Take a simple example from Spotify, who has essentially solved this problem: Some problems (research) favor jumping to a tag. Some problems (archival) favor folders and hierarchy. This is the actual nature of the technical problem at the root of everyone's frustration.Ģ. I'd argue that EN users have a higher requirement for organizing active information than an email app, which is ultimately about Inbox Zero and an archive. The only difference is that tags allow multiple membership, which is a more flexible structure than a directory. In fact, technically, any filesystem is simply a set of labels (tags) in a directory. gmail is an excellent example showing that "labels" and "folders" are one and the same. An intentional stance that has note changed since 2008? There are four factors at play here.ġ. That being said, there may be added resistance due to cost of implementation, but I really think that the architectural choices here are philosophical. From everything I've seen from Evernote employee postings, here and elsewhere, they just don't seem to think that nested notebooks are necessary. GMail also has labels, which can be nested, but are more like tags (sadly, the GMail also documentation uses the term 'folders' to describe them, but they are not folder-like in that they can be applied to multiple emails). My take is that they have tended to emulate GMail's structure more closely than anything else: GMail has some predefined folders, but not nested folders these are like Evernote notebooks. If you follow the history of the thread, then I think you'll probably see that this is an intentional stance on the part of Evernote (look for posts by rather than making a virtue out of necessity. I don't keep anything "important" there, just scraps that I can dump into a notebook willy-nilly. This means that I've actually changed the kind of data I store in EN3. Unfortunately, they're a flat list, sorted alphabetically. What this means is that the only left-panel part of EN3 that I find useful at all is the notebooks concept. Because I can't organize them in a hierarchy and because they're not combined with the tag list, and because I can only have 32, I don't see the point in using them. In addition, I find the saved searches to be pretty much useless for me too. I'm trying to adapt to using it, but it's kind of a square peg/round hole argument. I can't easily select multiple tags, e.g., by clicking on their parent (a la 2.2), so the hierarchy is, well, frankly, completely meaningless. (Yes, I can tag there too - but I'd have to remember all my tags then.)īasically, I find the current tag implementation unwieldy. One of the joys of clipping to the web version is the ability to pick the destination notebook. However, I've already got 13 notebooks - adding that many more will make the list unwieldy.Ģ. If I had a separate notebook for Linux, I could just drag the note to that notebook and be done - half as much work. When I want to mark a note as a Tips/Linux note, I have to: (a) move it to the Tips notebook and then ( tag it with Linux to distinguish it from other tips notes. Yes, I can painfully accomplish the same thing with tags, but it's clunky for a couple of reasons:ġ. What I'd like to be able to do is have subnotebooks so that I can have say Tips:Latex, Tips:Linux, Tips:Windows as subnotebooks on Tips. For instance, I dump recipes into the Recipes notebook, Tips into the Tips notebook, etc. ![]() I'm using the notebooks the same way I used many categories in EN2.2, as "holders", as opposed to tags/attributes.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |