Icons for widgets are finally here!
Layout width defaults work nicely now, width sizes are now consistent.
I also like the new context menu icons with their fresh colors!
Thank you, Anytype Team!
Good to know that we finally can have widgets Icons! But what about custom Icons, do they get back or not since primitive 3? I don’t talk about the new set of icons, I talk about uploading our icons.
You can set custom icons on the template. Currently the new icon set is applied at type level
Absolutely not a priority but I would have liked a more telling icon for a guy I just made so… a request to discuss :
then how about have custom emoji set like this?
I did not get the question
I think @dahina mean that it could be useful to switch between Emojis sets (Apple, Microsoft, etc.) or at least only display the emojis set that corresponding to the OS Anytype currently run on.
Not embedding each Emojis set, just use the library available in each OSs, but I don’t know if it could works like that.
not a issue, feature request for custom emoji set, current one is not align well with the new icons for type in primitive
Currently playing with the latest 0.45.9-alpha, indeed new updates are great!
Only thing I don’t get is why Note type cannot have the Name (i.e. title). I understand one could think of a note being just text, but personally also when I use actual physical Post-it I often put a headline and then some details.
At least it should be possible to set up a template that includes the name (title), instead for the type Note, only the layout Note is available.
I found the Note layout very usefull in many cases, but I hope I don’t understand what you have describe!
I have somes Note Type Templates with Basic Layout, so I’m affraid I will loose all my Titles in this Notes!
Besides this issue, why removing something that is currently possible?! I hope it’s a bug, so please fill in a Bug report as this feature should work the same way it does in the current official release.
Personally, I’ve never understood the point of the Note type, even though there’s a Note layout (and apart from the layout, a Note is strictly the same thing as a Page, am I wrong?).
No need for a title? page with default layout
I don’t want a Page title with the Note layout.
The new release simplifies this and it’s finally coherent.
And you can always create your own type if nothing fits 
.
But yes, for those who have “Notes with title”, I don’t know how it’s handled in the Primitives version.
You’ll probably have to select all your notes (via a query) and change their type to Page or something like that to find the titles.
if no one has tested it, I could try it.
You will have conflict in those, so when resolving conflict it should bring the title in our out, or you can stay in the conflict state. But I think it’s yet to be done on the middleware side.
-
Except that a Page with default layout will be displayed as Untitled in Lists… Not what people that use the Note layout expect.
-
Some people Use Template for this, what’s not your workflow was maybe already usefull for someone else.
Nope, not really because even if I create my own Note Type that would be able to keep the Default layout for it’s Templates, I would then be forced to see two Note Types in all the lists displaying my Types, and would be led to confuse the two or waste time identifying the right one, all because.
- We can’t delete the Note Type.
- This drastic change removes a possibility that was previously offered and exploited.
That the initial update simplifies processes is praiseworthy, but not at the expense of the lack of customization and depth that was previously allowed.
Keeping the Type Note seems logical to me as a way of demonstrating the layout during onboarding, but it shouldn’t be prevented from behaving like a Page if users find it interesting, or prevented from being deleted.
In either case, the current choice is detrimental to users, when it could very well not be.
Well, instead I do 
and I think users should be able to customize that (as it was in previous versions) and not forced to create a new alternative type.
I think, a better option, would be to keep the “Note” only as one of the possible layouts that one can apply to any page, but maybe using a different term e.g. “Simple note” or “Note without title” or something better. And treat the type Note as all other types, no special handling.
In general, I do not see why there should be a reserved type “Note” that cannot be fully customized.
Functionally, what do you see as the difference between page and note objects (apart from the uses to which everyone was accustomed before this modification, which may pose a problem)?
All I see is the title, or lack thereof. And the type name.
Wouldn’t it be a problem with the name, which for some “defines” the use more than the format?
I remember there were several topics with newcomers who were lost between the “Note” layout and the “Note” type, so for them I’m still convinced that this will simplify things.
Even if I personally don’t see the point, I’m well aware that we don’t all work in the same way ;-). So obviously, I have nothing against adding an “Activate Title” option in the setup if it’s useful for some people.
Personally, I’d like to go one step further: remove the title/name from collections/Sets too, because when there’s no title, it’s annoying to have to display it 
!
But Anytype still need to display something if you reference it in another Collection/Set/or inline. So what your Set would be called then? Untitled?
That’s a good point, but even then, there might be very different point of view about what a Note should be.
I think the Team added the Note type to demonstrate this layout. And I agree with this choice. What I don’t understand is why modify this Type to prevent it from being as customized as the others?
I’d even say once again, why not allow it to be removed entirely for those who have no use for it?
Anytype needs. I don’t needs.
An example : I have a Alcohol object with two set in it :
- one with all purchases (price, date, etc.)
- one with all tasting note with date, score and tasting steps
Title is useless.
What’s the point of having a column with just “Tasting”?
And you can’t choose another relationship as a title (especially since in some cases it wouldn’t be suitable either).
Using a simple table is not suitable either, as it is currently terribly restrictive (text formatting impossible, no images, etc.). And it makes it impossible to create an “all purchases” view.
As far as Anytype is concerned, I think the only real need to have a title displayed is to be able to open the object.
Except that a button would suffice. And if the user doesn’t need to open it, he should be able to hide it. And there’s always the context menu > Open as Object if that ever happens.
It’s juste one user case. In this request, I was also talking about the photo gallery case.
Other similar requests :
Embed view (for sets or collection) without displaying title, settings, etc
Ability to have Sets without a Name relation (have other relation as primary one)