Tones, since the idea is to reach broader audiences, I still feel that it makes more sense to use much simpler names/descriptions (instead of mathematical formulas). Having said that, I really like your ideas and reasoning behind it all!
Going through the thread one more time, I feel that all the ideas and arguments presented fit together nicely, if we consider how flexible TW can be. In one end there is the coder, able to manipulate/develop; on the other end, the most casual user, that only has access to the content. Then there is the whole spectrum in-between. What I (and some others) are talking about is making sure this full scope is always available, but never imposed. As mentioned before, the idea of bringing in more casual users is not about diminishing TW's potential. On the contrary, making the top level more user-friendly wouldn't change the experience to experienced users. But it would make a huge difference in making it less daunting for new users. Even if these new users use just 1% of TW's potential, that's already much more than most comercial software out there. On top of that, as people get comfortable with TW, they would be able to gradually get more into it. The DIY analogy Tones made works well here. On one end, we have people who have workshops and professional tools, and can build any furniture from scratch. On the other end, Ikea people, who just want a table. Here is what TW could be: a table, ready for use, but which also comes with a box of tools, which the user is free to ignore. Then one day they'll notice the table is a bit wobbly due to the floor being slanted. They'll ask in the forum how to fix that. People will explain: "Open the toolbox, get tool A and just do this simple operation X". The user will feel very empowered (despite it being such a basic operation). Gradually they'll explore more of these options/tools. The one day they'll feel the need to have a little drawer under the table, and they'll realize they know how to use the tools to do it. Suddenly they're building their own furniture. But most people will never reach that point if they feel overwhelmed to start using TW in the first place.. On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 5:44:03 PM UTC+1, OGNSYA wrote: > > I'm curious to know what type of people uses TiddlyWiki currently, and > what type of people the project wants to reach? > > I believe that discussing this might help inform many of the conversations > that have been going on, such as the Getting Started page, and the > UI/workflow redesign. > > In case this is not known, here are a few possible guide questions to help > estimate: > (I included an initial answer in all of them, just as a starting point): > > - *What type of people uses TW? *(considering only those who > create/develop) > (49% coders, 49% casual coders, 2% non-coders?) > - *How do they use TW?* (considering only those who create/develop) > (50% very basic usage, 30% uses several features/plugins, 15% > hack/develop plugins, 5% experts?) > - *What proportion of internet users use TW on a frequent basis?* (2% > edit/view, 3% as viewers only?) > - *How many internet users are coders? *(in general, regardless of TW) > - Non-coders (98.5%?) > - Casual coders (0.5%?) > - Coders (1%?) > > This is intentionally very simplified, especially because most of these > questions can't be answered objectively. Regardless, knowing the > community's perception of them is already very useful. This is meant to be > a first draft. Please feel free to correct/suggest changes. (For the > guesses, I partly used some data found online. ) > > *Edit (2020/06/18): to account for view-only users* > -- 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/4a313e0d-009e-47c9-82e5-6060cdb8e44fo%40googlegroups.com.
