You star, thankyou! This is amazing and so quick! Even like this it is a huge advance on what I had and would have taken me months. I will study the code and try to work out what you, Eric, and others have done. It might not be so great a jump to get from here to allocating a score to each item according to whether it is not true, somewhat true or certainly true? I am blown away by how quickly you did that. Thanks again, Alex.
Best, Dickon On 18 Apr, 17:49, Alex Hough <[email protected]> wrote: > > I can feel some more late nights ahead. > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > I only have rare opportunities to help out in the TiddlyVerse - I am > usually the recipient of Eric's, FND's and others' kind help > I put your questions into the my questionnaire TW [1] - I hope they > might be of some help to you or anyone else. > > Psychology, Linking, Tags and TiddlyWiki > ------------------------------------------------------- > > Interesting to be made aware of Wilfred Bion. I'll have a look at his stuff. > > Alex > > [1]http://r.a.hough.googlepages.com/StrengthsandDifficultiesQuestionnai.... > > The final point in your comment is > > > particularly relevant and interesting to me - about the APPLIED side > > of TW's as opposed to (or //alongside//, rather) the technical > > developments that mostly leave me scratching my head at present > > (though I have high hopes...) > > > I have been playing with the content of my TiddlyWiki manual for a > > long time now, but certainly would not claim any specific competencies > > (at all!) in the programming side of things; rather, it is the > > APPLICATION of this elegantly different writing format that fascinates > > me, and what it can bring to real life tasks, like running a team who > > are trying to do a complex set of tasks better, and in a more joined- > > up way. > > > I am fascinated in the way that TW works not just as an *analytical* > > tool (splitting a complex area up into branches/tags, much as a 'mind > > map' can do on paper) but that simultaneously it works as an > > *integrative* tool (linking distant branches/twigs) so that I > > sometimes envisage the web of information in a TW as being 3- > > dimensional: Tags spreading out over the surface of a sphere, Links > > diving through the core to their targets, though of course this is too > > simple in reality. > > > Hence I am very interested in rather abstract notions such as "What, > > precisely (semantically and pragmatically, that is), is a link, and a > > tag?" and "what does non-linearity offer to the reader and writer that > > more conventional linear text forms lack? - and what do we risk losing > > by not having a linear statement of an argument?" Clearly this is a > > Both-And rather than an Either-Or situation. No doubt others have > > thought long and hard about these questions already, and I would be > > most interested if there are any pointers to where I can connect up > > with this conversation. > > > There is a seminal paper (1959) in the field of psychoanalysis by a > > British analyst called Wilfred Bion titled "Attacks on Linking", and > > to summarise this very complex and dense piece of writing, he is > > saying that unconscious processes (which might be construed as having > > a "vested interest" in remaining unconscious) "conspire" to keep apart > > material that could and probably "should" be linked in the mind > > ("Don't bore me with the facts, I like my story the way it is!"). I > > think this goes for a great deal of the different schools of > > psychology and psychotherapy, as well as the neurosciences, which > > until recently have ploughed surprisingly separate furrows, without > > paying very much attention to links that are (or almost certainly > > should be) present. A generous understanding of this is that > > researchers have been focussed on their own skills and areas of > > interests, and that the branches of the "tree of knowledge" have > > extended out so quickly over the past 100years that common fruits on > > separate twigs have been easily overlooked, not least because the > > technology to suggest, explore and make links between, say, cognitive- > > behavioural theories and those of psychoanalysis, have been lacking. > > On the other hand, most of us would also recognise that (mainly > > unconscious) things like envy, empire-building and straightforward > > protectionism (academic and economic) have played their part, too. > > > This is very much the theoretical position that IMP (Integrative > > Multimodal Practice - the therapeutic stance that we are manualizing > > in TW) tries to take - that paying more conscious attention to the > > links between theories and practical applications is very powerful in > > terms of providing a better integrated (and thereby *integrative* for > > the poor client and family) service. In IMP we do that via two > > significant routes; firstly by training keyworkers in the basics of a > > whole range of evidence-based interventions (that have traditionally > > been "owned" by different professional groups), and secondly by using > > TW as the manualization allowing/promoting/sustaining this linking, > > and encouraging local team edits to the manual to create a marriage of > > "top-down" expert material with "bottom-up" local expertise. > > > To get back to the point of TiddlyWiki (given that this is the TW > > group!) there seem to be features embedded within TW that suit it > > quite uniquely for the job: > > > - its self-contained-ness, so that there can be clear editorial > > control over content, rather than a free-for-all. > > - the ease of basic editing so that non-experts can adopt it ...even > > technophobes (perhaps a little way to go to fully realise this!) > > - the lack of expensive additional (desk- or server-bound) software > > that any health service would baulk at paying for/maintaining. > > - the size of a tiddler; by which I mean that a tiddler is "bite- > > sized" rather than a full essay, and this makes the document > > approachable from a user's perspective. > > > I have strayed from the original topic of Forms, and have changed the > > title to reflect this. > > > Best, > > > Dickon > > > On Apr 18, 9:13 am, Alex Hough <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Dickton, > > >> I make no claim for the questions on the questionnaire. That credit > >> goes to Tudor Rickards [1]. The questions are part of his "Team Factor > >> Inventory" for creative teams, documented in Handbook for Creative > >> Team Leaders [2] The TW is a work in progress for the teaching of > >> creativity and creative leadership, and helping creativity and > >> creative leadership in organisations. > > >> Credit for the TW plugings: Eric and Udo for the story plugin and Udo > >> for the forms and for each tiddler. > > >> You are welcome to change the questions and adapt the TW for your own use. > > >> If anyone has any ideas / suggestions on how to make the questionnaire > >> [3] more user friendly and appear more attractive, I would be very > >> interested to read them. > > >> Finally, thanks for the compliment on a my TW! It's sometimes heavy > >> going being a TiddlyAdvocate in a 'real' world where the mention of a > >> tiddler raises eyebrows. > > >> Alex > > >> [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tudor_Rickards > >> [2]Rickards, T. & Moger, S., 1999. Handbook for Creative Team Leaders, > >> Gower Publishing Company. > >> Amazon.com Link. Available at:http://www.amazon.com/dp/0566080516 > >> [Accessed January 8, 2009]. > >> [3] ttp://r.a.hough.googlepages.com/TFI.html > > >> 2009/4/17 dickon <[email protected]>: > > >> > That is great, Alex. The Likert scale is exactly the kind of thing I > >> > would need to use. Your questionnaire is very thought-provoking too, > >> > and I like the way it generates instant feedback with traffic-light > >> > gradings! > > >> > Thanks, > > >> > Dickon > > >> > On Apr 17, 10:59 am, Alex Hough <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Hi Dickton > > >> >> I am working on two quesionaires, the most complete and most simple is > >> >> on the web [1] > >> >> Its work in development. > > >> >> The second is more 'in development but more complex. The order of the > >> >> questions depends on previous answers. I am working with a proper IT > >> >> professional using an method which focuses on user involovement. I can > >> >> show you this one as well in due course, but there is some bugs in the > >> >> system at the moment. > > >> >> Best Wishes > >> >> Alex > >> >> [1]http://r.a.hough.googlepages.com/TFI.html > >> >> ps. coincidentally I am working in mental health. another of my TW > >> >> projects is on a NHS creativity in mental health project. > > >> >>http://r.a.hough.googlepages.com/TFI.html > > >> >> 2009/4/16 dickon <[email protected]>: > > >> >> > Thankyou Mark. My HTML is definitely not up to this job, but at least > >> >> > I have some pointers of where to head. Entirely see your point about > >> >> > being both Nervous and Not nervous - both from an existential and a > >> >> > programming perspective! > > >> >> > Best, > > >> >> > Dickon > > >> >> > On 16 Apr, 17:54, "Mark S." <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> Following some help from Eric Shulman, I wrote myself a routine that > >> >> >> collects information from an HTML form, runs it through a format > >> >> >> string, and places it somewhere inside of an existing tiddler. > > >> >> >> This kind of routine could probably be modified to create a brand new > >> >> >> tiddler with questionnaire results. I haven't posted it anywhere > >> >> >> (except once somewhere in this forum) but I could again if there is > >> >> >> interest. > > >> >> >> You would have to rewrite your quiz as a real HTML form, though. You > >> >> >> use checkboxes throughout, but radio buttons would be more > >> >> >> appropriate. As it is, someone could be simultaneously Nervous and > >> >> >> Certainly Not Nervous. You know, I've had days like that. > > >> >> >> In order to be useful for later processing, you would want to think > >> >> >> about how the results are organized. I'm guessing that putting each > >> >> >> answer into a slice would be most appropriate > > >> >> >> q1: 1 <answer is 1 to 3> > >> >> >> q2: 3 > >> >> >> ... > > >> >> >> In any event, the final results need to be in some format that TW can > >> >> >> easily grab. There are also sections, data fields and the <data> > >> >> >> plugin, but to me this seems most easy to edit any mistakes. > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/TiddlyWiki?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
