Vote -- Community curated TiddlyWiki editions: First steps

Community Projects Landing Page
#10

The only edition I’ll ever use (well, who knows what the future holds) is empty.html

I don’t know if that’s worth explicitly adding to the list of editions

My primary use case for TiddlyWiki is creating browser-based applications (not web applications, which I consider different). TiddlyWiki is my rapid application development tool (whether just to create prototype applications or to create end-product browser-based applications.)

My secondary use-case is intertwingularity slicing and dicing (aka intertwingularity mapping, like textual mind-mapping vs graphical mind-mapping) when things do not fit well in a neat and tidy hierarchy.

1 Like
#11

Just to clarify: are we meant to be voting for

  • Ways we personally use TW?
  • Use cases we assume would be most popular?
  • Most commonly implemented or desired use cases we have seen personally?
  • Editions that seem hypothetically useful (or in need of special support), whether or not we have or would ever use them?
  • Something else?
#12

I think that will be an ongoing theme. One of the joys of TW is that you don’t have to settle for anyone’s idea of a one-size-fits-all tool. But we still have to present something.

One perhaps useful technique would be for us to use something familiar for each example. Perhaps a novel-prep wiki would be as if it were from Lewis Carol as he writes Alice in Wonderland (has the advantage of being public domain.) And academic article might be a famous one from Kant—care to help with that @Springer? :slight_smile: —or Einstein.

1 Like
#13

Could be done, I would not recommend it.

It would require testing every combination/permutation imaginable, every time there is a new TiddlyWiki version and every time there is a new version of a plugin.

For a new user building their own custom edition, it will sour their experience to spend that effort and have something that does not work.

Better, I think, to have a few editions, and each new edition tested when it needs to be for the purpose/scope intended.

#14

I would say: How do I use (or would like to use) Tiddlywiki?

But if you feel it is useful to vote for a category because you really think it could be useful for some users even if not for you personally, go ahead.

1 Like
#15

I think it will. My suggestion from the earlier thread would put that prominently as the final offering:

1 Like
#16

I would say no.
The “empty” will always remain the default version. The others edition come after. So there’s no need to put it on the list. (But in reality this is just a question of presentation, so it may be good to add)

#17

I don’t imagine this to really be the case. Afterall, TiddlyWiki on it’s own is modular in how it works, where different parts rely on one or several other macros, widgets, etc.

If the same general format is followed when creating the parts, it avoids the risk of things being incompatible. For instance, the palettes we have already in TW don’t all use the same color values, some use entirely different values, which results in issues.

It would also mean that, instead of multiple versions to try to keep up to date, you just need to check if the parts (I’m not sure what to call them, lets go with tidbits :man_shrugging:) just need to be tested. maybe just throwing a TW with all of them on it into one of the updaters and seeing what breaks.

It could even be just a plugin pack you could grab right when you start an empty.html :thinking:

I just imagine that, with enough different versions, eventually some are going to get left behind, or run more outdated than others.

1 Like
#18

i’d personally classify that under “world-building” which is something i have used TW for that doesn’t seem to be in the list?

1 Like
#19

I don’t want to put words in Charlie’s mouth, but I had a similar concern. Since nearly all the preexisting parts that a user could choose to plug in have been produced and maintained by individual developers, there’s some inevitable idiosyncrasy in the data structures they assume, and using them together often involves some reconfiguring. (This is a regular topic here at TalkTW: How do I get this plugin to work with this specific edition, when they were made by different people, for different core versions?) So unless we want to recreate a lot of established solutions, I’m not sure we can reasonably guarantee that plugins chosen a la carte will work together smoothly, or that they’ll continue to work with a later version of the core.

This is not to say that I don’t like the idea of an a la carte component list that doesn’t require a new user to discover all the relevant plugin libraries on their own. But I do think it may need to come with a “buyer beware”.

#20

Well, I would imagine it would take us to decide on what will be the starting edition of TW to have the components be based on, before updating them to work on future versions.
When I imagine how something like this would work, I imagine something similar to how @EricShulman’s TiddlyTools website is, however you bring up a valid point about multiple developers working with multiple formatting and design philosophies, and that’s where I feel like laying down the standards for each one of the components comes into play.
Making sure that specific guidelines are met, and that preexisting code snippets are used means that you don’t have to spend extra time reinventing the wheel, unless otherwise necessary, and also means that anything that worked with the original source of the code will now work with where you pulled it from.
Naturally, things will break, there is no getting around that as newer editions and newer functions are introduced, so making note of which sets of features work with which version is key.
VanillaTweaks does it by MC version, and we could do the same, and while those might be unsupported for a time, getting them to work could mean reintroducing them.

#21

In that case, I’ll vote for “note-taking” as you advised Justin, though I agree that “worldbuilding” would be more accurate. I’ll also rep the somewhat larger TW-for-TTRPGs community on Discord (and Reddit? I know @intrinsical has shared his showcase/starter edition there before).

And, while I’m not sure how to classify it in the poll, I’d also like to vote for a more “traditional” wiki—a knowledge base (potentially multi-user) that looks more like Wikipedia or a Fandom wiki, even if it leverages Tiddlywiki features behind the scenes. I think this is a pretty common goal among potential users vetting TW; I’ve seen a number of new users asking how to make a Wikipedia-style infobox, for instance.

1 Like
#22

Another vote for ”Other”, as in ”Writer’s tool (TTRPG)”, simply as a nod to that being my primary use of TW since around 2010.
But it sure is a good writer’s tool in more general terms, as well!

1 Like
#23

To my mind, this would be a distinct effort. I think it’s a distraction from the notion of curated editions.

I have similar reservations to those @Charlie_Veniot and @etardiff expressed, but more importantly now, I think it’s a very different idea, one that should get its own independent hearing.

Update

Sorry, I didn’t really choose the right quote here. I’m suggesting that the idea of an edition-builder is very separate from the notion of curated demo editions . I think it would be a great thing to have, but I suspect that it would end up being quite difficult.

#24

Two thoughts on mechanisms:

  1. I think we would be best served by first doing one of our editions as completely as we can. And it should probably one in the middle of the list, not top- or bottom-voted ones. If we can’t actually complete a first one, then we won’t ever be able to make anything useful, and we should give up But we shouldn’t start with our most important ones; we should have at least one practice run. Once we do one, we can figure out what went right and wrong, and then start building the others from the top of the list to the bottom, perhaps redoing our first one based on what we’ve learned. (At this point, we can also consider going in parallel.)

  2. These editions should focus on getting a practical, useful, and clearly helpful wiki. I think each should have a GettingStarted or similar tiddler that explains what’s going on, what tools are used and why, and how to use it. It should have content that is not specific to someone’s internal usage, but is clearly familiar. I suggested elsewhere that a book organization might focus on “Alice in Wonderland”, pretending to be Lewis Carol. It should also have the equivalent of “Download empty”, which has the same infrastructure but none of the content.

3 Likes
#25

When a complete noob first downloads TiddlyWiki, they see, basically, a notes app of sorts. By way of analogy, they see a shiny new car.

When a seasoned TiddlyWiki user creates/starts a new TiddlyWiki, they see something entirely different. They see not just a new car, but a factory for making the car (or more cars), a workshop for maintaining the car and a community of minds for tackling unforeseen issues/problems with parts of the car that may not have even existed when the car was first manufactured. Further, they see new roads opening up where none existed before.

Those a two very different perceptions, and I believe hint at the underlying issues of take-up and retention.

I’m not sure any of that needs to be part of this discussion but I do think it shouldn’t be left out due to neglect or oversight.

3 Likes
#26

This is quite important. This whole effort is aimed at the new users, showing them what can be done, not showing them how to rebuild the carburetor.

And I think we can carry the analogy much further. What we’re looking to build is an auto showroom. “Over here is a sedan, there’s an SUV, and this one is a hatchback. We have pickup trucks over here, and both full-sized and mini- vans. We have panel trucks, semis, and if you want to go the other way, the motorcycle department is around back.”

But you don’t have to take just what’s on the floor today, there are many options. “You can choose color and engine size and pick from four trim levels. We can include heated seats, sun-roofs, built-in GPS, and four hundred other options. We should note that some options are mutually exclusive: you can have a roof rack or a sun-roof, but not both. But mostly you can pick and choose what you want on top of one of our base models.”

We could definitely go further with this. I think this analogy is a near-perfect way to think about this effort.

Note

I don’t know how much this is American-specific. Sales of new cars in the United States mostly take place through independent dealerships which have relationships with one or more manufacturers. They have showrooms which include the recent models from their manufacturers. You might be able to buy off their lot, but they will also arrange a more customized version from the manufacturer. (I may be behind the times. I haven’t bought a brand-new car since 1990.)

3 Likes
#27

The way that the vote/poll is currently, it’s generating something more akin to a heat map.

#28

Same. Any differences would be minor (though perhaps “legal” in nature). They get allotted a quota by the manufacturer and are pushed and pressured to exceed it. It’s about nothing more sophisticated than moving metal out the door and cash in the door.

#29

Meant to add, it’s faster in the UK. I’ve bought 2 cars in the USA, both were lengthy, almost day-long procedures. I’ve bought 4 houses – all done in an hour or less, way faster than buying a car.

1 Like