There was a discussion-thread some time ago about whether two-pane outliners or databases that implement a tree, like Jot+, the various versions of Treepad, TexNote, etc. etc. are outliners or not. (I forgot when exactly this took place and there is no search function in this forum, but perhaps the authors of the entries remember.) I found that very useful.

My view is that the true spirit of outliners lies in the one-pane variety, like More and Acta. Especially Acta was not meant for large databases but for structuring a document or limited information quickly and effectively. There appear to be successors to this type of application in the Mac World, but not in the PC World. You can run Acta on a Mac even today. It is also possible to do on a PC with an emulator. I actually installed Mini VMac on my PC to have access to Acta and More. Works well enough (though printing is a problem).

TkOutline is the only half-decent one-pane outliner that works on the PC. Ecco is already more than one wants for a quick outliner and goes more in the direction of a database. BrainStorm doesn't want to be an outliner, but it comes close.

In any case, I would say that one-pane outliners have a definite use as a means for outlining a shorter document or limited information.

Are two-pane "outliners" ideal for storing large amounts of data? I don't think so. The reason is, as Steve Zeoli pointed out in a previous thread, that the outline structure soon becomes difficult to maintain and that it will quickly become difficult to say where a certain piece of information should go. There are work-arounds, of course. And one can use such applications ... but it soon begins to feel "not quite natural."

A Hypertextual database application seems better to me, because it allows for "unlimited internal branching," since it does not commit you to a pre-defined structure. It also allows for meaningful clusters among the pieces that make up the information, while at the same time always keeping open the possibility of structering and re-structuring the information (like an outliner). Perhaps it might be said that a a hypertextual (or wiki-like) database is like a two- or many-dimensional outliner. Hypertext and outlining are thus complementary and not opposed (as common wisdom has it).

At least that's what I think. I would be most interested in what fellow "outliners" in this forum think.

Manfred

[there is no search function in this forum]


Manfred, this discussion is fascinating and I hope to have the time to join you guys later.

Just a reminder that this list can indeed be searched, through Google's advanced search ( http://www.google.com/advanced_search?hl=en ) by setting Outliners.com in the box "Domain: ONLY return results from the site or domain"

alx

Manfred,

I am in complete agreement about two-pane outliners being poor substitutes for a hearty one-pane outliner. (Unfortunately, as you point out, the PC world has a dearth of one-pane outliners.) For me the biggest drawback of two-pane outliners for structuring a set of information brought together for a single purpose is that the content of each note is too isolated from its context. In a one-pane outliner, such as GrandView, you can view the content of each note contiguously, which, I believe, is essential when evaluating ideas and thoughts that flow from one to the other... as good writing and strong arguments should. In a two-pane outliner, the information in each node is treated as an individual entity.

I presume you have looked at NoteMap from CaseSoft. In my opinion it is the best one-pane outliner for Windows, though it has many weaknesses. I've been intrigued by TKoutline for some time, but have been concerned about getting too attached to it because the pace of development seems very slow, and recently appears to have come to a halt. As it is, it feels like an unfinished application. I take it, however, that you do not feel that way.

Steve Z.

Manfred,

How would you go about doing a major restructuring of a wiki? To change the central organization of an outline, you focus on the top level topics. But since there is no top level in a wiki, isn't restructuring just as organic and incremental as the original process of growth? It seems to me in a wiki you could never record a fundamental change in perspective or add a whole other radically different perspective.

Why is it a good thing that a wiki doesn't commit you to any organization? Doesn't thought develop by hypothesis and challenge?

Stephen R. Diamond