names for shapes

Scapple is working very nicely. In some cases what I’m doing is creating a group of notes, and then putting them all inside a magnetic background shape. All is fine within Scrivener.

However, I notice when I export as OPML, then import into another program, that the background shapes get imported as the “big category” (which is fine) but that each shape is just given a generic name (e.g. shape, shape1, etc.). It would be very nice for transfer purposes if the background shapes could be given a name in the Inspector. Seeing the name of the background might be nice in Scapple, but not really needed. However, it would help for clarity when going through the OPML export then import to other program process.

Possible for the future?

+1
I think exporting OPML and naming shapes will be a very useful aspect to my workflow. Scapple is not a destination, Scrivener, OmniOutliner Pro, and Keynote are also part of my processes.

This would be very useful. Actually, I think it would be easier if you could drop a one line note on top of a shape and have that note become the row label during OPML export.

I’m hoping this will be fairly easy to implement as it’s not really a new feature. Magnetic shapes are already named: just in a generic manner that we have no control over. But the naming and organizing functions are already there (i.e. all items inside a magnetic board are placed as sub-items in the exported OPML).

Being able to explicitly provide a name, and perhaps even make that name “visible” rather than “hidden” within Scapple would be two very nice tweaks to this hidden feature set.

I’m not really sure about this. It would be a bit odd to have a “name” field in the inspector, and if there were one, then users would start asking for it to be displayed in the shapes, and then the names in the shapes would need to be directly editable, and… It’s not really a place I want to go.

EDIT: Hmm, I wonder if this could be achieved by using the name of a note that is inside the shape but also linked to it…

Thanks and all the best,
Keith

I’ve been placing a note at the top of some shapes, to kind of label them. The note sits on the top edge of the shape, half in, half out. If there were a way of making this an explicit link…

Like this…
shape labels.pdf (68.6 KB)

Keith: I just read your edited response. Does this mean something might be possible?

If this would work, that would be great. I understand your initial reluctuance, but since magnetic shapes already have hidden generic names given to them, there would seem to be a way to make this happen. In a lot of the work I do there’s a phase where ideas/fragments are generated, but later a phase where I’d be looking for general categories (i.e. magnetic shapes) that the ideas would fall under. Being able to “name” those categories in Scapple would be very sweet (especially for OPML output where I’d send the work to be further refined/organized in other apps).

I would also like the ability to name shapes for export to scrivener.

Bumping this ancient topic to say that I use the exact method Nitram uses to label background shapes. Now that connection labels are a thing, is there any chance y’all might reconsider the idea of background shape labels?

Re-bumping this with the same request – it would make the Scapple OPML exports I frequently use more seamless. Scapple is smart enough to output the shape nesting in the OPML, giving the flat Scapple methodology which is so easy to use for initial roughing out a z dimension for use by other applications (including Scrivener) when it’s time to go deeper. But at the moment, I have to do manual renaming of the shapes, which for docs with lots of them can be relatively lengthy and error-prone process.

Any chances?