Forum Posts Feed
Simplify, simplify
< Next Topic | Back to topic list | Previous Topic >
Posted by Stephen Zeoli
Oct 23, 2007 at 05:57 PM
I greatly enjoy our discussions of the fine points of outliners/PIMs/wikis, but sometimes I ask myself if I’m overthinking the whole subject.
I suspect that were any of us forced to live with even the most fundamental of PIMs, we would make do. I think back to my college days, before the personal computer existed, when I typed my papers on an old Royal manual typewriter. I would have enjoyed writing and researching my papers so much more if I’d had access to a laptop computer, a word processor and a simple program like Treepad Lite.
My point, I guess is that, even as I look for the perfect PIM, I have to acknowledge that any of them (at least those that are not flawed with bugs and glitches) can be made to be very useful. Going back to my example of Treepad Lite, it has all the features one really needs:
- It is reliable.
- It is accessible when needed.
- It allows for categorization/organization of notes.
- It has an effective search function.
- It has hyperlinks from note to note (and to external files, though I’m not sure that is necessary).
- It provides export of notes into a format easily used by any word processor.
Of course, other features and functions are nice (e.g. text formatting, keywording), but are they necessary? As I implied, Treepad Lite as is would have seemed the height of convenience and power just 30 years ago. Sometimes I am tempted to ditch all my other tools (oh, boy are there a lot of them) and just use Treepad Lite or a simple wiki like Notebook.
But where is the fun in that?
Steve Z.
Posted by Stephen R. Diamond
Oct 23, 2007 at 09:21 PM
I think choice of applications makes only a marginal difference to one’s productivity. We talk about seeing connections in the data, but that still and maybe for a long time will depend primarily on studying it and understanding it, in the tried and true “linear” fashion. The reason I like discussions about these applications is that they raise and clarify questions about how to approach gaining that understanding. The best applications contain an implied methodology, and discussing and comparies the underlying methodologies has benefits that I think go far beyond deciding on which application to expend one’s CRIMP money. As Manfred said, even though he doesn’t use Zoot, discussing it can convey insights that transfer to using different applications. Having had the discussion and the experience of using the more advanced programs, I think I could go back to simply using MS Word without substantial loss in efficiency or acuity.
Some of the larger issues that do have substantial real implications are hard to discuss directly and are probably, as you say, more fun to discuss in the context of alternative programs. Should you write from an outline, and if so, when is the right time to create one? Should you write in bits and pieces that you later assemble or should you compose the first actual draft linearly, from beginning to end? Should a note consist of a single thought, and if so, how is the size and shape of such an atom delineated? Part of the reason these are hard to discuss directly is that the answer may be variable and dependent on the cognitive style of the writer, the kind of material, or other factors that in turn may interact among themselves. No scholarship yet exists that adequately address choices of such complexity. Everyone still has to figure out for himself or intuit on the spot how to approach a particular kind of project, given his own complex of mental and personality traits, and the definition of “this” itself in “this project” has unarticulated and perhaps presently unarticulable contours. I think that sometimes a good way to get a personal handle on such issues, which matter much more than the choice of instrument, is to compare instruments that work differently.
That, in any event, is my rationalization or self-justification.
Posted by Stephen Zeoli
Oct 23, 2007 at 09:52 PM
This probably does not need to be said, but just to make sure everyone understands this: My starting comment on this thread was in no way intended to be critical of the way we discuss PIMs and outliners or to stiffle the discussion of these issues. In fact, just the opposite.
Stephen,
I see your point about gaining insight into the best methodologies by examining the intricacies and functions of the various applications we discuss. Ironically, my comment about Treepad Lite got me to open that application and begin using it on an information organizing problem that has been nagging me for some time. The simplicity and straightforwardness of Treepad helped me tackle the project in a much more straightforward and effective way.
Steve Z.
Posted by Ken Ashworth
Oct 24, 2007 at 07:53 AM
Unfortunately, there is no single program that is “best” for every project and for every step of the project.
The feature set of a Tree Pad Lite is contained in heftier outliners, but the ability of a program to gain or lose weight as the need arises is the thing that must be discovered.
Which tool will help me complete a given project.
Manfred’s article (“history” of the index card system) reminded me of a spy story I read many years ago. The protagonist was a freelance asassian (with ethics) who kept an index card system that ran to 10’s of thousands of records.
This database was physically stored in a massive file cabinet system (multiple levels of phyiscal organization). Color stock for the actual index card added an additional level of sorting.
Cards would be pulled to asemble the knowledge to complete a project - whether the project was a hit or a caving expedition.
What’s interesting about the implementation of such a system is that in order to create it, the user must physically create each card - reinforcing the database in your head. Touching each card is a bit different from importing a table of data - ‘course a Mortgage Rate Booklet could be a “card” under such a system.
Sorry, I don’t remember the name of the story - it was a good read (twice).
Posted by Cassius
Oct 24, 2007 at 04:43 PM
Apropos of everything, the “Literature and Latte” forum (http://www.literatureandlatte.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2496&start=0)
included the following comment by AndreasE (from France),
“BTW: in fact no software is essential for writing good stuff. Shakespeare did it without…
He also said the following (about FL, but applies to ‘most all of our PIMmish products), which, I believe, is relevant to all of us CRIMPers,
“To turn oneself towards a software like Flying Logic would most probably be an expensive way of procrastination. I’m not even sure that it will be otherwise in my own case… [Laughing Smiley].
-c