D
Dave
Flightless Bird
On Mar 26, 9:29 pm, Erik Sojka <eso...@ms-onenote.net.nospam> wrote:
> I imagine they wanted to streamline the note taking process. It would be
> difficult to create a complex diagram using the drawing tools found in
> other Office applications while transcribing a lecture or meeting. If you
> need to create a more complex diagram from those notes later on, MS would
> likely recommend Visio or PowerPoint.
>
> "Michael Moser" <michael.nospam.mo...@nospam.freesurf.ch> wrote innews:#DZBJJOzKHA.244@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl:
>
>
>
> > "Rainald Taesler" <taes...@gmx.de> wrote in message
> >news:uT3IRpGyKHA.812@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> >> >...
> >> AFAICS it was just the priorities.
> >> "Graphics" issues just were not on the agenda.
> >> That's what Daniel Escapa clearly said last July in the TP-NGs.
>
> >> Rainald
>
> > One thing that always puzzled me with ON is:
>
> > why didn't they recycle (parts of) the powerpoint graphics engine? I
> > mean: powerpoint 's graphics capabilities are pretty impressive while
> > still being fairly easy and straight forward to use.
> > PP also supports scribbles and has all these nice drawing functions
> > that one expects:
> > grouping, connectors (i.e. line-attach-points traveling with an
> > underlying element if that gets moved), layers, you name it, while
> > ON's graphics really suck! Conceptually speaking: keep the notebook,
> > section (group) and page structures (and their handling) but make each
> > ON page a single PP page (or "slide").
>
> > And since its part of the same suite one could probably avoid some
> > code duplication and -bloating along the way. And millions of users
> > would immediately feel "at home" with ON! Beats me why MS is not
> > capitalising on this obvious (to me at least...) code re-use
> > possibility.
>
> > M.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I understand the 'quick' notes approach in a lecture. I also
understand that MS didn't know that ON would be the success it is.
What I don't understand is that it must have filtered up to the ON
development team the great success of this application AND the often
asked (pleaded for) for features. Surely, that would be an insentive
to polish off ON in the next (2010) edition; but no, it clearly hasn't
filtered or has been ignored, or their agenda is elsewhere. I wonder
if the ON development team actually use ON themselves; they'd surely
encounter it's frustrations and ommissions at 1st hand?
At least this gives the competition a foot-in to fill the ommissions
(just that many ON users are effectively locked in to using ON as
their months / years of notes wouldn't be transferrable)
Dayve
> I imagine they wanted to streamline the note taking process. It would be
> difficult to create a complex diagram using the drawing tools found in
> other Office applications while transcribing a lecture or meeting. If you
> need to create a more complex diagram from those notes later on, MS would
> likely recommend Visio or PowerPoint.
>
> "Michael Moser" <michael.nospam.mo...@nospam.freesurf.ch> wrote innews:#DZBJJOzKHA.244@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl:
>
>
>
> > "Rainald Taesler" <taes...@gmx.de> wrote in message
> >news:uT3IRpGyKHA.812@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> >> >...
> >> AFAICS it was just the priorities.
> >> "Graphics" issues just were not on the agenda.
> >> That's what Daniel Escapa clearly said last July in the TP-NGs.
>
> >> Rainald
>
> > One thing that always puzzled me with ON is:
>
> > why didn't they recycle (parts of) the powerpoint graphics engine? I
> > mean: powerpoint 's graphics capabilities are pretty impressive while
> > still being fairly easy and straight forward to use.
> > PP also supports scribbles and has all these nice drawing functions
> > that one expects:
> > grouping, connectors (i.e. line-attach-points traveling with an
> > underlying element if that gets moved), layers, you name it, while
> > ON's graphics really suck! Conceptually speaking: keep the notebook,
> > section (group) and page structures (and their handling) but make each
> > ON page a single PP page (or "slide").
>
> > And since its part of the same suite one could probably avoid some
> > code duplication and -bloating along the way. And millions of users
> > would immediately feel "at home" with ON! Beats me why MS is not
> > capitalising on this obvious (to me at least...) code re-use
> > possibility.
>
> > M.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I understand the 'quick' notes approach in a lecture. I also
understand that MS didn't know that ON would be the success it is.
What I don't understand is that it must have filtered up to the ON
development team the great success of this application AND the often
asked (pleaded for) for features. Surely, that would be an insentive
to polish off ON in the next (2010) edition; but no, it clearly hasn't
filtered or has been ignored, or their agenda is elsewhere. I wonder
if the ON development team actually use ON themselves; they'd surely
encounter it's frustrations and ommissions at 1st hand?
At least this gives the competition a foot-in to fill the ommissions
(just that many ON users are effectively locked in to using ON as
their months / years of notes wouldn't be transferrable)
Dayve