Point 1:
Sorry I didn’t state it clearly. I have no problem with highlight. The confusion was about moving block up and down with command+shift+up/down. In my mind, shift seems to be related to highlighting or selecting muitiple . So command+control+up/down for moving blocks make more sense. This is not a bug I encounter, but a conceptual thing that can be coped with.
Point 2: sub-object/relation
there are several plauslbe situation or levels in my vision:
- Enable grouping in library. e.g. Resources → article, video, lecture; Position → CEO, manager
Sub-object type
- Template for a object type can be treated as distinct object type
- So every template accessible on object creation
- This is a problem because set queries only allow one object type
- Object creation with template can automatically create more objects from headings (not necessary for me)
Sub-relation
- Imagine creating information about a company, CEO is a relation (to show the word CEO in graph), then with every position, I will need to create another relation. The number of relation will accumulate and make it hardly to access on the relation panel. So to me, what makes it more meaningful and consistent across objects will be to have the input as the relation display, not the type or relation. Relation name can be “Position” (which doesn’t need to be seen in graph) then the demonstrated value or the actual (sub-)relation can be “CEO”.
- Alternatively, the ability to create co-relation might help. On the company page, we can input position and person relating to each other (since it is on the same object page, relation to company can be assumed or not).
- Doing conceptualisation and research, every concept (object) influences (acts as relations to) other objects. So the inputted object is the relation. While it doesn’t have to be in the relation position to demonstrate linking between two objects, these input would display relationships like “in the means of” or “via”.
- Like the sample graph, the relation “inspired by” can be a simple relation, but it can also be an object explaining the inspiration points. If it is the current display in graph view, there will be an extra connection which doesn’t make sense for A is directly inspired by B and only once.
- And most concepts belongs to a main concept/approach/area and the same concept name can mean different thing. Able to display core concept along with the sub-concept would be nice.
- But then it might make sense to have the name of relations in bi-directional linking displaying on the two sides of the linking arrow (Rather than a long
- As in value (relation) about the relation. e.g. Intensity for mood or positive/negative direction of certain factor. These relations don’t exist on their own.
- This can be expressed with colours or connection force in graph view or an addition relation next to the existing relation in text mode.
- Controllable connection force might be an interesting feature and would reveal a lot in graph view - less important objects can be further away from centre
My understanding in simple words (application can be complex though): Every relation is an object; every object can become relations. Relations are dynamic, interactive, and different across contexts.
Enjoy seeing anytype development.
PS. I just remember a design concept I like: for the app Flexcil, everything is within three click access. This makes everything quickly accessible.