You haven’t told me why you dislike different sizes.

However, I see no reason why it should be mandatory.

The way I envision it, the behavior will be the following: you can switch between two modes: tabbles-with-same-size and tabbles-with-different-sizes.

1. When you switch from same-size-mode to different-size-mode, some tabbles will become bigger, and some will stay as they are; no tabble will become smaller. At the same time, all tabbles will smoothly rearrange themselves not to overlap each other. (Some tabbles, becoming bigger, will push other tabbles away; these tabbles in turn will push other tabbles, so there will be a lot of movement on the screen.)

2. when you switch from different-size-mode to same-size-mode, some tabbles will shrink and some will stay as they are. So some holes will appear that were not present previously. These holes may be annoying to you. But, if you never switch to different-size-mode, you should never see this.

What do you think?

Hi Beaujean, thanks for the feedback.

> I really don’t like the change made in version 115 by removal of the ‘categories’ function. They made it so much easier to organise groups and families of Tabbles.

I am curious why you need to have groups and families of tabbles at all. Could you please elaborate on that? Could you make an example of a task which you need to do but is difficult or impossible to accomplish when you don’t have groups and families of tabbles?

> The new arrangement – having to move the Tabbles around manually is untidy and unnecessarily time-consuming. Especially, it is untidy as there is no grid alignment.

So, it seems you have two problems with the current solution: it is untidy and time consuming.

As for untidy: please notice that an auto-alignment feature (aka snapping to grid) is ready. A new release with this feature will be out soon. Stay tuned.

As for time-consuming: I admit I don’t see what you mean. It takes one minute to arrange 50 tabbles you already have, and you have to do it just once.

So, please wait until auto-alignment is ready, give it a try, and then come back and tell me if you are still unhappy about it, and why. I promise we’ll fix the problem.

> I don’t understand how new users could not grasp the concept of categories (the rationale given for removing that feature). What could be simpler than the concept of files -> Tabbles -> categories?

I suppose the short answer is that "files -> tabbles" is simpler than "files -> tabbles -> categories". The user was forced to learn a new concept (categories) even if he didn’t need it. For example, in order to create a tabble, you first had to create a category.

If I just want to create a tag, why should I have to give a "category" to my tag? Or, equivalently, why should I have to give a tag to my tag?

A longer reply is in this blog post.

> Could you at least bring the categories feature (as it was in version 114) back as an option? Without them, I don’t like the GUI nearly as much as before and it is not as intuitive or useful.

Bringing back categories has high costs (in terms of forgone users due to the increased complexity and barrier to entry, and maintenance costs). So, in order to reintroduce them, I need to see a very good reason, i.e. a practical scenario where you have a problem which categories help solving (and can’t be solved in a simpler way, like an auto-arrange-tabbles feature).

In general, a problem can have more than one solution. It might be that a problem which is solved with categories can be solved in a better way, without forcing every user to deal with a concept they don’t need.

——————————

> I notice above that you have thought of grid arrangements but that it could be a problem when scaling. Well, it seems to me that the arrangement with categories as they were would allow ‘scaling’ within them?

I’m afraid I don’t understand what you mean here.

> Tabbles within tabbles – a sort of "super Tabble"? What is that but a category by another name?

This would be much different. Categories were very limited and very different from tabbles (see the above blog post).

I think allowing us to put tabbles in tabbles is now crucial for usuability.

Interesting. Could you explain this better? What would you need that feature for?

in the meantime, auto-align is implemented. Watch a video here.

You make me think that maybe the scaling must be done by hand, and not automatically… hmm…

Hello, welcome! Thanks for your feedback.

First of all let me point you to the blog, where we discuss future directions, we discuss your suggestions, we consider pros and cons of features. (But I see you have discovered it already).

Sparse replies:

* more drag&drop is planned.

* portability: Tabbles already works with removable devices, such as usb sticks. It even watches for moved files on the drives and updates tabbles accordingly. What else do you need?

* combine link and unlink to tabbles. Good idea. Notice this is only possible when you have selected one file. (if you have selected two files which have different tabbles, I wouldn’t know how to fill the dialog). It was already in the TODO, but with low priority. I’m increasing it.

* being able to reanme tabbles in the quick-open dialog? Maybe by right-clicking? Yes, that would be useful. I am adding it to the todo list.

* Custom category arrangement: I see you have read the blog and installed the new version, so you know there are no categories anymore. The reasons are explained in this blog post. 🙂

Autosaving has been there since 0.9.X I think.

___

I assume your bug with the clipboard is fixed.

If you are still unable to open the tabbles in "meta-tabbles" category, please let us know, and with time we’ll find a fix which doesn’t involve resetting your database.

The changelog for 1.1.0 and 1.1.1 is available.

Thank you! 😀

Thank you, we will investigate about that.