A post was split to a new topic: [MWS] Questions about Bags and Recipes
from user point of view, <<list-links [<myvar>addprefix<anothervar>] >> works well, itās clear what the purpose of the filter is.
I also use the shortcut inside codeblocks for debugging eg
\function lf()[charcode[10]]
<$codeblock code={{{ [<myvar>addprefix<anothervar>] +[join<lf>] }}} />
I have always thought of it more as a tool, I never really thought this shortcut syntax was intended for use in wikitext body.
Fascinating discussion. I appreciate the rigor with which Jeremy is approaching the new version. I am learning a lot as I catch up in this thread.
FWIW I do use this filtered transclusion shortcut syntax in my right sidebar tabs. I find it useful beyond simply for testing filters.
Table of Contents tiddler example:
2 Likes
On a non technical note, would this be a good time to move the default icon set over to one @jeremyruston you were discussing ā¦some time ago?
1 Like
Or did that already happen?!
I suggest we try to tackle refactoring the import process as part of v5.4.0, to allow for manually switching which deserializer is used and thus allowing for greater end user control over how data to be imported is interpreted.
2 Likes
Right. Given that for many end-users (though not all) import and export are both central to getting the best usage of TWāIād really like to see both better grained control of import and export; and more documentation on how to write importers and exporters.
This is an interesting and informative thread and has shown me many things I was unaware TW could be applied to. Certainly, at my stage of TW expertise, these are way beyond what I would tackle but knowing about them is great.
I am a bit concerned though that in reading the suggestions for āimprovement/enhancementā of TW, we might be putting ourselves in a position that TW becomes ājust another browser appā rather than the different approach it currently holds.
Right now, TW has few competitors that I am aware of. If we just become another browser app, then all other browsers become competitors and we may end up continually chasing the tail of others developments. In marketing terms, why give up the high ground we currently occupy?
I think that would be a shame.
bobj
1 Like
What one person sees as āmodernā or āaesthetically pleasingā could look terrible to another. CSS is going to always be the way in which you manipulate how the your UI components look. Just curious, what are you referring to when you say ārequire end-users to manipulate JSā? I donāt think anyone needs to alter any JavaScript to get HTML UI components with CSS to look āmodernā or āaesthetically pleasingā.
The reason for this is simple, the current widgets provided by TiddlyWiki are functional, but the css is missing. I think there should be a more aesthetically pleasing css provided to the end user. For example, Iām struggling with select styling right now, because straight <$select> styling doesnāt really look good. But I donāt know how to use css to set a better looking style. Of course the user can take the style he wants, but TiddlyWiki should provide a basic, better looking style. Maybe it could be implemented as an officially maintained plugin. Well, I may be thinking a bit too much.
I said that the end user doesnāt need to manipulate js because I saw some component libraries like shadcn/ui class, but these component libraries require js or ts to use. Maybe sometime we should redesign the interface of TiddlyWiki to be similar to the vscode kind of style, it might be more appealing to users.
The default appearance of the $select widget depends upon the browser and platform you are using.
To use CSS to change this appearance, you can add class="mySelectClass" parameter to the $select widget, and then define a .mySelectClass CSS class in a tiddler tagged with $:/tags/Stylesheet. Note that to apply styles to the droplist items (the option child elements), you need to use .mySelectClass option as the CSS selector
For example:
.mySelectClass { border-radius:0.5em; }
.mySelectClass option { font-size:2em; }
-e
I simply tweaked your method and it looks better now. Iām using tidgi, and the browser used behind it is chrome. my point is that TiddlyWiki should provide a nice neat style, rather than letting that be handled by the browser. Because different browsers display different styles.
Yeah, but you see, that is part of the problem. Each browser already has its own style, so you want Tiddlywiki to also have its own style, so that it looks the same across all browsers, but what about those people that use Firefox for example, and donāt like that TIddlywiki is not using the Firefox style that they expect. It is all a matter of personal preference, so Tiddlywiki simply leaves it to the browser you are using to determine the style. Most professional websites online do not use the default styling provided by the browser. They customize it with CSS the way they like. You want Tiddlywiki to customize it to a design that you personally think is āmodernā or āaesthetically pleasingā, but who is to say what that is? If they started including styles provided in the core, then where does that end? How many styles, whoās idea of āmodernā or āaesthetically pleasingā is going to appease the most people? In the end, they end up with exactly what they have. People designing their own style with CSS and attaching as a class to the object. Ultimately, Tiddlywik is not doing anything other than what ever other web developer on the planet is doing. Designing their site the way they want with CSS. Tiddlywiki in its most basic form, a clean empty.html is as bare bones as you get appearance wise, but it gives you a foundation to build on rather than you developing it from scratch on your own. You have to take the time to style things the way you like. Tiddlywiki is infinitely customizable, unlike other note taking systems that require you to use THEIR style.
Donāt take anything I am saying as an insult, it is just that TIddlywiki can only do so much, without practically writing your notes for you. There is a templating system, access to css classes in all of their widgets, everything they can do to allow you to completely alter the entire visual appearance and functionality to whatever you like. It is better to leave it to the individual than to start bloating the system down with unnecessary personal preferences.
5 Likes
This is indeed a controversial issue, but let me explain. Iām not saying that I want my favourite style to be the TiddlyWiki style. Iām saying that it would be better for TiddlyWiki to give a more general aesthetically pleasing style than for the underlying browser to control the style. And the user can remove that style or add new ones. This means that if someone likes the firefox style, he can remove the TiddlyWiki style. If there is a person who is good at using CSS, then he can also add custom styles.
Another solution is that special styles can be written in the documentation and some introduction is given, for example, under this entry, a particular style is used to show the functionality of the select. But again, this involves editing and improving the documentation, and that might be another issue.
TiddlyWiki is more like a library, focusing solely on core functionalities.
1 Like
This is a long-time tension in web development. There are those that want to control every aspect of how a page looks and functions, with an ideal of identical appearance and functionality across browsers and operating systems. And there are others that want a page look and act as similarly as possible to the other tools they are used to on their particular operating system and browser.
This has reduced over the years, especially as CSS implementations have converged. But the tension is fundamental: do you want your site to appear identical to all users regardless of environment or do you want your site to match the userās environment as closely as possible?
TiddlyWiki is clearly in the second camp. This agrees with my personal aesthetic, so it feels entirely natural to me. I tweak CSS mostly for in-tiddler layout and not much else. And unsurprisingly, most of the wikis I build look very similar. Iām perfectly happy with that. I usually have the idea that once I have the main content work complete, I will play with theming. Maybe so, but that content never seems to finish, and perhaps Iāll never get to dealing with style.
But perhaps the difference is that I have no idea what people mean by a modern style. Maybe Iām getting old; Iāve been working with the web nearly 30 years. Iāve seen style trends come and go, and Iām mostly happy with minimal styling. Perhaps not as basic as Craigās list (is that still around?) but Wikipedia is just fine to me. I have no objections to more elaborate styling, but I also donāt find it compelling.
In short, to me, this is a good thing:
Because different browsers display different styles.
Turning off CSS would disagree with that. TW provides a LOT of CSS to make itself look good out of the box. Adding a bit more for a few last widgets, doesnāt feel like a bit stretch to me.
That saidā¦
This also aligns with my own aesthetic, and I had to read the comments about all this multiple times to get a handle on what even was being complained about - because to me, the differences between TW5 in firefox/chromium/safari are minor and nitpicky.
All that said, I do think TW5 could do with a style refresh, at least for on mobile where it feels a little clunky. (I kind of find it odd to say that, since my initial impression of TW5 back when it was new, was that itās liberal whitespace and big icons were offputting compared to the relatively dense layout of TW Classic. But older eyesight and greater use of mobile devices has brought me around to appreciating it more. )
1 Like
āModern styleā is now well down a wormhole of āyou just did it, and it is already out of date.ā
My thinking is rather towards a clean slate / state.
In PRACTICUS Iād guess CSS in TW as is is somewhat over prolix and IF slightly better documented we might well liberate her more easily to depict oneās doings.
Itās about the browser, not the device, right? If the browser app is up to date, then it should support the latest dialect.
And how big is the market of users with old browsers that want to use tiddlywiki there? Should TW lose to Obsidian to retain that market?
Thatās not true for iOS and macOS devices. Safari is updated with the OS. Due to lifetime of iOS mobile devices there is a high chance, that we have enough devices out there which do not use the latest Safari browser.
Also in average mobile devices in USA, Europe, Taiwan, Japan and Australia are about 2-3 years old. So supporting 5 year old devices should be a good fit. (population ~1.3 billion)
In average in China mobile devices are 1-2 years old. (1.5 billion)
In India the average is 3-4 years (1.5 billion)
The rest of the world average is 3-5 years. (4 billion)
So the regions of the world that have a 5 year window is about 50% (about 5 billion mobile devices yes there are more mobile devices than world population). The rest of the devices is probably older.
We do have about 60% mobile devices and 40% desktop devices (which are not included in the numbers here)
Most of the data comes from Statcounter summarised by Edge-Copilot
2 Likes