[tw] Re: Conveying: Moans about poor documentation

Hi Folks, I did create a TiddlyWiki Community Challenge ! Which may help us to get more stars and may be more contributors. Everyone, who posted to this thread, and didn't have starred the TiddlyWiki repo

[tw] Re: Conveying: Moans about poor documentation

If that's what you want, just submit a write-up to Jeremy/github about any new sites you find, and encourage others to do the same. There's already a short list at tiddlywiki.com/Community/Examples. We could have a sticky thread (Gallery) in this forum nominating sites as they are discovered,

[tw] Re: Conveying: Moans about poor documentation

Ciao Jed, Mark S. & tutti Seeing FULL WORKING TIDDLYWIKIS that exemplify different aspects of what TW can do is, in my case, the single biggest HELP. I am not good with "in principle" minimalist demos or "foo-bar" stuff. That's my cognitive limitation, I think, and its a bit more extreme

[tw] Re: Conveying: Moans about poor documentation

I just replied to Riz on Reddit as follows ... http://tinyurl.com/zfdmo29 I have both initiated and participated in several debates over documentation for TiddlyWiki. As this one goes on I have the sense its a LOT better than previous discussions. There is some chance it might fruit.

Re: [tw] Re: Conveying: Moans about poor documentation

Oh, I probably used that more than a decade ago before my palm died. Seems like shadowplan works a lot like WorkFlowy, which could be emulated with view templates and the TOC macro. See attached. Mark On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 7:23:02 AM UTC-8, David Gifford wrote: > >

Re: [tw] Re: Conveying: Moans about poor documentation

http://www.codejedi.com/shadowplan/about.html On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 9:20 AM, 'Mark S.' via TiddlyWiki < tiddlywiki@googlegroups.com> wrote: > What is shadowplan? Link? My google search only wanted to find > "shadowplay". > > Mark > > On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 12:57:12 AM UTC-8, Raymond

[tw] Re: Conveying: Moans about poor documentation

What is shadowplan? Link? My google search only wanted to find "shadowplay". Mark On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 12:57:12 AM UTC-8, Raymond McDowell wrote: > > Just a thought after having an exchange with former ShadowPlan users who > are uncomfortable moving to TiddlyWiki. > > -- You

[tw] Re: Conveying: Moans about poor documentation

Hi Folks, Following the thread with interest. ... Just didn't have time to respond, because it will be a "wall of text" - warning :) On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 9:57:12 AM UTC+1, Raymond McDowell wrote: > > Just a thought after having an exchange with former ShadowPlan users who > are

[tw] Re: Conveying: Moans about poor documentation

Raymond, That is the idea behind having different editions. Unfortunately there aren't many editions created or supported. So if you have something you want put together a wiki for an edition and we can see about getting it listed. As far as tiddlyfox goes, you generally get it from within

[tw] Re: Conveying: Moans about poor documentation

Just a thought after having an exchange with former ShadowPlan users who are uncomfortable moving to TiddlyWiki. Would it be workable to have an empty TW5 with a set of plug-ins and macros set up to provide ready made and intuitive experience for new users? Why can't the download (perhaps a

[tw] Re: Conveying: Moans about poor documentation

Hi everyone, I say, why does it have to be one way or the other? Why not both? TWederation and something like a MediaWiki? They both have their benefits and approach the problems differently. The former seems to be more of a search engine of different ideas while the latter is a more orderly

Re: [tw] Re: Conveying: Moans about poor documentation

Even if there is a general agreement or community rule that people will update their posts with answers to their own questions, I offer to set up a wiki and copy and paste them under appropriate topics. But one person cannot be expected to prepare the entire documentation. On 05-Dec-2016 8:33 PM,

[tw] Re: Conveying: Moans about poor documentation

Ciao Philippe I think you hit on a central point. The SEEING of "WOW, you can do THAT!" IMO we are selling ourselves short in NOT showing enough USE CASES to make clear HOW FLEXIBLE TiddlyWiki is. Or rather, they do get shown/mentioned in the Google Group BUT because of the way it works once

Re: [tw] Re: Conveying: Moans about poor documentation

Ciao Riz & Sylvian Since Google Groups does not have any organised history at all, in practice past learning is just dropping off the cliff into a void once a thread is completed. A forum that had tagging and proper search/filter mechanisms would be a huge step in the right direction IMO. I

Re: [tw] Re: Conveying: Moans about poor documentation

That is a really good suggestion - a proper forum. Even reddit would have been a good alternative. Last time someone suggested this, the objection raised was that the amount of data in this group cannot be migrated. But that is sunken cost fallacy, we have created a non-ideal past doesn't mean we

[tw] Re: Conveying: Moans about poor documentation

Le dimanche 4 décembre 2016 04:26:39 UTC+1, Riz a écrit : > > So let us summarize the discussion up until this point. Pending Jeremy's > clarification whether we are permitted to undertake such an effort at all, > we are considering two main options > > 1. Create a mediawiki > 2. Twederation >

[tw] Re: Conveying: Moans about poor documentation

Ciao Mat That idea of leveraging off Google Groups via scraping posts is a neat one. But, I think it would be unworkable retrospectively without the scraper TAGGING them and doing that accurately for what sounds like swathes of history. It looks to me far too complex & time consuming. A

[tw] Re: Conveying: Moans about poor documentation

Ciao Josiah & Co. Josiah, you had me at 2c – it strikes me, that one big advantage of MediaWiki is it’s versioning: you have the last summary for a topic on one page while it’s history and possibly a discussion are just one click away. For me as a simple user they live on the same page. As we

Re: [tw] Re: Conveying: Moans about poor documentation

I should say, though, that I would be completely fine with it being MediaWiki. On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 4:27 PM, David Gifford wrote: > Wow it has been fun getting the back and forth from this thread in my > inbox. All I want to say is, wheels have a right to a little

Re: [tw] Re: Conveying: Moans about poor documentation

Wow it has been fun getting the back and forth from this thread in my inbox. All I want to say is, wheels have a right to a little recreation, too. Why would Josiah want to end their recreation? :-) I hope something is worked out. My vote would be for twederation, but my own contributions would

[tw] Re: Conveying: Moans about poor documentation

Riz wrote: > > I am ending with this post. I feel I am taking up a crusade nobody is > bothered about. > > We can go to and fro for long time debating hypotheticals. An easy way for > refutation and clarification is actually setting up the documentation using > whatever platform you deem fit.

[tw] Re: Conveying: Moans about poor documentation

I am ending with this post. I feel I am taking up a crusade nobody is bothered about. We can go to and fro for long time debating hypotheticals. An easy way for refutation and clarification is actually setting up the documentation using whatever platform you deem fit. -- You received this

[tw] Re: Conveying: Moans about poor documentation

Hi again Riz First of all; I appreciate your questions. I tried to answer them the best I could, which included questioning some of them because some were based on misunderstandings or assumptions that didn't make sense to me. Another option would be to not reply but I think that is less

[tw] Re: Conveying: Moans about poor documentation

Ciao Mat Two points. Organisation is not necessarily hierarchy. Modest hierarchies are ubiquitously used on the internet to organise stuff. In my understanding, Riz isn't aspiring to a system of systems. He's sensibly pointing out that right now finding (past) solutions is UNWIELDY & largely

[tw] Re: Conveying: Moans about poor documentation

I disagree; consider any internet search engine for example. The idea to > put everything in a pretty tree structure was abandoned decades ago. > Well here is the first link to the google search "Examples of Best Documentation".

[tw] Re: Conveying: Moans about poor documentation

Has anybody considered making an official Wikipedia-esque page where anybody can come along and add documentation, edit, or expand it if they feel like it? I mean, it worked for Wikipedia. They have a whole world full of people contributing to it, and all they had to do was set the site up and

[tw] Re: Conveying: Moans about poor documentation

Riz wrote: 1. Organization: Having documentation alone will not do. It must be > organized under titles and subtitles and so and so. > I disagree; consider any internet search engine for example. The idea to put everything in a pretty tree structure was abandoned decades ago. In the latest

[tw] Re: Conveying: Moans about poor documentation

Ciao all There are parts of this that are also responses to Riz, Matt, Jed & Mark. S. I'll make a few comments that have bearing on this discussion ... and, hopefully, next steps.This repeats a lot of themes that will be obvious to many on TW but think its useful to especially keep the context

[tw] Re: Conveying: Moans about poor documentation

But if we do it through github than it would have to be on the main site and Jeremy would have to update tiddlywiki.com to add anything, and we would be restricted to what should be on the main site, which would mean we wouldn't be able to have the wide base of small examples and everything

[tw] Re: Conveying: Moans about poor documentation

On Sunday, 4 December 2016 13:44:32 UTC+5:30, Jed Carty wrote: > > It would mean that anyone who has one of the tiddlyspot wikis already > could easily contribute to the documentation without having to do more than > add to their existing wiki. > That undermines the very need of this thread.

[tw] Re: Conveying: Moans about poor documentation

In my case you wouldn't necessarily have to have the person who received the answer write it up. It would mean that anyone who has one of the tiddlyspot wikis already could easily contribute to the documentation without having to do more than add to their existing wiki. There are a number of

[tw] Re: Conveying: Moans about poor documentation

Philip actually worded it better - the realization of a non-technical user "Wow you can do all that!!" So let us summarize the discussion up until this point. Pending Jeremy's clarification whether we are permitted to undertake such an effort at all, we are considering two main options 1.

[tw] Re: Conveying: Moans about poor documentation

Mark, There has been some work on versioning but we don't have anything yet since twederation is still in the early stages. There can't really be answers to those questions yet because they will depend on a large part on the social structure used by the community making the documentation. I am

[tw] Re: Conveying: Moans about poor documentation

Hello Mark, "How do you append to a list a title with spaces using a text reference?" may not be a typical use-case (I am not even sure I understand what it means!!) but I think that as the use-case list grows then people will be saying "Wow you can do all that with Tw5!" I personally used

[tw] Re: Conveying: Moans about poor documentation

For organization, it will be necessary to overwrite/rewrite an existing tiddler that someone else originated. It will also be necessary to delete tiddlers that someone else originated. How does Twederation currently deal with those scenarios? Thanks, Mark On Saturday, December 3, 2016 at

[tw] Re: Conveying: Moans about poor documentation

As far as giving someone access to something on your harddrive, no part of how the federation is set up does that. If you are running a webserver from your computer than they can have read access to it, but it is impossible to use what I made to affect any wiki other than the one you own. Any

[tw] Re: Conveying: Moans about poor documentation

For the learning curve at least, if we have things set up with the federated wikis than all that would be required is for someone to make tiddlers, tag them with the appropriate tags and send a message. The idea is that if you want to contribute to the documentation than you put a wiki online

[tw] Re: Conveying: Moans about poor documentation

Hello Josiah, So, do you think the MAIN problem with tiddlywiki.com is lack of use-cases? In that case, perhaps you could help identify areas that need better use-cases, and then we could add them ... and ta-dah! Done. However, I don't think the one case you pointed out, "How do you append to

Re: [tw] Re: Conveying: Moans about poor documentation

Jeremy, Can you clarify? If we wanted to use material from TiddlyWiki.com for an alternate documentation system, is the material copy-right free? Thanks! Mark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To unsubscribe from this group and

[tw] Re: Conveying: Moans about poor documentation

I can respond to points 4-7. I concur with points 1-3. 4. In theory, if dozens of sites have some portion of the documentation, then there will always be a backup copy somewhere. 5. Any active participant will need to post his TW federation on a public host. So nothing on his/her hard drive

Re: [tw] Re: Conveying: Moans about poor documentation

I think it is great that the additional possibilities of TW are organised and made easily available for the general public. Yet, I am not sure that we should replace the current TW file. As it is written on the TW homepage it is a "unique non-linear notebook for capturing, organising and

[tw] Re: Conveying: Moans about poor documentation

Hi Mat and Jed Your work is one of the most expected works. However here are my concerns 1. Organization: Having documentation alone will not do. It must be organized under titles and subtitles and so and so. Orgnanization will provide answers for the questions you have, as well as serve to

[tw] Re: Conveying: Moans about poor documentation

I agree with Mat that a shared distributed documentation effort is the only real way for a community like this to create the sort of documentation we want. Although I may be more than a little biased since I made twederation. Hopefully I will be getting back to it very soon. I am excited about

[tw] Re: Conveying: Moans about poor documentation

Documentation - I will explain the only realistic solution below but let me start by saying what does NOT work (...if you're impatient you can jump down to the headline "The solution"). There are two main routes that might seem reasonable great but are really cul-de-saqs: "The lonesome

[tw] Re: Conveying: Moans about poor documentation

I think the idea of a separate wiki that would collect all kind of typical user case would be a great idea. I asked the question that Rix mentioned on reddit and the answer I got (from you Riz?) was spot on. I don't consider myself an expert in programming but I can still normally get my way

[tw] Re: Conveying: Moans about poor documentation

Ciao Mark S You make great points. IMO USE CASES are seriously currently UNDERDONE compared to other software. I guess in back of my mind are questions about USAGE. I think a VERY good example is how to post to social networks. Something I consider basic. In theory everything is there in TW

[tw] Re: Conveying: Moans about poor documentation

Ciao Riz Right. The devil is in the details. Cases of user experience are very important. Josiah On Friday, 2 December 2016 16:55:40 UTC+1, Riz wrote: > > > > > > https://www.reddit.com/r/TiddlyWiki5/comments/5g12vp/feel_free_to_ask_friday_a_thread_for_questions/dap5obv/?st=iw7z0lj9=e485fceb >

[tw] Re: Conveying: Moans about poor documentation

David That is a really excellent, detailed, and IMO, very accurate, balanced, description of the situation. You penultimate paragraph is absolutely spot on IMO. Very often, as a naive user, I follow the docs only to find out I missed something that is some kinda semi-documented something--but

[tw] Re: Conveying: Moans about poor documentation

https://www.reddit.com/r/TiddlyWiki5/comments/5g12vp/feel_free_to_ask_friday_a_thread_for_questions/dap5obv/?st=iw7z0lj9=e485fceb Case in point. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop

Re: [tw] Re: Conveying: Moans about poor documentation

On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 10:38 PM, David Gifford wrote: > dividing into the three audiences… ​+1. For me, humble user, it is hard to understand what this skilled​ (wonderful) group communicates about. -- Eneko Gotzon Ares enekogot...@gmail.com -- You received this

Re: [tw] Re: Conveying: Moans about poor documentation

Hi Mark Thanks for your comments. I agree Mediawiki would be a good option, and like the idea of dividing into the three audiences you mentioned (I did something somewhat similar for TW for the rest of us), though I think some items like list filters and customization should be for both end users

Re: [tw] Re: Conveying: Moans about poor documentation

I want to put my voice in here. The capabilities of the NodeJS --server are totally underestimated. While you guys worry about single tiddlywikis and huge tiddlywikis and all kinds of browser plugin problems, I've been typing http://localhost:3000/ into my browser and it works no matter what. Most

[tw] Re: Conveying: Moans about poor documentation

On Thursday, 1 December 2016 21:39:15 UTC+5:30, Mark S. wrote: > > Hi Dave, > > Responses to various points -- > > There probably need to be 3 document paths: User, Advanced User, Developer. > > Each bit of documentation could include the version it was written for. > Then the reader could

Re: [tw] Re: Conveying: Moans about poor documentation

Just jumping in on the TiddlyFox issue, there will be an update to TiddlyFox that works with the new architecture. It’s an update I prepared last year but pulled at the last minute because it doesn’t work on Firefox for Android; those users will be able to stick with the current version. Best

[tw] Re: Conveying: Moans about poor documentation

Hi Dave, Responses to various points -- There probably need to be 3 document paths: User, Advanced User, Developer. Each bit of documentation could include the version it was written for. Then the reader could decide if what they're reading is applicable. Adding better use-cases would be

[tw] Re: Conveying: Moans about poor documentation

I think a MediaWiki or similar solution would be a great thing. MediaWiki has a listing of MW sites available, including at least one that says its free and add-free (but who knows what the details are?). Other sites are fairly inexpensive if data can be kept under 10G. The question is, is all

[tw] Re: Conveying: Moans about poor documentation

I want to affirm Josiah and Riz's frustration, from someone who has done introductory documentation for TW classic (TiddlyWiki for the rest of us) and the current TiddlyWiki (which you can still find on tiddlywiki.com, via Github, and Github was a miserable experience for me. I still don't get

[tw] Re: Conveying: Moans about poor documentation

Ok, so this is a post I have been planning to make for long. Wear your seat-belts. Obligatory warning: The following comments are made out of a sincere desire to see this platform getting better and appealing to more people. Remember that I have no personal gains from writing this. The

[tw] Re: Conveying: Moans about poor documentation

On Wednesday, November 30, 2016 at 7:24:44 PM UTC+1, Josiah wrote: .. To give an example of a question I could not answer without referring to > here: "How do you append to a list a title with spaces using a text > reference?" > If they did as for text reference. IMO a search would have told

[tw] Re: Conveying: Moans about poor documentation

Ciao Mark You are right, its NOT a basic question. That is the point. But it is a question. A question that is falling between two stools from lack of documentation IMO. Its NOT like complaining the first aid book lacks kidney removals. Its much more like it lacked advice on basic suturing.

[tw] Re: Conveying: Moans about poor documentation

That's not a basic question -- somebody that's been working with lists and filters for awhile would have to cook up a response. It's not something someone would even consider asking in say, MediaWiki or Evernote. It's like buying a book on first aid and complaining that there's no chapter on

[tw] Re: Conveying: Moans about poor documentation

Ciao Mark The queries fell between two stools. On the one hand they have looked at the basic docs, on the other finding the Google Group a bit too much. Given that majority of people looking on Twitter for #TiddlyWiki are mostly techies, these 3 were no exception. I think that is interesting

[tw] Re: Conveying: Moans about poor documentation

+1 for the question. -- 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+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to

[tw] Re: Conveying: Moans about poor documentation

What were they trying to do? The documentation for basic functionality seems to be right there. But it does require people understand a bit about downloading, file structure (to find the downloaded file), and browser plugins. Web-based solutions don't require that knowledge, but then they