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
<https://intertwingularityslicendice.neocities.org/CJ_ProductReviews.html>
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
<https://cjveniot.neocities.org/> 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.
On Tuesday, July 27, 2021 at 8:59:36 AM UTC-3 ludwa6 wrote:
> 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
>
>
> On Tuesday, July 27, 2021 at 11:45:06 AM UTC+1 TiddlyTweeter wrote:
>
>> 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 wikis" and unpublished tiddlywiki's which evolve to a users needs, thus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
>>
>
--
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/5e8ffbe0-2dd7-40a4-8628-b5da4532a1bcn%40googlegroups.com.
