Information manager/organizer with tags question.

andrei.avk at gmail.com andrei.avk at gmail.com
Tue Nov 13 22:41:54 CET 2007


On Nov 13, 12:42 pm, Wildemar Wildenburger
<lasses_w... at klapptsowieso.net> wrote:
> andrei.... at gmail.com wrote:
> > Hello,
>
> > [snip outline of an information editor]
>
> Maybe the Literary Machine?
> <URL:http://sommestad.com/lm.htm>
>
> It is a bit weird at first, and Windows only (altough I have had it
> running under wine once). But it is actually really well designed and
> very powerful.

I installed it and looked at flash demos, however, I have a couple of
questions.. is there a way to filter by several keywords? Is there a
way to sort by keywords? Is there a way to add a new keyword to a
topic
that isn't in the list of keywords?



>
> Or, if it ever comes out (I've been waiting for it for YEARS now),
> perhaps Ceryle would fit the bill:
>
> <URL:http://www.altheim.com/ceryle/wiki/>

This is also interesting.. the biggest two issues for my purposes is
that it doesn't have a UI geared for the usage I was thinking of. I
was thinking of something along the lines of Treepad, which is an
incredible program because it makes operations so easy and quick to
do. ceryle seems like emacs to treepad's (and my intended program's)
vim. It just occured to me that I might want to try to hack vim into
doing this.. I'll have to think about that. It's also a little
alarming
that they didn't get it out in years. This is a very bad sign. It
looks
bloated imho.

My idea is that several key actions should be incredibly easy to do,
i.e.:
1. add keyword - already a field on screen, just click and type
2. add existing keyword out of favorites list - click a toolbar button
3. sort by keyword - popup already on screen
4. filtering by two / three keywords is the most common usage scenario
and
therefore should be possible in 3 clicks - one for each keyword.

Otherwise, if these actions are buried somewhere, you will simply not
use
them often enough to make the whole thing consistently searchable by
the
tags. You will think "oh wait I can search for that tag and that other
one"
and then you will think "did I add keywords to that item?".

I'd like to try to make it possible to have tags as an integral and
inherent
part of each and every doc. Otherwise they'll end up like webpage tags
-
a bit of help with adding weight to full search.

I don't mean to criticize these programs, they're very interesting and
I'm
glad you brought them to my attention. I'm not sure I understood the
first
one properly, it may be that it is possible to do what I'm thinking of
in it,
I just didn't spot that in the interface. Please help if that is the
case!

However they seem to have different focus and that's important because
both
are closed, at least now, so it's not the case I was thinking of of
some
light simple wiki system where I'd have to add a few features.

Again, thanks for your response! -andrei

>
> There once was some code to download, but I couldnt get it to compile.
> The guy who writes the software is a really approachable, nice guy.
> Maybe if you contact him and politely prod him into finally getting the
> thing out, nobody will ever need to write any information manager anymore.
>
> /W





More information about the Python-list mailing list