Modern software strives to limit the proliferation of “preferences” for different user interface choices. Preferences, most designers now believe, should be reserved for those situations where distinct audiences are in fact best served by distinct settings.
For example, making font sizes reconfigurable can facilitate the use of a program by visually-impaired people. You will have noticed that many contemporary programs have a very modest array of preferences; Pages has three panes, Numbers has the same three, Transmit 5 has a bunch of very small panes, few of which pertain to the user interface. Acorn 6 has 5 preference panes, but these include “advanced”, “fussy stuff”, and “registration”.
In addition to the cost of maintaining Preferences (and their panes) and the cost of documenting them, Preferences increase the complexity of the underlying code. That complexity, in turn, makes future improvements more difficult, and tends to impede refactoring.
The counter-argument here is, in my view, Richard Stallman’s landmark work on EMACS as a reconstructible user interface. Here, however, we again see the pattern of distinct audiences best served by distinct settings – in this case, people who were trained in vi commands vs. those who were migrants from TECO.
The behavior you report is not a bug. You can achieve the effect you want in two ways:
- Create the note. Name it. Press [tab] to indent it.
- Create a child note (press ⇧-Return). Name the note.
Method #1 uses the same number of keystrokes as your method, in a different sequence. Method #2 uses one fewer keystroke, but might be a bit harder to remember.