TiddlyWiki vs TiddlyWiki.com

[Phil Whitehouse]

Most readers will know there are some TiddlyWiki.com redesign efforts
underway. We're now looking at a core issue, and would like the
community's view on this....should TiddlyWiki.com look the same as a
standard distribution of TiddlyWiki?

You might consider this two questions (I've tried to flesh out the
main issues too):

Should TiddlyWiki.com be a TiddlyWiki file? It's a good chance to
illustrate how it works, but perhaps confuses people into thinking
that's all it can do. We say it's a wiki but it doesn't behave as a
wiki, not as it stands anyway. The more interesting functionality is
usually invoked from a local file.

Should the look and feel of TiddlyWiki.com be the same as a TiddlyWiki
file? It's really an extension of the same problem. As you can see
from the current site, I've been quite explicit about the fact that
TiddlyWiki can be used for many things, including a web site, rather
than implying that this is its default purpose.

Personally, I think we should continue to use a TiddlyWiki file, to
demonstrate how a TiddlyWiki file can be used for this purpose, but
evolve it to make it look more like a conventional website. This is
our shop window. We at Osmosoft have already been using TiddlyWiki
files to create branded sites, so this gives you an idea of the
possibilities:

http://www.osmosoft.com
http://www.ripplerap.com
http://www.bt.com/opensource

We're also thinking about the look and feel of TiddlyWiki itself. And
the distribution process (should we be providing an 'empty' version
and a 'newbie' version, the latter giving more guidance?). Feel free
to comment on this too!

Thanks
Phil

[ava]

Hey,

I am a new and most pleased user of TiddlyWiki. And I found it nice to
see the Wiki just when I loaded the page. The beauty of simplicity.
Although I knew what I was looking for. But it still would seem odd to
have a step of something else prior to the TiddlyWiki.

I think every system which serves the purpose of documentation should
be documented within itself. How well can it be if the creator chooses
something else? My guess is that people would be more confused if
there was a non-TiddlyWiki site online.

If the look and feel of TiddlyWiki.com and the file is different,
there should be a very easy way to get the layout of the website.
Otherwise there could be frustration. "This is not what they made me
believe!"

Those who need lots of empty TiddlyWiki's can make these themselves.
More guidance may be nice. I had to go to TiddlyWiki.com for some
infos I needed to do things on my local TiddlyWiki. Maybe a tiddler
with a "empty" button which is also gone after you used it?

Thanks a lot,
ava

On Jul 18, 6:18 pm, Phil Whitehouse <phil.whiteho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Most readers will know there are some TiddlyWiki.com redesign efforts
> underway. We're now looking at a core issue, and would like the
> community's view on this....should TiddlyWiki.com look the same as a
> standard distribution of TiddlyWiki?
>
> You might consider this two questions (I've tried to flesh out the
> main issues too):
>
> Should TiddlyWiki.com be a TiddlyWiki file? It's a good chance to
> illustrate how it works, but perhaps confuses people into thinking
> that's all it can do. We say it's a wiki but it doesn't behave as a
> wiki, not as it stands anyway. The more interesting functionality is
> usually invoked from a local file.
>
> Should the look and feel of TiddlyWiki.com be the same as a TiddlyWiki
> file? It's really an extension of the same problem. As you can see
> from the current site, I've been quite explicit about the fact that
> TiddlyWiki can be used for many things, including a web site, rather
> than implying that this is its default purpose.
>
> Personally, I think we should continue to use a TiddlyWiki file, to
> demonstrate how a TiddlyWiki file can be used for this purpose, but
> evolve it to make it look more like a conventional website. This is
> our shop window. We at Osmosoft have already been using TiddlyWiki
> files to create branded sites, so this gives you an idea of the
> possibilities:
>

> http://www.osmosoft.comhttp://www.ripplerap.comhttp://www.bt.com/opensource

[FND]

> should TiddlyWiki.com look the same as a
> standard distribution of TiddlyWiki?

I'd strongly favor having two different interfaces.

TiddlyWiki.com is a website, whereas TiddlyWiki is an application.
The website should hide most of the underlying functionality, whereas
the application needs to make the respective controls (e.g. for
editing/authoring content) readily accessible. That's a fundamental
difference, and compromising on those aspects is likely to create
suboptimal results for both editions.

Coming up with an all-new application UI (it's not just a theme!) for
the application is not easy, and would require a considerable amount of
effort.
However, if we have the resources for this, it would certainly be worth
pursuing.

> Should TiddlyWiki.com be a TiddlyWiki file?

As many regulars might know, I'm very wary of using TW as a website.*
So ideally, we'd use TiddlyWeb or TiddlyTemplating, generating static
HTML for individual tiddlers, as an alternative to serving the
TiddlyWiki document.
I don't think this needs to be a priority though.

> should we be providing an 'empty' version
> and a 'newbie' version, the latter giving more guidance?

That would probably help (although ideally, we'd largely reuse or link
to existing documentation on the community wiki).
However, this, too, would require a considerable amount of effort.

-- F.

[Ken Girard]

I am going to vote for the website being in the format of the standard
aplication, with a very obvious "Other looks"and "Other uses" area
that shows themes and applications (thumbnails with links and a small
write up?).

Point out the tricked out sites (TiddlyThemes, TiddlyTools, Bunny-what-
ever-that-was, the ones you mentioned, any others that catch you eye
and interest), the GTD stuff, my WorkTracker, and anything else out
there that really shows how TW is more then just a place to put notes
in a generic blue and white web page.

Ken Girard

[RichShumaker]

TWdotC should be a site foremost as that is what it is.
I would personally link to an example TW version or 2 or 3 on the
landing page. These examples could be easily downloaded.
Maybe some screen shots of much more advanced versions so as not to
lose people too quickly - slow load times makes people flee.

I would use the technology to showcase the technology.
So I would build the site with TW - I might then export to static
pages for various reasons.

I love the idea of a TW that is self referential for how it works.
With videos. Oh and that is what I am working towards with
'MyFirstTW' and we will see how quickly I get there. I am using as
close to a base copy personally because it is EASY to add to TW and
maybe confuse or create false expectations.

Those are my thoughts on it all.

Rich Shumaker

[wolfgang]

In my opinion tiddlywiki.com is the perfect example that TiddlyWiki is
really good enough for a small website too - and the best
recommendation for itself there could be.

What delayed me personally from being ready for it - and waiting one
more year for taking another look - was, that I didn't felt at ease
with so much unstructuredness and non-linearity. And something as
simple as TiddlersBarPlugin would probably have helped me over that,
much more than more documentation or optimized styles could have done.

Of course, TiddlyWiki will never be a perfect website, nor a perfect
application. So why try to give such impressions? TiddlyWiki will
never be perfect in one field - but at the same time so much more
alive.

W.

[Dave Gifford - http://www.giffmex.org/]

Hi all

I think the online version should be the same as what the user gets
when s/he downloads it. No confusion while online, no surprises when
you download. As it is, when I put a TW online hiding the editing
features inevitably someone asks me why they can't see this or that
button that the tiddler tells them should be there.

I also think TW.com should be a TW. The fewer steps you put between
your 'customer' and your 'product', the better. The sooner they get to
toy with TW, the sooner they will latch on.

I second the comment about linking to a showroom or link page. My
TiddlyWiki in Action showcase is one attempt to do that, but I don't
try to keep it up or promote it. It was just to give my people
something to see. But we need a more official place.

I'm with FND that TW's not primarily for websites, least of all for
blogs, because of filesize, especially as more and more data gets
added. But for some it is an easy way to do so. It is for note-taking,
organizing data, journaling, and to-do lists.

I will say it again, the biggest improvement will be making searches
return a list of tiddler titles, not a long column of tiddlers. I'm
surprised that wasn't made core years ago. Nothing confuses people
more than to do a search and get InlineJavascriptPlugin and its popup
box followed by a long line of tiddlers.

Rich, by the way - way to go with MyFirstTW. Now you know how I felt
when I discovered TW and made my tutorial 'for the rest of us.'

Phil I like the idea of having a newbie version. But I would recommend
there be a link somewhere that says 'New to TiddlyWiki?' that takes
you to it. Give the full version upfront.

Just my modest opinions. Blessings to all,

Dave

[Phil Whitehouse]

Great feedback! Keep it coming guys!

[Amzg]

Phil Whitehouse wrote:
>should TiddlyWiki.com look the same as a
> standard distribution of TiddlyWiki?

Crucial Q, as I see it:
PURPOSE and TARGET?

Correct me if Im wrong, but for tw.com;
target group = *potential* users.
purpose= convince potential users to download and try tw out.

I would guess this is radically different from the actual TW, so it
makes sense that this is reflected in the two different places (i.e
tw.com & actual tw).
Acyually, Mr. Whitehouse, please state the purpose of the site. It´d
make it easier to give suggestions when you ask.

> Should TiddlyWiki.com be a TiddlyWiki file?

Any reason why not? Particular limitations?

> Should the look and feel of TiddlyWiki.com be the same as a TiddlyWiki
> file?

IMO, absolutely not. But again, what is the purpose of
tiddlywiki.com?

> It's a good chance to
> illustrate how it works,

A demo/sandbox on the site is a natural option of course....

> We're also thinking about the look and feel of TiddlyWiki itself.

For UI, I think a benchmark is luminotes.com

> And the distribution process (should we be providing an 'empty' version
> and a 'newbie' version, the latter giving more guidance?).

I´m sure this would make tw appeal to more people.

Actually, a downloadable demo for *each* given application example
would be even better. Different people identify/see need for different
uses. (Would also be in line with long term vision for Tiddly*web* and
ccTiddly, if I understand things right.)
For me mGTD was my way into TW. Say, researchers or authors get turned
on by other things and *more easily* understand TW potential via
*their* world view.

[Morris Gray]

Should TiddlyWiki.com be a TiddlyWiki file?

I think that goes without saying. It would be disingenuous to promote
it with a means other than itself.
For one thing TiddlyWiki is quick and easy and there is no other way
of properly demonstrating some of its features except by using it.

Having said that; tiddlywiki.com has not been good at using its own
features to get the maximum benefits from its own quite dazzling array
of self-contained capabilities. It has always looked like a hastily
assembled collection of unedited notes and has not kept up with
documenting its own ever growing abilities; let alone using them to
advantage.

As far as tiddlywiki.com looking like, and being, the standard
distribution model I think that concept should remain. It is quite
unique to be able to say; "You already have TiddlyWiki on your
computer, now you need only save it somewhere convenient." What we
need now is having that model demonstrate enough of its capabilities
practically and gracefully enough for someone to want save it away as
a ready source of examples to draw on whilst one builds their own
TiddlyWiki upon the empty version.

It is true that having 'wiki' in its name TiddlyWiki is being crammed
into a wiki-mold of which it is not best suited for because its size
limitations. The definition of 'wiki' in TiddlyWiki should be gently
redefined or rather re-explained as not the multi-user conventional
definition of wiki; but, the wiki from 'wiki-wiki' meaning "quick".
The multi-user aspect should be explained as "everyone's got one and
using it" :-)

I concur with most all of the constructive and enlightened comments in
this thread so far. None more than Dave Gifford's suggestion that the
search results capability of TiddlyWiki leaves a lot to be desired.
In fact the standard search results are nothing short of horrid and
should be improved asap.

I was appalled when I first started using TiddlyWiki in 2005. What
madness it was to see tiddlers start opening after typing the third
letter. What a shock it was on a large site to see it say "found 91
tiddlers" and seeing your computer lock up for the rest of the
evening. I could only surmise no one had more than ten tiddlers or
they didn't ever use the search.

I wouldn't be using TiddlyWiki had I not found a way of obtaining the
search results I wanted by writing an interface for another plugin.
Unfortunately I named it the GrayTestSearch engine and people who said
the name too quickly thought I had an ego problem :-)

There are two good showcases of TiddlyWiki; one it the Showcase Dave
Gifford did, and the gallery at TiddlySpot. I don't think it would be
out of order for the powers to be behind TiddlyWiki to sponsor an
official ongoing showcase; along with monthly featured sites, contests
and exotic prizes, like trips to South Pacific islands. After all
they have a multi-billion pound telecommunications giant behind them
and just 10 seconds profit from their SMS business would allow all of
us to give up work permanently and spend even more of our lives
working on TiddlyWiki :-)

Morris Gray
http://twhelp.tiddlyspot.com
Home of the GrayTestSearch engine

[Steve Brettell]

One suggestion:

Right up front, tell visitors who might not be familiar with the system that they should hit "close others," or "close," or in some way clean up the screen to make reading easier.  Make this bold, or red or something, so it doesn't get too confusing.  Of course, I mean give real instructions that would work, not my messed up stuff, above.

SteveB.

[Robert Pollard]

I would vote for tw.com to be a tw - and should show off some of tw's many wonderful features.

wonderful as is the tw core, however, imho, tw really come into its own when one starts to use plugins, and i think it would be great to showcase a selection of plugins, and incorporate some additional information about the plugins being used - as well as a way of showcasing the tw development community and providing a taste of what

among the plugins i would include TwHelpSearchPlugin - a great improvement on the core search macro - NestedSliders, HoverMenu, FullscreenPlugin ...

robert

[Anthony Muscio]

Been a recent convert (few months of obsession), I agree that it is
important that one or more sites are actually tiddly Wiki's, it was my
discovery of;

My tiddlyWiki (not yours, mine)

and the very curios subtitle

"a reusable non-linear personal web notebook"

that caught my attention.

I did balk initially at the search and the whole story down the page
concept, though I love it now.

Not withstanding the above there exists
tiddlyWiki.org - hardcore documentation and repository
tiddlytools.com - Hardcore plugin repository
tiddlyspot.com - online tiddlyWiki host

These do not necessarily lend themselves to presenting the initial and
simple view of tiddlywiki.

I do not know all the relevant sites yet but surly the pressure is on
to present My tiddlyWiki at the front of as many sites as relevant.

One of the first things that can be done say in "getting started" is
to offer a link to these other resources or a non tiddlywiki webpage
under tiddlyWiki.com, I also we should show off this active and
responsive forum as well. Remember also that some newbees are already
potential superusers and they need the information that tells them
they can go very far with this tool.

Please do not discount it's online and collaborative possibilities
when rightly pointing out it's single file/portable nature
Also perhaps it is just me but I would also describe it as;

Use it simply as the best note book you have ever had or as a tool
that permits even non-programmers do develop there own functional
APPLICATIONS, especially when combined with a wide range of plugins
and community support.

Anyway my 2 cents worth.

TonyM