Planning an academic year

#1

I have a spec from an awarding body. I’ve chopped it up into manageable chunks, chunk per tiddler, and then tagged them with subject areas.

Each criteria section looks a bit like

2.1.12

!!Range:
!!!Methods –
*CAD models
*engineering drawings
*written data
**specifications
**SOPs
**reports
*presentations…

I would like to be able set a number of projects/ assignments to meet these criteria. So project one might meet some criteria from section two, nothing from three etc… Dynamic tables and check boxes may be involved.

First question…
I think each bullet point needs to be it’s own tiddler but I’d like to keep a section bullet pointed view. What’s the best tool to split it all up and put it back together? Naming can be 2.1.12.1, 2.1.12.2 etc.

From there it’s lists all the way I think.

The problems come from the spec often containing the same information in different sections.

Projects/ assignments should be able to tick off areas of the spec covered.

Ideally ticking off an item that a project covers would pick out all places that’s covered in the spec.

Any help appreciated.

#2

Ok…more focused question…

My data look s like this:

2.1.12

!!Range:
!!!Methods –
*CAD models
*engineering drawings
*written data
**specifications
**SOPs
**reports
*presentatios

I need it to look like

!!Range:
!!!Methods –
{{2.1.12.1}}
{{2.1.12.2}}
{{2.1.12.3}}
{{2.1.12.3.1}}
{{2.1.12.3.2}}

and for the bullets to be preserved when looking at the top level tiddler.

Is there a low effort way/ clever way to do this?

1 Like
#3

I’ll give my initial thoughts, maybe they can be built upon…

You might use a layout like my Sidebar Tabs Ledger with columns of checkboxes for each area of the spec that needs to be covered.

Checking a box would add the spec area value to a field “spec-covered” in the top-level tiddler. The checkboxes in listfield mode should be able to show as checked as soon as the related spec value is added to the list field.

Add a class name to a container that wraps each list that makes a level of the hierarchy. The CSS classes would handle indenting and bullets instead of using wikitext.

Each list item would use the same template to display the checkboxes, with the checkboxes adding values to the specified field in the top-level tiddler.

Edit: having a single line at the top and/or bottom of the top-level tiddler with the same row of checkboxes can be used as a master checklist of the spec areas so that you won’t have to keep scanning each column to track the areas covered.

1 Like
#4

Hi Ste,
I do not really understand your transclusion structure. It would not work out for me eg: if 2.1.12.3.1 will be moved to 2.1.12.2 … All the names will need to be changed.

The only thing I immediately thought was. “I would use streams”. Streams — on TiddlyWiki 5.2.2 with some custom configuration of new stream-node titles to create visible tiddlers.

And several plugins like relink, relink-titles and streams-fusion, which would allow you to merge a stream into a bullet-list if you really need it.

Just a thought.

stream.bundle.json (499.2 KB)

1 Like
#5

Hi Mario,

It’s working from a fixed document not of my own making so the numbering seemed like a starting point just to make title generation easier for snipped out bullet points .

I’ll have a look streams and at your stuff as well Brian. Thanks for the pointers.

#6

Dosn’t matter… EAK (Error At Keyboard)

.

#7

My brain is broken. I keep popping back to this when I have a moment but…

I atomise the list into its component parts with streams and then…I need to…

Use shiraz dynamic tables/ cardo/ projectify/ sidebar tabs ledger to pick up each thing as a thing to do, check for duplicates (CAD models might appear in 2.1.12, 2.3.6 and 2.5.1 for example) and treat them as one check box so that they all get ticked at the same time when completed, and then have Project tiddlers to which I can assign sections, and occasionally individual bits, which can then be marked as complete! Maybe?

Simples :sob:

#8

Do you want to dynamically check for duplicates or statically rid yourself of them and replace them with references to a canonical version? I would expect the latter, although I don’t have particular suggestions for how to do it.

#9

That thought hadn’t occured! So that’s a yes! :slight_smile: (I don’t know… More thinking needed)