Journal Tiddlers in Tiddlywiki: Why journaling is dismissed in official Tiddlywiki?

#12

I’m not so sure a “standard.html” is a good idea. What’s standard?

I’m thinking empty.html with recipes and related drop-in tiddlers would be good so that folk can define their own standard html. Along with the whole “TiddlyWiki World” of documentation, plug-ins, tricks, tips, showcases, videos, you name it, all available from the sidebar to walk new users through any little thing a new user should learn and can reference.

So a nice external page loaded into the sidebar with a directory of all things TiddlyWiki.

I’ve got no time to put together what I’m thinking right now, but picture a nice simple and pretty page instead of the TiddlyWiki.com page showing in the sidebar.

I think the blank canvas that is empty.html is perfect IF the sidebar has everything in “TiddlyWiki World” to hold a new user’s hand.

So Start Here, Explore the TiddlyWiki user interface, yadda yadda yadda, the full monty.

Screenshot 2021-11-13 8.30.58 PM
Screenshot 2021-11-13 8.30.58 PM1902×918 228 KB

#13

Linux From Scratch.

Rather than a standard.html, I’d much rather see “From Scratch” kind of solutions that take empty.html, and then add whatever components needed to turn empty.html into whatever solutions.

Like (with “from scratch”, or without, or replace by something else):

  • GTD-tw from scratch
  • Journaler-tw from scratch
  • Zettelkasten-tw from scratch
  • Blog-tw from scratch
  • StaticWebsiteBuilder-tw from scratch
  • Geneology-tw from scratch
  • KM-tw from scratch
  • PIM-tw from scratch
  • Inventory-tw from scratch

etc. etc. etc.

#14

I’m not sure we disagree. The key idea in both of our proposals is to have a more complete edition that guides the user through choosing the options they need. Exactly how that’s implemented (different options on the website or a larger bundle that helps you choose within TiddlyWiki itself) is not that important to me.

Including anything like that in empty.html is probably an uphill battle because the goal is to keep that as small as humanly possible, though, which is why I suggested a second standard edition – “standard” meaning the one you would want to download to get started if you didn’t already know what you were doing.

1 Like
#15

Which is why instead of a “standard.html” edition, stick with empty.html but have a supporting website, shown in an iframe in the sidebar providing everything from external web sites, right there, that a user can drag and drop into empty.html (or whatever it has been renamed as) while following instructions that are right there, from that supporting website.

So no need to have different choices of what html file to download. Download the one, and customize/adorn/enhance as per the friendly instructions right there in the sidebar, from an actively maintained “TiddlyWiki World” (or whatever) support portal.

So full custom build with as little or as much hands-on work as a new user wants.

I suppose I’m talking more effort spent on useful support documentation and TW knowledge base, instead of even a minute spent on standard.html.

But I may be getting into some paralysis by analysis over here, or analysis by paralysis …

#16

Although I understand the dismissed feature. I also see that all tiddlers are in same tags (open, recents), but system and shadow tiddlers are in bold. Maybe we need some style or icon in the above tabs to differentiate the journals from the rest of (normal) tiddler. I think that extra config would be a plugin/editon, as several of you said.

I agree with @pmario about a new GettingStarted tiddler. But, as @jeremyruston said in GH, I think in a wizzard as better option. I think that it need to be more friendly to newcomers and it won’t be too long. Maybe we could use to give some hint to how can use TW, not more.

About the standard edition, I agree with @Charlie_Veniot . Because it depends on the use of TW that anyone want. If someone wants use TW to have a digital garden how much useful would be a standard edition. I think for something like that is better have a different name.

#17

Agreed.

Standard is an Edition. TW could use more Editions, just like Linux has distros — both core and otherwise.

More documentation and how-tos are always helpful, but are not the same thing as having a TW default that has more of a purpose than being a construction kit.

This is basically Gentoo vs Ubuntu Desktop.

I use Journaling a lot in all of my “note” based TWs, and it is the common interface for many other Tools-for-thought, second brains. Drift has a good implementation for the TFT use case.

I also use it as a blog in some TWs.

I always add a “Journals” tiddler that shows journals in reverse chronological form in some way. A dedicated tab would be similar.

Very quickly we can see that including some quality of life improvements out of the box will make even something simple like Journals much more usable.

OOTB was the initiative I worked on to get more standard installs out of Drupal, which also has a reputation as a construction kit.

1 Like
Why limit replies?
#18

@boris Can you please explain what TFT and OOTB stands for?

#19

TFT: Tools for Thought
OOTB is probably Define "Easy out of the box" Drupal core initiative [#3191533] | Drupal.org

2 Likes
#20

Ciao Mohammad

A very interesting thread! I will comment on some of the posts in more detail.

The main point I want to make is that just having the facility to journal is enough.

We can’t expect tiddlywiki.com to reflect the full richness of journaling methods since it is doing many other things too! :slight_smile:

FYI, “Journaling” had a big revival in the counter-culture movement. It shifted from being something done by introspective intellectuals living in France on pensions to a more common interest. Landmark works on this were things like The New Diary.

Best wishes
TT

1 Like
#21

That is exactly right! Journaling / Tracking / Diaries is a vast topic in itself. Journaling as “written conversation with oneself” had been going on for a long, long time before the net even existed.

Loading up tiddlywiki.com with that complexity is unworkable. Far better an enthusiast develops a journaling “edition” that acknowledges the variant methods that have been used to provide a flexible system. IMO, that would be wholly dedicated to Journaling. There is no way TW central could incorporate, given other things it needs do, the full scope of Journaling methods or objectives.

FYI I think you own approach is testament to the wider need amongst potential “Journal Writers” for examples. I thought it relevant to that! :heart_eyes:

My 2 cents
TT

#22

"Out Of The Box." It means “immediately useable” or “start it and it works.” FYI the saying predates the internet.

TT

2 Likes
#23

Journaling methods are vast; with a long history prior to the net. I do agree with you in expand scope for journaling . IMO, it needs a dedicated “edition / exampler”, that tiddlwiki.com can’t possibly provide.

#24

Right, which is one reason I don’t use Linux. What if I choose the wrong distro? It’s paralyzing! :slight_smile:

I feel there’s consensus that “empty.html” might be too empty for new users, but needs to remain available for more advanced users.

The TiddlyWiki community is never going to agree on what should be included in a “standard.html” version, but that doesn’t mean it’s a bad idea. It’s up to @jeremyruston to decide what gets in and what’s left out. He’s got good instincts :slight_smile: Although I don’t envy the task.

“Editions” are cool, but as I alluded to above, the barrier of having to decide up front on an edition can be just as intimidating to new users as “empty.html”. I would never have known, when starting out with TiddlyWiki, whether I needed the Journal Edition or Zettelkastan Edition or whatever, even if I thought I knew what I was planning to use TW for. I’d love to know what percentage of new users have a specific use in mind vs just exploring what it might do for them.

And with Journaling specifically, even “empty.html” is 3/4 of the way to sensible defaults for journaling. Of course the defaults couldn’t cover every variation of journaling, but I bet there are some basics that could work out of the box and improve the experience for most new users, while allowing those uninterested in the feature to ignore it.

TiddlyWiki is good at just about everything and should avoid being overly prescriptive out of the box, but I’d be willing to bet that adding some common baked in functionality with sensible defaults would improve onboarding and new users’ experience enough to offset any initial complexity or unwanted features.

Good thread!

#25

I actually think we can, especially if its minimalist. I am a strong believer in editions but I also think there could be a few prominent ones;

  • empty.html available but typically for experienced users.
  • Standard - almost empty.html but a few additions to help such as;
    • Contents tab
    • A possible user templating plugin New Tiddler and New Journal Templates
    • A few other tweaks, perhaps a settings tab to allow quick customisations such as theme and pallet to excite potential users.
    • Less certain plugins internals/relink ?
  • The perhaps a learning.html which would be a copy of tiddlywiki.com and all its documentation
    • personal note taking and code experiments
    • Published libraries included
    • Other new user support
  • Finally add short description of selected editions for new users to experiment with. Don’t share complex and technical ones here. Just introduce the concept of editions and point them to the current listing.

I don’t care what we call standard but a lightweight empty.html plus common and supportive tools a little more friendly and a simple showcase to new users is needed. I urge not to make this a for purpose wiki, just a little more open and expansive than empty.

#26

I love your optimism! You may be right, since I think everyone has basically the same goals.

#27

To have a standard edition, to then have folk trim it down to something somewhere in between empty and standard, why not just have empty with recipes to add each component, such that adding each component is part of a processs of getting to know TiddlyWiki ?

Maybe the flip-sides of the same coin, but it just seems to me more intuitive to show how to add things than it is to show how to remove things. In the early stages.

Eventually, showing how to remove things is good too. It just seems to me better to add before remove in regards to a learning process.

I dunno. Maybe I have it backwards.

#28

The thing is we would have a reason to provide such an edition, to help new users. Whilst keeping it minimalistic I think it may be easy to arrive at. Some may want more, ort particular for purpose inclusions, but that becomes an edition.

#29

I would just add an online playground, eg an updated version of my own but owned by the community which uses local storage for some persistence.

#30

That’s what I suggested at:

If the “recipes” only contain wikitext, it’s possible to activate them, without the need for the wiki to be reloaded. So the recipes will be active immediately.

It is possible, that a recipe contains a button, that creates eg: a new “Journal” tab in the sidebar. … Since the code created by the recipe isn’t needed anymore, after it has been activated, the plugin can be deleted.

The sidebar will stay in the wiki even if the recipe is gone.

So the user has the possibility to load and apply different recipes. After they did their setup the can be removed.

I personally think removing content is simpler than adding it. …

Adding content and then removing the stuff you don’t need can be achieved with “bundles”. Bundles can contain pure “content” tiddlers, they can be deleted after import.

In contrast to plugin tiddlers. If you change a plugin tiddler and then delete it, the original shadow tiddler takes over again. To get rid of plugin elements, you need to remove the plugin itself.

With bundles every single tiddler can be deleted and it’s gone. To get it back the bundle can be imported again …

#31

I just wanted to affirm @pmario’s post. His Bundler plugin / system is likely the most useful tool TW has for setting-up and managing wikis. Essentially it is a superb system for import/export. It could easily form the “mechanism” for applying changes that convert an “empty” into anything needed, or modifying very complex established wikis, well.

1 Like