• jonmoore

    @ClareMacrae

    The lack of notifications is the least of my concerns right now. ;)

    I'm more concerned that Ole Zorn doesn't seem to monitor the forum anymore and respond regarding critical bugs of this nature.

    To be clear, the predictive text feature is a native IOS 8 feature and has nothing to do with having a third party keyboard/s installed. You can activate it via system settings or via a long press on the key with the spherical icon on the bottom row of the on screen keyboard.

    posted in Editorial read more
  • jonmoore

    The predictive text options no longer appear in Editorial after updating to IOS 8.3

    Third party keyboards appear to function as they should but the predictive features of the standard IOS keyboard no longer function in Editorial. I've tested this in other text editors but the problem seems to be unique to Editorial.

    posted in Editorial read more
  • jonmoore

    Apologies for my late reply Clare, I didn't get a notification that you had responded.

    The predictive text feature doesn't activate at all and if you attempt to activate it in Editorial the option is greyed out as you can see in the this screen shot. Hope this helps.

    Editorial_PT_Fault

    posted in Editorial read more
  • jonmoore

    @omz

    In addition to what @ccc and @jonmoore said, Pythonista is actually more successful commercially than Editorial (currently about 2x-3x). Of course, part of that may be due to Editorial not being optimized for iOS 7 yet etc., but I still think Pythonista can appeal to a lot of people with a Python background that I couldn't easily reach with Editorial. While there's a lot of shared functionality, the focus of the apps is just very different, and I'd guess that a lot of folks find Pythonista just by searching for "Python" in the App Store.

    I'd say the reason that Pythonista is far more popular than Editorial is quite simple from a marketing perspective, Pythonista has a clear & defined audience whereas the audience for Editorial is nebulous and undefined by it's very nature. You only have to look at Brett Terpstra's database of text editors to see how cluttered the playing field is. The audience for Editorial is restricted to those who are already comfortable with the like of Automator/Alfred/Applescript etc, which outside of our nerdy little world is a tiny percentage of OS X users, nevermind IOS users, the good majority of which wouldn't know what a line of code looks like let alone have the ability (or more importantly - need) to write code.

    I think it would be smart to ship the next update of Editorial with a bunch the best workflows that the community have thus far created so as to soft sell the benefits of creating workflows. When the likes of Katie Floyd of Mac Power Users freely admits she can't get her head around the benefits of Editorial it's saying something.

    I'm not saying that the next version should change focus, I love it just the way it is; and the glimpses of the future you've shown us look very promising indeed. However at a fundamental level Editorial is still a writing tool, not a programming tool so I feel you need to somehow 'prove' the benefits of automation workflows (through the aforementioned pre-installed workflows) to new users otherwise they're going to wonder what all the fuss is about. Just because you include marvelously written documentation built into the app explaining both the benefits and how to create workflows doesn't mean that new customers will explore that documentation if they don't get the benefits in the first place.

    In reality Pythonista has a massive audience of programmers and the likes of Byword/1Writer/Phraseology etc have a massive audience of bloggers and now that IOS7 handles inter app rich text formatting, the biggest audience of all - general writers, are well served by non Markdown based word processing apps such as IOS Word (Office 365) and Pages. Editorial has huge benefits over any other Markdown based text editor available on IOS, it's just that the audience of people willing to write/install individual workflows that provide all that extra firepower is unfortunately limited. The other thing that new users of Editorial don't understand, is the lack of system wide utility functions such as 'open in', pasteboard functionality and suchlike. The workflow system obviously allows you to 'roll your own' system utility functions specific to your own needs but new users don't understand that.

    On the surface of things you'd expect Editorial with it's Automator like workflow approach to scripting to have a greater potential customer base than Pythonista but once you analyse audience attitudes and needs I'd surmise that the opposite is true.

    None of what I've written here is intended as criticism. Editorial is the most used application on any of my IOS devices and further than that I'd love to see a version on OS X! I just feel that more work is needed for it to cross over into the wider audience (and sales) it so richly deserves.

    posted in Editorial read more
  • jonmoore

    If you own Ulysses III, check out the latest 1.2 upgrade. The export module based on CSS allows styled exports of RTF docs for Pages & Word as well as PDF, ePub & HTML. The way they've extended standard CSS for RTF docs is really intuitive to it's really easy to get into.

    The only real downside I've encountered is that the latest version of Pages no longer opens RTF docs directly so you'll need a copy of Word or the iWork 09 suite to take advantage.

    Here's the ref pages: Ulysses Style Sheets Reference

    The really great thing is that Ulysses is coming to IOS very soon (and features the same export engine) so hopefully they'll implement a URL scheme so we can access it's loveliness directly from Editorial. They'll obviously need to find a way of exporting directly to the IOS7 version of Pages (rather than via IOS7) but I'm sure it's on the developers radar.

    My favourite innovation in the world of Markdown since Editorial. :)

    posted in Editorial read more
  • jonmoore

    @martin - there's nothing directly on IOS but Brett Terpstra's Marked app on OS X exports to ODT.

    However once Ulysses get their Docx export engine in place (at the moment it's based on RTF) I still think that Docx will be the format to go with as all the other word processing packages follow the tagging conventions for styled elements within Docx documents. Therefore once you've created your Ulysses export stylesheet - Pages, Open Office and of course MS Word will all add those styles to their own style selector mechanisms. That will obviously make the job of further edits in your word processing package of choice a breeze.

    The Marked app produces print documents based on CSS Media Types and whilst it produces usable results it doesn't populate the style selectors within your word processor of choice so any further editing is a PITA.

    posted in Editorial read more
  • jonmoore

    I think Ulysses for IOS is definitely due this year and more than likely in the next 3 months. The developers are pretty careful not to tease information unless they're close launching something on the app store. The only thing I can see getting in the way is if Apple change IOS8 in a radical manner that means they'll be able to launch a better product using IOS8 technologies.

    Editorial is still a far superior product because of it's customisation options and I can't see anything coming along any time soon to take away it's crown but Ulysses will offer a fantastic export engine that will work in harmony with Editorial. It also has a great way organising your writing for longer form document exports.

    posted in Editorial read more
  • jonmoore

    Ole,

    I'm aware that this doesn't exist at the moment but would it be possible to add at some point.

    If any other Python experts has a view on this, it would be good to hear too.

    For me the challenge seems to be speed. At the moment global search is still pretty slow on single words/phrases (when searching a large doc folder - in my case my nvAlt/Notesy folder) so to add boolean operators would probably hinder speedy response further without some form of spotlight type indexing service running too.

    Now that IOS is a great document creation tool it seems to me that the next task at hand on IOS is a smart way of indexing those documents (local or cloud based) so that you're able to get a Devonthink Pro desktop style search experience. The Devonthink team made a hash of things with Devonthink To Go, so I wonder if something could be built into Editorial at some point in the future. It would seem that this type of feature would need to be built natively in Objective-C as a scripted solution via Python would probably be far too slow.

    posted in Editorial read more
  • jonmoore

    Cheers for the update Ole. The Whoosh library looks really cool. Can't wait to see it in action in Editorial of your tinkering reaps some usable results.

    I'm really hoping that IOS 8 brings OS X tagging over to IOS too, as that will make life a whole lot easier too. It's unbelievable that Apple finally introduced tagging to OS X and didn't see the UX through by making tagging central to IOS too! A Finder on OS X that can make intelligent use of tags and an IOS flavour of Finder to bring that experience over to mobile devices - now we're cooking!

    posted in Editorial read more
  • jonmoore

    No further thoughts on this from anybody?

    posted in Editorial read more

Internal error.

Oops! Looks like something went wrong!