14 replies to this topic

[rtebiz]

In the TypeIt4Me demo movie it shows two features that would be useful to me:

1) Quick Shorthand creation. Select desired expansion text. Select a menu command and enter shortcut.

2) Abbreviation palette that lists shortcuts and expansion

[Evan Gross]

Quote

In the TypeIt4Me demo movie it shows two features that would be useful to me:

1) Quick Shorthand creation. Select desired expansion text. Select a menu command and enter shortcut.

We have this. In two different places.

Services menu: Spell Catcher->New Shorthand
Spell Catcher application's Dock Menu: New Shorthand for Selection

Quote

2) Abbreviation palette that lists shortcuts and expansion

We don't have this, but plan something that may even be better for Spell Catcher X 10.2. After all, I know folks with well over 5,000 shortcuts. Kind of a problem in a popup menu...

Your suggestions on how to solve this one are welcome!

[rtebiz]

Evan Gross, on Sep 7 2004, 08:38 PM, said:

Quote

In the TypeIt4Me demo movie it shows two features that would be useful to me:

1) Quick Shorthand creation. Select desired expansion text. Select a menu command and enter shortcut.

We have this. In two different places.

Services menu: Spell Catcher->New Shorthand
Spell Catcher application's Dock Menu: New Shorthand for Selection

Quote

2) Abbreviation palette that lists shortcuts and expansion

We don't have this, but plan something that may even be better for Spell Catcher X 10.2. After all, I know folks with well over 5,000 shortcuts. Kind of a problem in a popup menu...

Your suggestions on how to solve this one are welcome!

Those were the two places I didn't look. I looked in the check mark menu and quickly scanned the help files.

I can't imagine how anyone could remember 5,000 glossary entries let alone their shortcuts. I've got 500 or so and probably only use a third of them.

As for the interface, something similar to LaunchBar 4 would work for me. A keystroke to bring up an entry field. Type a letter that produces a list of candidates and then some convenient selection techniques.

[rtebiz]

I tried the New Shortcut with Selection using the dock menu. The only problem is that SC chose the wrong glossary. Is there a way to set a default glossary other than locking all but one glossary?

[Evan Gross]

rtebiz, on Sep 8 2004, 11:10 AM, said:

I tried the New Shortcut with Selection using the dock menu. The only problem is that SC chose the wrong glossary. Is there a way to set a default glossary other than locking all but one glossary?

Yep, just use the Shorthand button once with the glossary you want to be the default. Whichever file was added to most recently with a Shorthand button (same for Learn) will be the default.

[Evan Gross]

rtebiz, on Sep 7 2004, 10:43 PM, said:

As for the interface, something similar to LaunchBar 4 would work for me. A keystroke to bring up an entry field. Type a letter that produces a list of candidates and then some convenient selection techniques.

Ok, I'm actually starting to work on something like this, but it's not quite so clear to me what exactly it is you (and therefore other customers) need. In other words, I need to understand the problem it is that needs solving before coming up with an appropriate solution.

You say that you can't always remember all your shorthands. Fair enough, neither can I. You say you have 500 or so, but remember that the Words to Correct file is also a Shorthand Glossary file. It contains over 3,500 entries!

So is the root of the problem:
a) That you know you have a shorthand with a particular expansion you want to type, but you can't remember the *exact* abbreviation. You have a good idea of what it is, but might be off by a letter or two. So you try a few different abbreviations before finally getting the right one. This takes too long, it's a problem that needs solving - some way to quickly zero in on the correct abbreviation for the expansion you want to type.

or

b) That you know you have a shorthand with a particular expansion you want to type, but have no clue whatsoever what the abbreviation for it is. You just want to see a list of all your expansions, not caring at all what abbreviation is associated with each, and somehow quickly pick the one you want typed. So you have no desire to type the correct abbreviation, or even know what it is, just type the expansion immediately. The problem that needs solving is therefore some way to narrow in on a specific expansion without having to know anything about its abbreviation.

I think both can be solved with a similar UI, but obviously have to be implemented differently.

Using the LaunchBar approach (probably a good one for this purpose and for some other reasons I can't actually mention quite yet):

In a), as you type letters of an abbreviation, you would see some sort of list of expansions that would result from expanding all your shorthands with an abbreviation that begins with what you've typed. The list would get shorter as you typed more characters.

In b), a similar thing would happen, but instead of matching the first few letters of the abbreviation, it's done for the expansion. So you're actually typing the start of the expansion yourself.

Both fall into the same basic category that word completion does.

The problems with the latter approach (expansion-based completion) are:

1. Often the actual expansion that occurs depends on what form of the abbreviation you type - for example lowercase, proper case, or all uppercase.
2. Expansions can be very long and contain tabs or returns. Not always easy to truncate to a good string for the UI (but not really a killer problem).
3. Expansions can contain meta-characters, like dates and times. You would therefore have to type (nearly exactly!) the result of an expansion to actually see it in the list.

Maybe take a look at the Completion stuff that's already in SCX 10.1.3. Use a Cocoa app like TextEdit, set your completions to show only Shorthand Glossary entries, and tell me if that does anything at all for you. Realize that currently an exact match on the abbreviation has to be made, but imagine that a prefix match was happening AND that as you typed more characters, the listed stayed open and narrowed in on "better" candidates as you typed more characters.

Or maybe I'm totally off-base and you have a better idea...

[Apple Peel]

We all have different needs, so it must be quite hard to come up with solutions that will actually help a number of people.

Regarding quick shorthand creation:

I tend to want to create a shorthand without having typed the expansion out already. So using a creation process that's based on the current selection isn't my approach. In addition, I don't like to have to lift my hands from the keyboard and grab the mouse in order to create a shorthand. (Neither "New Shorthand" command has a keyboard shortcut.) As well, I have hundreds of glossary entries, and they are stored in many different files, which apply only to a specific combination of languages (typically French/Canadian French on the one hand and US/British/Canadian English on the other hand) or are universal. So when I want to create a new shorthand, it's very important for me to be able to select the destination glossary file quickly. Thanks to LaunchBar and the way I organize my glossary files, this is pretty easy. All my glossary files are stored in folders whose names start with "SCX". All the glossary files have names which start with "SCX" as well. So I invoke LaunchBar and type "scx", and immediately LaunchBar takes me to my SCX folders of glossary files (the most frequently accessed one being the one at the top of the list). Then I browse down this hierarchy of folders of glossary files using the cursor keys (still in LaunchBar). Then finally I select the glossary file I want and open it by pressing Return. Then SCX opens it and I use command-+ to create a new entry, type the abbreviation, press Tab, type the expansion, et voilà. Command-Tab takes me back to the application where I was before I started all this.

At no point did I need to lift my hands off the keyboard. So this qualifies as pretty fast shorthand creation for me. It's not perfect, but with LaunchBar and with the use of a well-organized hierarchy of folders of glossary files, it's pretty efficient.

Of course, I still tend to use the mouse when I want to create a new glossary file, but that doesn't happen very often.

I am not sure Evan can do much to make this easier. The way the user organizes his glossary files is beyond Evan's control -- although he does have access to a list of all the currently available glossary files, and can categorize them by language combinations if needed. But I am not sure Evan could improve on what can already be done with LaunchBar. So it sounds like a lot of work for nothing to me. (Of course, this means you have to buy LaunchBar as well, but it's really a purchase that you will not regret.)

Regarding quick shorthand selection:

This one is a bit trickier, for a number of reasons. First, in Evan's b) solution, it's not clear whether the list of expansions would match what's being typed based on the very first characters of the expansions or on any keyword within them. It could very well be that the expansion you are looking for contains the keyword that you are typing but it's not the very first word in the expansion (there is an article before it, for example).

Then there is the fact that, after typing only 2 or 3 letters, you'll probably get a VERY LONG list of matches. It might cause performance problems.

Then there is the issue of distinguishing between glossary entries that are actually abbreviations from glossary entries that are typo corrections. When looking for a particular expansion, you'd probably want SCX to exclude the typo corrections from the list of matches. But does SCX have a way of distinguishing between the two? It doesn't look like it.

What I do know would be useful to me is a tool that searches for keywords in expansions, and I am currently discussing this with Evan. But that's because I have hundreds of expansions, and I don't think that "browsing" through all my glossary entries would be very practical. Maybe for someone who only has 100 or 200 entries, a "palette" of some sort would be practical. I don't know. It has never come to mind to me as a way of remedying my occasional forgetfulness. An easily accessible and effective search tool would be more practical to me.

[rtebiz]

I'm looking at the contents of my glossaries and thinking. Post back over the weekend

[rtebiz]

Went back and looked at all recurring text applications in addition to Spell Catcher glossaries (Safari Form Filler; BBEdit glossary; Drop Drawers; Copy Paste; QuicKeys; URL Manager Pro; and Web Confidential)

Conclusion: Start with the assumption that the user can't remember much.

Other conclusions are that I need to reorganize my big glossary into topics and that I need to rethink and revise my coding system for very frequently used items.

Coding system examples:
* My names: fn1 = f = form filler; n = name; 1 =casual name = Billy Smith; fn2 = formal name = William Smith; fn3 = legal name = William R. Smith III

* First line of street = fs1
* Second line of street = fs2
* City = fc1
* Zip = fz1 = 5 digit; fz2 = longer zip
* fpc1 = cell phone short; fpc2 = cell phone long

In some cases the codes can get longer, but accuracy rather than speed is a consideration.

Other thoughts:

The LaunchBar massive index search type and variations there of (Completion) don't work for me because I can't remember what I have, but once I was able to reorganize my glossaries a sub search might where a fairly long list was provided.

The ability to turn glossaries off and on would seem important.

What if a couple of user defined typed characters initiated an interface? And the interface presented a list of glossaries and then do the LaunchBar thing from that point?

Every time a URL Manager Pro file is saved it can write an html file that LaunchBar can monitor. Maybe LaunchBar could handle this

The dock menus in URL Manager Pro or Net News Wire may be a consideration.

Until I can easily reorganize my glossaries I can't offer much more.

Thanks for your time

[Paul Ingraham]

My 2c...

I use about one hundred shorthands routinely, and draw on several hundred more intermittently. I would create more if it was easier to do so. I would use the ones that I have more if it was easier to do so.

On shorthand creation:

Selecting the glossary you want by LaunchBar is a nifty trick, but Joe User won't have a clue. SC still needs a basic quick shorthand creation interface. I don't think it's a good idea for Evan to tell users to go get LaunchBar if they want to get a shorthand into the glossary of their choice.

What I would like is a shorthand creation window (invoked by a keyboard shortcut and keyboard navigable). Selected text can be used as either the shorthand or the expansion as determined by a preference (which might be configurable in the shorthand creation window). The glossary can be selected from a pulldown menu, and defaults to the last one used.

This seems pretty practical and versatile, and a big improvement. Obviously it will fall short for some power users, but that's going to be the case with most any solution.


On finding shorthands:

Evan, you described two problems using shorthands, and I have both of them. We'd have to do a poll to find out, but I'll betcha that problem A (remembering exact abbreviations) is the more common problem by a wide margin. So, just from a prioritizing point of view, I'd start with that one and leave the other for another day.

Seems to me that shorthand-based completion is the obvious solution, precisely as you described: a list of expansions for abbreviations that start with the characters typed so far. Thus if you had three shorthands like this (as I do)...

tp1 = poorly defined trigger point
tp2 = well defined and significant trigger point
tp3 = very well defined and important trigger point

...then typing "tp" and F5 would produce a list of all three expansions to choose from. Oh, pretty please. This seems like the obvious solution to me for the following reasons:

1, because the technology is basically there already, no UI or new search algorithm needed
2, because it solves the problem for most users, most of the time, whereas everything else I can think of leaves big gaping holes (i.e. the palette, which would be totally inadequate for anyone with more than fifty shorthands).
3, the problem of large numbers of matches is not a problem (controlled as with all completion: the list can only be so long)

A final word about shorthand usage problem B (remembering ANYTHING about the shorthand). This is not something that SCX can be reasonably expected to solve for the user easily. Although I do have the problem, and there are some possible aids, I don't really expect SC to save me from myself. I don't expect it to pick up my socks, and I don't expect it to help me remember a completely forgettable shorthand that I dreamed up three months ago and haven't thought about since. Basically, if you created a shorthand so obscure that you can't remember it AT ALL, it was probably a bad idea in the first place and you're somewhat on you're own.

Also, having a good solution to problem A will solve problem B about 75% of the time, because I would use shorthand-based completion to quickly test several possibilities. Chances are good that I'd get it after a couple tries. If I don't, I must have been on crack when I created the damned thing.

So, in the short term, don't worry about problem B.

But in the long term...

The concept of shorthands will soon be obsolete. LaunchBar and clever search algorithms are taking over the world. Who needs to remember abbreviations when your computer can match a few typed characters with practically anything... such as expansions? Think of them as "dynamic shorthands."

LaunchBar is a hair's breadth from this right now. All it would need to do is search a text file for "expansions" (text separated by markers) matching your characters, and then insert it into the document, wherever you were when you invoked LaunchBar. I could find expansions as easily as I use LaunchBar to find any one of about ten thousand other labelled objects on my computer now.

Either the Mac OS X completion algorithm will improve to the point where it matches the way LaunchBar matches... or the folks at Objective Development will realize that this is yet another kickass use for their technology. One way or another, the result is inevitable: remembering shorthands is going to be a thing of the past.

So, Evan, can you reverse engineer that clever algorithm of theirs? ;-)

Okay, I'm done raving now.

[rtebiz]

Paul Ingraham, on Oct 1 2004, 10:52 PM, said:

The concept of shorthands will soon be obsolete.  LaunchBar and clever search algorithms are taking over the world.  Who needs to remember abbreviations when your computer can match a few typed characters with practically anything... such as expansions?  Think of them as "dynamic shorthands."

Quote

LaunchBar help:

Please note that LaunchBar is designed to manage about several thousand items. It is therefore not recommended to scan e.g. your entire hard disk (not even your entire home folder) for each and every file or folder.

If the LaunchBar index contains too many items you will lose LaunchBar's instant feedback (showing the search result while you are typing) and the quality of the search results will suffer.

The configuration capabilities of LaunchBar will help you to keep the focus on the important, interesting documents, and to ignore those that you never want to access via LaunchBar.

In addition to accessing your documents directly (by entering an abbreviation), you may also consider to use LaunchBar's file system browsing capabilities. You might configure LaunchBar to scan for "Any Folder" inside your "Documents" folder. Then you can access each folder directly (via abbreviation) and display the contained documents by pressing the right arrow key.

Well organized glossaries will be necessary for "file system browsing"

[jaharmi]

I would personally like to be able to navigate my shortcuts in a LaunchBar-style manner, preferably one that works with LaunchBar if I already have it installed. (Which I do, LB and SCX are complementary. Actually, there's a Windows application I came across which basically melges the functions of both together.)

I would also vote for keyboard-based creation of shortcuts. Make it quick and painless, so I don't have to use a mouse and have to do the fewest steps possible. (I don't need to see the whole SCX reference UI -- I just need to create the shortcut and select which reference file it will go into.)

The fact that adding a shortcut is not in the Spell Catcher menu in the menu bar means that I really don't create shortcuts as quickly or as often as I'd like. I haven't tried mapping the Services menu items to keyboard shortcuts via System Preferences, but maybe I will (if it works).

[Evan Gross]

jaharmi, on Dec 22 2004, 02:30 PM, said:

I would personally like to be able to navigate my shortcuts in a LaunchBar-style manner, preferably one that works with LaunchBar if I already have it installed. (Which I do, LB and SCX are complementary. Actually, there's a Windows application I came across which basically melges the functions of both together.)

I would also vote for keyboard-based creation of shortcuts. Make it quick and painless, so I don't have to use a mouse and have to do the fewest steps possible. (I don't need to see the whole SCX reference UI -- I just need to create the shortcut and select which reference file it will go into.)

The fact that adding a shortcut is not in the Spell Catcher menu in the menu bar means that I really don't create shortcuts as quickly or as often as I'd like. I haven't tried mapping the Services menu items to keyboard shortcuts via System Preferences, but maybe I will (if it works).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We think we've got you covered (well, not integrated with LaunchBar - can't be depending on other 3rd party apps for critical functionality like that - nothing against LB, just a bad idea in general).

You can view the Spell Catcher X 10.2 help book online now. I don't want to link to it quite yet (don't want it search engine spidered).

But if you just tack on a _10.2 before the .html for the current help book URL, you'll get there.

[schrag]

As I recall, TypeIt4Me had an option that allowed a user to enter one trigger and expand on that trigger plus "s." Thus, if one used "engr" as an abbreviation for "engineers," "engrs" would automatically become "engineers" without the user adding a separate entry. Could this option be added to Spell Catcher?

Of course, the user would still have to create separate triggers for more complicated plurals, so that "univs" became "universities," not "universitys," unless Rainmaker did some truly slick programming to tap into the appropriate language dictionaires and figure out the plural.

I should add that even without this feature, Spell Catcher is a magnificent program, and I pity those who do not use it.

Zachary Schrag

[Evan Gross]

schrag, on Dec 29 2004, 01:45 PM, said:

As I recall, TypeIt4Me had an option that allowed a user to enter one trigger and expand on that trigger plus "s." Thus, if one used "engr" as an abbreviation for "engineers," "engrs" would automatically become "engineers" without the user adding a separate entry. Could this option be added to Spell Catcher?

Of course, the user would still have to create separate triggers for more complicated plurals, so that  "univs" became "universities," not "universitys," unless Rainmaker did some truly slick programming to tap into the appropriate language dictionaires and figure out the plural.

I should add that even without this feature, Spell Catcher is a magnificent program, and I pity those who do not use it.

Zachary Schrag

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, we don't have this feature, though apostrophe 's does do this. Good idea for the future, though.