![]() ![]() 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. Read the original article in The Atlantic.I'm using the notebooks the same way I used many categories in EN2.2, as "holders", as opposed to tags/attributes. ![]() It is an enlarged intimate supplement to his memory. A memex is a device in which an individual stores all his books, records, and communications, and which is mechanized so that it may be consulted with exceeding speed and flexibility. It needs a name, and, to coin one at random, "memex" will do. One cannot hope thus to equal the speed and flexibility with which the mind follows an associative trail, but it should be possible to beat the mind decisively in regard to the permanence and clarity of the items resurrected from storage.Ĭonsider a future device for individual use, which is a sort of mechanized private file and library. Selection by association, rather than indexing, may yet be mechanized. The first idea, however, to be drawn from the analogy concerns selection. In minor ways he may even improve, for his records have relative permanency. Man cannot hope fully to duplicate this mental process artificially, but he certainly ought to be able to learn from it. Yet the speed of action, the intricacy of trails, the detail of mental pictures, is awe-inspiring beyond all else in nature. It has other characteristics, of course trails that are not frequently followed are prone to fade, items are not fully permanent, memory is transitory. With one item in its grasp, it snaps instantly to the next that is suggested by the association of thoughts, in accordance with some intricate web of trails carried by the cells of the brain. Having found one item, moreover, one has to emerge from the system and re-enter on a new path. It can be in only one place, unless duplicates are used one has to have rules as to which path will locate it, and the rules are cumbersome. When data of any sort are placed in storage, they are filed alphabetically or numerically, and information is found (when it is) by tracing it down from subclass to subclass. Our ineptitude in getting at the record is largely caused by the artificiality of systems of indexing. The real heart of the matter of selection, however, goes deeper than a lag in the adoption of mechanisms by libraries, or a lack of development of devices for their use. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |