Mark S. wrote:
>
> Just to repeat -- to a big chunk of the world the name "TiddlyWiki" sounds
> a lot like the maligned game "Tiddly Winks". To people hearing it that way,
> you might have as well called it "TiddlyWeakling"...
>
... It definitely lacks gravitas.
>
I agree.
-- *Tiddly* implies "diminutive," which TW definitely is not. What I think
has happened is that a great metaphor celebrating "The Fragment" ("Tiddler"
as a key aspect of *functional architecture*) has been conflated with *its
purpose--*as if fragments mattered. IMO end-users are interested in wholes
they can make, not so much the bits that form them or the recipes involved.
Tiddlers are a part the "Cooking Story", not the "Dish Made". The name
would better be the dish not the cooking method. Something like that.
To put that another way... its better to focus on user final intent in
naming than how the thing works.
-- *Wiki* is contentious. Personally I think its unnecessary. Yes, TW is in
a Wiki tradition, but it also somewhat elliptical to it. If you look of
listings of different Wiki you will quickly see that TW is rarely
represented properly. It is somewhat orthogonal to how those listings work.
I don't think I have seen a single accurate representation of TW as a Wiki
other than within the TW community.
Early thoughts
Josiah
--
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 post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/e3342ff0-c0f0-4c81-8038-934caafec89e%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
