Growing problem: Outdated TW stuff on the internet.

[Mat]

As time goes by, we get more and more outdated TWs on the web. Plugins, "How-to's", blogs, anything...

TW makes it easy to quickly make cool things and put them up on the web for others - a super feature that, it turns out, is also problematic.

If not already, this will FOR SURE work against the popularization of TW. But it likely already is; People immediately face the TWC vs TW5 confusion. And then there's the problem with dispersed information and plugins where "outdated" is a big problem. And, as noted, it increases over time.

Also links on the official tw.com site lead to outdated stuff. Again, increasing in numbers over time if not watched over.

I'm hoping we can have a discussion on this. What are your thoughts?

<:-)

[PMario]

On Saturday, September 12, 2015 at 8:23:20 PM UTC+2, Mat wrote:

.. Again, increasing in numbers over time if not watched over.

Hi,
I don't know, what you mean with "over time" ?
-m

[Tobias Beer]

I don't know, what you mean with "over time" ?

Pretty sure it means "as time goes by".

— tb

[Mat]

On Sunday, September 13, 2015 at 4:54:48 PM UTC+2, PMario wrote:

I don't know, what you mean with "over time" ?

Bad wording. I just, again, meant that the problem increases as time passes. 

Since I posted the above (a mere 3 days ago, ha!) something has happened though: The proposal to include fellow @Erwans TW community search and aggregator News feature on tw.com. IMO a brilliant decision on @Jeremys part. IMO, this is HUGE! Things obviously still age/outdate but if we can control the search process (the find! process), then a large part of the problem is solved (or at least not confronted, hehe).  Assuming users use this route to search, of course.

How more can we improve the user experience vs outdated stuff?

And the underlying problem with TW stuff outdating in general.

<:-)

[Mat]

On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 9:43:11 AM UTC+2, Tobias Beer wrote:

>Pretty sure it means "as time goes by".

Ha, you posted seconds before me. Yes, exactly.

Now there's a face I've truly missed! Warmly welcome back my friend :-)

<:-)

[Majou Nexian]

I have no problem. TiddlyWiki Classic is MUCH better than TW5.
It has more plugins, it works much better on desktop, it has several embeded in-line editors and one wysiwyg editor, plus some with external dependency.
Take an example right here and now, as I enter this text I have convinient text markup buttons in google groups. This is convinient.

TW5 has only one wysiwyg editor - that requires external depenency, it weights 4x as much and looks very awkward on desktop.
As such, please make TW5 better than Classic, then this question would be valid. From a user perspective.

[Eric Shulman]

On Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 8:46:51 AM UTC-8, Majou Nexian wrote:

I have no problem. TiddlyWiki Classic is MUCH better than TW5. 

Unfortunately, the TWC codebase relies upon older web tech, several aspects of which have changed over the years.  Most notably, handling for local file I/O and cross-origin resource sharing (CORS) have been severely restricted or eliminated.  In addition, TWC had some architectural limitations and performance issues due to the way it uses the DOM for *stateful* rendering.  TWC also has the potential for security exploits because it allows un-restricted injection of javascript code directly into tiddlers.

It has more plugins,

Although TW5 has been available for a while now, there is over 10 years of TWC community development, so of course there are *many* more plugins for TWC. There are a lot of TWC plugins that could and should be re-implemented in TW5.  However, because TW5 was built from the lessons learned with TWC, there are also many plugins that are simply no longer needed, because TW5 already supports those functions natively. 

it works much better on desktop,

explain.

 

it has several embeded in-line editors and one wysiwyg editor, plus some with external dependency.
Take an example right here and now, as I enter this text I have convinient text markup buttons in google groups. This is convinient.
TW5 has only one wysiwyg editor - that requires external depenency, it weights 4x as much and looks very awkward on desktop.

Generally, WYSIWYG editors can be used to compose HTML output, but can't produce TiddlyWiki native syntax.  For simple formatting (e.g. bold, italics, text alignment, etc.) these editors can do quite well.  However, when complex formatting is needed (e.g., tables), people often have to revert to using direct HTML syntax to achieve the results they want.  Text markup buttons such as my QuickEditPlugin make it easier to format content without having to remember wiki syntax, but they also only address *some* of the user's formatting needs, so use of wiki syntax is still necessary.

As such, please make TW5 better than Classic, then this question would be valid. From a user perspective.

All that's needed is time.  This community is very collaborative: as more people use TW5 to create solutions for their specific needs, there will more and more plugins to choose from, and a robust TW5 'eco-system' will evolve, just as it has for TWClassic.

enjoy,

-e

[Majou Nexian]

Hello, Eric!
 

Unfortunately, the TWC codebase relies upon older web tech, several aspects of which have changed over the years.  Most notably, handling for local file I/O and cross-origin resource sharing (CORS) have been severely restricted or eliminated.  In addition, TWC had some architectural limitations and performance issues due to the way it uses the DOM for *stateful* rendering.  TWC also has the potential for security exploits because it allows un-restricted injection of javascript code directly into tiddlers.

I understand the technology argument, not questioning it, its always awesome for code to correspond to current state of technology.

 

Although TW5 has been available for a while now, there is over 10 years of TWC community development, so of course there are *many* more plugins for TWC. There are a lot of TWC plugins that could and should be re-implemented in TW5.  However, because TW5 was built from the lessons learned with TWC, there are also many plugins that are simply no longer needed, because TW5 already supports those functions natively. 

I agree and understand. However:
 

it works much better on desktop,

explain.

Ability to efficiently use the desktop estate, as well as presence of tools that allow to quickly work with text - be it priority on perfect formatting (in-line source editor), or input speed (wysiwyg editor); were cruical iny my own case.
So that I can spend more time on entering content. Because TW5 only has native basic in-line editor, it feels that I am programming the "web page" rather than entering tagged text.

Again, this is from my perspective, - of a simple user, using it as a notebook.

Here is the comparsion between my base empty TWC and TW5/main website on regular TN panel:
http://imgur.com/a/nNACh

Although I really have no idea, how to customize the TW5 to use the screen estate in same efficient way as TWC, the fact that the only TW5 wysiwyg editor is pretty platform-dependent (requires external component) is not cross-platform (primary Linux and Android here) -  its a fine editor by itself, made me to use TWC further.
 

Generally, WYSIWYG editors can be used to compose HTML output, but can't produce TiddlyWiki native syntax.  For simple formatting (e.g. bold, italics, text alignment, etc.) these editors can do quite well.  However, when complex formatting is needed (e.g., tables), people often have to revert to using direct HTML syntax to achieve the results they want.  Text markup buttons such as my QuickEditPlugin make it easier to format content without having to remember wiki syntax, but they also only address *some* of the user's formatting needs, so use of wiki syntax is still necessary.

yes, I fully agree. Also, with HTML its possible to downsize and the images to spots - but the formating has typical risk to break.
Its also nice that TW native syntax (I am speaking about TWC here) is still parsed - so its possible to create Tiddler links right in HTML editor by simply wrapping words in square brackets; which instantly makes co-existance of both editors acceptable.

By the way, the only real shortcoming  of QuickEdit compared to WikiBar, are Tables. Wikibar is capable of somehow generating the crude construct; but its text color management is worse and it lacks other text functions.
But lack of table functionality in QuickEdit is hardly show stopper.

It may really be interesting to have WYSIWYG output into Tiddlywiki syntax, not only HTML. But I don't want to be asking of any features, its just a possible suggestion.

All that's needed is time.  This community is very collaborative: as more people use TW5 to create solutions for their specific needs, there will more and more plugins to choose from, and a robust TW5 'eco-system' will evolve, just as it has for TWClassic.

Just that my original post to be interpreted correctly.
I mean for me due to two things stated in paragraph above, TWC is still a (only) option. In my case, currently TW5 has not surpassed TWC from my simple perspective and goals.
Gladly I would like to be shown (or simply directed into correct spot to look) to be wrong about this current situation form my perspective as a user.
 

enjoy,

-e

Thank you!
 

[Majou Nexian]

Well, I did a bit more experimentation with TW5 and discovered that its actually three versions of CKeditor that can be embedded, and with this in mind TW5 gets interesting - since its only EasyEdit (TWC) that provides good experience and inferior to CKeditor.
I will experiment with TW5 more, still miss functionality of TiddlersBarPlugin though.
I suggest perhaps and article on tiddlywiki.com about how "why CW5 is much better than CWC" can help, with a backlink to allow TWC users submit their own opinion as of why they still use TWC, in order to further improve the said article.

All the best to you

[Tobias Beer]

Hi Majou,

 

I suggest perhaps and article on tiddlywiki.com about how "why TW5 is much better than TWC" can help, with a backlink to allow TWC users submit their own opinion as of why they still use TWC, in order to further improve the said article.

That sounds rather strange:

Why is version 1 much better than version 2?

 

I don't think you are going to find that on any "product" page, ever.

What would make sense is a thread with polling where people can...

1. vote options
2. add / suggest new options
3. comment on options => to actually suggest alternatives / solutions

..regarding what they are missing the most in TW5.

Sounds to me like a reddit would be a good spot for that.

So, if that's truly a pain point of yours, create it, link it here...

and bump the thread here whenever you need.

Best wishes,

— tb

[Majou Nexian]

 

I suggest perhaps and article on tiddlywiki.com about how "why TW5 is much better than TWC" can help, with a backlink to allow TWC users submit their own opinion as of why they still use TWC, in order to further improve the said article.

That sounds rather strange:

Why is version 1 much better than version 2?

 

I don't think you are going to find that on any "product" page, ever.

Actually, nearly every software piece, which next version differed in approach or looks from previous, was striking to convince people as to why increment versions were better.
From Windows95 to Gnome3.
 

What would make sense is a thread with polling where people can...

1. vote options
2. add / suggest new options
3. comment on options => to actually suggest alternatives / solutions

..regarding what they are missing the most in TW5.

Sounds to me like a reddit would be a good spot for that.

 

So, if that's truly a pain point of yours, create it, link it here...

and bump the thread here whenever you need.

Best wishes,

— tb

Actually, my suggestion was much more compact, a single tiddler and a link as feedback, maybe in to parent forum (TiddlyWiki) in special topic
"TiddlyWiki Classic users, tell us the reason what confuses you in TW5!"
 
Yours looks like nice too, but I prefer simplicity if it does not act against performance - thats IMHO.


Thanks

[Tobias Beer]

Hi Majou,

Must've been late, or Joe Pesci.

I understood the opposite of what you were actually saying. (rolls eyes)

;-)