So, referrring to my post above and the image, what do you say - would it
work or is there some fundamental problem?
In a way it is merely about having some fields visible in view mode.
My major concern is if is possible to use such a field as a
tiddlertitlelink in the way tag names are? I.e can "foo:bar" or "bar" (i.e
"foo" hidden) linkified and still work as a field? Maybe it only has to be
linkified at the moment it is displayed?
...An interesting question is then what would happen when you click it? My
thoughts are that you open a tiddler titled *bar*, i.e not with the type
visible in the title... and the type is stored as... you guessed it... a
regular field. Perhaps "tagtype:foo". Actually not strange - it's simply
a field with the meta-data stating that when the tiddlertitle is used as a
tag, it is of type "foo".
Anothe question: is the idea possible with the two placehoders to fill in
and have the system decide upon clicking the tick/Add, if it is to be a tag
or a field, i.e based on if one or both placeholders were filled?
BTW, what would happen if one simply ditched the special tags field and
only used general fields but with a default value "tag" for whenever no
other name/attribute was specified.?
<:-)
On Friday, December 26, 2014 3:40:51 AM UTC+1, Mat wrote:
>
> Fields vs Tags - in deed! I suffer from exactly the prolems descried here.
> Things did improve slightly with TW5s superior field handling over TWCs
> but, still, there is a need to both have the smoothness and visibility of
> tags but the "typing" of fields.
>
> Here is a conceptual mockup that I'd like your input on (please, open
> image).
>
> The idea is to have
>
> - a "public/viewable" part where currently the tags field is
> - ...and a "admin/editview" part at tiddler footer, which actually is
> how the current fields part already functions.
>
> Now, in the "public/viewable" part, I propose to display *both* tags and
> fields, possibly grouped (more on this below). *In practice, a field will
> be treated like a tag with a type (type:tag = name:value). *
>
> The rough workflow illustrated in the mockup goes:
>
> 1) (omitted from mockup) Just like today, in edit mode and in the tags
> area, you start typing into a small edit box.
> 1b) (left side of mockup) Immediately this opens the (familiar) tags
> suggestion list but the edit box you're filling in moved down a line and
> above it now a tag pill is building up. If you're happy with a quick tag,
> then you click the tick and it's created. Done. Very similar to how it
> works today.
>
> 2) ...but if you want to type it or fine tune a bit, you'll notice the
> dropdown list has two buttons for *type* and *settings*. See right image
> in mockup.
> The "type" side has another small edit box where you fill in the type. You
> also get a suggestion list, equivalent to the tags suggestion list.
> The resulting tag pill adjusts as you type.
>
> 3) The right hand *settings* menu should be pretty obvious, but the top
> item, "Type" + eye, refers to if the type should be visible in the tag pill
> or not, i.e if the tag pill should read "author:Patrick Modiano" or just
> "Patrick Modiano".
>
> 4) Programmatically: Not until you actually click the tick ("Done") for
> the pill is this actually created. Only then is it decided if this tag pill
> really is a tag or if it is a field (i.e on the form name:value).
> Regardless, there is a resulting pill - possibly with these typed variants
> grouped first or last in the "tag area".
> Tiddler in view mode looks the same of course.
>
>
>
> <https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-JsiCUOASAcM/VJzHvEFW38I/AAAAAAAAPCs/caKR5yhyVto/s1600/tagfields_both.png>
>
>
> I'm leaving out my thoughts on the tiddler footer fields as they're pretty
> much intact functionality wise. And I have some thoughts on algorithms for
> the suggestion lists. More later, if of interest.
>
>
> Other than the actual practical value this would have, I also think it
> simplifies things conceptually for new users. You use simple tags until you
> get sophisticated enough to need typed tags at which time it's a small step
> to take. In their mind, it's probably still just "doing something to the
> tag" kind of like the color setting - as opposed to bringing in a new term
> and concept (fields) which seems to be something advanced and something
> used by "the system".
>
>
> <:-)
>
--
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 post to this group, send email to tiddlywiki@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
