There is room in my interface for MacJournal, which I use as a text/image repository (mainly text, if I’m honest) rather than a blogging tool. But that’s about it. Events and ToDos belong in iCal, mail messages in Mail, photos in iPhoto/Aperture, blah-de-blah. The problem with the so-called “Everything Buckets” is that they do just that: try to be for everything, and that just doesn’t work. Particular apps for storing particular types of data, yes – even with a little cross-fertilisation – but those “All In One” apps have now long been deleted. I felt like I was building an weak Finderette on top of the real one. I was eating the menu.

A similar horror story involving the concept “Things To Do” is now unfolding in a hundred iPhone apps, each with their own sync nightmare (”Is it an event, or a ToDo – Aargh I won’t sleep until I work it out!”).

ShoveBox functions well as a sort of “short term memory” – a metaphor I was surprised you didn’t mention. Or you could use the metaphor of “digestion” for it: current stuff (again, mainly text) gets sifted and evaluated, and the good remaineth and gets put in its place, while the bad gets throweth awayeth. But trying to place *everything* into short-term memory is just plain wrong – a lot of things, to me, decidedly belong in folders and can just get plonked there. Organisation for the sake of it is a plain waste of time.

P.S. Why oh why has ShoveBox for iPhone got no xxing search function!?

Having regular destinations for files and notes is also an interesting thought. I don’t know how you would pull it off, but making it easier to send the relevant data to another application in a clear way would be a killer feature in an inbox app.

Well, that doesn’t surprise me. Simplicity is a feature that’s more abstract, or less tangible, than subfolders, and even most users who value it wish their favorite application had just that ‘one more feature’ that would make it perfect. Problem is, everyone has a different one more feature. Lastly, users who are satisfied with an application generally stay quiet and simply use it. I guess I’m the exception

“But there are few users who can really grasp the type of design decisions a developer makes (which is fine). This means that, while I’m always trying to minimize the complexity of features and deliver as polished a UX as possible, I have to occasionally remind myself that I get paid for solving people’s problems, not for making objets d’art.”

Yeah, I understand that. Features can help the developer reach a larger audience. The greatest application in the world is worthless if it doesn’t allow you to pay the bills. I’ve seen dozens of software companies/developers struggle with those kind of decisions.

I’ve seen users call for subfolders in yojimbo since its release, and so far barebones hasn’t gone down that road. I’m sure they’ve lost customers because of that decision, but it’s also a very successful application, and I’d say part of it is the simplicity. I read somewhere that the more options and features added the less control the developer has of the users experience. I think there’s validity in that statement.

But If I came off strictly against features, I apologize. I’d love to be able to reorder the left pane folders, and I’m a big fan of tagging and would love to use tags with rules. And while I’m a big fan of shovebox now, I’m sure you’ll do a great job of making it better. I can’t wait to see what comes next.

IMHO, the challenge comes as you make shovebox more like the applications it now stands beside. Andy Ihnatko said he liked shovebox because he didn’t have to go into yojimboland. And in this thread we’ve talked about using shovebox in addition to yojimbo. And you’ve said you didn’t think of shovebox as being used for long term filing. But with the additions of tags and subfolders the difference between shovebox and something like yojimbo because very small and puts them more in direct competition. I guess what I’m saying is that there’s a small line between adding features and making an application more robust and turning that application into something different entirely.

But I look forward to your decisions. Good luck

I’ll investigate this matter shortly — I currently have a huge backlog of support email.

In the meantime, please check your spam filter for the registration email from a week ago.

Dan

I tried emailing, but received no response. I registered Shovebox more than a week ago. Should I have received an automated serial number email or similar? Nothing so far.

Thanks,
David J. Downs

You’re the first actual user to worry there are too many features in the app .

Every day, I’m inundated with feature requests that I don’t want to do. Subfolders especially are one of those things that wouldn’t take long to add, but complicate things slightly. Part of the reason I didn’t do this on 1.0 was to sort of force people to be simple in how they organize things in the app and not really keep things filed in it permanently. Same with smart folders.

But there are few users who can really grasp the type of design decisions a developer makes (which is fine). This means that, while I’m always trying to minimize the complexity of features and deliver as polished a UX as possible, I have to occasionally remind myself that I get paid for solving people’s problems, not for making objets d’art.

Ideally, I can manage to implement some of these new features in an intelligent way. For instance, I find flagging, tagging, and labeling incredibly redundant and am looking to reduce these into a single system if possible.

It’s quite a tightrope, though.

I don’t really think of filing things away in shovebox. When it’s time to file it away, if it’s ever filed, I export it. Shovebox just seems lighter, quicker, easier to use than Yojimbo. Yojimbo is longer term, shovebox shorter. Of course, I could use yojimbo for both, but I prefer using applications geared more to one purpose.

That said, I’ve read Dan (on twitter) say that he’ll eventually (probably) be adding subfolders and tagging. At that point it does become yojimbo, and the whole “about shovebox” page doesn’t ring true. Color me a little worried.

That’s the problem with applications like shovebox. The beauty is the simplicity, yet everyone wants ‘one more feature’. And it’s rare to find a developer that can say no.

Thanks for the response. I would really like to know how people distinguish their uses of both apps.

I usually find Andy Ihnatko spot on but I must say I didn’t really get his thing about “having to go into Yojimbo-land” to file things away. I imagine most people copy a piece of text, press a hot key, and then press return to file it away if they’re in a hurry. Shovebox wins out in the speed stakes by 1 key press: you don’t need to press Return to make sure something is actually saved. I can imagine that, if you often forget to do that final Return press, Shovebox represents a significant advance; otherwise, Dan’s comment (and the original motivation for the programme) regarding different kinds of data in different programmes sounds more pertinent to me. But I still don’t completely understand the conceptual difference with Yojimbo/Together/EagleFiler in terms of transience. Is the idea that it’s difficult to delete things from Yojimbo once they’re in there (not necessarily in a technical sense, but psychologically)?