http://atlas-disciplines.unige.ch/ is a beautiful example of what can be done with TW. I've learned about it thanks to Soren Bjornstad in his book GrokTiddlywiki : https://groktiddlywiki.com/read/#Public%20Wikis
@Charlie_Veniot while beauty is indeed subjective, it is possible to use things like psychology and color theory to create a good design. See https://www.nngroup.com/topic/psychology-and-ux/ for example - I can provide more links if you are interested ^^ Le samedi 23 octobre 2021 à 16:27:01 UTC+2, hww...@gmail.com a écrit : > Cade: > > I appreciate your interesting comments, perhaps because my age has > advanced to the stage that my medical data is of much greater importance to > me. Also, I have become much more cynical about medical practitioners who > share data with the BigPharma oligopoly and the inevitable consequences of > well-intended attempts to make all of a patient's data available on-line so > that GPs and Specialist can share a holistic view of a patient. > > For my part, I am much more inclined to build by own repository of all my > medical information and share it with just the practitioners I trust and > select as care-providers. This is particularly true now that the > clinic-based GP I start with, suggests that I find my own specialists, that > he can then refer me to, since the Administrative wait times are on the > order of a year for a referral. > > In that context, I am inclined to ask you "What are the impediments to > sharing the ... cardiovascular Data ..." you have. Particularly given that > you already understand fine-grained design concepts and that is should be > possible to use these to anonymize a selective view of the information. > > Regards, > Hans > > > On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 11:18:29 PM UTC-4 Cade Roux wrote: > >> I wish I could share the TWs we generate for our cardiovascular Data Mart >> product here. We generate the data dictionary/manual in a TW and all our >> test outputs are in a few TWs organized by test groupings. It definitely >> satisfies 2 and 3, as far as 1, I am still tweaking it to be more and more >> attractive and useful all the time. We started off very simply because we >> didn't want to commit too deeply down a path which would limit us from >> retargeting our documentation to HTML or Word later. However, as we >> progressed, it was more and more accepted to start using TW features more >> heavily as stakeholders started to get the hang of it, and there are some >> fundamental aspects of TW which we have taken advantage of to solve >> traditional problems in code/document generation: >> >> Transclusion means that we can have parts of the TW that are manually >> edited and parts that are generated and that work can go along >> independently with each feeding off the other, without requiring >> significant synchronization between engineering staff and informatics staff >> - changes to the code/rules can be done independent of editing the TW >> template file independent of the data that is going to be imported from >> JSON to fill out many lookup tables and generate necessary tiddlers and >> indexes. Normally with code/document generation, you have to decide >> whether the template or the content is driving the design and what we've >> found with TW is both are on pretty equal footing compared to past >> techniques like in Excel or Word where areas have to be labeled and then >> only designated labeled areas can be filled in and there really isn't >> referencing back and forth. And you have to decide where longer narratives >> are stored and how they get combined in the document. And you have to >> decide how to handle multiple passes so that you can embed generated >> content in user content inside the generated content. That is simple for >> us, they are always in a tiddler, potentially itself transcluding generated >> data, and it's all seamlessly handled by transclusion. >> >> Macros/filters mean that the document in many cases is data driven on its >> own using TW features. Typically in a Word or HTML document generation, >> you would have to generate the index, often our indexes are not even >> generated - they are tiddler list macros on tiddlers with dedicated >> transclusion points for including manual edited tiddlers in appropriate >> places. Sure Word can generate a table of contents based on the heading >> structure in your document. That is nothing compared to what TW does for >> us because of how we tag everything in custom fields and then can have all >> kinds of options for organizing and displaying indexes of the same data. >> >> Tiddler grain - do everything at a small meaningful grain and tag/label >> data fully in custom fields. A lot of this could be done with an HTML site >> generator, but TW has really saved a lot of work for us by us buying into >> the TW philosophy of fine-grained tiddlers. So we use custom fields and >> tags and filters and generate tiddlers appropriately tagged for every >> element of our Data Mart and then they merge seamlessly with manually >> created tiddlers and index tiddlers which know how to group up different >> tags. >> >> I know there are other tools we could have looked at, but based on what >> we did with TW, I am not confident that we would have achieved what we did, >> or as well, or as flexibly accommodating the ongoing releases of our Data >> Mart as we curate more and more data, with any other product or technique. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Cade >> >> On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 5:13:36 PM UTC-5 cj.v...@gmail.com wrote: >> >>> I'm not clear on what exactly the problem is. >>> >>> What problem are we trying to solve, how will making TW appear alive >>> solve it? Alive to who? And alive how? >>> >>> Yeah, I think I'm either over-analyzing things or things are too >>> broad/unclear for me to contribute anything useful. >>> >>> I do look forward to seeing how this discussion thread evolves. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 5:33:46 PM UTC-3 Mat wrote: >>> >>>> What does "nicely designed" mean? I may find something wonderfully >>>>> designed, while 99% of normal folk find the same thing awful. >>>>> >>>> >>>> So I'm talking about appealing to the 99%. If we look at, say, the >>>> "clothes design industry" we should realize how incredibly narrow our >>>> tastes are if we consider that clothes really could be designed in >>>> unlimited number of ways. Most of us have similar preferences about most >>>> things. (Of course, you and I have our own distinguished tastes and free >>>> minds... and that very belief is another thing we have in common with >>>> almost all other people.) >>>> >>>> [...], and who cares whether it looks abandoned or not? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Before people become full tiddlywikians, then need to decide if they >>>> want to try out TW to begin with. At that stage, impressions and feelings >>>> matter a lot. Things that look abandoned or outdated are generally less >>>> appealing than things that look up to date and alive. I'm pretty sure >>>> people are more interested in a software where it says "October 19, 2021" >>>> instead of , say, "May 7, 2018". >>>> >>>> [...] the best thing is to continously/regularly update it. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Of course, but that means responsibility and effort... >>>> >>>> >>>>> An alternative/complimentary approach might involve having the wiki >>>>> acting a bit like a portal, showing some dynamic content from somewhere >>>>> else so it looks like the TiddlyWiki has a pulse ? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yes, that is a good idea. Any good examples of how this can be done? >>>> >>>> <:-) >>>> >>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tiddlywiki+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/79e4bdaf-0df0-44c1-942c-334c3fd330a8n%40googlegroups.com.
