The current need to create them outside of the browser feels unnatural (with file browser analogy in mind), when the same context menu allows you to add notes (files) but not decks (folders).
Related:
Some context:
My actual user story is that I started without the need to create decks for multiple weeks. I found a deck for the language study book that I’m using and worked with that.
Only later I needed to create new subdecks, to reorganize the cards into subdecks and create new decks for lessons not included in the shared deck.
This is an additional feature, not a core one.
Decks with the same functionality can use the same note type, but if you have decks with different functions, each deck will likely have its own note type. This isn’t a bad thing, but a good thing, since different authors are responsible for their own note types and won’t try to change what another author added in terms of functionality or design.
When everyone wants their own thing, chaos ensues. There should be only one head, just as there should be only one driver for the Anki bus. That is, there should be a common concept. Of course, all proposals should be discussed; only through discussion can one understand all the strengths and weaknesses and find a balance of interests that satisfies the majority. And the minority, of course, should be satisfied with add-ons.
I have no idea what you mean by deck “functionality” in relation to note type, what you mean by the rest of your message, or how it’s related to this post.
Let the developers say so. Everything happens for a reason. Deck creation isn’t a very common operation, and checking notes assumes you’re already in a deck. I added deck creation to the addon; subdecks are a special case of deck creation. You can take a look.
If you hold usability and non-expert users in derision, sure.
On the github issue tracker the developers ask to report feature requests in this forum without limiting that action or giving reasonings to developers.
Me reporting this usability issue happened for a reason
You can practice with an add-on, and if something happens, you can remove it and it’s no one’s fault. But taking responsibility and changing the application requires a deeper understanding and more experience developing such complex code. I’ve always said, and will continue to say, that we need to have a general idea of what we’ll get, even if it’s drawn up by users and described in detail. You can take the good parts of each add-on and say this is what you’d like, and then they’ll answer from a technical standpoint whether it’s feasible or not. Unfortunately, it’s not entirely up to me. I want one thing, but it turns out to be something else. So, we’ll use it as is.
In my first post I linked to a workaround. I’m not sharing feature requests to make it more comfortable for me to use the software. I’m reporting what is an obvious usability issue for 1000s of voiceless users.
Tags don’t solve every problem. Yes, tags allow you to find a note. A note is a fact. It’s one thing when we hide ‘2 + 2 = 4’ and ‘4’, but it’s quite another when we have a translation from one language to another. ‘x = y’. We also need to know ‘y = x’, and we might need to know how to spell it, how to pronounce it, and where it’s pronounced. Another example: I’m preparing for exams, and I can use tags to select the notes I need for the exam. But one card is minimal, literally an overview of the fact and what I need to know for a low score, another card is more comprehensive, and a third is for a very high score with additional knowledge. I organize subdecks here and start with the overview section (for a language, you just listen; spelling and pronunciation aren’t important yet). Once I’ve gone through everything in detail, starting another subdeck is easier, since I already know a lot, and now I’m studying the facts even more deeply.
Yes, it could be broken down into separate decks, but then we’d have to fill out more, and the search would also find more notes.
And often, a complex subject is broken down into sub-decks, and students study one sub-deck sequentially to a good level, then move on to another, which they might not even repeat because time is short.
So, it’s not so straightforward for all methods of learning and using Anki.
