Yeah, I did ask what nicely designed means. Design theories, as you
mentionned, is one great answer. Having all related resources for that in
this thread just feels a bit too much for the context of the original post.
A discussion about criteria for nice design (along with the related
resources) could make for a right interesting separate thread of discussion.
Thing is, folk can look at something and think it is wonderfully designed,
and the thing doesn't follow at all general theories of "good design" All
of the research in "good design practices/principles/theories" don't matter
much when folk like something that doesn't follow any of it. (That's when
new "good design" practices/principles/theories come to light, which may be
evolution or just latest trends/fashions/fads.)
Pretty designs can turn into awful when the design doesn't follow good
practices. For example, folk think something is the prettiest thing
they've ever seen, but the thing has hidden interfaces (i.e. interfaces
that only appear upon mouse hover or something else). Hidden interfaces
are brutal.
The example you give is interesting, very unique, cool in a way, very
creative, and I want to run away from it because I find it hard to read.
Showcase TiddlyWiki's are like marketing. Who are we marketing to? And
what are we marketing?
If we showcase "nice designs", non-technical and non-designer folk might
get the impression that it is easy to have that design in their own
TiddlyWikis. If showcasing designs, it would be awesome for each example
to have a plugin so users can have a TiddlyWiki that looks exactly like the
one showcased, along with easy ways to customize and make their own. If
the nice design can only be had by those who are technically proficient and
have the time, or by those who can afford to pay for it, it can be a little
disheartening for those who are not techinically proficient, and/or don't
have the time, and/or can't afford to pay for it.
I'm just thinking TiddlyWiki level of aliveness via level of nicely
designed is problematic. Showcasing TiddlyWikis based on whether or not
they are nicely designed is problematic. (Who decides, why would anybody
submit cool TiddlyWiki solutions to problems if one thinks a solution will
not pass the "nicely designed" test?).
But this is all a strange discussion (yeah, I'm going in circles) because
I"m still not really clear on what problem we are discussing and how "well
designed" ("pretty" is just one attribute of oh-so-many) addresses the
problem.
Maybe related, maybe not: it would be cool if TiddlyWiki had a "sample
vault" similar to the Team Developer Sample Vault
<https://samples.tdcommunity.net/>.
On Monday, October 25, 2021 at 1:19:38 AM UTC-3 Télumire wrote:
> Well you did ask "What does “nicely designed” mean?". Imo it only has two
> meaning - following "universal" design rules and/or personal preferences.
> Rather than discouraging, showing how we can make TiddlyWiki beautiful
> could inspire people to be more creative, especially since TW community is
> very supportive and friendly. Function is as important as design, because
> no matter how useful something is, if it's not pleasing to use (ie, the UX
> is bad) then it will not be used.
>
> I agree with you, both "usefulness" and design are important. Projects
> like Nico's Notebook theme or Muuri Storyview by BurningTreeC helps bring
> more people aboard the TiddlyWiki train, and not only tech enthusiasts.
>
> Here's another great wiki with an unique design that I like:
> https://philosopher.life/
>
>
> Le lun. 25 oct. 2021 à 02:18, Charlie Veniot <cj.v...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
>> Oh good lord, please don't. Good design has been part of my bread and
>> butter since 1995, and I enjoy it very much in that context, but it is an
>> annoying topic for me outside of work.
>>
>> However, that kind of stuff might be of interest to a whole bunch of
>> other folk, but really should be in a separate thread.
>>
>> My point is: I am concerned that "pretty" becomes something too important
>> in general, something that discourages anyone from demonstrating some
>> wildly good stuff done with TiddlyWiki just because the community has put a
>> premium on "pretty" when not all folk have the time/desire/skill to apply
>> all of the theories of pretty design.
>>
>> There's nothing wrong with pretty design, but I look past that really
>> quick because it is a fluffy distraction from the substantial stuff: what
>> is it doing, why is it doing it, when is it doing it, and how is it doing
>> it?
>>
>> Most folk may not agree, but a pretty TW does not in my mind's eye make
>> for appearance of alive.
>>
>> All of that aside: if there's a desire to put together a gallery, be
>> careful focusing on pretty. If you're going to pitch TiddlyWiki based on
>> pretty, there are all kinds of products out there that do pretty, and very
>> easy for the layperson to do pretty with those products. Might be hard for
>> TiddlyWiki to compete with other products when it comes to easy-of-pretty.
>> However, TiddlyWiki kills at being a platform for solutions.
>>
>> If you want to showcase TiddlyWiki, then find the solutions, a bunch of
>> folk who want to make them pretty, go ahead and make them pretty, then
>> showcase the hell out of the solutions.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, October 24, 2021 at 7:24:08 PM UTC-3 Télumire wrote:
>>
>>> 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+...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/e77875a8-d311-48e5-89b5-5d6591b408a0n%40googlegroups.com
>>
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/e77875a8-d311-48e5-89b5-5d6591b408a0n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
>
--
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/6031e7af-8f2b-4c92-b16e-60c6d3781a67n%40googlegroups.com.
