What exactly does Aspect want to tell me? And what can I do about this?
When a library is loaded, and there are multiple locally synchronized instances of a library (i.e. you can switch between them in the Library → Switch Active Library Instance menu), not just the active library instance will be loaded, but all of them. This allows them to be continuously synchronized and also file system changes are picked up for all of them.
In this case, one of the “inactive” instances failed to load for some reason. If you click on “Details”, there should ideally be a further explanation as to what exactly the underlying error was.
The term “secondary library instance” is certainly very technical and less than ideal, maybe there is a better term that isn’t too long…
Thanks. But I did never create a new (second) library by purpose. I recently renamed the external hard drive my Aspect library is located on, so that might be the reason a “new” one was created along the old one… I could not find a way to get rid of this message. But I just found out that I can switch to the missing library (even though it does not exist, therefore I never tried switching to it) and then I can select an option to delete it. I tried using the “delete instance” menu item before but that wanted to delete the one I was actually using 
. Just a site note: I am still struggling with your software on a daily basis. I simply cannot wrap my head around the wanted usage behavior. I just have to admit to myself that I would really like to use Aspect, but I’m not suited to it 
.
Okay, I’m not sure about the drive name itself, but if the drive was identified as a different drive that could maybe explain this indeed. I’ll try to reproduce that!
Just a site note: I am still struggling with your software on a daily basis. I simply cannot wrap my head around the wanted usage behavior.
Do you have an example of where this applies? There are certainly parts that are still missing a good explanation, as well as parts that still need to be made more general, in order to account for more diverse organization approaches, and maybe there are parts of the UI that are not quite efficient for a certain approach. In general, I’m always happy to think about improvements here (there have been use cases that were really unusual and where the overall impact wasn’t worth it, but those really are exceptions).