I think part of the problem with documentation is that the people who really understand it all are the folks who are busy creating new and fun stuff. And since that is the fun part, documentation gets pushed to the bottom of the pile. Plus half the time people are asking these really amazing questions that no one really had thought about before.
Actually the bigest problem I always hit is that I don't know what something is called, or it is called something so generic that I can't look it up. Like doing a search for... well you know that area that you type all the text into.... ummm... I know it has a name, but what is it? Oh, and the info on standard fields: http://tiddlywiki.org/wiki/Tiddler_Fields Which tells me that the thing I couldn't remember the name of is "Tiddler Body" Maybe a good way to document it all would be having a picture of a TW, and then as you click on each piece it zooms in (opening different page/tiddler), showing you more detail, but also explaining more of what you are looking at does, and how it interacts with the rest of the system. Example: A full TW > Tiddler > Title > standard field, must be unique, can be transcluded by using <<tiddler {tiddler title}>>, see ViewTemplate & EditTemplate, etc,etc, etc. Ken Girard On Jul 11, 3:32 pm, Eric Weir <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jul 9, 2009, at 6:25 AM, wolfgang wrote: > > > I think this assessment isn't fair Eric. > > I was aware of the respects in which my comment about documentation > was inadequate -- should I say, "inaccurate"? -- Wolfgang. Of course, > I'm aware, too, that it is an open source project. > > There is a lot of documentation, a great deal of it actually. Another > manifestation of the generosity of the TiddlyWiki community. But when > you're at work and run into a problem, it's not always easy to know > where to go looking -- to what site, or in what location at that site. > It would be handy to have a manual, a compilation of components, > commands, tweaks, applications, FAQs, solutions to common problems. > Something with a table of contents and index. Not not necessarily > polished and edited for publication. Almost certainly everything > anyone would want to know has already been written up somewhere. If it > were organized and made more accessible, it would probably more than > suffice. > > Another example. And again, I've been around at least a couple years. > I know vaguely that TiddlyWiki has standard "fields." Maybe some -- or > all? -- are associated with tiddlers. Looking at a TiddlyWiki, using a > TiddlyWiki, you'd never know it. I still don't know what they are or > what they're for. Maybe as a naive user who'll never gravitate to > developer, I don't need to know. Or, maybe it would be really helpful. > It would be nice to have a book I could pore over and learn about > things like that. Develop some sense of what kind of animal this > TiddlyWiki is. What it's made of. How it works. > > As for being open source, TiddlyWiki is not exactly a struggling open > source project. In spite of the concerns that have been expressed on > this thread, it seems to be on relatively solid ground. It's a proven, > highly adaptable application in relatively wide use. It's got a solid > community of developers and users. > > Other open source projects that make it this far develop a literature > directed at novices. Perhaps, as in some of those case, it will have > to come from outside the TiddlyWiki community. > > Regards, > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Eric Weir > Decatur, GA USA > [email protected] --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
