All, I treasure the story river, once I install some support tools, for projects, todo and creative writing. I understand that designing a wiki to behave more like all other websites is desirable in other cases.
What attempt's I have made to look like "normal websites" has worked fine. Perhaps a few layouts and tools that help designers create such standard sites would help. Here is an unfinished blog site design of mine https://anthonymuscio.github.io/TWBlog.html, keep in mind that the infinite scroll similar to the story is a common design approach for blogs or news pages. Also there is a setting to update the address bar that makes forward and back work as long as the load times are not too high. See ControlPanel > Settings > Navigation Address Bar <https://tiddlywiki.com/#%24%3A%2Fcore%2Fui%2FControlPanel%2FSettings%2FNavigationAddressBar> Regards Tones On Tuesday, 27 July 2021 at 23:36:52 UTC+10 ludwa6 wrote: > On Tuesday, July 27, 2021 at 1:55:52 PM UTC+1 [email protected] wrote: > >> I pretty much always see browser back and forward buttons as evil. > > > BLASPHEMY! Ted Nelson is rolling over in his grave right now, @Charlie; > you'd better recant, or face hellfire & damnation yourself :-) > Seriously tho: Lot's of people rely on those browser built-ins (not to > mention me) -besides which: to whatever extent there be anything like a > standard feature in ALL browsers, those arrow buttons are two of the few, > so... This is not an issue to blow off, if we're talking here about > mainstream pedestrian usage of TW as a worthy goal. /w > > I'm also no fan of the storyriver in TiddlyWiki. >> > > Here i have to agree: Story River *as implemented by TW* (not the only > implementation around, NB) is a foreign concept to most inveterate web > users -which does bring some interesting possibilities, don't get me wrong, > but still: anything that so stretches the visual language of story-telling > on the web has got a serious usability obstacle to overcome. /w > > >> ..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 >> >> Those are two clever workarounds you've developed, Charlie, for those who > (like us two at least) find the river-of-tiddlers approach to nesting > information kinda awkward. > Your menu-of-radio-buttons approach is much more familiar and therefore > usable for most, i would say... > And those click-to-reveal-content arrows (sliders?) are something of a > standard in the world of outlining afficionados, and also quite a popular > UI feature on the web. > If there be any way to turn these two models of yours into a sort of > "skin" that could be easily overlaid on an existing TW instance, that would > be awesome! /w > >> >> - >> - 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. >> >> Agree: no point trying to be all things to all people -although, in the > world of TW geeks, you could almost make that claim. > Am just saying: if any of you TW devs ever hope to engage something like a > mainstream audience w/ your app, you've got some serious usability issues > to overcome... > And if you somehow manage to pull that off, please share your solution > here, for goodness sake! > > /walt > > > >> 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/ee0fa3ca-e2a7-4927-a1f0-912c101de372n%40googlegroups.com.
