Forum Posts Feed
Just what is an outliner?
< Next Topic | Back to topic list | Previous Topic >
Posted by Stephen Zeoli
May 5, 2017 at 11:06 AM
Luhmann rightly didn’t want his topic on a list of dedicated outliners (DO) hijacked into another discussion, so I’ve started it here. If you search the archive, you may find that I’ve brought this topic up myself in the past (at least I think I have—it has been a while). Because the range of software we discuss on this forum allows for a very generous definition of what may be an outliner… pretty much anything that provides the ability to hierarchically categorize information. But I understand Luhmann’s point about “dedicated outliners.” I think those are legitimately a sub-category of the software we discuss. Here is how I would define them:
Single-pane, with nested topics where notes, if they are supported, are inline.
An app like Treepad isn’t a dedicated outliner, but a hierarchical note organizer (which in no way means it can’t be used to the same affect as a DO). Same with an app like TheBrain, which certainly allows you to hierarchically build a map of your information and even has an “outline” configuration for the plex.
Anyway, this is how I see this broad category of apps. What do you think?
Steve Z.
Posted by Paul Korm
May 5, 2017 at 01:18 PM
Someone in another thread suggested the way to know if something was a “dedicated outliner” was to apply the Potter Stewart test: “I know it when I see it”.
The problem is, we’re dealing with user interfaces and user experience design that is very difficult to objectively define from a software engineering perspective. I suggest it’s best not to mix a description of the software interface experience with data structure.
Define how you want to work with data—how it is chunked, how data elements are typed, what relationships among chunks are valid, how are are they validated.
Step two, survey the market decide what software satisfies that definition.
Step three (optional) would be a decision on how “well” that software does what you want to do with data.
Step three is necessary because attributes like “dedicated” and “outliner” are very flabby from a software engineering perspective—if you mix design attributes and UX with strict functional description you get lost.
(Is a sedan a “dedicated” passenger vehicle but a pickup is not? Well, the pickup sure is from the viewpoint of the suburbanite who thinks pickups are cool family vehicles. But, they both fulfill the data definitions for a transport container.)
Another example, someone else wrote this in a review
“Most two-pane outliners have nice editing windows for writing your notes, but usually have rudimentary outline functions in the tree-pane. Dedicated outliners have strong outlining capabilities, but crude note-taking features at best. Tinderbox combines a powerful dedicated outliner with a good note-taking editor AND throws in database features. “
If Tinderbox combines a “dedicated” + “outliner” with other features (albeit, features that all have something to do with relationships between and among data chunks) is it no longer an outliner?
I think it is very much an “outliner”—one of the best because it breaks the bounds of tradition and enables us to explore our data in multiple way.
The point: in this forum I suggest we are talking about working with chunks of data that are bigger than letters and smaller than pages—words, phrases, sentences, paragraphs.
We are also talking about software that enables us to group, and, at a higher level, define and manipulate relationships between and among these chunks. At an even higher level, software that adds features to specify and manipulate attributes of those chunks.
I purposefully eliminated “hierarchy” from this scope for two reasons. “Hierarchy” is merely a relationship, just as links (visual and hyperlinks), attribute groupings, are all mere relatiionships. Hierarchy might be important for many readers, but it is also very limiting.
Posted by Stephen Zeoli
May 5, 2017 at 02:55 PM
Paul Korm wrote:
> I purposefully eliminated “hierarchy” from this scope for two reasons. “Hierarchy” is merely a relationship, just as links (visual and hyperlinks), attribute groupings, are all mere relatiionships. Hierarchy might be important for many readers, but it is also very limiting.
Understood. The fact that it is limiting is one of the benefits of the dedicated outliner. It forces a logical, step-by-step relationship, rather than a free form relationship (as TheBrain does, and as the MapView of Tinderbox* does). If you want to outline a paper before writing it, you need to rely eventually on hierarchy.
And without hierarchy we’re not talking about outlines at all, in my view. Which is fine. I don’t in any way want to imply we shouldn’t talk about other types of note organizers either on this forum or even in this thread. Just trying to get my own terminology straight. Why does this matter? Well, it helps you find what you’re looking for. Clearly, for example, Luhmann has a specific style of outliner in mind for his list. Having a way to describe what he is looking for is obviously important. I don’t want to go shopping for sedans and be shown pickup trucks by the car salesman. So it helps to be able to use the word “sedan” and have others know what I’m talking about.
Perhaps it would be clearer to say I want a GrandView-style outliner (Plato’s Theory of Forms applied to this discussion, with GrandView being the ideal version of the single-pane outliner). This is all semantics, but semantics are important for clear communication. And none of what I’ve written here refutes what you’re saying, Paul, about how to go about finding the best application for your needs. But if you already have a clear idea of the type of user interface you’re looking for, why not be able to define it with one phrase?
*One of the intriguing attributes of Tinderbox is that it allows free-form mapping only at one level of hierarchy at a time (not entirely true, as you can draw relationships across levels, but I find those of little use). But it gives you deep hierarchical visualization via the outline view.
Steve Z.
Posted by Paul Korm
May 5, 2017 at 06:56 PM
I think I’ll stop here, permanently, since it seems I have completely lost the ability to understand what people are posting here, and torquing everyone off as a result.
The thread and introductory topic for this thread was “Just what is an outliner”. Once again I learn that the topic is actually “what is a dedicated outliner”
I don’t think an “outliner” is a term definable capable of any precision from a software sense. “Dedicated outliner” is an even flabbier term, I believe. If it’s all in the eye of the beholder (the Potter Stewart standard) then its meaningless and incommunicable.
Whack! Ouch. I stand corrected again, for the fourth time in as many days. I will be forever gone. Bye.
Posted by Pierre Paul Landry
May 5, 2017 at 07:56 PM
Paul Korm wrote:
I think I’ll stop here, permanently, since it seems I have completely lost the ability to understand what people are posting here, and torquing everyone off as a result. (...) I will be forever gone. Bye.
Sad to see you go Paul. Communities should be inclusive, not divisive…
Wikipedia does provide a definition of an Outliner: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outliner
In my view, an outliner is the ability to show information in an outline, with expand / collapse. Period.
But it needs not be limited to this outline view. The ability to view the information in an outline AND in a flat (or flatter) view is very useful. In a nut shell, sometimes the outline gets in the way, so a flat view is useful.
HTH !
Pierre