Derailing the Nah - What is TW?

#11

Although not beginning with a P I thought Automation may be a replacement for programing.

I will post my description of tiddlywiki soon, recently inspire by the current discussion and hope others could make suggestions.

#12

When I hear “automation”, it seems like such an archaic, last century word, and I think of:

2 Likes
#13

Curious,

  • Whilst I know the archaic examples you listed, may use the word automation, I am curious if you have a more modern word to describe the meaning of “automation” because I believe as a concept it is “fundamental” and hard to avoid.

Although Automation is defined in Wikipedia treats it as technological and shows its broader use in its disambiguation I would happily include the use of paper “to do lists” or “checklists”, as Automation, if not also a technology.

  • I may be tempted to define automation as “an artificial mechanism that aids in the completion of actions or operations by reducing physical or cognitive effort to do so”. It could be as simple as storing information, recording a state, machines or extending to complex algorithm’s, or robotics.

Actually I think I found out why you have the peculiar response to the word Automation, could you perhaps be thinking of Automaton - Wikipedia - “Au tom a ton”

  • Amazing the difference between Automation, with and without an “i”.
#14

What is TW when it is used to become a fully self-contained single-file (like a bottle garden or virtual computer) BASIC programming environment and source code repository? See the BASIC Anywhere Machine.

The “what it is” becomes hard to pin down when one starts looking at all of the things that can be done with it.

More info about BASIC Anywhere Machine if you want to geek out a little:

3 Likes
#15

@Charlie_Veniot - Very true, perhaps a good start is to define what the core product is and then expand on that to say that with the addition of available plugins and customisation that the user (can?) do for themselves the sky is the limit - ‘Basic Anywhere’ being a great example.

Perhaps newcomers need that clear separating line between the core product on the one hand and the amazing things that can be explored when you include plugins in the picture on the other hand.

That also presumably reflects the history assuming that the version version of Tiddlywiki had considerably fewer plugins than we have today, I think sometimes explanations that follow the history, the evolutionary timeline of an app like Tiddlywiki may help people cope with complexity shock.

If we launch straight into the esoteric stuff new comers may just confused…the kind of overload when a person dives head first into a new technical pool with the aim of getting up to speed and productive quickly and then becomes overwhelmed very quickly because they are racing to satisfy their desire to get it up and running by yesterday and slam straight away into what seems like a brick wall of undifferentiated complexity, I think that (some) people want to find a solid root to grasp, they want to know what the core or basic part of it is first and then layer their understanding around that hub in stages.

“I thought you said it was a Wiki”
“Then you tell me it’s a non-linear knowledge base app”
“And now you tell me it’s something for programming in the basic computer language and I can’t program so I don’t think it’s for me”
“I’m confused, that’s the last time I believe the writing on the side of the can!”

Lessen the shock by clear delineation between the core product and the plugins? Maybe?

#16

I was referring to plugin capabilities in general, not any specific plugins.

Thanks everyone for your answers so far, keep em and the discussion coming. I’ll try to summarise the discussion so far on Monday.

@jeremyruston I’d very much be interested in your input here too, even more so after this comment you left in the Nah thread:

1 Like
#17

“TiddlyWiki is a software spork”

1 Like
#18

Who said anything about launching into esoteric stuff?

This is a “TW is …” “fill-in-the-blank” game to capture what it is, without overwhelming but also without trivialising it.

People will discard if the immediate impression is “TW is just this” when what I need is “that”.

To say TiddlyWiki is a “wiki” will leave the perception that it is just something like Wikipedia. Just a bunch of linked pages.

To say TiddlyWiki is a non-linear note-taking tool: meh.

To me, TiddlyWiki is a single-page browser application that can be anything in a spectrum that ranges from simple “post it note” or “grocery list” tool, to database for anything (enter data, query data, create forms, create reports), to a platform for creating just about any kind of application one can dream of.

So how to capture that in a simple and concise statement that draws anybody clicking to find out more?

Whatever does that (finding the right concise words is hardly my skill), then that’s what TiddlyWiki is.

#19

Who doesn’t love a spork? That’s awesome.

A spork with a heavy club at the end of it. Because it can clobber so many problems into submission.

#20

(I can’t help but wonder if we should reverse the whole question: Anyone asking what TW is is met with a CAPTCHA type display asking “What do you need?” and a field to fill in. The hard coded reply is, of course, always “Ah, that’s exactly what TW is for!” :stuck_out_tongue: )

2 Likes
#21

Nah nah, I said it is a super-secure and robust single-page application that runs in a web browser, that can do or be just about anything you want, and what you build and put in it today will still work in twenty years.

Ask me what problem you are trying to solve or what you need, and I’ll tell you if TW can handle it.

By the way, “TiddlyWiki” is the historical and cutesy name longterm fans know it by. The other name for it is TW. (Okay, that might not be quite correct, but good enough just for discussion.)

#22

(consistent with its steep learning curve) perhaps: Lucifer’s “What do you REALLY want?”

#23

“What is TW is”, is a problem because it can be almost anything. I see a number of us are converging on the idea that we can list what it can be, the trouble is its a long list, and if you want to provide a formal description on each possible use you need to specialise and focus.

I agree with this and mention it here;

The problem is motivating people to delve deeper based on trust, when it is clear we can make no specific recommendation, until they articulate what they want.

  • Such questions need to be broad and open initially so anyone can answer them otherwise people will just go - “I don’t know, this is too complex”.
  • But the questions can’t drag people quickly into specifics, because if they are “following the wrong path for them”, they will quickly feel alienated.

As a result of these concerns I believe we need some very robust, and hard to develop, yet apparently simple to the user, set of questions using “adaptive” techniques, such that the next question is based on the previous answers, yet they can quickly run down a different thread if their needs prove to be otherwise. That is we protect users from the complexity until their needs drive what we declare.

  • We can’t read peoples minds so we have to get them to “speak their mind”.

Please review and comment on my attempt to give people a Standard Starter edition Beyond empty.html a standard edition which forms one thread of addressing the issues raised.

[edited] I can’t read your minds, and I will not know if you done tell me, so the challenge I face developing a standard Edition is similar to the larger TiddlyWiki picture, so please contribute.

  • How did you surmount the barriers to using tiddlywiki?

Remember most people are happy to provide advice from their perspective, when asked, so we should ask.

1 Like
#24

Okay, so TW currently defies pigeon-holing, is that its strength — to be marketed as something eclectic (wikilectic)?
It occurs to me (my perception) that many open-source products have this detrimental, wide-scale application/focus, in common. They often don’t gain traction until someone dares to narrow the reach to a niche market.

I’m not saying to focus only on a single niche, but to view how TW might address the key need of each niche. For example, if you apply a lean canvas approach to each potential niche, you’re not only going to identify the early adopters, but also how to gain traction.
Lean Canvas - instruction
Lean Canvas Template
I believe editions are the way forward. Nothing needs changing other than addressing each market’s focus – meeting its specific need.

1 Like
#25

I do think that is an approach that has much merit!

In practice a more public structured showcase of a variety of TW Apps could be a good idea.

The idea being you promote applications to niches rather than the application that makes them?

A thought following yours, TT

1 Like
#26

Many suns ago I made this list of what I call appetizer TW’s, i.e editions/applications that I believe should be appealing for the general public to lure them into TW.

3 Likes
#27

I like the concept and presentation there! It is straight to the point.

IF each type had a “Showcase Wiki” for it then I think it could be very helpful for a lot of “seekers” of apps. ?

#28

That’s awesome, and all of this is leading towards the same conclusion as in so many other threads:

Essentially:

Market the solutions created with TiddlyWiki. Let folk discover TiddlyWiki and understand what TiddlyWiki is as they customise existing solutions and eventually create their own.

Correlated (?): Please don’t try to make TiddlyWiki “empty.html” and/or core more focused on a specific purpose by tailoring it for that purpose. Then you make it look like that’s all it is.

2 Likes
#29

I’m with ya man, now let’s inform the marketing department :wink:

1 Like
#30

Maybe we can put together the concepts which are covered by tiddlywiki:

If we distill the thread, we can see:

  • notebook
  • canvas/paper
  • customizable/extensible
  • programmable/automatable
  • portable
  • tool
  • app (web)
  • system
  • platform
  • atomic information
  • knowledge base
  • database
  • virtual/digital
  • versatil/flexible
  • problem-solving
  • single-page/ independent
  • personal/private

Then TW is:

A versatile system/platform of digital binder notebooks for capturing, organising and sharing (any kind of) information.

1 Like