Mat,
In my config tiddler model, any tiddler with the the prefix $:/config and
any tiddler with a config-values field would be how you find and display
configuration info. No tags, system or otherwise needed.
We could add config-values field to all current tiddlywiki config entries
or provide a hard coded list, for example containing "show hide". Its the
existence of config-values that flags it as a config tiddler.
On searching, it is a simply matter of adding a custom search to the config
tiddlers tab that uses search:*[{searchstring}] to search any field on the
config tiddlers. So if you add for examples a keywords field containing
suitable search terms they will be listed.
Regards
Tony
On Wednesday, September 18, 2019 at 12:49:17 AM UTC+10, Mat wrote:
>
> Thanks for input everyone!
>
> @ Mohammad wrote:
>>
>> Why not to oped a ticket at GitHub?
>>
>
> It is good to refine a proposal or request through discussion first, so
> that when something is eventually posted on gh it can be very specific and
> all misunderstandings (including my own), objections etc have been dealt
> with.
>
> @Tony - config tiddlers sound like a good idea. Have you elaborated on the
> concept somewhere? (demo?) My OP is mainly about *findability* though.
> You say *"Each config tiddler could include a caption and description"* but
> this still does not solve findability unless you have a very wide
> definition of a "description". To use my example in the OP;
>
> a user typing in either of the terms *color, colour, style, appearance*,
>> etc - of course - get the Palette stuff (and probably more).
>
>
> Should a "description" cover this?
>
> @PMario
>
>> I don't really know, why you ask me. ... But I think it is a good idea!
>>
>
> Happy you agree!
>
> The reason I turned to you is because my proposal to solve this
> generically would be by means of *tagging*. Tagging is, after all, the
> main way to make things findable. But it would obviously not be appropriate
> to show a big number of arbitrary tags on tiddlers. However, these tags
> would not be of the same "kind" as ordinary tags that are typically used
> for *structuring*. In contrast, these tags for finding should work
> *behind-the-scenes*! In other words; they should be hidden. You've
> objected to hidden tags in the past but, again, these would be *systemic*
> information just like how the tiddler *type* or *custom field data* often
> is hidden. What is you opinion on this? Or, I should phrase it like so; Is
> there a better alternative?
>
> If I understand you right, you're proposing to make the various
> Controlpanel tabs findable/targetable by somehow including search terms in
> the tab-tiddlers - yes? (...but you also say it should only be ONE search
> term??) I might misunderstand something but I still don't see how this
> would actually help a searcher unless he happens to use the magic keyword
> in his search.
>
> The idea to make the Controlpanels tab-tiddlers findable is interesting
> but I think it misses the mark. Here's a case in point from using Windows:
>
> I have a portable loud speaker that sometimes connects, sometimes not. It
> is extremely frustrating to right-click > "Open the sound settings" only to
> realize the settings there are insufficient... so I search for audio
> drivers which is in the Device Manager ... > Properties ....but that shows
> this one (image) :
>
> [image: Captureaudio.PNG]
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ...after a lot of internet search, I've found I really need to access this
> one:
>
> [image: Captureaudio2.PNG]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Clearly, ALL of these things should have come up when I search for sound
> or loudspeaker. The results (all of them) could be presented in some
> prioritized order and the search engine could allow for a finer search but
> the approach is just not sufficient.
>
> In contrast, Chrome > Settings behave more like what I'm talking about:
> Searching for, say, "Sound" presents a list that seems to be a mix of
> direct settings *and* categories with settings contain the searched word.
>
> ...
>
> So, in addition to the *problem description* in the OP, my question is if
> there is a better *solution* than to utilize hidden tags in order to
> actually *find* everything relevant when searching? The tags, or search
> words, would presumably be in some separate field, directly editable in
> edit mode - but they can also be transcluded to some central
> search-datatiddler.
>
> And to fellow PMario; what do you think of the idea to treat such pure
> search tags as *systemic tags* and therefore hide them? Any better ideas?
>
> Thank you all.
>
> <:-)
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"TiddlyWikiDev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywikidev/effc0564-afc9-49f8-8da0-263dc3db26da%40googlegroups.com.
