On Dec 27, 2007 7:06 PM, Adam R. Maxwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Dec 26, 2007, at 11:10 PM, Niels Kobschaetzki wrote:
>
> > I guess sorting will become a bummer because at least me removed the
> > title- and authors-column
>
> You know, of course, you can re-add title and authors and remo
On Dec 26, 2007, at 11:10 PM, Niels Kobschaetzki wrote:
> I guess sorting will become a bummer because at least me removed the
> title- and authors-column
You know, of course, you can re-add title and authors and remove the
citation column?
> and I've never gotten adjusted to iTunes
> "new" "
On Dec 27, 2007 7:40 AM, Adam R. Maxwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Dec 26, 2007, at 10:03 PM, Niels Kobschaetzki wrote:
>
> > On Dec 27, 2007 2:01 AM, Adam R. Maxwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Dec 26, 2007, at 2:31 PM, Adam M. Goldstein wrote:
I guess sorting will become
On Dec 26, 2007, at 10:03 PM, Niels Kobschaetzki wrote:
> On Dec 27, 2007 2:01 AM, Adam R. Maxwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On Dec 26, 2007, at 2:31 PM, Adam M. Goldstein wrote:
>>
>>> Wow, that's really cool!
>>
>> It still has some issues; I'm not sure if this is as great as I'd
>> hope
On Dec 27, 2007 2:01 AM, Adam R. Maxwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Dec 26, 2007, at 2:31 PM, Adam M. Goldstein wrote:
>
> > Wow, that's really cool!
>
> It still has some issues; I'm not sure if this is as great as I'd
> hoped, either. If anyone wants to play with it to see what you really
On Dec 26, 2007, at 2:31 PM, Adam M. Goldstein wrote:
> Wow, that's really cool!
It still has some issues; I'm not sure if this is as great as I'd
hoped, either. If anyone wants to play with it to see what you really
think, I posted a build at
http://homepage.mac.com/amaxwell/.Public/BibDe
Wow, that's really cool!
-Adam G.
On Dec 26, 2007, at 2:20 PM, Adam R. Maxwell wrote:
> Here's what a potential "Citation" column could look like:
>
> http://homepage.mac.com/amaxwell/.cv/amaxwell/Sites/.Public/citationColumn.png-zip.zip
>
> this uses the RTF service template to display the tall
On Dec 26, 2007, at 11:45 AM, Christiaan Hofman wrote:
>
> On 26 Dec 2007, at 8:31 PM, Adam R. Maxwell wrote:
>
>>
>> On Dec 22, 2007, at 11:09 AM, Christiaan Hofman wrote:
>>
>>> I also thought of an alternative. We could make both panes
>>> customizable, something like the following choices:
>>
On 26.12.2007, at 20:31, Adam R. Maxwell wrote:
>
> On Dec 22, 2007, at 11:09 AM, Christiaan Hofman wrote:
>
>> I also thought of an alternative. We could make both panes
>> customizable, something like the following choices:
>>
>> Side pane:
>> - Files
>> - Details (template)
>> - Abstract (?)
>
On 26 Dec 2007, at 8:31 PM, Adam R. Maxwell wrote:
>
> On Dec 22, 2007, at 11:09 AM, Christiaan Hofman wrote:
>
>> I also thought of an alternative. We could make both panes
>> customizable, something like the following choices:
>>
>> Side pane:
>> - Files
>> - Details (template)
>> - Abstract (?
On 26 Dec 2007, at 8:20 PM, Adam R. Maxwell wrote:
> Here's what a potential "Citation" column could look like:
>
> http://homepage.mac.com/amaxwell/.cv/amaxwell/Sites/.Public/
> citationColumn.png-zip.zip
>
> this uses the RTF service template to display the tall column.
> Wouldn't be useful fo
On Dec 22, 2007, at 11:09 AM, Christiaan Hofman wrote:
> I also thought of an alternative. We could make both panes
> customizable, something like the following choices:
>
> Side pane:
> - Files
> - Details (template)
> - Abstract (?)
> - Notes (?)
>
> Bottom pane:
> - Files
> - TeX
> - Details (
Here's what a potential "Citation" column could look like:
http://homepage.mac.com/amaxwell/.cv/amaxwell/Sites/.Public/citationColumn.png-zip.zip
this uses the RTF service template to display the tall column.
Wouldn't be useful for abstracts or long annotations.
--
On Dec 22, 2007, at 2:09 PM, Christiaan Hofman wrote:
> Do we really need the abstract and notes as separate preview choices,
> or could they also just be part of the template preview? Also do we
> need the Linked File as a preview choice, or can the new Files view
> be sufficient?
I'd be mostly
On 22 Dec 2007, at 7:55 PM, Adam M. Goldstein wrote:
>
> On Dec 22, 2007, at 8:34 AM, Christiaan Hofman wrote:
>
>>
>> On 21 Dec 2007, at 10:15 PM, Adam R. Maxwell wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Friday, December 21, 2007, at 11:59AM, "Michael McCracken"
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Although I l
On Dec 22, 2007, at 10:19 AM, Christiaan Hofman wrote:
>
> On 22 Dec 2007, at 6:26 PM, Adam R. Maxwell wrote:
>
>>
>> On Dec 22, 2007, at 5:34 AM, Christiaan Hofman wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 21 Dec 2007, at 10:15 PM, Adam R. Maxwell wrote:
>>>
On Friday, December 21, 2007, at 11:59AM, "Micha
On Dec 22, 2007, at 8:34 AM, Christiaan Hofman wrote:
>
> On 21 Dec 2007, at 10:15 PM, Adam R. Maxwell wrote:
>
>>
>> On Friday, December 21, 2007, at 11:59AM, "Michael McCracken"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Although I like having lots of columns of info in BibDesk, the
>>> vertically s
On 22 Dec 2007, at 6:26 PM, Adam R. Maxwell wrote:
>
> On Dec 22, 2007, at 5:34 AM, Christiaan Hofman wrote:
>
>>
>> On 21 Dec 2007, at 10:15 PM, Adam R. Maxwell wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Friday, December 21, 2007, at 11:59AM, "Michael McCracken"
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Dec 21, 2007 10:
On Dec 22, 2007, at 5:34 AM, Christiaan Hofman wrote:
>
> On 21 Dec 2007, at 10:15 PM, Adam R. Maxwell wrote:
>
>>
>> On Friday, December 21, 2007, at 11:59AM, "Michael McCracken"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Dec 21, 2007 10:47 AM, Alexander H. Montgomery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> wrote:
>>
On 21 Dec 2007, at 10:15 PM, Adam R. Maxwell wrote:
>
> On Friday, December 21, 2007, at 11:59AM, "Michael McCracken"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Dec 21, 2007 10:47 AM, Alexander H. Montgomery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>> I think that the current setup is probably optimal; for tho
On Dec 21, 2007, at 11:41 AM, Adam R. Maxwell wrote:
>
> On Friday, December 21, 2007, at 08:25AM, "Adam M. Goldstein" <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]
> > wrote:
>> On Dec 21, 2007, at 10:16 AM, Adam R. Maxwell wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Dec 21, 2007, at 6:05 AM, James Harrison wrote:
>>>
On Dec 21, 2007,
On Friday, December 21, 2007, at 11:59AM, "Michael McCracken" <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Dec 21, 2007 10:47 AM, Alexander H. Montgomery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I think that the current setup is probably optimal; for those who wish
>> to view their papers, the Preview pane can be set to
On Friday, December 21, 2007, at 12:10PM, "Ingrid Giffin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On 12/21/07 12:58 PM, "Michael McCracken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>> Another option would be to just have an optional setting to put the
>>> bottom pane on the right-hand-side for those of us with very w
On 12/21/07 12:58 PM, "Michael McCracken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> Another option would be to just have an optional setting to put the
>> bottom pane on the right-hand-side for those of us with very wide
>> monitors; some people prefer Mail to be in a three-pane side-by-side
>> format, this m
On Dec 21, 2007 10:47 AM, Alexander H. Montgomery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think that the current setup is probably optimal; for those who wish
> to view their papers, the Preview pane can be set to "linked
> file" (perhaps there should be a way of selecting which linked file is
> displayed?)
I think that the current setup is probably optimal; for those who wish
to view their papers, the Preview pane can be set to "linked
file" (perhaps there should be a way of selecting which linked file is
displayed?), while the existing thumbnails should be good enough to
identify which of se
On Friday, December 21, 2007, at 08:25AM, "Adam M. Goldstein" <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Dec 21, 2007, at 10:16 AM, Adam R. Maxwell wrote:
>
>>
>> On Dec 21, 2007, at 6:05 AM, James Harrison wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 21, 2007, at 1:18 AM, Adam R. Maxwell wrote:
>>>
Isn't 60-70 characters per
On Dec 21, 2007, at 10:16 AM, Adam R. Maxwell wrote:
>
> On Dec 21, 2007, at 6:05 AM, James Harrison wrote:
>
>> On Dec 21, 2007, at 1:18 AM, Adam R. Maxwell wrote:
>>
>>> Isn't 60-70 characters per line the optimum value for minimal eye
>>> strain? There's a reason for LaTeX's crazy narrow \text
On Dec 21, 2007, at 6:05 AM, James Harrison wrote:
> On Dec 21, 2007, at 1:18 AM, Adam R. Maxwell wrote:
>
>> Isn't 60-70 characters per line the optimum value for minimal eye
>> strain? There's a reason for LaTeX's crazy narrow \textwidth.
>>
>> Anyway, I hacked together a sample this evening a
On Dec 21, 2007, at 1:18 AM, Adam R. Maxwell wrote:
> Isn't 60-70 characters per line the optimum value for minimal eye
> strain? There's a reason for LaTeX's crazy narrow \textwidth.
>
> Anyway, I hacked together a sample this evening and posted a
> screenshot here:
>
> http://homepage.mac.com/a
On 21 Dec 2007, at 7:18 AM, Adam R. Maxwell wrote:
>
> On Dec 20, 2007, at 12:52 PM, James Harrison wrote:
>
>> On Dec 20, 2007, at 3:10 PM, Adam R. Maxwell wrote:
>>>
>>> The current master-detail view is really handy, so it's hard to
>>> replace that with the file view; I mainly use the table c
On Dec 20, 2007, at 12:52 PM, James Harrison wrote:
> On Dec 20, 2007, at 3:10 PM, Adam R. Maxwell wrote:
>>
>> The current master-detail view is really handy, so it's hard to
>> replace that with the file view; I mainly use the table columns for
>> sorting, but prefer the lower pane for easy rea
32 matches
Mail list logo
