I don’t know whether this is a deliberate feature, but currently connections between faded notes and unfaded notes are themselves not faded, which looks a bit odd.
Effect is like this:
[NOTE]<-----[NOTE] ----> [FADED NOTE]–>[Another FADED NOTE]
It feels as if all connections to faded notes should be faded, because if you fade a note you want to make it less visually salient and reduce visual clutter, and having an unfaded connected defeats this.
This is indeed deliberate. Both of the notes that are connected would need to be faded for the connection itself to also be considered faded (in a conceptual sense). It is a matter of perspective, and somewhat arbitrary, whether connections between faded and unfaded elements are still conceptually relevant. Your thought is not invalid, I mean to say, but there is also an argument that if a note is not faded then all of its connectivity is still relevant to it, even if it points to things that are faded. That they are faded does not imply the connection to them is of diminished importance.
OK, thanks. I wasn’t sure it was a deliberate choice.
Sure thing. And I do agree with you on the point of how it is being used. If you are using it purely more as a de-clutter tool, then you’re right, it makes less sense. I’ve always seen it more as a form of metadata though—where fading it actually means something like making it bright red would also mean something. For example when I tracked my daily tasks with Scapple, I would use Fade to signify when a task, or a part of task, had been completed.
It’s common in technical documentation to use fading as a way of highlighting the unfaded stuff.
Since colours are already available as metadata, it seems like a lost opportunity to use fading for something else. So can I put in a plea for a checkbox option to control that?