Re: Org-mode versus Taskpaper - now for real

[Rick Moynihan <rick@calicojack.co.uk>]

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.