2009/2/4 Brian Matherly <brian@...>
> > Believe it or not people, but we are into competition with
> > commercial
> > software out there. That is, we are not in competition with
> > them directly,
> > but we are for the hearts and minds of the users.
> I do find it interesting to see how different people are motivated
> differently. Why do you want to steal users from commercial software? So you
> can stay up even later at night answering users questions? I'm just kidding,
> of course. But I'm not sure that every developer's motivation is to capture
> more of the Genealogy Software market share.
You should not read more in my text than the words that are written, and
they say nothing about motivation. Our existence as a project creates
competition. If we don't want users we should not release and all work from
subversion. It would be good enough for us developers.
Anyway, your stand was that you see no value in markup notes, that is ok.
However, my examples of other software shows that apparently some find some
markup in notes interesting to bother with it. So the request must exist
with the users, we know this is not easy to implement. I don't have the
money to do a market research, comparison with existing solutions is the
best I can achieve. I don't have an opinion about the users using such a
> > So what do they offer:
> > http://www.rootsmagic.com/sourcedlg.htm : bold italic
> > underline
> > http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/TourSources-SourceWriter.asp:
> > bold, italics,
> > underline and superscript. These codes are used when
> > printing reports,
> > producing word processing files and Web pages.
> > etc...
> > Let's add what is supportable to GRAMPS.
> > Note also eg bug :
> > http://www.gramps-project.org/bugs/view.php?id=2406
> > Clearly, some users do want these features.
> > >From this thread, I have the opinion that most people
> > who are most involved
> > with the report creation code are against. I can understand
> > that, the
> > difficult part of support is precisely in the reports, the
> > GUI part is
> > already done (but was also _very_ hard).
> I didn't mean to give the impression that I'm *against* the markup notes.
> I'm just not particularly *for* it because I don't think I'll use it (does
> that make any sense?). So my problem is that it is difficult for me to get
> motivated to write a whole bunch of code for a feature that I am not excited
It makes perfect sense. I understand this perfectly well because I have
seen this feature being added over the last years. The user using 3.1 does
not. That is why I started this tread. At the moment it is indeed me that
answers most bug reports, and I know this issue will get posted to bug list
and tracker and mailing list. I don't want to spend evenings discussing this
with users, I want a clear global statement so I can reply with one http
link and not waste useless minutes actually answering.
> > That is why I started this thread. I don't believe we
> > must limit the
> > interface because of the reports, but we also must not give
> > wrong
> > impressions to the users due to the interface with 3.1. The
> > markup notes are
> > a great GUI feature. Some developer spend a huge amount of
> > time because he
> > believed in it (even rewriting the code after 3.0 due to
> > comments of Brian),
> > and some users really want it.
> > So how to move forward? I would suggest:
> > 1/ are there things in the GUI markup we don't want?
> > Let's state them. No
> > color perhaps?
> I doubt that there is a feature in the markup notes that everyone *wants*
> > 2/ are there things we allow in the markup, but clearly
> > state we don't want
> > in the reports? I would go for this.
> There you go using the word *want*" again. Who wouldn't want everything?
Different color font in a website from a css style is stupid, so I would not
do that, hence I don't want it supported. Protecting the user against
himself. I believe that many things do have a right and a wrong in software
design, and I'm not for supporting features to have it both ways.
> > I would suggest adding a report tab to the note screen to
> > show how the note
> > will look like in a report. This would essentially show the
> > note with all
> > non-report supported marks removed. For me I would ideally
> > see the reports
> > respect bold, underline and italic, as well as fixed font
> > over an entire
> > paragraph (so same font from begin to end).
> Now you're just trading a bunch of work in the GUI for a bunch of work in
> the report system. You could just as well spend that effort in the report
> system trying to make it work.
I know the interface, so this is not a lot of work for me. Essentially some
regex and reuse the textview as non editable with the content with changed
markup. I'm not jumping to do it but I do offer to use some of my free time
to do it should the consensus be that that is the best solution.
I could probably change something like odf output quickly, but that would be
a hack. I don't know how the report system works.
> > 3/be clear to the user. We need an official line to put in
> > the FAQ. Eg:
> > Markup in notes is to better display your information when
> > using GRAMPS. Not
> > all markup is, and will be, supported in the different
> > output reports. Click
> > the report tab to see how your note will appear....
> Why do the font styles (color, bold, underline, etc) that I put in notes
> not appear in reports?
> Someone spent a lot of effort to make it possible to format notes in the
> GRAMPS interface. No one has spent the effort to make the formatting carry
> over to the reports. It may take some time for the report system to catch
Ok, this is what this thread started with. An official reply. I don't mind
this one. If you write down in the wiki how you see the good solution, we
will get patches to include it in html, odf, ...
If you don't write it down we also will get patches :-D
> > As a user, my needs are: fixed width font, a way to
> > indicate sections (that
> > would be eg bold and underline)
> I have had a few occasions were the fixed width font came in handy.
> This whole topic comes down to motivation. The reports will support markup
> notes when someone is motivated to implement it. And I expect that
> eventually someone will get motivated for it.
I would like to remark that the mail tread for 3.2 about code cleanup and
reorganization comes down to the same. It is how OSS works and we should not