Re: Almost happy with Yojimbo the way it is

[infrahile]

Thanks for your response Steve, great to have some direct answers  
from the guy who kicked it all off :o)


Now, naturally, I want more! :o)

In the past I've drawn a distinction between 'nested folders' and a  
means to group collections in the sidebar. I see these as distinct  
things and I've copied the original post below where I go into more  
detail on the issue. My question is, do you see these as one and the  
same or would you consider the latter as a different feature request.  
To me nested folders means hierarchical organisation and I'd be the  
first to agree this is not necessary, I'd be interested in your view  
on the matter.


I appreciate there's more than one way to skin a cat and to my mind a  
different approach to tag navigation could obviate the need for this,  
but as an interface designer myself I'm keeping my cards close to my  
chest on that one as I have a particular solution in mind for a  
project of my own! ;o)


Regards, T.



Extract from that previous post…


Tag collection grouping
OK, hopefully no one thinks I'm trying to pull a fast one and change  
the name of the game from 'nested folders' but on reviewing the  
previous threads again I think the debate gets sidetracked into one  
of hierarchy vs. tagging - a fine debate in it's own right but not  
really what I'm after as a feature request. I'm really very happy  
with tag & search approach for many things, but for quick reference  
and ad-hoc corralling of tagged information I use tag collections  
extensively. I have a lot of them, too many to be easily reviewable  
in one long multi-page scrolling list - not (I'll pre-empt the  
inevitable response) in some vain attempt to re-impose an old  
fashioned hierarchy, but simply to take advantage of the benefits of  
tagging for the purposes of browsing (as opposed to searching). It is  
a pain to only be able to sort these tag collections alphabetically  
(even with alpha-numeric prefixes) in one long list.


The long and short of it is that, for whatever reason, i have a lot  
of tag collections, all I really need is a more control over how they  
are organised and presented, a single level of grouping would do just  
fine. I can see how this could cause ambiguity leading to an  
impression of support for deep hierarchy but i doubt this is  
insurmountable - perhaps some judicious use of naming to conceptually  
divorce 'tag collections' from 'collections' and a visually distinct  
icon to further distinguish the concepts might overcome this problem?  
Or maybe separating smart collections, collections, and tag  
collections with sub-titles in the sidebar as iTunes does would do  
the trick?






On 1 May 2008, at 14:20, Steve Kalkwarf wrote:

I'm not singling out Rhet, but there are several ideas embodied in  
this paragraph that bear comment:


If someone from BareBones does pipe in, it's usually to say "We're  
never going to add that feature.  See previous post..."  This  
compares poorly to several other indie-Mac software lists I'm on  
(such as the forum for Leap and Yep, both excellent applications:  
http://www.ironicsoftware.com/) where the developer is happy to  
get feedback on what users actually want and participates in the  
dialogue.


Let me start off by saying no matter what I, or another Bare Bones  
representative says, a large number of people will be unhappy. For  
years we said "Thanks for the feedback, and we'll consider adding  
this functionality". Then, email every time we shipped an update  
we'd get a "reminder" email, asking why the feature wasn't in that  
version. Other people waited and waited for the feature to arrive,  
but it wasn't going to. I thought that was unfair.


Now, if a feature request has a known disposition, we generally  
share that answer. Nested folders? No. If you _have_ to have that  
feature, you will be better off elsewhere. Does this compare  
"poorly" with other companies? I don't know. I prefer the honest  
answer, whether it makes people happy or not.


Another assumption (again, not picking on Rhet) is that  
implementing every feature request is a good idea. If you take a  
step back and look at the types of requests people make, with rare  
exception (nested folders, smart collections, better tag  
management) they are particular to the requester's existing  
workflow. The "one feature I have to have" is not the one feature  
you have to have, or Charlie has to have, or probably more than a  
couple people have to have.


The implied assumption that tends to go along with almost any  
request is that adding feature X doesn't increase the complexity of  
Yojimbo. That is untrue.


In a past life, I spent countless hours helping novice Mac users  
find the files they had lost, because they had no idea where they  
were saving, or because they saved all their files in the Word  
folder, and when they updated Word, lost everything. The average  
computer user is overwhelmed by choices, and as simple as this 

Re: Almost happy with Yojimbo the way it is

[Dennis]

On May 2, 2008, at 5:06 AM, Jan Rychter wrote:

When the focus is in the collections panel, pressing tab should take  
me

to the list of documents, not to the little buttons below the
collections panel.


[snip]

Next TAB should go to the title, then tags, then content (NOT to the  
rarely

used "Encrypt" button!)


[snip]

When creating new documents using the little dialog box in the  
corner of
the screen, I don't want to TAB over the little arrow button next to  
the

"Name", I want to go straight to tags and then the text.


I don't see this behavior on my system. Perhaps you have "All  
controls" enabled for the "Full keyboard access" preference in System  
Preferences -> Keyboard & Mouse -> Keyboard Shortcuts?



I dare you to try using Yojimbo without a mouse. Put a quarter in a  
coin
box every time you have to reach for the mouse to do something or  
every

time an extra key press is needed.


Hmm, I don't really see a problem here. I use Yojimbo with just the  
keyboard all the time. The only case where there *might* be an issue  
is tabbing from the search field to the sidebar rather than directly  
to the list view. Other than that, everything seems to work as expected.


-Dennis

--
--
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
 the mailing list .
To unsubscribe, send mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
List archives:  
Have a feature request, or not sure if the software's working 
correctly? Please send mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: Almost happy with Yojimbo the way it is

[Jan Rychter]

Steve Kalkwarf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I'm not singling out Rhet, but there are several ideas embodied in this
> paragraph that bear comment:
>
>> If someone from BareBones does pipe in, it's usually to say "We're
>> never going to add that feature.  See previous post..."  This compares
>> poorly to several other indie-Mac software lists I'm on (such as the
>> forum for Leap and Yep, both excellent applications:
>> http://www.ironicsoftware.com/) where the developer is happy to get
>> feedback on what users actually want and participates in the dialogue.
>
> Let me start off by saying no matter what I, or another Bare Bones
> representative says, a large number of people will be unhappy. For years
> we said "Thanks for the feedback, and we'll consider adding this
> functionality". Then, email every time we shipped an update we'd get a
> "reminder" email, asking why the feature wasn't in that version. Other
> people waited and waited for the feature to arrive, but it wasn't going
> to. I thought that was unfair.
>
> Now, if a feature request has a known disposition, we generally share
> that answer. Nested folders? No. If you _have_ to have that feature, you
> will be better off elsewhere. Does this compare "poorly" with other
> companies? I don't know. I prefer the honest answer, whether it makes
> people happy or not.
>
> Another assumption (again, not picking on Rhet) is that implementing
> every feature request is a good idea. If you take a step back and look
> at the types of requests people make, with rare exception (nested
> folders, smart collections, better tag management) they are particular
> to the requester's existing workflow. The "one feature I have to have"
> is not the one feature you have to have, or Charlie has to have, or
> probably more than a couple people have to have.
>
> The implied assumption that tends to go along with almost any request is
> that adding feature X doesn't increase the complexity of Yojimbo. That
> is untrue.

[...]

Steve,

That's a good reply and I agree with most of what you wrote. One thing I
fail to understand, though, is why you refuse to fix minor things, which
are really omissions or bugs. Things that really matter to some people
and that absolutely do not increase the complexity of the application.

I took the time and effort to write down my suggestions about a year ago
(see 
http://www.listsearch.com/Yojimbo/Message/index.lasso?3611&-session=listsearch:55DE58130c4200D374MPR2916775)
I did this because you were encouraging suggestions. So far, 100% of my
suggestions have been ignored. Now, I can live without the advanced
feature requests (tag cloud like in Yep), but why oh why do you ignore
the keyboard navigation issues? As a reminder, here is what I wrote:

  First, I have a few suggestions related to using Yojimbo with the
  keyboard. I believe the program should be fully usable without a
  mouse. This is especially important if Yojimbo is brought up using the
  F6 key (search within Yojimbo), because if I brought the program up
  using a key I probably want to use the keyboard to access information
  within it as well. As it is now, I have to reach for the mouse.
  
  For an excellent example of a program usable without a mouse see the
  Vienna RSS reader, in particular observe how cursor keys and TAB behave
  there.
  
  TAB order:
  
  When the focus is in the collections panel, pressing tab should take me
  to the list of documents, not to the little buttons below the
  collections panel.
  
  From the search box pressing TAB should take me to the list of documents
  found, not to the list of collections. Next TAB should go to the title,
  then tags, then content (NOT to the rarely used "Encrypt" button!)
  
  Pressing Return after entering something in the search box should also
  display the results and take me to the first result.
  
  When creating new documents using the little dialog box in the corner of
  the screen, I don't want to TAB over the little arrow button next to the
  "Name", I want to go straight to tags and then the text.

Now, a year and several Yojimbo versions later, we still have the same
TAB order issues (BTW, they also apply to the quick entry panel). You
can't reasonably argue that they are reasonable or that changing the TAB
order makes Yojimbo more difficult to use. I also believe these changes
are not difficult to implement.

I dare you to try using Yojimbo without a mouse. Put a quarter in a coin
box every time you have to reach for the mouse to do something or every
time an extra key press is needed. See how much money ends up in the box.

--J.

-- 
--
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
  the mailing list .
To unsubscribe, send mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
List archives:  
Have a feature request, or not sure if the software's working 
correctly? Please send mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECT

Re: Almost happy with Yojimbo the way it is

[Lorin Rivers]

On May 1, 2008, at 8:20 AM, Steve Kalkwarf wrote:


If you made it this far, thanks for reading. As your reward, a  
summary of the popular requests, and their status:


   Nested folders: Sorry, no.

   Smart collections: Yes, near the top of the list.

   Better tagging interactions: Nearer the top of the list.

   Stuff nobody has asked for: At the top of the list. And before
   anyone asks why stuff nobody asked for is higher up than the
   "one feature I have to have," remember, nobody asked us to
   write Yojimbo, either.


If I'd asked people what they wanted, they would have asked for a  
better horse.

- Henry Ford, industrialist (1863–1947)



   Updates to other Bare Bones products: What do you think we've been
   doing since the last Yojimbo update? :-)


Is Yojimbo the One True App? No. Doth it rock, nevertheless? Yes it  
does.


Thanks for making it, thanks for continuing to improve it, and I'm  
looking forward to the next release...


--
Lorin Rivers
Mosasaur: Killer Technical Marketing 

512/203.3198 (m)



--
--
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
 the mailing list .
To unsubscribe, send mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
List archives:  
Have a feature request, or not sure if the software's working
correctly? Please send mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: Almost happy with Yojimbo the way it is

[Mark Smith]

On 01. May. 08, at 17:04 , Steve Kalkwarf wrote:

For reasons far to detailed to go into, multiple libraries and .Mac  
syncing cannot co-exist. Trust me on this one.


This is interesting. Is this a (current) limitation of .mac syncing  
that is associated with SQL CoreData libraries ? I can think of other  
3rd party apps that can sync multiple "entities" over .mac, but  
perhaps they all have a different data storage model ? Until you made  
this statement, I was thinking^[1] that this could work as long as all  
libraries had unique names/IDs.



Mark.

[1]: FWIW, this is something for which I anticipate a need in certain  
apps (e.g. Things) with which I work from more than one machine, but  
not in Yojimbo. I use Yojimbo (perhaps as intended) for storing  
everything in one place, rather than e.g. keeping private and  
professional apart. (Maybe the difference is that I "retrieve from"  
Yojimbo, but (in this example) "work in" Things. Clutter in Yojimbo  
would only be a problem if it prevented me from finding something.






--
--
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
 the mailing list .
To unsubscribe, send mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
List archives:  
Have a feature request, or not sure if the software's working 
correctly? Please send mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: Almost happy with Yojimbo the way it is

[Steve Kalkwarf]

The implied assumption that tends to go along with almost any 
request is that adding feature X doesn't increase the 
complexity of Yojimbo. That is untrue.


I agree. However, I don't think that applies to my request. 
(Doesn't everyone say that? :-)) That is, it would increase the 
complexity on the development side, but from a user's 
perspective--which I think is what you meant--nothing has to 
change. Don't even give the option of multiple libraries unless 
the user explicitly enables it.


I did mean from the user's perspective, and this is a perfect 
example of how something that looks easy isn't.


"Explicitly enables it" implies a Preference. We already have 
too many of them, and if you look closely, only one preference 
changes _behavior_. But even if we did do that...


For reasons far to detailed to go into, multiple libraries and 
.Mac syncing cannot co-exist. Trust me on this one.


So what happens when a user runs Yojimbo, with syncing, and then 
they decide they want another Library?


First off, they need to use the menu item that doesn't exist to 
create one. Oh, that's after enabling the preference that 
doesn't exist to make the menu accessible.


But what does the user do about their syncing?

Well we could tell them to turn off syncing. That's not good. 
They were using that feature, and now we've taken it away.


We could hide the option if the user has syncing enabled. That's 
even worse, because if they know the feature exists (because 
they read it here, or their new installation which doesn't have 
syncing configured yet offered to them), there's no way for them 
to find it.


Even something as simple as this has implications that affect 
the people that don't want or need the feature.


Steve


--
--
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
 the mailing list .
To unsubscribe, send mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
List archives:  
Have a feature request, or not sure if the software's working
correctly? Please send mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: Almost happy with Yojimbo the way it is

[Jerry Weldon]

Rhet Turnbull wrote:

You might want to try Eagle Filer: http://c-command.com/eaglefiler/
It is similar to Yojimbo but supports multiple libraries and nested 
folders. It also stores its data as regular files in the filesystem 
so you could easily copy all the files you want and give to a friend 
per the use case you outlined or browse your data with the Finder.


I looked at Eagle Filer early last year. I think there was something 
I didn't like about it, but can't recall what it was, and whatever it 
was may have changed by now. It may have been simply that it wasn't 
as pretty. I'll take another look.


Charlie Garrison wrote:

There is another software package, can't recall the name of it right now,
which will manage multiple prefs/databases/whatever for programs that are
not designed around 'documents'. You should be able to use that to have
multiple databases for Yojimbo.


Rhet Turnbull wrote:

rooSwitch
http://roobasoft.com/rooSwitch/


Ah, yes! I looked at rooSwitch a while back, but had forgotten it. 
That might solve the problem enough to make it worth considering 
Yojimbo again. Might cause some issues with syncing, but that 
wouldn't affect my usage.


Still, it would be better if this ability was built in to Yojimbo. 
More than one library could be open at once if needed, each in its 
own window. Items could be moved or copied between libraries by 
dragging and dropping. One search could scan multiple libraries.


Steve Kalkwarf wrote:
The implied assumption that tends to go along with almost any 
request is that adding feature X doesn't increase the complexity of 
Yojimbo. That is untrue.


I agree. However, I don't think that applies to my request. (Doesn't 
everyone say that? :-)) That is, it would increase the complexity on 
the development side, but from a user's perspective--which I think is 
what you meant--nothing has to change. Don't even give the option of 
multiple libraries unless the user explicitly enables it.


Now, if a feature request has a known disposition, we generally 
share that answer. ... I prefer the honest answer, whether it makes 
people happy or not.


Thank you, I appreciate that.

The "one feature I have to have" is not the one feature you have to 
have, or Charlie has to have, or probably more than a couple people 
have to have.


I know I've seen my "one feature" requested by others.

Another interesting belief carried by most power users (and I 
include myself in this group) is that they are representative of all 
users.


Definitely not true in my case (perhaps due to having been on both 
the development and support sides of things). Representative of some 
users, assuredly yes. All, definitely not.



If you made it this far, thanks for reading.


Thanks for writing--everyone! :-)

- Jerry


--
--
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
 the mailing list .
To unsubscribe, send mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
List archives:  
Have a feature request, or not sure if the software's working 
correctly? Please send mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

[admin] Re: Almost happy with Yojimbo the way it is

[Patrick Woolsey]

Sorry for the interruption, but as a reminder, this is *Yojimbo-Talk* :-)


Regards,

 Patrick Woolsey
==
Bare Bones Software, Inc.
P.O. Box 1048, Bedford, MA 01730-1048



Sherman Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> sez:

>On May 1, 2008, at 7:20 AM, Steve Kalkwarf wrote:
>
>> If you made it this far, thanks for reading. As your reward, a
>> summary of the popular requests, and their status:
>
>In fact, it's the first post I've read FULLY for quite a while. Thanks!
>
>> Updates to other Bare Bones products: What do you think we've been
>>doing since the last Yojimbo update? :-)
>
>
>Well, as they say on Law & Order, you opened the door. So, this begs
>the question: I don't know, what HAVE you been doing with Mailsmith? I
>paid for Mailsmith a long long time ago. And I haven't used it in a
>long time. I understand your comments about "the one feature I have to
>have," but ... IMAP.



-- 
--
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
  the mailing list .
To unsubscribe, send mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
List archives:  
Have a feature request, or not sure if the software's working 
correctly? Please send mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: Almost happy with Yojimbo the way it is

[Sherman Wilcox]

On May 1, 2008, at 7:20 AM, Steve Kalkwarf wrote:

If you made it this far, thanks for reading. As your reward, a  
summary of the popular requests, and their status:


In fact, it's the first post I've read FULLY for quite a while. Thanks!


Updates to other Bare Bones products: What do you think we've been
   doing since the last Yojimbo update? :-)



Well, as they say on Law & Order, you opened the door. So, this begs  
the question: I don't know, what HAVE you been doing with Mailsmith? I  
paid for Mailsmith a long long time ago. And I haven't used it in a  
long time. I understand your comments about "the one feature I have to  
have," but ... IMAP.


--
Sherman






--
--
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
 the mailing list .
To unsubscribe, send mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
List archives:  
Have a feature request, or not sure if the software's working 
correctly? Please send mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: Almost happy with Yojimbo the way it is

[Steve Kalkwarf]

I'm not singling out Rhet, but there are several ideas embodied 
in this paragraph that bear comment:


If someone from BareBones does pipe in, it's usually to say 
"We're never going to add that feature.  See previous post..."  
This compares poorly to several other indie-Mac software lists 
I'm on (such as the forum for Leap and Yep, both excellent 
applications: http://www.ironicsoftware.com/) where the 
developer is happy to get feedback on what users actually want 
and participates in the dialogue.


Let me start off by saying no matter what I, or another Bare 
Bones representative says, a large number of people will be 
unhappy. For years we said "Thanks for the feedback, and we'll 
consider adding this functionality". Then, email every time we 
shipped an update we'd get a "reminder" email, asking why the 
feature wasn't in that version. Other people waited and waited 
for the feature to arrive, but it wasn't going to. I thought 
that was unfair.


Now, if a feature request has a known disposition, we generally 
share that answer. Nested folders? No. If you _have_ to have 
that feature, you will be better off elsewhere. Does this 
compare "poorly" with other companies? I don't know. I prefer 
the honest answer, whether it makes people happy or not.


Another assumption (again, not picking on Rhet) is that 
implementing every feature request is a good idea. If you take a 
step back and look at the types of requests people make, with 
rare exception (nested folders, smart collections, better tag 
management) they are particular to the requester's existing 
workflow. The "one feature I have to have" is not the one 
feature you have to have, or Charlie has to have, or probably 
more than a couple people have to have.


The implied assumption that tends to go along with almost any 
request is that adding feature X doesn't increase the complexity 
of Yojimbo. That is untrue.


In a past life, I spent countless hours helping novice Mac users 
find the files they had lost, because they had no idea where 
they were saving, or because they saved all their files in the 
Word folder, and when they updated Word, lost everything. The 
average computer user is overwhelmed by choices, and as simple 
as this sounds, every feature or menu item represents a choice. 
By no means am I the authority on simplicity vs. complexity, but 
our goal was to make Yojimbo powerful, yet simple to use.


Another interesting belief carried by most power users (and I 
include myself in this group) is that they are representative of 
all users. This can't be farther from the truth.


Everybody on this list sees the mailing list posts. I see those, 
and tech support inquiries. There are more support inquires than 
there are posts on this list. Way more. I can assure you that 
everyone on this list is head and shoulders above most customers 
writing in for help.


If you made it this far, thanks for reading. As your reward, a 
summary of the popular requests, and their status:


Nested folders: Sorry, no.

Smart collections: Yes, near the top of the list.

Better tagging interactions: Nearer the top of the list.

Stuff nobody has asked for: At the top of the list. And before
anyone asks why stuff nobody asked for is higher up 
than the

"one feature I have to have," remember, nobody asked us to
write Yojimbo, either.

Updates to other Bare Bones products: What do you think 
we've been

doing since the last Yojimbo update? :-)

Steve


--
--
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
 the mailing list .
To unsubscribe, send mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
List archives:  
Have a feature request, or not sure if the software's working
correctly? Please send mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: Almost happy with Yojimbo the way it is

[Rhet Turnbull]

>  There is another software package, can't recall the name of it right now,
> which will manage multiple prefs/databases/whatever for programs that are

rooSwitch
http://roobasoft.com/rooSwitch/

--Rhet

On 5/1/08, Charlie Garrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Good afternoon,
>
>  On 1/5/08 at 12:04 AM -0400, Jerry Weldon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > In other words, I want to be able to have multiple self-contained library
> databases. This would not add any complexity whatsoever for those who like
> Yojimbo the way it is--they can simply continue using one monolithic
> library--but it would add an order of magnitude of usefulness for me, and I
> suspect for others as well.
> >
>
>  There is another software package, can't recall the name of it right now,
> which will manage multiple prefs/databases/whatever for programs that are
> not designed around 'documents'. You should be able to use that to have
> multiple databases for Yojimbo.
>
>
>  Charlie
>
>  --
>Charlie Garrison  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>PO Box 141, Windsor, NSW 2756, Australia
>
>  O< ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org
>  http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
>
>
>  --
> --
>  This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
>   the mailing list .
>  To unsubscribe, send mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>  List archives:
> 
>  Have a feature request, or not sure if the software's working correctly?
> Please send mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>

-- 
--
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
  the mailing list .
To unsubscribe, send mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
List archives:  
Have a feature request, or not sure if the software's working 
correctly? Please send mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: Almost happy with Yojimbo the way it is

[Charlie Garrison]

Good afternoon,

On 1/5/08 at 12:04 AM -0400, Jerry Weldon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

In other words, I want to be able to have multiple 
self-contained library databases. This would not add any 
complexity whatsoever for those who like Yojimbo the way it 
is--they can simply continue using one monolithic library--but 
it would add an order of magnitude of usefulness for me, and I 
suspect for others as well.


There is another software package, can't recall the name of it 
right now, which will manage multiple prefs/databases/whatever 
for programs that are not designed around 'documents'. You 
should be able to use that to have multiple databases for Yojimbo.



Charlie

--
   Charlie Garrison  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
   PO Box 141, Windsor, NSW 2756, Australia

O< ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt

--
--
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
 the mailing list .
To unsubscribe, send mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
List archives:  
Have a feature request, or not sure if the software's working
correctly? Please send mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: Almost happy with Yojimbo the way it is

[Rhet Turnbull]

In other words, I want to be able to have multiple self-contained  
library databases.



You might want to try Eagle Filer: http://c-command.com/eaglefiler/   
It is similar to Yojimbo but supports multiple libraries and nested  
folders. It also stores its data as regular files in the filesystem  
so you could easily copy all the files you want and give to a friend  
per the use case you outlined or browse your data with the Finder.


Now, some comments on the recent discussions on this list... First,  
I'm not a Yojimbo-hater -- I've used Yojimbo since it was released  
and have a library with thousands of records. However, I've gotten  
very tired of the lack of nested folders (makes the drop dock too  
big), lack of true Smart Collections, lack of a "read only" flag, and  
the monolithic database as well as lack of Time Machine support. At  
the time that I bought Yojimbo, I extensively evaluated every  
"digital junk drawer" application for the Mac and settled on Yojimbo  
because of ease of use, exportability, Applescriptability, and most  
importantly, .Mac syncing.


The only reason I've stuck with Yojimbo so far is .Mac syncing. I  
want my data available on multiple computers and none of Yojimbo's  
competitors support seamless .Mac syncing the way Yojimbo does.   
However, if the next paid upgrade from Yojimbo doesn't address some  
of those issues I mentioned (and have been mentioned by many others  
on this list), then I'll buy one of the competing products, most  
likely Eagle Filer and work around the lack of .Mac syncing (Eagle  
Filer can store it's library on iDisk for example).  Since I use  
Yojimbo more than any other app on my Mac, that's not idle talk --  
switching would be a big investment of time.  I've got a lot of data  
in Yojimbo and a lot of time invested in scripts to make Yojimbo fit  
into my workflow.


Contrary to some of the other posts on this list in the last few  
days, I do think Yojimbo needs some improvement and I think this list  
is a good place to discuss it. It's rather disheartening to see the  
Yojimbo fans shoot down any feature request because "I like Yojimbo  
the way it is" -- there's always room for improvement and honest  
dialogue by Yojimbo power-users (probably the majority of people on  
this list) is a good way for the developers to get feedback on what  
their *paying* users want. Unfortunately, what usually happens on  
this list is that a Yojimbo fan will tell the feature-requester to go  
away because Yojimbo is great the way it is and the developer won't  
say anything.  If someone from BareBones does pipe in, it's usually  
to say "We're never going to add that feature.  See previous  
post..."  This compares poorly to several other indie-Mac software  
lists I'm on (such as the forum for Leap and Yep, both excellent  
applications: http://www.ironicsoftware.com/) where the developer is  
happy to get feedback on what users actually want and participates in  
the dialogue.


Of course, not every feature can or should be added -- as someone  
who's written a lot of software, I hate feature bloat as much as the  
next guy. But I'd rather give my money to a company that listens to  
its users and tries to provide a product the users want instead of  
what the developer thinks the users *should* want.


Several of my friends and colleagues use Yojimbo based on my  
recommendation.  I think it's a useful application and a great value  
but I'm not sure I can continue to recommend it, for the reasons  
given above.  I really like the application and it's simplified my  
life but I still find that I'm doing too much bending of my workflow  
to suit Yojimbo. Software is a tool that should work for me, not the  
other way around.


Cheers,
Rhet


On Apr 30, 2008, at 11:04 PM, Jerry Weldon wrote:

I'm glad there are people who like Yojimbo the way it is. I want  
people to buy it, because I think Bare Bones is a good company and  
I want it to continue to exist. However, Yojimbo is not quite  
adequate for my needs.


I tried Yojimbo for the 30-day trial period last summer, using it  
to collect information for a vacation. I found it to be very  
useful, and a pleasure to use. It was handy to be able to store  
PDFs and web archives of information I wanted to come back to  
easily, as well as my own notes. Yojimbo was my first experience  
with tagging, and I found that to be useful as well.


When the trial period was over, however, I did not purchase the  
program. Why not? Our vacation was over. I no longer needed the  
information immediately at hand, but neither did I want to delete  
it. What I really wanted was to set that library aside and start a  
new one for the next project or trip. I'd like to use Yojimbo to  
collect everything related to a particular project, and be able to  
store that collection with other project materials, be it on a CD  
in a box with other items or on a computer at a different location.  
Perhaps a friend would l

Almost happy with Yojimbo the way it is

[Jerry Weldon]

I'm glad there are people who like Yojimbo the way it is. I want 
people to buy it, because I think Bare Bones is a good company and I 
want it to continue to exist. However, Yojimbo is not quite adequate 
for my needs.


I tried Yojimbo for the 30-day trial period last summer, using it to 
collect information for a vacation. I found it to be very useful, and 
a pleasure to use. It was handy to be able to store PDFs and web 
archives of information I wanted to come back to easily, as well as 
my own notes. Yojimbo was my first experience with tagging, and I 
found that to be useful as well.


When the trial period was over, however, I did not purchase the 
program. Why not? Our vacation was over. I no longer needed the 
information immediately at hand, but neither did I want to delete it. 
What I really wanted was to set that library aside and start a new 
one for the next project or trip. I'd like to use Yojimbo to collect 
everything related to a particular project, and be able to store that 
collection with other project materials, be it on a CD in a box with 
other items or on a computer at a different location. Perhaps a 
friend would like to take a vacation to the same place; I'd like to 
be able to give them a copy of that library.


In other words, I want to be able to have multiple self-contained 
library databases. This would not add any complexity whatsoever for 
those who like Yojimbo the way it is--they can simply continue using 
one monolithic library--but it would add an order of magnitude of 
usefulness for me, and I suspect for others as well.


I sent this feature request to Bare Bones' support address, and 
received a prompt and honest reply. Unfortunately, the reply was that 
"the chances of Yojimbo supporting multiple databases at any point in 
the future are very slim, as doing so would require changes to a 
whole slew of design and implementation choices; overall, we think 
the drawbacks considerably outweigh any potential benefit." Which, 
sadly, makes it so close and yet so far from what I need.


It's too bad, because I haven't really liked any of the alternatives 
I've looked at so far. Either they're more complex than I want, or 
they just don't look as nice as Yojimbo. So for now, I'm still using 
the Finder and traditional hierarchical organization.


I'm still monitoring this list though, in case anything changes! :-)

- Jerry

--
--
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
 the mailing list .
To unsubscribe, send mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
List archives:  
Have a feature request, or not sure if the software's working 
correctly? Please send mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>