philrodo

It's becoming obvious that the Java platform is full of security holes and the quicker it dies, the better off we'll all be. See: http://krebsonsecurity.com/2014/04/critical-java-update-plugs-37-security-holes/ Is there any thinking at Vound to move Intella away from Java and onto a different programming platform? Worse, this forum requires JavaScript to run. I've disabled that from running on my primary browser and only use a secondary browser that has JavaScript enabled for a few websites that I trust, but then again this is a pain. At a minimum, can't you find forum software that doesn't require JavaScript? Best regards, Phil

Thanks. Yes, I realize that. But the problem is that when you export a bunch of documents from Intella to PDF, you would have to manually bates stamp each PDF keeping track of the pages in each PDF, which would be a nightmarish proposition. That's why it would be ideal if Intella could do this automatically during the export process.

Thanks. I thought I should be able to do that, but didn't figure out how; it appeared to me that I could only use one of the pre-selected fields for the header and footer input. You mean just start typing on the lines outside the page, eh? What a novel idea. I was looking for a field that said something like "user input" or something so that I could type the input in directly in the header or footer. Oh well, next time.... I still think it's a good idea to be able to enter the same comment on a bunch of documents that have been selected from the table view, like we can do with Tags. Thanks. Best regards, Phil

Well, tagging is OK, but then again you have to go to the individual tags to read the comments (i.e., the comments won't show in a Tag column on the Details Table). What really got me wanting to be able to add the same comment to multiple documents was this. I was asked to add the caption "Confidential" on all the documents that we were processing for production. When rendering to PDF or TIFF, I could only think of doing this using a Tag or a Comment in the Header. Incidentally, if we had the ability to enter free flowing text into the header or footer that doesn't originate from a pre-existing field that would also be a great enhancement. In our case, we had used the tags extensively. So if we added "Confidential" as another Tag and used the Tags as a header, all the tags in a particular document would print on the header. The comments hadn't been used, but I couldn't select a bunch of documents and add the same "Confidential" comment to multiple files. Regardless, I think that giving us the flexibility to add the same comment to multiple files at the same time, would be a nice enhancement. Best regards, Phil

I realize that we can add comments to a file in Preview mode. But unless I'm missing the obvious, I don't see a way to select multiple files and add the same comment to the selected files simultaneously. Is there a way to do this? If not, can that be added to the future enhancements list? Please let me know. Thanks. Best regards, Phil

Igor: Thanks for the reply. Bates stamp numbering on the PDFs would be very helpful. Please consider adding this as an enhancement request. I'll try what you suggested with the load files, but I presume that if the PDFs didn't render properly when exporting to PDFs than the same thing will undoubtedly happen when exporting to load file. How do you want me to send you the file that wouldn't render to PDF? (Actually, there were many files, but I can send you one sample.) Frankly, I've seen this PDF rendering problems a lot in prior exports as well. So it's not restricted to one or two documents. I'm sure, if you add a bunch of Microsoft Office documents to Intella and then try to export them all to PDF, you'll see that a number of them won't render properly. And when you say export logs, what export logs? Do you mean the main.log and the warning.log for the date that the export was undertaken? Please let me know. Thanks. Best regards, Phil

Unless I'm missing the obvious, when exporting files to PDF format, the individual pages are not numbered. We need the ability to Bates Stamp individual pages. I realize that we can add unique prefixes to the file names of the exported PDFs and add these as a header or footer to each page of the exported PDFs, but that doesn't provide for a unique stamp on each page. I'm also noticing that there are problems with some of the PDF exports. For example, I can preview certain files and when clicking on the "view in original application" button, the file is displayed properly in Word, Excel, etc. However, when exporting to PDF some of the files do not export in original view format. Why is that? I've experimented with all the export settings and for certain files I either get the extracted text only or don't get anything at all (when selecting Original View only). There is nothing wrong with these files as they can be opened in their original application without problem. So something doesn't work properly in the rendering of the PDFs and I can't tell you what's might be causing this, since it only happens with some files, but not all. Please let me know if you require additional information. Best regards, Phil

Walt: I never meant to suggest that we should downgrade in any way Intella's search capabilities. I wholeheartedly agree with you that it's a powerful tool that works very well. I also agree with your comments about Relativity being slow and clunky, but I think it's relatively intuitive for most users. However, unlike your experience where you have been able to train attorneys to use and navigate the Intella interface, that's not usually possible for most of us that work in the private sector in civil litigations. Most attorneys in private practice are not inclined to invest in new software and even if we were to provide them with a license to the Intella viewer (or hopefully though Intella Connect when it goes live), they won't want to take the time to get trained in the use of the software, but would insist on providing them the data for review in the platform they're familiar with. And working with different law firms makes the training question more prohibitive. So the fact that the people at Vound are thinking of providing us with the tools to configure the interface in Intella Connect depending on the level of the end user, is very encouraging IMHO. In any case, I look forward to new Intella enhancements--they clearly have a stellar development crew that has given us a super product that beats the pants off all other search tools, IMHO. Best regards, Phil

OK, thanks. No biggie, since I got to to run on another workstation.

Now that I got a feel for what Intella Connect will look like, I'm wondering whether its user interface (UI) is too complicated. I mean the current interface is great for forensic examiners, eDiscovery experts, etc. However, for a non-advanced computer user I'm wondering whether they'll be able to navigate the UI and understand what's going on, without requiring hours of tech support. My thinking is that after processing the files on our end at our forensic lab, we would then make the results available to the attorneys who have engaged us for this case. The attorneys would like to see a user interface that's akin to document review platforms, like Relativity, Concordance, etc. Giving them too many search and display options may be rather confusing. Are there any plans to incorporate into the Intella Connect Dashboard any options for restricting what is shown on the user interface? Perhaps, the Dashboard should give us the option to give the full access to the users that will use the shared case or a second option that presents a simplified user interface. For example, the simplified user interface would default to displaying all the items in the data set being shared with a basic search bar which could also have the search options as currently displayed when clicking on the search option hyperlink. In other words, the simplified UI would do away with all the "facets" in the left frame or better yet, give us the option of activating the "facets" that we need in a particular case. I think that the current UI in Intella Connect is great for examiners and investigators with computing skills, but it's going to confuse and prove of little use to attorneys or other users with limited computing skills. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this?

Well, so why I couldn't run it from the first workstation I installed it on, initially? I was not accessing that station via RDP. When I installed it on the station that had the Intella Network dongle, it ran without giving me the "intella licenses can't be found error." If I'm right, it sounds to me that even on the local station it's polling the dongle and since no dongle was connected to the first station, it gave me the error. In other words, are you sure that Intella Connect has been programmed to poll the network for a dongle license?

When I go to Preview, I'm unable to view any files, like DOCs, PDFs, etc. Is there something wrong with Preview?

After I posted the previous message, I thought of running Intella Connect on the workstation that has the Intella Network dongle physically connected to the USB port. As soon as I did, I had no problems running Intella Connect from that workstation. So it seems that Intella Connect is oblivious to the Intella Network dongles. I presume that this is something that needs to be fixed. Hope this helps.

I'm finally getting around to testing the Connect beta, but I'm not having much luck running it. Whenever I start it, I get an error that says "No Intella Licenses Can Be Found -- Please Contact Sales@vound-software.com to resolve this matter." I thought this might have had something to do with RDP, so I went to the actual testing station and ran it from there, but I got the same error. We have licenses for Intella 250 and Intella viewer, and Intella and the dongle manager have no problems. However, we recently transferred our licenses to an Intella Network dongle. Could it be that Intella Connect doesn't support the Network dongles? If so, is there a workaround on this? Please advise. Thanks.