“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.