From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Manish Subject: Re: Org-mode versus Taskpaper - now for real Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 19:56:37 +0530 Message-ID: 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JhQOp-0005bm-Np for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 03 Apr 2008 10:26:43 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JhQOo-0005bL-7e for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 03 Apr 2008 10:26:42 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JhQOn-0005bG-V2 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 03 Apr 2008 10:26:41 -0400 Received: from ti-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.142.186]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JhQOn-0006Cu-7P for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 03 Apr 2008 10:26:41 -0400 Received: by ti-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id a20so1163967tia.10 for ; Thu, 03 Apr 2008 07:26:38 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <47F4A997.4000109@calicojack.co.uk> Content-Disposition: inline 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: Rick Moynihan Cc: Eddward DeVilla , emacs-orgmode Mailinglist 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. > then we need to address this > and some other problems: > > - It's pitched at Emacs users. I mean seriously, WTF is Emacs to anyone > who isn't a geek? > + It's called org-mode. A side effect of it's Emacs heritage, but not > the greatest name. > + Installation is hard. You need to install this obscure thing called > Emacs, then you need to download org-mode, extract it in the right > place and edit a .emacs file by entering some obscure computer code. > In my experience most people can't follow instructions on how to > copy a file from A to B. > > 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. > (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. > 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. -- Manish