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.)
“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.
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.
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.
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.
A lot of interesting opinions have been shared here. I’ve reread the whole thread and made an attempt at summarizing it but it proved to be beyond my abilities. That being said, I think there are a few important bits I can extract from it:
Everyone agrees that TiddlyWiki is a versatile tool that can satisfy a really wide variety of needs and niches. It can be as simple as a notebook or as complex as a web application.
An important thread has appeared mentioning that wiki is a pretty flake description for TW for various reason.
Some things that resonate with me a lot:
Anakowi’s mention that narrow focus makes marketing easier.
jonnie45’s mention that they use it a single HTML page, which is completely antythetical to how I use which is a great reminder for me to not get stuck in one’s head.
After all this conversation I think I am even more stuck in my opinion though - to be more accessible to potential new users TW needs a bigger overhaul than just touch ups to the front page. Modernized theme, actual front page optimized for new users are things I mentioned before, but I think having a few editions of TW catering to certain niches is, I think, brilliant.
That being said, I am starting to feel like I am trying too hard, too quickly after getting myself into this community and TW. I don’t quite understand the power structure of the project, who makes what decisions, yet I am just spawning threads like I own the place. And the reason I feel like that is internal, I felt comfortable sharing my opinions so far. So I am going to let these conversations run their course for a bit and focus on other things.
Speaking for myself, I am very much appreciating your contribution. You write coherently and clearly, and are bringing a lot to the discussion.
Some of the questions you are exploring are big and open ended, and so it is inevitable that progress can feel slow. But they are important topics that we need to address, and so we shouldn’t give up. The key is to decompose the work into small enough chunks that we can get things done. The technical barriers to changing tiddlywiki.com are negligable
Its not just what TiddlyWiki can do for you, but what can you do for TiddlyWiki.
TiddlyWiki is so flexible it more than likely can do what you want it to, in fact this is making it hard for us to let those who can benefit from TiddlyWiki to discover it.
As a result, what you can do for us while helping yourself, is to share both “what you are looking for” and ultimately what you find “attracts or detracts” you, from using TiddlyWiki.
We ask you to suspend judgement until you have more information
I too have a number of lists, of possible applications for tiddlywiki, some observed in the wild, some already postulated and some that just make sense.
@Charlie_Veniot recently started a thread encouraging a reply per application which is worth considering but may be hard to manage when people want to respond to a particular reply. I cant find it just now.
Perhaps if a few of us publish something like @twMat’s Appetizer wikis on tiddlyhost and later we bring them together as a single resource?
but it did not look obvious now I had to do a post longer than 20 characters (excluding Quotes)