Forum Posts Feed
Wiki -- Why?
< Next Topic | Back to topic list | Previous Topic >
Posted by Wes Perdue
Sep 1, 2006 at 09:44 PM
Jimbo,
Ah; you’re correct; thanks! I apologize.
That feature was easy for me to miss, probably because there’s no visual clue unless one hovers over the link. I remember now that it was added a while back, but I forgot about it.
I’ll have to give ConnectedText another try. Like I said, I want to like it; it has many compelling features.
Regarding what data might be better kept in a Wiki than an outline, I use WikidPad to keep track of all of the software I download, evaluate, and eventually purchase or uninstall—I’m a CRIMPer like many others who post here. I keep lists of software: ToLookAt, UnderEvaluation, Rejected, as well as registered software by classification. I like how hyperlinks are automatically created whenever I type a program. This feature allows for interesting interconnections.
Regarding MDE InfoHander, I’m nearing the end of my 60-day eval. I haven’t had much time to play with it, but hope to do so this upcoming long weekend. It’s taking a bit more effort for me to make a decision; as Daly said, it’s something different, unlike an outliner or a wiki. It feels more like a database to me than anything else, and I’m having a difficult time figuring how to put data into it in a manageable way. I’ve got a vocabulary I need to study for a class I’m taking; I think this will be a good data set to use to take InfoHandler for a spin.
I think part of my difficulty is in using tags. For some reason I have a difficult time organizing data by tags. I tried ndxCards, but abandoned it; I really didn’t like its query interface. I couldn’t really figure out how to tag things consistently in del.icio.us, so I use Spurl instead—Spurl allows you to sort your bookmarks into a tree as well as by tag.
InfoHandler seems _much_ more powerful, with a very nice query interface, so I hope I “get” tags this time.
- Wes
Posted by Stephen Zeoli
Sep 2, 2006 at 01:06 AM
Daly de Gagne wrote:
>Again I am trying out Connected Text, and again I am wondering, why wiki?
Daly,
Well, I think it is fair to say that whether or not you like the wiki way will depend upon your own sensibilities. Other than Zoot, all my PIM/Outliner/Wiki use is still somewhat of a trial. I use ConnectedText at home and see a lot of power in this approach. Generally, it seems to me that the power in wikis is that they allow you to create structure on the fly. In this way, it is a more organic approach to data management. Also, your information is organized in a more three-dimensional way than in a typical hierarchical tree. That is, Item A can link to Item B which can link to Item C which can link back to Item A. Of course, other programs have hyperlinks, so this advantage may be diminished some, but there remains the ease of creating the links.
Specifically, CT offers some wonderful features. My favorite is the ability to add categories to any article. So, for instance, you can create a category called “Contact” and the article is automatically indexed in an article called “Contact.” Now you can click on that article and see all you contacts listed alphabetically with with hyperlinks automatically in place. Pretty neat.
Steve Z.
Posted by Daly de Gagne
Sep 2, 2006 at 01:19 PM
Stephen, I think I need to work with CT more, and also ZuluPad, which I downloaded at work and played with (very simple, straight forward), to better appreciate the three dimensional aspect of data arrangement.
Re CT and applying categories == MDE InforHandler does that I believe, although the process is different.
Daly
Stephen Zeoli wrote:
>Daly de Gagne wrote:
>>Again I am trying out Connected Text, and again I am wondering,
>why wiki?
>
>Daly,
>
>Well, I think it is fair to say that whether or not you like the wiki
>way will depend upon your own sensibilities. Other than Zoot, all my
>PIM/Outliner/Wiki use is still somewhat of a trial. I use ConnectedText at home and
>see a lot of power in this approach. Generally, it seems to me that the power in wikis is
>that they allow you to create structure on the fly. In this way, it is a more organic
>approach to data management. Also, your information is organized in a more
>three-dimensional way than in a typical hierarchical tree. That is, Item A can link to
>Item B which can link to Item C which can link back to Item A. Of course, other programs
>have hyperlinks, so this advantage may be diminished some, but there remains the ease
>of creating the links.
>
>Specifically, CT offers some wonderful features. My
>favorite is the ability to add categories to any article. So, for instance, you can
>create a category called “Contact” and the article is automatically indexed in an
>article called “Contact.” Now you can click on that article and see all you contacts
>listed alphabetically with with hyperlinks automatically in place. Pretty
>neat.
>
>Steve Z.
Posted by Daly de Gagne
Sep 2, 2006 at 02:15 PM
Perhaps someone can answer this question:
Why is it that with wiki we have to get into mark up language (Note Studio) or use other ways of designating formatting in an editing environment that is not wysiwyg?
This seems like a step backward from the customary approaches that have been the norm for the last 10 years.
Is there something about making a wiki work, ie. the links all over the place, that precludes having wysiwyg? Or is it a lazy way to design software? Or is it simply a blatant appeal to the geeks in the crowd?
The way that one has to do formatting in Note Studio, Connected Text, etc. is to me a real drawback from using these programs.
If I want categories and links going every which way I can do it with existing programs such as MDE InfoHandler, and I believe that TreePad also has good linking capability.
So I guess what I am looking for is the rationale for why wiki programs are designed the way they are.
Sorry if I am flogging a dead horse here, but I am really curious about this—a seeming step into the past to offer some trendy new approach that to my mind should be fully possible without stepping backwards.
Daly
Posted by Jimbo
Sep 2, 2006 at 03:03 PM
>Why is it that with wiki we have to get into
>mark up language (Note Studio) or use other ways of designating formatting in an
>editing environment that is not wysiwyg?
>
>This seems like a step backward from the
>customary approaches that have been the norm for the last 10 years.
IMHO
1) All information is in the text. Nothing is hidden.
2) You focus in text input not in formatting. Once you get used, to mark a word bold is much faster than using a wysiwyg editor.
3) Using a style sheet as in CT makes formatting uniform, something more difficult in a wysiwyg editor, unless you can create style and apply them with criteria (requires more work)
4) Linking is much easier in wiki style. Just add [[ ]]. Want an alias? Easy, enclose it with the link. And you do it without moving your fingerts from the keyboard. Can you do the same in a wysiwyg editor?