Atomic Scribbler Home · SmartEdit Home · Help

I hate to say it, but "Styles"!


I think Macros would be overkill in this instance. As useful as they can be, they would add an extra layer of complexity that would only be used by a very small proportion of users.

Styles are a different matter — they could be implemented with only a small degree of impact on the UI. Word devotes almost an entire toolbar to its styles, but they could just as easily be situated on a single drop down block, easily ignored by users who don’t have a use for them.

The word processor control used by Atomic has built in functionality to handle styles, so it wouldn’t be a stretch to add them. My hesitation up to now has more to do with my own writing use than anything else, but the calls keep coming so I’ll add it to the list.

Your suggestions for SmartEdit are interesting. Highlighting all results in some way does get asked for quite often. I haven’t looked at that up to now because I’ve been a bit put off by some other editing products that turn a document into a multi-colored monstrosity as you parse through their results.


Darren et al,

My Macro suggestion was a way to allow a user to create Styles for selected text. Not many, just the limit of the dedicated Macro buttons. For me, I wouldn’t use Macros to do styles. I’d personally use them for templates. The book I’m writing has a rigourous ‘look’ that can be a pain to do. Right now, I have a skeleton in Notes and use that, but it STILL needs to be formatted. I’d love a macro to recreate the skeleton. I’m working on Alomware to do that. If that comes up short … as it probably will … then I’ll revert to AutoHotkey.

The ADVANTAGE Macros would have engendered was that some would use it for styles, some for repetitive snippets of text. And there would be other uses, not yet thought up.

ALL of that said, if Darren has an easy route to styles, in the immortal words of Emily Litella, “Never mind.” :smile:



@Darren - I agree that macros would probably constitute more complexity than anyone wants, and are clearly much more work than implementing a small set of configurable RTF styles. My main reason for addressing macros was that they could be hidden from the user, and used to make development easier later on. Also, the handful of users who are comfortable with them could privately submit an occasional macro-based feature for some special function. Such “extras” could be made available to those who need them, without encumbering the app or confusing the users. But that’s a large, long-term strategy that’s probably not on your story arc anyway!

SmartEdit highlighting would, I think, be pretty useful, especially for certain functions, but I too would hate to see a multi-colored monstrosity! Maybe the feature should be limited so that only one SE function result-set could be highlighted at a time, using only one aesthetically suitable highlight treatment. That would also reduce the wildly confusing possibilities of viewing a document with half a dozen result-colors. “Let’s see, I think I used pink for overused phrases…or is that the light green?”

I imagine running a set of SE passes, and then going through them one at a time, highlighting each result set according to the type of writing or revising I happen to be doing. That is, the user could toggle result highlighting for any ONE result-set. (This would depend in part on how long a result-set persists.)

Just thinking out loud . . . .



I see any highlighting in SmartEdit working the same way Allen. When I use it myself it’s always one check at a time, never one page or paragraph at a time. It’s always surprised me that some other products present a myriad of results in a selection fo colours all at the same time. When I’m looking at adverb use or dialogue tags I don’t want to be seeing word or phrase repetition as well.


Yes! Far too many editing aids are VERY confusing from a visual standpoint. They suffer from a lack of graphic literacy. Yes, I made that term up. Me and Shakespeare, we do that from time to time!