vs
3 Likes
So our “target group” is everyone who owns a “Swiss pocket knife” 
– That’s a reasonable goal.
7 Likes
I don’t quite understand what you mean, but I made a plugin 标题字段 — 将「说明文字 caption」字段显示为标题，并且可以轻松地编辑它。 to show what I mean.
And it is build-in in TidGi to build a better flomo-like experience.
1 Like
But people also regard/promote Obsidian as Swiss Army knife, so this is not the correct analogy.
but using Zettlr compared to Obsidian is like using a pocket knife vs. using a Swiss Army knife
Now I believe empty edition without too much build-in plugin is like iron ore, you still need to write many wikitext to make it a Swiss Army knife. Now I’d promote Tiddlywiki empty edition as Note OS, instead of a Note app that people can directly use.
3 Likes
What is “swiss army knife” about Obsidian? I’ve never used it so I ask to understand. Can you basically build “anything” with Obsidian like you can with TW? If not, then it is them that are using the wrong analogy, isn’t it?
The 900 plugins available are like the attachments of a Swiss Army Knife. You can customise with CSS. But there’s a limit to what you can do without creating a javascript based plugin.
This whole analogy breaks down because you don’t make a SAK into anything, which is what you do with TW.
I thought linonetwo 's analogy to iron ore was pretty apt. You can take that pile of ore and make it into a small auto, but most people wouldn’t.
5 Likes
Something I think we beat obsidian at would be the ability to dynamically filter for tiddlers. As a byproduct of this, I would also say this also makes our own templates (template tiddlers) better too, and potentially easier to use. Obsidians templates actually seems pretty clunky at first glance.
I haven’t seen anything like our filter notation for Obsidian, and while the graph view is aestetically pleseant (but also possible to be copied in TiddlyWiki with plugins) TiddlyWiki’s filter notation is just, better.
one way that comes to mind is my own main usecase, which uses the Pmarios TOCP plugin to create a dynamically organizing table of contents.
Obsidian can’t really do this, you have to organize your notes yourself, but with TOCP, I can just, have tiddlywiki do it for me. A filter like "[tag[Topic Tiddlers]] :or[is[tiddler]!is[system]tags[]!has[tags]]" will just place all my topic tiddlers into a tree structure and if it has children, they get moved as a node of it, and even shows missing tiddlers for me to revisit at a later date.
I do agree with the iron ore analogy, but I would wager that it is iron ore in a workshop with more craftsmen tools / molds than obsidian, where obisidan is already an iron ingot.
I understand what you mean, What I am saying is it is not that you are “not writing the title”, but that you are “automatically naming the title” then hiding the automatic title.
- The knowledge that the title field is the key to a record, a tiddler remains and is very important.
- I understand “not writing” may mean no need to type a new title but this is already the case if you accept the
New Tiddler #
I have discussed this kind or title automation extensively over the years and others have also presented various solutions.
I have tackled this along with others for some time and I believe the best approach is calling it the “TiddlyWiki Platform”, it is something on top of which much can be done and it does not insist on too much, it remains open for the user / designer to decide what they build.
- The platform uses global Internet standards HTML, CSS and Javascript
- The platform can create Websites, Applications, Documents to name a few
- How you use this platform is up to the user. Vanila, Published Edition, Custom, with core and 3rd party plugins.
TiddlyWiki can be used totally independently of any provider and fully self documents its own operation, with a very high percentage of “the code” being in the same readable form used to extend it.
1 Like
I’m new to TW, and I’d like to make a few observations about this topic.
Recently I have used TW to create a translation and distribution tool for Trpg’s Module. (I’m not a native English speaker, although I can read English, but this text is translated by translation software, if there is any inappropriate expression please remind me.)
- Obsidian has a huge writing interface that takes up 80% of the entire screen. On the contrary, I’ve always felt that TW writes in a small window within a window. This is of course in line with tiddler’s philosophy that TW discourages long-windedness. But I don’t think it’s enough in terms of writing comfort.
- Stability. Stability means two things here.
- One is the stability of the experience. A lot of the features are developed by enthusiasts and don’t need to take into account the user’s UX. Mistyping a letter will be no error alert, it will just invalidate that long paragraph. Often times I forget the details of how to use some plugin. I’ll need to dig out the plugin’s manual to get it to work properly. (I understand this very well, as a personal developer, it takes a very large amount of time to handle the details and UX of the software, even more than the core features.) .
- The other part refers to stability at the code level. There are tons of plugins that have stopped being maintained, certainly not difficult to use. But even the slightest fluctuation in the use of a plugin, e.g. the occasional error report, some extreme cases of bugs, can make a person weary. Because I don’t want to dive into the inner workings of the plugin to do secondary development, but there won’t be anyone to update it . I’ll just have to choose to stumble through it or abandon it altogether.
- Save. I currently use TiddlyDesktop for TW file editing and saving, and I’ve had good experiences with it.
- But I find it very dangerous. When I’m immersed in reading and want to edit, I need to be constantly aware of how I’m opening the TW file in front of me, or else I’m likely to need to do a complicated import/export. The resistance to newbies is also self-evident, which makes TW a software that doesn’t work out of the box.
- By the way TD’s application name is nw, I’m not quite sure why, but it would confuse me a bit. There is a shortcut under the folder with the name TiddlyDesktop though, so it’s not a problem for quickly launching the software.
- Programming Resistance. As it above, I have some programming basics, but TW programming is still difficult for me (the groktiddlywiki tutorials are really good). Multiple levels in transclusion, multiple similar macros, makes me despair when I write templete. “Why doesn’t he work? I’m on the right track.” Sometimes doing another form of writing for certain features might work. Sometimes it just didn’t work, even if I thought I understood the theory. I’ve learned HTML, css, and javescript for this.I even think I’m becoming a front-end programmer. But it’s still very tedious and difficult to get the functionality I want to work.
- I would like to say a few extra words about TidGi. The author integrated a lot of plugins and also wrote a plugin mall-like functionality, spent a lot of effort, which is very admirable. I would say that you are too possessive of your work.
- Just the screenshot above the post shows that the index on the front page has the bolded author’s name. CPL even pops up a window to remind him of his existence. It’s only right that authors attribute their work, and I couldn’t agree more. The single file and open source nature of TW makes me feel like it’s my file. When I use TidGi, I’m constantly reminded that the file doesn’t belong to me. It’s weird.
3 Likes
If I may suggest some of the issues you raise are not issues from my perspective. Could I suggest you search for some solutions to the limitations you have, and if you don’t get good answers post separate topics to get help.
- I do think many of these issues you have experienced come from a personal viewpoint that some others (but not all) share.
Welcome to this discussion forum!!
The only thing I didn’t understand was your reference to “Trpg’s Module”. I have no idea what that is. Everything else was clear.
I think this is an inevitable consequence of TW’s notion of being so flexible. There are so many important things to show. But I would love a “writing mode” that can be launched with a keystroke or single button press that hid the sidebar and the top bar, rolled the type and fields editor into a single expandable bar, and replaced the side-by-side source/preview with a pair of easily toggleable tabs. I wouldn’t use this often, but when I get into a writing groove, I do prefer having few distractions.
I’m guessing a plugin to do this would be easy to write, but it’s nowhere near the top of my list.
Yes, this is a real problem, but I don’t know we solve it except for something similar to what we’re very slowly trying to do with community editions: creating a set pf community maintained plugins rather than individual author ones.
And that’s a very large job.
Again, I think a place for community maintenance would help here.
This is extremely difficult to change. One of TW’s best and longest-term selling points is that your wiki is independent; you can put it where you like, and count on it working decades hence. What’s the chance that Obsidian will be here in 2050? What’s the chance that it will be free and that you can move your data as you like? Unless a better browser-based file saving mechanism comes along, it’s hard to see a wonderful solution to this. That’s not to say that all the various savers are bad. I usually use the Node version myself, but I always think of the single-file wiki as the default.
I’m assuming it’s built in the tool once known as node-webkit, eventually shortened to “nw”.
Best of luck! This community is generally very willing to help, even if the questions are only tangentially related to TW.
I haven’t used it and can’t speak to TidGi at all, but I’d suggest directly messaging the author (you can do it here on these forums.) Sometimes just a quick message about something like that will cause an author to rethink an approach.
Based on my current experience in tiddlywiki plugin development, using javascript is far better than wikitext.
Could you expand on this, perhaps giving a few examples?
I’m much stronger in JS than in wikitext, and I have no issue going to JS for a plugin, but the more time I spend on TW, the less I find it necessary. I’m curious about how your experience differs.
Please note: I am talking about a technical argument here, no views about people intended here.
I do think @oeyoews you could do more with wikitext than you know, and you use JavaScript more because you know it better. The problem with that, is it means more plugins/JavaScript is needed and we are not continuously improving tiddlywiki core for new and future users.
- To me the objective should be to identify gaps in tiddlywikis operation and implement changes so users do not need to revert to JavaScript which supports a larger audience.
- If it can be moved into the core, the platform, when needed we should, if we cant or it is a lot of bytes then yes as a plugin.
- Sometimes we need to add an affordance to the core to support additional functionally and simplify the code needed in plugins, then future plugins can use this affordance.
- If plugins proliferate then the complexity goes up and solutions are harder to build.
- An example is the relink plugin, I believe it could be in the core, or core plugins, it is so essential and powerful
- Moving geolocation into the core plugins is an example of this.
Don’t get me wrong @oeyoews we really need people with your skills in our community and you make some powerful contributions, please keep them coming, but consider not just the end result, but how “can we” help non-programmers and even the TiddlyWiki platform make use of this power without code.
Your sincerely, and without Judgement.
In fact, I don’t really care much about which language I use, whether it’s JavaScript or Wikitext. For me, the development experience is more important, followed by functionality and other aspects. Wikitext doesn’t offer the same quality development experience as other programming languages, like code highlighting, intelligent suggestions, or code maintainability. I believe some people have already recognized this. Initially, I did spend a lot of time learning Wikitext, and it was indeed impressive—there’s nothing difficult about it. However, there are certain details within it that I can’t easily debug.
Becoming an expert in such a niche language doesn’t seem cost-effective to me. Most of the JavaScript plugins I write now are mainly to meet my temporary needs, or they’re just spur-of-the-moment projects that I might not even use myself. To be honest, I don’t think anyone else would use these plugins either. Of course, if my plugins can help you, I’m happy to hear that.
It seems that from here onwards, the discussion has deviated from the original topic
I’m sorry I didn’t specify in advance. Yes, these questions are very personal. I also rarely interact with others on the forum. Probably because there are so many questions that are simple and easy to search for answers. It could also be that if I re-watch the grok tutorial again, it will solve the problem. Maybe one day I’ll reorganize some of the knowledge I tend to forget and confuse and feed it back to the forum. But yes, my feeling is very personal.
It means the adventures in DND or COC. I think TW’s single file format is very conducive to publishing these adventures and allows for the integration of numerous utilities. It can provide an out-of-the-box experience for newbies.
The concept is really good. What I can associate it with is a similar activity going on in the godot community, but choosing and evaluating plugins seems to be a challenge as well.
Of course, developer scarcity is always a challenge. (This seems like it would also involve TW’s profit model. But I’m only keeping up with TW via Twitter and don’t have a complete picture.)
I really like the single-file wiki, which is why I choose TW. Now I’m starting to expect a better browser-based file saving mechanism.
I’m more of a product manager who knows a little bit of technology than a professional programmer. For personal software development I have familiar language and some simple products, such as a simple board game tool on a mobile phone.
I think my slow learning of wikitext may be due to the fact that I can’t adapt my existing experience well, and there are some limitations.
For example, I want to make a table. The table has a corresponding button that, when pressed, will refresh the random number based on the number of rows in the table. The corresponding row will be highlighted.
I found that there seems to be some technical limitations to the row in the highlighted table. (But I’ve seen similar functionality in some table tools again.) Recording random numbers to avoid meaningless refreshes also needs to be handled. I gave up for time reasons.
I still have a lot of time to spend on Text Substitution, which is a bit complicated for me to use and I don’t have a good understanding of the concept. This is my problem in this area. But that’s one of the core features of TW, and I really want to make good use of it. But I didn’t.
I’m not trying to complain about anything. Just wanted to make some observations that I made as a new user.
Thank you for your help and answers. TW does have an excellent community.
1 Like
Welcome @redhossu. I agree with you that the tiddler width is too small. Modern screens are wide but the standard tiddler width is only about 25%. I use the flexwidth plugin, that I think is no longer updated, to set the width of the tiddlers to be the majority of my monitor. I’m sure that there’s another way to do this but I don’t know what it is.
Use more layouts Do you want your wiki to have 3-10 different layouts?
I’m creating a Evernote/Obsidian style layout, and people can use the proper layout for different types iof works.
In this way, TidGi will be an edition that have all feature of Obsidian, and still being more powerful and keeps simplicity.
There could have been more editions, but seems I’m the only one that is trying in this direction.
1 Like