I think the trick is convincing people the workflow should change! But if there’s real value in the new workflow we present, then I think that trick is a little easier to pull off. Your point is well taken.

You say:
# Integrates with any workflow
# Involves no (or essentially no) extra activities on the part of the scholar

I think this needs to be looked at in a broader context. Some workflows are not worth encouraging eg if you had people who wanted to type things on paper then have it entered into a word processor then you’d go and help them. A lot of researchers are using their word processors as typewriters and in the process throwing away of lot of stuff they could capture as they write, like document structure, or labels on diagrams.

There’s no reason that users can’t do new stuff - it just has to be worth it, and displace some of the old stuff they used to do. If all we’re going to do is tie into workflows that should be changing anyway then we may as well give up.

-Chris

I appreciate the “modular” approach wasn’t your idea per se and I have also been reading around some of the other blogs but your explication switched on a little light-bulb in my head; possibly just a late Friday afternoon phenomenon!