And I think you’re wrong. There are many products that can do many things, and that is why people pick them instead of others. You shouldn’t pretend to be less competent.
The features of GNU Emacs include …
- A wide range of functionality beyond text editing, including a project planner, mail and news reader, debugger interface, calendar, IRC client, and more.
Nice to get a reply. Tx.
You are right concerning “wide function”. I actually agree on that.
What I intended was to emphasise in addition … the value of advancing SPECIFIC APPS too, separately.
For instance IF there were a “SceenWriting App” in TW it should never be necessary to present the whole of tiddlywiki.com to get it (or understand it).
It would merely need docs that screenwriters need to know to use it.
No more.
The point I’m trying to get at is the “too-muchness” of tiddlywiki.com when end use cases have limited aims.
But I’m open to more discussion on this! 
Best, TT
I think we’re getting to the nub of the matter. There’s a fundamental tension. TiddlyWiki is useful because it is flexible and doesn’t fit the usual orthodoxy of web applications. Meanwhile, we get frustrated that more people don’t discover TiddlyWiki because it seems too complicated and unorthodox.
I don’t know what the solution is, but over the years many times people have suggested that we should hide the complexity, and hence flexibility, of the system.
That way of thinking doesn’t appeal to me because it always ends up turning TiddlyWiki into something else, a lowest common denominator clone that doesn’t have the power to make people’s hearts sing.
I suspect that we should lean into the problem: make a virtue of the fact that TiddlyWiki is super-flexible, be unapologetic about the fact that it needs an intellectual investment to make the most of it.
We’re making software for thoughtful people who want to be more effective, and accordingly we should treat our customers as though they are smart enough to understand what we’re trying to do.
(This feels like a “parallel discussion” to the design discussion, maybe it should be split into another thread?)
I agree with this completely.
To me, a high learning curve is perfectly acceptable when I’m pretty sure that I can get much value out of it over a long period of time.
To other people, a high learning curve can be a showstopper no matter the ROI. They just want something to replace a simple notebook or word processor, and even Obsidian or Notion is maybe too complicated.
From the above, I draw the following conclusions…
As discussed before, I also believe we should introduce new users to TiddlyWiki in a more gentle way (primarily how to save changes).
I agree with this completely. It is enough to create the landing page with change the UI the TiddlyWiki. it also could do in a unique tiddler, it would be something the demo which was made by @Odin some time ago.
The Landing Page → https://landingpage-example.tiddlyhost.com
The tiddler(s)-> TiddlyWiki landingpage — An example of using the layout switcher as a landing page
I don’t know if it is better remake HelloThere or create other tiddler for the Landing Page. I have doubts about what content would have in the changing of layout.
The first mockup by @anon5541130 looks amazing.
I’m a frontend developer, I’m not a design… the concept I showed here is from other designers… I’m going to add these existing designs on tiddlywiki as themes
Just a little footnote.
TW Transclusion is radical already.
Mr. Xanadu, Ted Nelson, would likely approve what we do already? Easily.
A friendly comment on your interesting post,
TT.
[quote=“anon5541130, post:31, topic:4120”]
concept blocks - reference here:
Search results for 'blocks protocol' - Talk TW ,
Block protocol - a great fit for TiddlyWiki?
Jermolene on Steroids (Ubertransclude)
I agree that for e.g. the Site Builder persona, the flexible, fungible nature of TW-as-toolkit is itself the attraction.
This has been “solved” in other software systems by the use of what in TW would be called Editions.
And anyone in this thread could make an edition and make a landing page for it and promote it
I feel like rather hiding the complexity of TW, showing it in steps or levels would be a good way to ease users into learning more and being more capable at making TW their own. Rather than simplifying, we should compartmentalize into easy, digestible chunks.
We have all the necessary tools at our disposal already, it’s moreso a matter of presenting them in a more… approachable manner?
I play a good deal of videogames in my free time, and one of the things I notice when browsing indie and smaller titles, is that a tutorial is one of the most effective ways of showing the capabilities and mechanics of the game (on in this case, software), and I feel like TiddlyWiki can benefit from a similar approach as say, an open world based game?
With no set objectives or guidance to do what it is the user wants to do, they can feel overwhelmed or lost.
If we had a method of creating simple tutorials for the mechanisms of tiddlywiki to go along with the documentation already present, and a more dynamic layout to cater to the desires of the community (like sidebar on the left or right or an official mobile theme), it could, at least in theory, improve approachability to new users, especially if they don’t know about plugins or how to install them.
Like others have stated, tiddlywiki can do near everything, but this has caused choice paralysis and even some confusion as far as where to start. I’ve had that happen with friends I’ve tried introducing to the program in the past, unfortunately.
As far as redesigning the landing page, having preset guides of specific common use-cases would help. I know personally as a writer by hobby, showing TiddlyWiki as an alternative to sites like worldanvil for organizing my worldbuilding was a Big reason to tinker with it, but some people aren’t tinkerers by nature, so giving them something already designed by a fellow user with similar uses, would be good, I think.
I’m sure this is achieved already by user made editions, but having officially made ones would iron out any issues, and having proper documentation for each would also help greatly when that user decides they want to add to it.
Of course, we would still need to basic empty tiddlywiki too, for those who want to start from scratch. It’s like in games like dark souls where you pick a class, there is a class that has nothing, a blank slate- usually for veteran players who want the most flexibility.
@Charlie_Veniot has presented a mock mock up on Google groups. Just to keep it in the conversation. TiddlyWiki Portal Project
I just remembered @jeremyruston 's https://federatial.com/ which is generated with a TW
It would be great to have this in a working TW- that would be a great landingpage
May be an updated TW5 version of Cecily story view for the landing page
I wasn’t aware of this thread! I feel obligated to also say something here now that I’ve written this monstrosity.
As I alluded in my analysis, I think this is a primary problem with the current form of the front page. All of those groups have needs that oppose each other:
You can’t overwhelm #1 with all the options #2 is interested and neither #1 and #2 are still interested in the nitty-gritty details of running subfilters in a widget-transcluded macro in an overwritten shadow-tiddler .
A seasoned user is unlikely to mind switching from tiddlywiki.com to tiddlywiki.com/docs as their source of knowledge, but a potential new user will just close the tab if they see something and their first thought is “meh”.
I think it is possible to achieve that. Look at Notion.so, Nimbus Note or the new Tana.inc - none of them have qualms about claiming they can do everything and more, even if they’re not even half as flexible as TW is (though what they lose in flexibility they provide in built-in functionalities). It’s a matter of putting it into right words but that’s for someone who’s a much better wordsmith than I am.
As a side note, I think the Landing Page layout that was linked earlier is a huge improvement in terms of new-user friendliness.
Your recent posts are challenging and think right on the mark.
I would say that potential end users want mostly to DO things, not have to programme how to do them.
IMO TW is already that effortless tool.
Yet we do little to promote editions by market need.
Why? Is it simply work someone would need to do. Dunno???
Just a query
TT
Reading back, there seem to be two parallel trains of thought in this thread: some people who wish to appeal to the average user (comparing TW with more easy-to-use, streamlined note-taking/second brain applications and their advertising) and other people who wish to appeal to the power users like you mention here, that want to be able to set everything as they want to create a super-powerful application that fits their needs like a glove.
It’s definitely worth deciding which group should be the primary target audience in my opinion, as I think they have different expectations and thresholds of initial investment.
I agree that TW fits more into that second category. There may not be as many people using it, but those who do greatly appreciate its potential to fit their needs and would be more receptive to advertising that showcases that (I think).