It seems clear that the Tropy is intentionally designed for exclusively organising and analysing photo based sources and not say websites. This seems a reasonable design trade-off however it does appear to mean that projects with sources in a range of mediums (webpages, videos, etc) would have some of its sources and notes stored in Tropy and other stored in a different place. This would definitely be the case for our project and I would imagine it would be relatively common. Having read though some of the official responses in this forum you have clearly spent, and continue to spend, a lot of time thinking about how small changes to Tropy fit into the bigger picture (how it supports the project vision, how it effects the overall user experience, etc) and I was wondering what your thoughts are on this situation?
Perhaps you see the long-term solution to this being closer integration with other source organisational software designed for a broader range of sources. For example Zotero and Tropy could reach the point where there is a reliable, quick, 2-way sync between the two. Zotero which would include sources+notes from Tropy as well as other sources like webpages. This would mean you could annotate photo based sources in Tropy but preform searches of all sources related to your project in Zotero. Such a solution would not be without it’s downsides though. Searching in Zotero would mean you’d lose a bit of the context associated with selection notes for example (you’d probably have to open up each selection note in Tropy to see what parts of the source it relates to).
Anyway, you must be bored of hearing this by now but thanks for making such a beautiful and clearly excruciatingly well thought out piece of software. At least to an outsider the Tropy project looks like the epitome of a well run and productive open source project.