On Jan 19, 2008 10:44 PM, Sven Bretfeld wrote: > Hello to all > > Org mode is powerful. This well-known, almost trivial, statement > contains a problematic dimension that is so far not solved in neither > the documentation nor in the various howtos all over the web: How do > newbies learn to make optimal use of all it's power? > Hear Hear Sven! I too must confess to increasing depression at the fact that -- in my little world -- the imminent marriage of GTD with org is far from consummated. Two months back I told my friends Give me 2 days of 'leave-me-alone' and I'll grok this org-thing and soon have my life in order. 2 months on and I am yet to figure out how to match the org notion of agenda with the corresponding GTD lists. Not yet figured out how to use remember... Just 2 examples... Much else that has me at sea... > > I read quite a few descriptions of how to use org mode for GTD, > day-planning, even LaTeX-writing. But when reading this list I have > the impression that many members use org mode in a much more creative > way than I can imagine from reading what is to be found on the web. > > I'm sure that I don't use the possibilities of org mode in an optimal > way, and that my concept of ordering data and using features is not > the best suitable for me. The major problem is as follows: > > - Even if one knows what features are available in org-mode, it's hard > to imagine what fine things you can actually do with them and how > they could be used to complement each other in order to build up a > meaningful overall concept. > This may be so Sven but I see the problem as more basic: I never learnt how to be organized I do not know the intricacies of orgmode The use of org for organizing (a la GTD or anything else) is clearly a second order problem > > In other words, it's a problem of imagination. This might be *my* > problem, but yet I believe that many users will have this same > difficulty, especially the new ones. John Wiegley's and Charles Cave's > howtos are fine and most instructive in this respect, but I have > different needs. I need more of these suggestions in order to pick out > ideas for my own style. On the org mode homepage there are several > descriptions of setups (Lisp code), but AFAIK only these two > explanations of concepts. We had many postings that gave a glimpse on > some concepts, but this is piecemeal. > > What I would really like to see -- and now I come to my suggestion -- > are some snapshots of org files by other users. What features are they > using and what for? What is the underlying concept of their > organization structure? What I need is the: "Aah, you are doing it > that way ..." > Of course this would be useful. Also would be useful to see the lisp setups, makefiles/shell scripts people are using showing how remember, diary, bbdb and much else hang together > > How do you think about making a space on the tutorial page of the org > mode homepage where people can upload example org-files, maybe > together with a short description of their concepts? Of course these > files have to be prepared in order to disguise their personal tasks > and dates, which are (of course) of no concern to the public, but they > should have to be recognizable as snapshots of a work-in-progress > ("project A", "project B" isn't very instructive, I think. "Writing > chapter 4 of my dissertation thesis" would be much more informative). > > I think this could be a valuable source for ideas how to optimize the > use of org mode, and it could give newbies (as well as experts) a > major clue to orientate themselves in the world of org mode. > > I hope this request is not too silly. Of course, I would be willing to > become the first person to submit a file, although I believe that > there is not much to be learned from it. > > Thanks for considering my request (and for reading this long message) > > Sven > Sorry if Ive sounded grumpy. When I saw the mail talking of the need to rewrite org-mode I thought I know lisp better than many people and I may even be able to round up some ex-students of mine to chip in to this rewrite. Then I thought-- knowing Scheme is one thing whereas the intricacies of elisp something else. Each time the emacs version bumps up I find I understand it less and less So for now will have to stay as a user rather than contributor. :-(