Only add an item's children in hoisted mode
I find it confusing that in hoisted mode we can add current item's siblings, because when I hoist it no existing siblings are shown. And if I do a Shift-Left Shift-Right any items added this way disappear from view.
I think that it would be better if the first level of hierarchy in hoisted mode was for current item's children. That's a whole indent of screen space saved right there - especially important for mobile version =).
-
Thanks, fixed on https://beta.checkvist.com :)
-
Дарья Васюкова commented
Hi, Kirill, thanks for rapid reply.
I think that my mental model of what hoisting is may be a little different from yours. I see it as turning the hoisted item into a new temporary list of its own. So that:
hoisted item == list title
its children == list items
plus the additional breadcrumbs for navigating back up.
Adding the hoisted item's siblings in this model is... what? Adding new lists? I just don't see it this way, so I don't use it.Let's for example say I have a Journal list with levels Year > Month > Day > Daily entries. When I hoist a particular day, I want to see this day as the title and this day's entries as first level items. But right now I'll see the day as the first level item, and entries as its children - one level indented. I wouldn't want to add new days from this view (for that I'll focus on the month), so this one level of indentation is simply always lost on me.
I guess Checkvist's idea of hoisting is "hide everything besides this item"? I kinda understand how it works, but it doesn't feel as natural as what I described.
I'd like to add that I like Checkvist very much so far, and even with my nitpicks it's still the best app for hierarchical notes I could find =). So please just keep my suggestions in mind if you ever decide to redesign the hoisting functionality.
-
Hello,
Thanks for the feedback. Given that you now understand how it works, do you still have problems with the current behaviour? We didn't want to disable adding siblings, it was intentional, so what would be the value of removing this possibility?
Regards,