[Avenues] My take on TiddlyWiki ...

[TiddlyTweeter]

The fundamentally open, quinoidal, structure of TW, fundamentally allows ANY system you pine after. Though it is radically agnostic about the importance of mother's linkages.

TBH I think it is gonna be easier to show that through OUTPUT wiki, rather than "in-process" approximations.

Just a comment

TT

[TW Tones]

The fundamentally open, quinoidal, structure of TW, fundamentally allows ANY system you pine after. - yes I think I agree

Though it is radically agnostic about the importance of mother's linkages. - perhaps tiddlywiki is but is the universe?
TBH I think it is gonna be easier to show that through OUTPUT wiki, rather than "in-process" approximations. - what? why?

Just a comment or two about a comment.

Tones

[TiddlyTweeter]

G'day mate,

TW Tones wrote:

"The fundamentally open, quinoidal, structure of TW, fundamentally allows ANY system you pine after."  - yes I think I agree

"Though it is radically agnostic about the importance of mother's linkages." - perhaps tiddlywiki is but is the universe?

Since the UNIVERSE is everything already, obviously it is Finally Agnostic.  It has no alternative. 

"TBH I think it is gonna be easier to show that through OUTPUT wiki, rather than "in-process" approximations." - what? why?

Yeah. It is not so clear what I meant yet. 

What I mean is that, we need a SHOWCASE of APPLICATION ORIENTED wiki to get TW much  more widely used. 

What I mean is stuff like ...

   The ANTHROPOLOGIST'S Wiki

   The POET'S Wiki

   The SCREENWRITER'S Wiki

       etc x 12

My point was really about DOCS in those are just about how to use THEM and nothing more. 

There should be NO need for an end user of a TW APPLICATION ever to have to deal with what is "under the hood" which is what is central normally in our discussions here. 

I'm talking more promotion of specific APPS. 

I'm sure it is coming. But we nowhere near it yet.

Just KNOWING what TW end applications exist live on the web is still a zero sum game.

Basically we just don't know.

Enjoy your avro,

TT x

[Charlie Veniot]

On Sunday, July 25, 2021 at 9:43:21 AM UTC-3 TiddlyTweeter wrote:

... What I mean is that, we need a SHOWCASE of APPLICATION ORIENTED wiki to get TW much  more widely used. 

What I mean is stuff like ...

   The ANTHROPOLOGIST'S Wiki

   The POET'S Wiki

   The SCREENWRITER'S Wiki

       etc x 12

 

Recipes.  For example, not just how to create a blog with TiddlyWiki, but example blogs, each example blog leading to recipes like, for example, setting up a left sidebar.  Which could lead to some example TiddlyWiki's that use that sidebar.

Intertwingled to the hilt.  I could spend time Sunday driving there...

[TW Tones]

TT - yes I am aware of and support you desire for examples. Of course we already have a list of editions. No changes for years with most.

We need authors to publish more editions, if not actual sites where once can obtain an edition.

I do think a primary use of tiddlywiki is for private bespoke "free wikis" and unpublished tiddlywiki's which evolve to a users needs, thus perhaps they never mature to a finished product. That is there may be many more times the number of "free" wikis than those suitable to be published.

I plan to publish sites and editions but for me at least, this will be after tiddlywiki mastery not so much "on the journey". Certainly I would like to find some return or reward for the many hours needed to produce such wikis since they are a substantial investment, even if it is only thanks or acclaim :)

Tones

[TiddlyTweeter]

TW Tones wrote:

... I do think a primary use of tiddlywiki is for private bespoke "free wikis" and unpublished tiddlywiki's which evolve to a users needs, thus perhaps they never mature to a finished product. That is there may be many more times the number of "free" wikis than those suitable to be published.

I guess that is right! Actually, further than that, it is indicatively good of serious usage by folk who can feel good wetting their whistles  on code and relish perennial openness, revision and evolutions. All to the good.

Yet, I was kinda suggesting there is, I think, likely a large range of audience types, somewhat different, who thrive best on complete apps. 

Who they are and how many there I don't think we know at the moment.

I think it is an interesting issue. In brief, my question kinda edges towards: What happens, making apps that only document a de-limited range functions to better MATCH common (delimited) need spaces tightly?

That is why I flagged the thread "Avenues." It kinda captures that idea.

Best wishes

TT

[ludwa6]

Based on my own experience of trying to engage non-technical users -i.e. those on whom the power & flexibility of TW is not only lost; it is actually experienced as frictional- i must say: this issue goes so deep, i don't know how we might solve it, if indeed we can. 

More specifically: two issues i've noted as so frustrating to such "pedestrian" users, they give up before even trying to understand are:

1. Native navigation features in the browser are essentially broken by TW, in that i can't use forward and back arrows to move off the page and come back to the place where i left off; and
2. To whatever extent i do any editing of a TW instance that i then want to save, i wind up with the totally unexpected result of a new multi-mb file on my desktop, and no change in the online instance i thought i was updating.

If there be any good way of overcoming these obstacles -beyond simply instructing the user in context to forget about both (1) their browser's navigation controls and (2) making changes to the online instance- i've yet to see any example of it.  If in fact any such prior art exists, it would be great if someone could share it here!

/walt

[Charlie Veniot]

I pretty much always see browser back and forward buttons as evil.

I'm also no fan of the storyriver in TiddlyWiki.

The buttons and the storyriver, they are cognitive challenges for this kid.

For whatever reason, staying within the boundaries of one "display all" tiddler works best for me:

• either display content in that tiddler based on selections in a sidebar menu (I'm on the fence about that approach)
  • Like I've done with my  Favourite Stuff and Projects TiddlyWiki
• or have everything displaying (or available from) that tiddler, making use of details widgets (or other widgets) to hide/show content, and making use of modals for displaying extra content
  • Like I've done with my online resume TiddlyWiki

I figure my preferences, always a work in progress, would be far from universally appealing.  Brains are so wonderfully diverse, I'm not quite sure what could be universally appealing.

[ludwa6]

On Tuesday, July 27, 2021 at 1:55:52 PM UTC+1 cj.v...@gmail.com wrote:

I pretty much always see browser back and forward buttons as evil.

BLASPHEMY!  Ted Nelson is rolling over in his grave right now, @Charlie; you'd better recant, or face hellfire & damnation yourself :-)

Seriously tho: Lot's of people rely on those browser built-ins (not to mention me) -besides which: to whatever extent there be anything like a standard feature in ALL browsers, those arrow buttons are two of the few, so... This is not an issue to blow off, if we're talking here about mainstream pedestrian usage of TW as a worthy goal.  /w

I'm also no fan of the storyriver in TiddlyWiki.

Here i have to agree: Story River as implemented by TW  (not the only implementation around, NB) is a foreign concept to most inveterate web users -which does bring some interesting possibilities, don't get me wrong, but still: anything that so stretches the visual language of story-telling on the web has got a serious usability obstacle to overcome.  /w

 

..For whatever reason, staying within the boundaries of one "display all" tiddler works best for me:

• either display content in that tiddler based on selections in a sidebar menu (I'm on the fence about that approach)
  • Like I've done with my  Favourite Stuff and Projects TiddlyWiki
• or have everything displaying (or available from) that tiddler, making use of details widgets (or other widgets) to hide/show content, and making use of modals for displaying extra content
  • Like I've done with my online resume TiddlyWiki

Those are two clever workarounds you've developed, Charlie, for those who (like us two at least) find the river-of-tiddlers approach to nesting information kinda awkward.  

Your menu-of-radio-buttons approach is much more familiar and therefore usable for most, i would say... 

And those click-to-reveal-content arrows (sliders?) are something of a standard in the world of outlining afficionados, and also quite a popular UI feature on the web.  

If there be any way to turn these two models of yours into a sort of "skin" that could be easily overlaid on an existing TW instance, that would be awesome!  /w

• •  I figure my preferences, always a work in progress, would be far from universally appealing.  Brains are so wonderfully diverse, I'm not quite sure what could be universally appealing.

Agree: no point trying to be all things to all people -although, in the world of TW geeks, you could almost make that claim.  

Am just saying: if any of you TW devs ever hope to engage something like a mainstream audience w/ your app, you've got some serious usability issues to overcome...

And if you somehow manage to pull that off, please share your solution here, for goodness sake!

[TW Tones]

All,

I treasure the story river, once I install some support tools, for projects, todo and creative writing. I understand that designing a wiki to behave more like all other websites is desirable in other cases. 

What attempt's I have made to look like "normal websites" has worked fine. Perhaps a few layouts and tools that help designers create such standard sites would help.

Here is an unfinished blog site design of mine https://anthonymuscio.github.io/TWBlog.html, keep in mind that the infinite scroll similar to the story is a common design approach for blogs or news pages.

Also there is a setting to update the address bar that makes forward and back work as long as the load times are not too high. See ControlPanel > Settings >  Navigation Address Bar

Regards

Tones

[Charlie Veniot]

Who said anything about designing wikis to behave like web sites?

A stereotypical blog with entries ordered and always in the same order, that I like.  Every blog entry stays in the same place respective to other entries.  Things haven't moved on me.  So there is cognitive stability.  Things are where I expect them to be.  Story river can get cognitively unstable pretty quickly, easy to get lost.

Sure, the story river is very useful to those who know the story river (are used to it), but a bit more challenging for those who are used to a stable-looking stereotypical blog, but not so much used to the dynamism of a story river.  Easy to get lost after a while.

Well, understanding that not all folk cognitively process the same way.  I'm sure some folk are immediately at home with the story river.

[Charlie Veniot]

Hey hey hey, Ted is still kicking !  So much so that I'm sure he'd slap me silly for my blasphemy (disliking the back button).

I'm not one to worship the ground anybody walks on, but if I did, Ted would be up there with a small handful of other folk.  I really like the guy and am a big fan.

If I had my way, it wouldn't be a back button.  It would be a map of where I've been, and ability to quickly view side by side any of those places.

[TiddlyTweeter]

cj.v...@gmail.com wrote:

A stereotypical blog with entries ordered and always in the same order, that I like.  Every blog entry stays in the same place respective to other entries.  Things haven't moved on me.  So there is cognitive stability.  Things are where I expect them to be.  Story river can get cognitively unstable pretty quickly, easy to get lost.

Sure, the story river is very useful to those who know the story river (are used to it), but a bit more challenging for those who are used to a stable-looking stereotypical blog, but not so much used to the dynamism of a story river.  Easy to get lost after a while.

Ciao cj.v ...

Great reply. To the point. But in terms of the OP I would imagine that the "STORY RIVER" could be under strict control for many APPS?

I like your post because it's getting into the PARTICULARS of what an end-app might need a dev. to ensure is in place.

Maybe this fine detail is outwith this thread? 

But I'd certainly say the issue is central: i.e. WHICH normal functions in TW do you need to control MOST for simpler presentation within the current remit of the normative visual caché of the net in general?

Best, TT

[TiddlyTweeter]

ludwa6 / w wrote...

... Story River as implemented by TW  (not the only implementation around, NB) is a foreign concept to most inveterate web users -which does bring some interesting possibilities, don't get me wrong, but still: anything that so stretches the visual language of story-telling on the web has got a serious usability obstacle to overcome.  /w

 Right, but Shirley, that can be addressed by the dev for the  specific APP?  :-) 

In fun, TT

[TiddlyTweeter]

 TW Tones wrote:

... Here is an unfinished blog site design of mine https://anthonymuscio.github.io/TWBlog.html, keep in mind that the infinite scroll similar to the story is a common design approach for blogs or news pages.

Ciao TW Tones

Thanks for posting that. It IS interesting, though not really an APP of the type I meant, though an interesting take on a TW blog.

Maybe the way "forward"  here is more examples? So it is good to have at least one.

       There is more to tease out, I now think, than when I started this thread.

In particular I think the "TW Editions" thing actually leaves some ambiguity. 

I think most TW "Editions" are NOT "Applications" for any specific end-game, rather they are "Developer's Templates" provided in  order to assist the creation of the latter from the former. 

Just comments, but I am thankful for the engagement in the issue from every writer here!!

Best wishes

TT

[Charlie Veniot]

"but Shirley".  That tickles this old fart something silly.

[Eric Shulman]

On Wednesday, July 28, 2021 at 8:02:29 PM UTC-7 cj.v...@gmail.com wrote:

"but Shirley".  That tickles this old fart something silly.

Classic scene from "Airplane!":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM2K7sV-K74

"... and don't call me Shirley"

-e

[TW Tones]

TT,

I agree  TW "Editions" are NOT "Applications"  but TiddlyWiki can be an application, website, smart document, personal software and anything else that can be built on top of these, and possibility even more than one at a time.

Perhaps we can discuss how a tiddlywiki may comply with the concept of "Application", I would assume users need not know about tiddlywiki, but it behaves like an app, 

also like a website, or like a document.

Tones

[TiddlyTweeter]

TW Tones wrote:

I agree  TW "Editions" are NOT "Applications"  but TiddlyWiki can be an application, website, smart document, personal software and anything else that can be built on top of these ...

Perhaps we can discuss how a tiddlywiki may comply with the concept of "Application", I would assume users need not know about tiddlywiki, but it behaves like an app, also like a website, or like a document.

Right. I agree that the terminology matters to describing which particular thing one is delineating.

FYI I used the term  "APPLICATION" in the general functional sense (a thing that does something for a defined purpose/objective). 

In my mind was that that includes pages/docs too. 

But, of course, there is the issue that on a computer an "APP" is dominantly thought of as a bit of software.

Overall I do think teasing out the lingo to more precisely identify TiddlyWiki's that are dedicated to specific FUNCTIONAL OBJECTIVES could well be worth it.

Best wishes

TT

[TW Tones]

TT

Overall I do think teasing out the lingo to more precisely identify TiddlyWiki's that are dedicated to specific FUNCTIONAL OBJECTIVES could well be worth it.

Totally agree,  I suppose it may happen organically in conversations like this or could we find a way to develop this?

Tones