Gagne Daly de Gagne is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: 01-22-2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 120
Kevin, any ideas on what the problem with Launchy is? Is there anything I can do?

Thanks.

Daly
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-30-2005, 07:08 PM
Daly de Gagne Daly de Gagne is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: 01-22-2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 120
This is what my Launch file says:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
- <configurations xmlns="http://launchy.mozdev.org/configurations">
- <application>
<label>UltraRecall</label>
<type>1</type>
<command>C:\Program Files\UltraRecall\UltraRecall.exe</command>
</application>
</configurations>

Is there a problem with it that anyone sees?

Thanks.

Daly
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-30-2005, 07:37 PM
kevina kevina is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: 03-27-2003
Posts: 825
The launchy.xml file here should work for you (which was provided at the bottom of this forum post http://www.kinook.com/Forum/showthre...?threadid=1336). Yours is missing the necessary <arguments> entry.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-30-2005, 11:36 PM
Daly de Gagne Daly de Gagne is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: 01-22-2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 120
Kevin, thanks for your post. I downloaded the attachment, and replaced the Launchy file I had. Now it works perfectly, and provides what essentially is full integration.

I wish it had been mre obvious as to why the attachment should be downloaded and used as the Launchy file for UR.

Daly
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:40 PM.


Copyright © 1999-2023 Kinook Software, Inc.