Save
Saving
  • D
    DrJJWMac

    @natur0418 I might suggest to approach the problem differently. Use Manuscripts to create the document content to your full satisfaction and document layout to a reasonable satisfaction. Use absolutely no fancy layouts in the Manuscript file. Export what you create to a LaTeX document. Edit the LaTeX document to include the specific layout commands that you need.

    A Specific Example: I imagine that Manuscripts has no clue about hyperref, geometry, or fancyhdr packages. So anticipate that you will need to account for these and add them back as needed before you recompile the LaTeX.

    Also, as @mz2 notes, document fonts in Manuscripts are not the same as those in LaTeX. You have to use XeTeX to access system fonts that are used in Manuscripts.

    posted in Comments & Feedback read more
  • D
    DrJJWMac

    @mallow said:

    ... I can't recommend Ulysses enough as an alternative ...

    I hold out hope that Manuscripts will get this far too, especially since Manuscripts handles LaTeX better than Ulysses. OTOH, I appreciate the frustration level using Manuscripts, and am still (sadly but decidedly) staying with LaTeX directly.

    --
    JJW

    posted in Comments & Feedback read more
  • D
    DrJJWMac

    OK. My apologies. Split screen works. I must have needed to restart and/or log in / log out of my user login.

    Continuing on the thread, I find the behavior of the left side bar is a bit choppy when I put Manuscripts on the right side of the split screen. When the full page is viewed without the left side pane, it will slide open and take over the left window space. IOW, it resizes the space on the right to show the pane. I would prefer when Manuscripts would NOT resize the space it occupies but rather would resize its internal window spaces accordingly.

    --
    JJW

    posted in Comments & Feedback read more
  • D
    DrJJWMac

    I continue to have ongoing frustrations using a keyboard and/or trackpad/mouse with Manuscripts. I continue to feel as though Manuscripts is hampering my ability to input text quickly. Here are some things that I would expect just to work ...

    • I cannot select an entire title of a section heading to change it
    • I cannot delete a paragraph by selecting it and typing delete (or better ... command delete)
    • I cannot type a return and a tab key to start a sub-section
    • I cannot end/exit a list by typing two sequential return keys (to start a new paragraph)

    Also, the constant "clattering" appearance of pop-up adornments to the left of a paragraph as a way to add/delete/manipulate text is ... annoying. I would wish these could all be turned off so that I can just use my keyboard input to get my document written.

    Here is a challenge from this thought:

    • Imagine you have ABSOLUTELY NO MOUSE INPUT and have to write something effectively in Manuscripts. You have ONLY the keyboard. You have little to no interest in formatting things to typesetting standards. You only want to write a document.

    --> Make Manuscripts work well entirely with this approach in mind.

    By analogy, make Manuscripts work as though it is a high-performance VI or EMACS editor.

    At this point, I can mostly do a more effective job with TextWrangler (and crude outlining efforts and/or multi-markdown) than I can with Manuscripts to get my ideas written on paper.

    --
    JJW

    posted in Comments & Feedback read more
  • D
    DrJJWMac

    I want to use Manuscripts side-by-side with my mind-map (Curio) or resource (DevonThink) app in split-screen mode. Manuscripts cannot be put in this mode.

    I hope this limitation can be addressed.

    --
    JJW

    posted in Comments & Feedback read more
  • D
    DrJJWMac

    This option would be nice to have accessible either as a Preference setting

    --> [ ] "Purge all un-referenced bibliography data on close"

    or as a what I call a "super user" command line

    --> defaults write com.manuscriptsapp.manuscripts "Purge Bibliography Data on Close" -bool YES/NO

    --
    JJW

    posted in Knowledge Base read more
  • D
    DrJJWMac

    I am glad to hear of the directions being taken. I am also glad to hear the philosophy is to focus on developing Manuscripts as a quality creative writing tool rather than a WYSIWG editor (or even as I might add yet another full-bodied LaTeX front-end + compiler). Finally, I am glad to know that folks are pushing Manuscripts to improve some of its (often glaring) shortfalls without pushing it (too much) to become everything we've always wanted in a scientific document editor and the kitchen sink too. :-)

    --
    JJW

    posted in Comments & Feedback read more
  • D
    DrJJWMac

    @mz2 said:

    ... For LaTeX we hope to add some more control over the preferred positioning as it has a sophisticated system for this optimising the location of floating items such as figures and tables. Word is the problematic based exports are always the best ones optimising figure / table placement (LaTeX has a sophisticated system for working out where content should flow).

    Please be a bit cautious rather than ambitious with the addition of LaTeX controls to float and wrap figures. I know from experience that even the best guesses in creating LaTeX documents need final tweaking once you start down this path. My experience using LaTeX is this ...

    • Create the document with the figures at full size
    • Resize the figures and work on the floats
    • Work on the wraps

    So, I'd prefer that Manuscripts errs grossly on the side of caution and does not adjust for page sizes at all based on inserting figures than that it tries to be even better yet as a WYSIWG editor too.

    IOW, I strongly dissuade efforts to have Manuscripts always show perfectly true locations for page breaks. Going down this path will only cause even more support requests to make them even better. Inevitably, once you agree to open this door, folks will clammer more and more for Manuscripts to be yet another WYSIWG editor. That will kill off development for it to be a well-honed, rapid development tool for documents.

    Manuscripts motto should be -- Get it out of my head! -- not -- Make it look pretty.

    --
    JJW

    posted in Comments & Feedback read more
  • D
    DrJJWMac

    I have the spinning beach ball problem too. It seems connected to a citation compiler step that hangs indefinitely. It seems connected to the fact that, although I started to add a citation, I never did. IOW, it seems connected to Manuscripts trying to find citations in my document that do not exist or do not have a linked citation database.

    --
    JJW

    posted in Comments & Feedback read more
  • D
    DrJJWMac

    I might suggest that much of what you want with the translations to the final document via LaTeX is controlled by the specific packages, user-defined commands, and settings that you choose to use at the header of your LaTeX file. I suspect that Manuscripts will have a long way to go to be able to cover everyone's specific needs in some of this.

    This being said, I certainly want formatting preserved across the entire document as it is set in Manuscripts. This means, anything that can put put in a \documentclass header to a LaTeX document should be preserved in translation Manuscripts->LaTeX-PDF. In addition, I certainly want to set my own header preambles via \usepackage, (re)newcommand definitions, and others. The subtleties of figure layouts is an entire world to itself. Even when I might use LaTeX directly, may answer to what you want will be different than yours. I would state therefore that figure layouts should be left to the higher-order approach of first creating a LaTeX document, tweaking it, and then generating a PDF.

    In summary, the use of common standards for LaTeX export is important. However, Manuscripts will hopefully never try to be an absolute true-to-form front end WYSIWYG processor to a LaTeX document. Despite the long history of LaTeX, such tools do not exist in the mass-consumer market for a good reason, and it is not because folks who use LaTeX extensively do not want such a tool. LaTeX compilation goes well-beyond what can be done easily and reliably from a WYSIWYG word-processor. To get the truest-to-form LaTeX document output, you just have to work directly in a LaTeX editor, preferably one that has a WYSIWYG compiler built in to it. I certainly do.

    --
    JJW

    posted in Comments & Feedback read more