creating site from tiddlywiki with multiple browseable pages

[rootsical]

hi.

i was wondering if it was possible to create a website from a tiddlywiki, which has separate browsable pages for each tiddler.

i love how easy it is to use tiddlywiki but from a presentation and useability aspect, i find the single page idea not to my taste. i much prefer how mediawiki presents its pages with real url links to navigate.

i have installed tiddlywiki using npm (for use with node.js).  i am aware of the commands for exporting to a static site. however, i am not sure a static site is what i am after. i have no problem with the use of javascript but just want separate browseable pages. the current output of exporting as a static site seems to disable the ability to click on any of the buttons to do anything. i cannot browse or use the tiddlywiki as normal. i assume this is because pure html link tags are not being generated and/or javascript seems to be completely missing/disabled.

can anybody let me know if it is possible to achieve what i am after, and if so, how?

many thanks.

[Mat]

Not actual url pages but did you try to simply change Ctrlpanel>Appearence>Storyview ?

<:-)

[Danielo Rodríguez]

Ello rootsical,

Is noteself.github.io similar to what you mean? Just check the layout, navigate the menus, it looks like a regular web page. Maybe it does not look like , but it is an actual tiddlywiki.

Another option is what Mat suggests. Maybe that is more than enough.

[Josiah]

I REALLY LIKE the discussions on NOTESELF, not least because they deal head-on with fundamental TW issues. Like this one.

Danielo has reached into the heart of it. His steps have been measured and effective.

They WORK even if you don't like them.

Part of what he has done so far is pointing broader ways forward IMO.

Why? Because he's dealing with fundamentals of browser architecture, not trying to obvert them.

Its fascinating & relevant IMO.

Best wishes
Josiah

[Jeremy Ruston]

Hi rootsical

> i was wondering if it was possible to create a website from a tiddlywiki, which has separate browsable pages for each tiddler. 

I think what you're asking for is the ability to run TiddlyWiki under Node.js but have individual URLs for each tiddler displayed interactively. Navigating to a new tiddler would change the URL to the new tiddler. You'd be able to open tiddlers in different tabs.

TiddlyWiki could work that why, but doesn't at the moment. It would take a bit of work in a few areas:

* A new page template that displays the currently navigated tiddler

* New navigation logic to handle links between tiddlers

* A new HTTP route in the server module to permit individual tiddlers to be viewed interactively

As Mat points out, most people who prefer to view a single tiddler at a time use the "zoomin" story view.

Best wishes

Jeremy.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tiddlywiki+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to tiddl...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/3e92a95d-eb6c-4ab2-91e0-17320b7a36be%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Jeremy Ruston
mailto:jeremy...@gmail.com

[Matabele]

Hi rootsical

Some time ago I put up this site -- the layout uses an alternative pop up menu that makes the site work in a more standard way.

Numerous tweaks were, however, required to achieve this.

regards

[rootsical]

i just wanted to say a big thank you to everyone for all your responses. unfortunately, i do not think that i can do what i am after with tiddlywiki, at least not without a lot of further work. just another bit of feedback is that i also found it very hard to find information and help about tiddlywiki because all the documentation/resources seem to be presented within tiddlywikis themselves. i still think that mediawiki is the best way to present such information as people are used to it and i believe it is indexed better by search engines. however i am really impressed with tiddlywiki for authoring notes and keeping things organised from the perspective of the content creator as opposed to the consumer of such content. thanks again!

[Danielo Rodríguez]

There are shops built with tiddliwiki. I'm on a mobile device but I'll try to find it for you later

[Mat]

rootsical - it is really appreciated that you give feedback about what is not good enough - especially if it is such a showstopper that you might not use TW at all! Likely, people leaving TW or never really starting, do so silently which makes it very difficult to improve things, of course.

If you find mediawiki better then you should of course go with that. It would be very kind of you if you could just clarify your feedback so we can improve stuff it. Who knows maybe it is even a simple fix or misunderstanding:

 

just another bit of feedback is that i also found it very hard to find information and help about tiddlywiki because all the documentation/resources seem to be presented within tiddlywikis themselves.

Are you saying it is difficult to locate where that/those documentation wiki/s are? Or where, within that/those wikis, the information is located? Any spontaneous opinion on where would be a better place to display the documentation/resources or how?

 

i still think that mediawiki is the best way to present such information as people are used to it and i believe it is indexed better by search engines.

"Search engines" meaning you're using e.g google to find the documentation? Or are the search results inadequate when using the local search tool inside a TW?

 

Thank you!

<:-)

[Danielo Rodríguez]

> Are you saying it is difficult to locate where that/those documentation wiki/s are? Or where, within that/those wikis, the information is located? Any spontaneous opinion on where would be a better place to display the documentation/resources or how?

The problem is that web spiders do not understand tiddlywiky. So if you make a search in Google you have more chances to end visiting a github repository than any tiddliwiki. And that if you have luck enough to search for something that has a related repository

[Josiah]

Ciao Danielo & all

In a previous post , some time ago,I expressed my misgivings about switching one of the sites I have over to TW. It could work well & save me lost of hassle. BUT, over years, I gained good Google rankings for it that I do not want to lose.

Based on previous feedback I made a new experimental site using a TW under a different domain. Its still NOT really on the map after 2 months.

I am unclear HOW to go forward. TW is perfect for many things--but on search engine rankings it doesn't look brilliant at all.

Best wishes
Josiah

[Eneko Gotzon]

On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 7:16 PM, Danielo Rodríguez <rdan...@gmail.com> wrote:

web spiders do not understand tiddlywiky…

That seems a big drawback ...

​ :/​ It's not good to be bad indexed.

--

Eneko Gotzon Ares
eneko...@gmail.com

[Mat]

On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 7:16:40 PM UTC+2, Danielo Rodríguez wrote:

The problem is that web spiders do not understand tiddlywiky.

You might be right - but so far, from what I've read, it is not possible to conclude that this is that problem that rootsical has.

And do people normally search TW documentation via google, rather than via tiddlywiki.com? (we don't know, is the only answer to that)

 Everyone(?) who has a TW got it from tiddlywiki.com so they probably know that is where the docs are. 

<:-)

[rootsical]

sorry if i wasn't very clear. basically, i got my tiddlywiki from npm and followed the instructions on github on how to install. when i need help, for example, on how to create a contents page, i would google something like 'tiddlywiki add contents page' (i always find search engines superior to a locally implemented search function). this returns a static version of a tiddlywiki, which is nearly what i am after. the links within these static tiddlers resolve to other tiddlers. this is the reason i believe the static site comes up in google searches more easily. unfortunately, you are then lacking the sidebar with the home button and contents etc.

whenever i learn anything it is nice to be able to browse a site and click to go back to where i was, or navigate easily. i find it simpler to absorb information in sites that have implemented mediawiki (such as wikipedia and the arch linux wiki https://wiki.archlinux.org). my complaint with tiddlywiki is that it is hard to navigate and keep track of where you are and what you are doing. this is why i find absorbing information from a tiddlywiki more difficult. i would prefer the tiddlywiki information to be presented like it would be in mediawiki. even better, i would hope for tiddlywiki to appear and work more like mediawiki from the perspective of a content consumer. however mediawiki is too complicated for my needs and the setup takes a long time. in this sense, i find tiddlywiki superior as it is simpler and easier to understand and implement. my only problem is with how the resulting tiddlywiki is presented and the drawbacks which come from not following a normal url-based website structure.

i hope that makes my situation clearer. thanks again for all your responses..

[Mat]

rootsical - thank you so much for clarifying your use case. At least for me it really puts things in a different light. To name one thing; I had no idea tw was served via some other site! Thank you.

...

The following is mostly directed to @Jeremy and other core developers:

The fact that there was another entrance point to TW other than perhaps individuals promoting TW via their own local TWs. rootsicals makes me want to call attention to #2344

Overall, do people use google to find docs content? Any way to measure this? This totally messes up many fundamental assumptions I've had. Can we adopt to this practice? Prevent it? rootsical is clearly an advanced user (messing with npm) but such users are of course also the most valuable ones for the TW project at large. 

His (justified) experience that TW (in that context) is "hard to navigate and keep track of where you are and what you are doing." is deeply problematic. IMO, that touches on the very key things TW is supposed to be good at! Looking at a single page document, I agree it totally lacks overview. Like looking at the world through a drinking straw. Could it be as simple(?) as introducing a (special) sidebar in static pages? A menu with docs topic categories. Breadcrumbs?... A static tiddler as they currently are presented feels more like a thing for printouts.

If people "enter" TW in a way we didn't intend, is there any way to set them on the "right path"? 

Overall how can we somewhere collect use cases where people give up on, or dismiss, TW. This is of course more serious than most other issues.

<:-)