Forum Posts Feed
Zim Desktop Wiki -- observations and comparisons
< Next Topic | Back to topic list | Previous Topic >
Posted by marcus
Aug 4, 2014 at 08:52 PM
After a recent bout of CRIMPing (which for me usually involves more trying than buying) I’ve been relieved to discover a wonderful (for my purposes) set of features and design in Zim (http://zim-wiki.org/). It seems to have received only brief and passing mention on this forum, so let me share some of my observations and comparisons.
First, I had encountered it at least once before but didn’t give it much of a chance, I forget why. This time (yesterday) I almost dismissed it, too, because it crashed, and after sending a bug report it wouldn’t open—then I found by pressing Ctrl-Shift-Esc that the process was still open, so I killed it. I was not patient enough at the time to open it again and explore it further, but after failing to find my ideal combination of features in any of the other programs I was exploring (the most promising of which were Ecco Pro, OneNote, SilverNote, ConnectedText, ZuluPad, and WikidPad), I decided to give it yet another chance.
Although it crashed on me once more, and a few times gave a non-critical error message when I tried to do something non-essential, the strength of its features and design are right now more than enough to compensate for the occasional crash (especially since both crashes caused no loss of data).
Here are the essential features I was hoping for, but hadn’t yet found in a single program, listed in approximate order of importance:
1. Wiki-like automatic organization of pages, having unique names (not limited to CamelCase, like some wikis), primarily navigated through links (which are easy to create, partly because of the unique page names), but optionally browsable in an alphabetical list, and with support of namespaces (so that subpages can be created with names that are only locally unique)
2. Automatic or easy organization also of dated journal pages (and inter-linking between these and named pages)
3. WYSIWYG editing with basic text formatting: bold, italics, lists, indentation
4. Support for structured longer pages, navigable by a table-of-contents based on headings
5. Support for tags or categories to help group pages
6. Uncluttered design, relatively easy to learn, keyboard shortcuts for most common operations
Many of these things were obvious from the start of using Zim. Some of the features, like the Tags and ToC plug-ins which significantly enhance #4 and #5, took some poking around or reading the manual to figure out. Some features I didn’t dare hope for turned up: for example, I can rename a page, and all links are automatically updated.
There are still some things I like better about the other programs I mentioned. For example, Ecco Pro and OneNote (among other programs) are better at editing outlines (for example re-arranging lines, collapsing levels). But at the moment Zim’s particular combination of features is outshining all of the rest, to my eyes. I’ll probably continue to use EccoPro for many things — as a light, user-friendly database and quick outlining program I believe it’s unmatched. And although I like OneNote in many respects, I don’t want to split my notes between more programs than necessary, so I’ll probably stop using it in favor of Zim.
To summarize the other programs I mentioned, with respect to the above list of features:
* Ecco Pro is great at 2 thru 6 but not 1.
* OneNote is great at 3 and 6, OK at 5. Also good at parts of 1 and 2: links, subpages, dating of entries. But in OneNote I have to think about both what to call a page and where to put it. In Zim all I need to do is give it a good name (or if it’s a journal entry, the correct date), link to it where desired, and forget about the rest.
* SilverNote, which I tried only briefly, seems similar to OneNote in many respects, except that, within each organizational tab, it’s a one-pane outliner whereas OneNote is a weak two-pane outliner (weak because the side pane supports only three levels and can only be collapsed at the top level).
* ConnectedText is great at 1, 4, and 5. With some work, 2 is possible. But 3 is missing and 6 is weak in the sense of being complex and not so easy to learn (for non-programmers like me), partly because of lack of 3.
* ZuluPad is great for 1 (except namespaces) and 6, and partly 3 (WYSIWYG but no formatting). The paid version if you can get it offers formatting but apparently the program is no longer developed or supported.
* WikidPad like ConnectedText doesn’t support 3 (although its edit mode is has some built-in syntax highlighting, so it’s on its way to WYSIWYG). I imagine it’s probably good with at least 1, 4, and 6, perhaps others. If I hadn’t found Zim I might have given it a more thorough trial.
Posted by Dr Andus
Aug 5, 2014 at 12:01 AM
marcus, great review, thanks for the detailed comparisons. I agree that Zim looks good, especially if one is looking for a WYSIWYG wiki. It was a long time ago when I actually tried it, but I watched the video recently, and I was intrigued.
Here are just a couple of comments re your comparison with CT, which I use. I don’t know much about the others, except OneNote, which I can see that it is very powerful, but I’m turned off by its skeuomorphism.
marcus wrote:
>* ConnectedText is great at 1, 4, and 5. With some work, 2 is possible.
The so-called “date topics” (or “date and time topics”) in CT are fully integrated with the wiki and have quite a few dedicated features. E.g. you can link them like regular pages, and they can be listed as regular pages and/or in a calendar pane.
>But 3 is missing
It’s true that CT is not WYSIWYG. However, it’s worth pointing out that the edit/view dualism does offer some unique advantages as well. E.g. you can’t accidentally delete or alter a page when it’s in a view mode. Since v. 6 there are also the so-called “floating windows”, which allow you to see several pages in view mode at the same time.
Or it is possible to have two distinct types of searches: one for the view mode (Full text search to search only textual content) and one for the edit mode (Global search, also to be able to search/replace wiki markup code, such as linked file names and paths).
Or one can swap between multiple CSS files (which one can manually adapt) to alter the look of every page at an instant (and the look of the edit mode also can be customised).
Or there is the ability to use inclusions (transclusions), which allows for quick cloning of pages/passages.
and 6 is weak in the sense of being complex and not so
>easy to learn (for non-programmers like me), partly because of lack of
>3.
OK, it’s true it does take some effort to get started with it. But I’m not a programmer either. I know a bit of HTML (which did help) and that’s about it.
>* WikidPad like ConnectedText doesn’t support 3 (although its edit mode
>is has some built-in syntax highlighting, so it’s on its way to
>WYSIWYG).
It is also possible to switch on (and customise) syntax highlighting in CT (in Options).
Posted by marcus
Aug 5, 2014 at 12:30 AM
Dr Andus wrote:
>Here are just a couple of comments re your comparison with CT, which I
>use. I don’t know much about the others, except OneNote, which I can see
>that it is very powerful, but I’m turned off by its skeuomorphism.
Interesting word; Wikipedia defined it for me. Lately I appreciate skeumorphism in this context: computer notebooks imitating the appearance and organization of paper notebooks. I often find physical things (printed books and printed notes, especially if bound in a journal) easier to remember than things managed on-screen (or on loose papers). This is one of the reasons I find CT’s change of mode (view/edit) so hard to work with: one moment the text I’m focused on is under the second smaller heading, starting near the right side of the page, and spanning four lines; (switch to edit mode) the next moment it’s under the third equi-sized heading, starting near the left side of the page, and spanning two lines. I know there are things one can do to make this transition easier (like selecting the text you’re focused on, or customizing the syntax highlighting, or setting both modes to use the same font—but a monospace font good for editing, or a more readable font less suited to editing?), but all of them are just incomplete steps toward WYSIWYG.
Anyway, if I had a Mac I would definitely try Circus Ponies Notebook, which seems to imitate the feel of paper notebook even more thoroughly than OneNote. (In the end, I don’t know if I would like it. Certainly there are things I like in Zim, like backlinks, which go beyond physical skeuomorphism.)
>The so-called “date topics” (or “date and time topics”) in CT are fully
>integrated with the wiki and have quite a few dedicated features. E.g.
>you can link them like regular pages, and they can be listed as regular
>pages and/or in a calendar pane.
Thanks for reminding me of this. Perhaps it’s easier to work with dated entries than I remember. I know I had done some customization in the past to set up a journal in ConnectedText which behaved the way I liked, but perhaps such work isn’t necessary for the purposes of achieving basic journal functions, such as I’ve found in Zim.
>It’s true that CT is not WYSIWYG. However, it’s worth pointing out that
>the edit/view dualism does offer some unique advantages as well.
I can see how the things you mention could be advantages, and how the features you list could be useful for all sorts of things. However, for my present purposes (and in much of my past experience), they are almost purely distractions and impediments.
Posted by Hugh
Aug 5, 2014 at 11:14 AM
marcus wrote:
. Lately I appreciate
>skeumorphism in this context: computer notebooks imitating the
>appearance and organization of paper notebooks. I often find physical
>things (printed books and printed notes, especially if bound in a
>journal) easier to remember than things managed on-screen (or on loose
>papers). This is one of the reasons I find CT’s change of mode
>(view/edit) so hard to work with: one moment the text I’m focused on is
>under the second smaller heading, starting near the right side of the
>page, and spanning four lines; (switch to edit mode) the next moment
>it’s under the third equi-sized heading, starting near the left side of
>the page, and spanning two lines. I know there are things one can do to
>make this transition easier (like selecting the text you’re focused on,
>or customizing the syntax highlighting, or setting both modes to use the
>same font—but a monospace font good for editing, or a more readable
>font less suited to editing?), but all of them are just incomplete steps
>toward WYSIWYG.
>
>Anyway, if I had a Mac I would definitely try Circus Ponies Notebook,
>which seems to imitate the feel of paper notebook even more thoroughly
>than OneNote. (In the end, I don’t know if I would like it. Certainly
>there are things I like in Zim, like backlinks, which go beyond physical
>skeuomorphism.)
>
As an aside, I don’t recommend Circus Ponies Notebook strongly. Five or ten years ago, it was probably advanced for its genre. It is still quite a good notebook. But now, particularly since Apple has its own free Notes application on its machines, notebooks have to do more than simply be receptacles for notes - at least for me. They have to have the capacity for analysis and extensive re-presentation, like Tinderbox, or connectivity with every available platform, like Evernote, or a new-ish combination of notes and todo’s, like Notesuite.
Of course, Circus Ponies’ skeuomorphic tendencies are pretty much unrivalled. Look at their iOS application for an extreme example, of which the toolbar is a realistic representation of a pencil, where clicking every mark or device of the design - including the eraser - drops down a tool or a source of information. It looks attractive, but after a year I’m still trying to remember how each specific piece of functionality relates to the design. I bet it seemed a good idea at the time.
Posted by MadaboutDana
Aug 6, 2014 at 11:37 AM
Yes, I abandoned Circus Ponies Notebooks for precisely that reason, Hugh, but have recently acquired the MacOS version and find, from their blog, that they’re abandoning their more florid skeumorphic approach – the new MacOS version is much more subdued and ‘standardised’, the new iPad version is expected to follow suit (they’ve just released an interim iPad version that’s still got the old interface). Probably just as well.