From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rick Moynihan Subject: Re: Org-mode versus Taskpaper - now for real Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 16:14:10 +0100 Message-ID: <47F4F442.7060104@calicojack.co.uk> References: <0277B507-1486-4172-B1C6-1B73B84148DD@science.uva.nl> <47F4A997.4000109@calicojack.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JhR91-0000a1-2o for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 03 Apr 2008 11:14:27 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JhR90-0000Zp-EN for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 03 Apr 2008 11:14:26 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JhR90-0000Zm-CH for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 03 Apr 2008 11:14:26 -0400 Received: from storm.bpweb.net ([83.223.106.8]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JhR8z-00005T-QS for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 03 Apr 2008 11:14:26 -0400 In-Reply-To: List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Manish Cc: Eddward DeVilla , emacs-orgmode Mailinglist Manish wrote: > On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 3:25 PM, Rick Moynihan wrote: > > Eddward DeVilla wrote: > > > > > I guess the best way to address this problem might be to document up > > > front that org-mode uses a simple, readable, text only format and that > > > all of the features can be used independently of each other but that > > > they do interact well together. (It's been a while since I've scanned > > > the manual, so maybe that's already in the intro.) I guess we could > > > put together a tutorial of using org-mode as just a friendly listing, > > > outliner without using any of the other features to show org-mode can > > > scale up to Taskpaper's level of simplicity. I'd have a hard time not > > > adding a table though. > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > I'm a big fan of org-mode, yet I think Carsten's motivation to question > > it's simplicity is a good one. > > > > Yes, org-mode can be as simple as Taskpaper, and I totally buy into the > > argument that adoption of any planning system requires piecemeal growth. > > Org-mode allows you to grow in this way, where as Taskpaper will require you > > to throw it out for another system. > > > > However, though this argument is entirely true, it ignores other issues. > > If org-mode wishes to tackle the Taskpaper demographic then we need to learn > > some lessons in presentation and user experience. > > > > Org-mode has *EXCELLENT* documentation, indeed I'd hold it up as being one > > of the most thoroughly and well documented OSS projects I've ever seen. > > Congratulations Carsten! :-) > > > > However where Taskpaper wins, is in the presentation. Just looking at the > > site, things appear simple. They've got trendy Web2.0 rounded corners and > > styling on their page. They have a Screenshot upfront showing you how > > simple it is. They have a nice little logo, with some text loosely > > associating it with the GTD movement. They attempt to answer the question > > of whether or not Taskpaper is of use to you, and they have a handful of > > user reviews to convince you it's great. Oh, and all along they stress > > Simplicity, Simplicity, Simplicity! > > > > In contrast Org-mode has an incredibly basic website. It's well laid out, > > and perfectly usable but it's not pitched towards the same class of user. > > ,---- > | > If we care to go after the same type of user > `---- > > I think this is the key question. > Absolutely it is. > > Emacs might be Org's greatest ally, but it's also simultaneously Org's > > biggest problem. My point here, isn't to bash Emacs, it is what it is, and > > it's damn good... But with apologies to RMS, it is the product of a > > radical, hair-brained, compiler-writing, AI-lab, academic!! You really > > couldn't find anyone further away from the mainstream computer user! > > I am so glad that that "radical, hair-brained, compiler-writing, > AI-lab, academic" did what he did. As am I. My point here is only to illustrate the differences between design philosophies. RMS produced a tool for developers. Taskpaper appears to be a tool for people who don't have the time or inclination to do anything in the least bit complicated. > > (Emacs has always appealed to me and I've toyed with it for a long time, > > however in all honesty the only thing I *REALLY* use Emacs for is org-mode!) > > > > I don't know about others but I started using Emacs first because of > Planner, then grew into Org-mode and now I use it for more and more > things (scripting, outlining, accessing databases, ...) The more I > use it the more I am growing fond of it and the community around it. I do use Emacs for other things, and have quite extensive customisations. Mostly these days though it's org-mode and distel that I use it for. I hope to use more of it, but prefer to discover it piecemeal. Org is a great introduction to Emacs. > > So, what's my suggestion? Is it possible for Org to target the same type > > of user as Taskpaper? Maybe, it depends on how much we want it to. So > > what's required? > > > > 1. Make the web pages look pretty. > > 2. Downplay the Emacs mode stuff. > > 3. Offer some kind of Easy org installation. > > - Effectively a distro of Emacs tailored to Org-mode. > > - Ship with an installer. > > - Give it a catchier product name. > > 4. Customise this Emacs distro so that it starts up in org-mode, with > > some kind of help/tutorial file. Not an Emacs *scratch* buffer. > > 5. Take most of the Emacs crap out of the Menu's etc... > > 6. Obviously still allow people to use org-mode with GNU/Emacs as they > > currently do. > > 7. Offer more native key-bindings, by default - not Emacs key chords. > > 8. Suitably change the documentation. > > > > Now that's a *LOT* of work, but it's certainly do-able. Do I expect anyone > > of us to actually do it? No.... though it'd be pretty cool if someone did, > > and it gained traction (unlikely). :-) > > > > Not worth it, IMHO. Thank $deity, Carsten and others that contribute > to org-mode do not /have to/ do it. I wish they would spend their > time having fun instead of worrying about increasing market share. I'm not convinced of it's worth either. But having more org files out in the wild would be nice :-) It's a shame Taskpaper doesn't just use a subset of org-mode's syntax really. R.