Hi Dickon and Chris Its clear that the has been a good fit between ambit and tiddlyspace. Its an award winning success.
I think that there could be some transfer of knowledge between the contexts AMBIT, Tiddlyspace and the tiddlyWiki community. A possible way forward could be to harvest the learning by developing a Community of Practice at a higher level of abstraction : of sociological / anthropological aspects of technology design, open source ideas, psychology, mental health techniques and its implications for teamwork and building. In other words port Mentalizing with TiddlySpace to build a methodology for organisations to design their working methods. A "plugin" for an organisation - not only mental health organisations. == Funding and Conferences 1) Is there anyone writing about Ambit or Tiddlyspace as part of some research into organisational behavior? An interested person might be able to get a proposal together to study the reasons for success and get funded. A year or so I met with an innovation researcher (military aircraft) to ask him about researching innovation in TiddlyLand. TiddlyWiki in its own right was not big enough The added dimension of mental health might make research worth while. Might an org like NESTA be interested in funding? I am interested in exploring the ways in which such funding could be gained. I worked on a project trying to promote creativity and in a mental health trust a few years ago, an approach to technology developed though use in mental health contexts may be appealing to such organisations. Tiddly conference -- or a poster / paper at some other conference -- could be a planned outcome of the research - "action research", "research as practice" are some phrases I have come across. 2) Could funding be raised or a marketing strategy delevloped to deliver courses to organisations in how to mentalize while working with each other and IT - while using TiddlySpace. 3) Community of Practice. A guy from NASA suggested "TiddlyWiki group and its related groups TiddlyDev etc, constitute a quasi professional "community of practice" " [1] it a few years ago. Dickon mentions it in this thread .... must be a good idea .... right? Alex [1] https://groups.google.com/d/msg/tiddlywiki/mXaXqvcbxFA/LjbhT_bbvd4J On 6 December 2012 23:45, dickon <[email protected]> wrote: > Well, I don't have a load of time spare, but I would be happy to try to > write some posts to this group to see if we can discern themes that users of > TiddlySpace are hooking into. My approach would be to be fairly radically > non-technical in terms of programming, but to to be very focused on > FUNCTION: asking about what peoples' INTENTIONS are in the way they are (or > would see themselves in the future) using TS. > > Dickon > > > > > On Wednesday, 28 November 2012 16:50:30 UTC, Chris Dent wrote: >> >> On Thu, 22 Nov 2012, dickon wrote: >> >> > I think that Tiddlyspace should congratulate itself on achieving 6000 >> > users >> > with really no marketing at all. >> >> Thanks for the long and thoughtful response. I'll add some bits to the >> roadmap spaces. Some comments below for sake of conversation... >> >> > First, selfishly, *don't do anything that will break the stuff that is >> > already there* - the AMBIT project now have over 30 mental health teams >> >> Yeah, we intend to keep the core tiddlywiki properly functional >> throughout whatever changes are made. In fact given sufficient resources >> the hope is to make the tiddlywiki functionality better, overcoming >> some of the browser based limitations that are hurting file-based >> tiddlywiki's value proposition. >> >> That "sufficient resources" bit is rather key, however. >> >> > Second, *get clearer about a few core things that you think people can >> > do >> > with TiddlySpace* - what distinguishes it from other places in the web? >> >> Bizarre question, but would you, as a trained inquisitor have any >> interest in helping to tease that out? Most of our conversations about >> such things tend to spiral into confusion, too much abstraction or >> even despair. >> >> > Third* ask non-programmers what they think/want/like.*.. >> >> A big reason for the somewhat focus on dev-oriented people is because >> the projects need more technical contributions in order to thrive. >> We don't lack for ideas or plans. What we lack is consistent energy to >> apply them. So the hope is that if we can generate some external >> code contributions some of the gaps can be buttressed if not filled. >> >> But that, of course, is just one course of action and many sources of >> input need to be consulted. >> >> > - What got me interested (as a non-techie) in tiddlywiki first was the >> > ease with which I found I could write a fairly complex website that >> > used >> > links and tags to organise pages of information; it was the >> > "*non-linear*" >> > style of writing that fired me up. >> >> There are seeds of interest within BT for re-implementing TiddlyDocs >> style functionality with tiddlers but without tiddlywiki. This would >> provide some more functionality for hypertext authoring if it happens. >> >> But yes, it fires me up too. I've seen two styles of non-linearity: >> >> * Write in long form and then decompose to chunks (the extraclusion >> style) that can be reused. >> * Write in chunks and the compose to longer forms (the transclusion >> and "story" style). >> >> I _think_ those may be the Dentist and Rustonian styles, if we want to >> use tiddly personality to describe it. >> >> >> > - Then, with the advent of tiddlySpace, it was the* inclusion* idea >> > that >> > seemed intrinsically beautiful, >> >> Yes. AMBIT has done a great job using that feature presumably because >> it was in the know as well as along for the early ride. Casual >> visitors don't get a very good introduction, which is unfortunate. >> >> > *Conference?:* This leads me to suggest that one way forward would be to >> > think about that old fashioned idea of getting people together to share >> > how >> > they are using TS... >> >> This is a good idea. Ideally I'd hope that something like this would >> be pushed by the community rather than the "core" (whatever that is). >> There's two reasons for that: >> >> * resourcing issues >> * the community doing it would ensure it was more what it needs to be >> >> I and/or Osmosoft could certainly help to orchestrate something >> (provide space for example). >> >> > *Featured Spaces: *I have looked at the "featured >> >> Good ideas. I'll summarize to @tsroadmap. >> >> > - In general (an old chestnut I know) I suggest finding a budget to >> > pay >> > someone to write some really good user-friendly documentation (I have >> > tried >> > to write my own for the Tiddlymanuals >> >> Saying "needing documentation is an old chestnut" is itself become >> quite an old chestnut. >> >> > Incredible resource, incredible work from all of you who understand the >> > under-the-hood workings, incredibly grateful for the creativity and hard >> > graft that has got us this far. Thank you. >> >> Thank you for doing something meaningful with it. >> >> -- >> Chris Dent http://burningchrome.com/ >> [...] > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "TiddlyWiki" group. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/tiddlywiki/-/_N_L62K4K_AJ. > > 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. -- 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.
