Cake
  • Log In
  • Sign Up
    • At the moment, it is kind of clumsy to do what I am attempting with this conversation because it requires going back and forth between the post composition page and the comment or comments which are being interwoven into a new conversation.

      For the Cake community at large, this is an illustration of a concept that Ryan Grove mentioned in another conversation.

      The purpose of the "round trip" phrases below is to show the cake staff, why the current method of moving content from one conversation thread to another is labor intensive and primitive.

      1st round trip (to copy the text for the quotation)

      @yaypie wrote today:

      I'm hoping this will catch on more, because linking to another post is
      really easy and intuitive, and it also provides all the information we'd
      need behind the scenes to start tracking "relationships" between
      conversations.

      For context sake, here is the full comment:

      2nd round trip

      This comment resulted from a chain of comments which sprang forth from the topic of Cake conversations which go off on a tangent.

      This was initiated when @lidja wrote about wanting to be able to locate a comment within a conversation which was not on the subject of the original post that initiated that cake conversation.

      3rd Round Trip

      Anyway for those who read this who are not in house Cake people, Ryan Grove would like to see us interweave our conversations more so that the meta conversation of Cake might become more than it now is.

    • James, I don't know if I misunderstood you or if you misunderstood me, but this isn't quite what I was getting at.

      It's possible that you see this conversation as an attempt to be helpful. Please know that to me, speaking to Cake on my behalf while also pointing out how much you disagree with what I said and frequently repeating my full name comes across as condescending and kinda mean.

      I don't mind being disagreed with, but this feels more like being mocked, and I'm not really into it.

    • I'm sorry if you thought I was disagreeing with you. Quite the opposite.

      I think your idea is great.

      I was trying to promote the idea.

      I think that it is still difficult for a user to implement it and that is all that I meant to illustrate.

      But I was not mocking you nor did I intend to be condescending at all.

    • Okay, thanks for clarifying. 😌 I guess it seemed to me like you didn't like the idea because much of your post was devoted to trying to demonstrate how inconvenient it was.

      Let me try to clarify myself, because I didn't quite intend to suggest the approach your post demonstrates, and also because I didn't really go into much detail about what I think some of the future possibilities are that could reduce the "round trip" pain you mentioned.

      In my post here:

      ...when I suggested that linking to another post is an easy way to reference it in a new conversation, I didn't mean to imply that I thought this was also a good solution for quoting a post in a new conversation, or that the current linked post UI is the best UI for displaying a referenced post.

      As you demonstrated, both quoting and linking to a post in a new conversation requires copying and pasting multiple things, which isn't very convenient.

      What I was hinting at but didn't outright say in my post (because I'm wary of promising features I can't guarantee or provide a timeline for) is that while we don't have advanced cross-conversation referencing/quoting functionality yet, linking to a post at least gets us partway there and provides enough metadata behind the scenes so that at some point in the future we can implement nicer UI functionality around linked posts that would allow them to be expanded inline similar to how we allow parent posts to be expanded within replies (like at the top of this post).

      The idea would be that you shouldn't need to manually quote sections of the referenced post because the reader would be able to expand it and see it right there. Though you of course still could quote specific sections if you wanted to.

    • James

      First of all let me say that Cake's interface already feels more user friendly than many user interfaces that I have encountered.

      Secondly, I fully understand the problem with mentioning what is under development and the user expectation issue. While moderating the Scrivener User community, the developer mentioned that they were working on an iOS version. It hit several roadblocks. They had even thought that it was ready for alpha testing only to discover that the contract developer that they had hired had made some fatal assumptions that required the entire code to be rewritten. I think it may have even been rewritten in a different programming language but my memory is unclear on that point. So I understand this situation.

      I also understand that there are diverse user expectations and different users have different priorities.

      Third, it is possible to indicate which way you are strategizing without making feature promises. I had suggested combining two features to streamline creating a new conversation from a previous comment. You could have said something like, we are looking into methods of streamlining the creation of a new conversation from a comment. That is something we want to implement. But we have not yet decided on what specific features we will be offering to make this happen. That would have avoided making feature promises while giving an assurance that this is something that you would like to accomplish.

      Again, I apologize that my post came across as argumentative, I wanted others to see what could be accomplished even now.

    • I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at but I think a method of allowing a conversation to branch would be very exciting indeed. How this will be done in the future is anyone's guess. I don't think Cake or any other company is ready to do this effectively yet. We need 3D or 4D conversations!

    You've been invited!