Save
Saving
  • C
    cavalierex

    @Adam-Buckley I agree with you -- Last year, I told all my grad students to pay attention because there was a new player in town -- i.e., that Manuscripts would be the academic writing app of the future. Sadly, I can't recommend it to anybody anymore, as its future is uncertain.

    posted in General Discussion read more
  • C
    cavalierex

    @hubob Yes, I must agree that there still exist lots of bugs (or at least "friction points" in regular usage). I, too, have been unable to finish a manuscript-writing process from initial outline/draft through to publication using Manuscripts. I get stuck at various points (usually pretty early on in the process, sadly) and have to export to Word to finish.

    For the record, I would qualify myself as a power user with regard to everything else Mac-related. I would even prefer doing the entire process in Markdown and LaTeX/MathJax, if Manuscripts let me. But I'm okay with the current rich-text approach for now. I just wish Manuscripts could accomplish all that it's intended to accomplish.

    I hope they continue development. It has great potential.

    posted in General Discussion read more
  • C
    cavalierex

    Hi! I know you guys have been working on an update for Manuscripts. But I was hoping you could please share with us some of your thoughts — especially a roadmap for the app’s future. As it exists now, Manuscripts still has lots of bugs and an incomplete feature set. Without knowing what’s to come, I don’t know if it is worth it (or safe) to invest my academic career to using this tool. The last blog post on manuscriptsapp.com was written in 2015! It would be wonderful to hear if the project is still alive and what we might expect.

    Just so you hear it from a fan, I think that Manuscript has tremendous potential. Many of us users really want to see it succeed. It’s way too early for a major update, but when you get to that point, many of us will pay for the major upgrade. I think you communicated your initial vision for Manuscripts really well and sold us on it. We’re all on board. But now, we’re all left straggling, wondering what’s going on, and if maybe the train is derailed and the project abandoned. It would be wonderful to have a roadmap published on the blog, even if your next update to Manuscripts is not ready for production. A great model for transparency and consistency in communication is the Omni Group. Besides regular feature updates, their blog has annual roadmap — e.g., https://www.omnigroup.com/blog/looking-back-looking-ahead-2017-edition

    I hope you consider publishing the roadmap on your blog soon. We’re really desperate for it.

    — Alexander.

    posted in Comments & Feedback read more
  • C
    cavalierex

    @mz2 @andrewmercer - A think this is a great suggestion.

    Papers allows citation modifiers in the CiteKey that are really quite powerful: For example,

    • A prefix gets printed inside the opening parenthesis but before the rest of the citation: {for example,, Smith:1997tu} results in (for example, Smith, 1997).
    • A suffix is also possible: {Smith:1997tu ,, and others} results in (Smith, 1997, and others).
    • Page numbers may be specified: {Smith:1997tu pp89-100} results in (Smith, 1997, pages 89-100).

    More about CiteKey modification here: http://support.mekentosj.com/kb/cite-write-your-manuscripts-and-essays-with-citations/citations-modifiers-prefix-suffix-page-number-authoryear-suppression

    Thankfully, Manuscripts already allows for author and year suppression. This is also possible via Papers citation modifiers (e.g., {*Smith:1997tu} suppresses the author, and {Smith:1997tu*} suppresses the year), but the way Manuscripts does it is very user-friendly.

    It would be wonderful if Manuscripts would incorporate the other CiteKey modifier functionality. I agree with @mz2 that a user-friendly way is to incorporate it into the existing window that allows suppression of authors/years.

    But I think that a power-user feature would be to allow direct editing of the Papers CiteKeys. If there were a "CiteKey mode" (rather than wysiwyg citation mode), it would also facilitate exportation to other programs with the CiteKey preserved.

    Or perhaps, the user-friendly method would utilize the CiteKey modifiers behind-the-scenes to make the magic happen.

    Just my thoughts.

    -- Alexander.

    posted in General Discussion read more