SuperNotecard is a ‘project’ based writing application that comes in two versions. One for general writing and one for screenwriting.
Both applications were updated today. SuperNotecard for Scriptwriting 1.1.55 and SuperNotecard 2.1.52.
There is a downloadable ‘help’ PDF.
mindola.com/download/SuperNo … ptHelp.pdf
At around p25 > it sets out some interesting project based solutions for working in projects. This may (repeat ‘may’) have relevance for Scrivener.
Probably the most relevant stuff refers to Factors & References on 21 and page 27, and References on page 28. ‘Factors’ include things that “factor” into the composition, like persons, places, and things. For non-fiction projects these elements are called References and include sources like books, magazines, encyclopedias and websites. All types of Factors or References can be included in any type of project.
The Project Outlining stuff on page 35 is also interesting.
I own a copy of this program, and gave it a pretty good shot a while back. There were two problems for me that caused me to not end up using it as a part of my writing workflow. The first is somewhat specific: Being a fairly skilled user of Tinderbox, I found that there was very little that SuperNotecard could do that I could not already do with a properly designed Tinderbox file. Indeed, Tinderbox can go far, far beyond anything SuperNotecard could attain, at the expense of complexity and lack of focus. For someone not willing to invest in the amount of time it takes to tackle Tinderbox’s steep learning curve, SN could be a good option.
The second issue I had with it was more a culmination of small things. For example (as I have stated in another thread on this forum), SN relies heavily upon colour as a way of conveying information. For simple projects with only a few plot threads and a handful of characters, this might be fine. In a larger project though, you find yourself rapidly running out of unique colours. In something like Ulysses or Scrivener, which use colour sparingly and always with multiple ways to understand what a colour means – this is less of an issue. In SN, there are many situations where a small chip of colour is the only rapid form of information. When looking at a dozen stacks of cards with multiple colour chips, it becomes confusing. Other little things are its independent spell checker (I have my OS X universal checker full of customised entries); Java slowness; and so on.
Make no mistake, there are a lot of really nice features and things to like about it. Even though I do not use it anymore, I do still find myself giving it a try every half-year so – hoping that it will click. I have a feeling that with Scrivener turning out so well, my opinion of it will not change. But if you haven’t given it a try, do go through the trial run of it. It is one of those programs that you might really find useful in conjunction with Scrivener – or you might find that all you need is the Corkboard.
Hi AmberV - Yes your reaction pretty much sums up my experience of trying SN. I just saw some useful ideas in the applications.
But now I am really intrigued!
Is it possible to post the Tinderbox file?