[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [O] Org Tutorials need more structure

From: John Hendy
Subject: Re: [O] Org Tutorials need more structure
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 19:29:26 -0500

On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Thomas S. Dye <address@hidden> wrote:
> Aloha John, Marcin, and Charles,
> Yes, I completely agree with you. Apologies if my remarks were taken to
> be exclusionary in any way. They weren't intended to be. The diversity
> of the Org-mode community is one of its great strengths.

I don't take them as exclusionary, just didn't want to see folks going
down a rabbit hole that diverges from the original intent :)

> My comments were intended to be ideas on how we might introduce Org-mode
> to a wider audience.
> In this vein, I think it would be useful to have a brief statement about
> Org-mode that gives the interested reader from any background a good
> feel for the scope of Org-mode and how it presents itself to the user.
> I don't think the current statements about what Org-mode "is" do this
> very effectively, though they might have done so in the past.

Absolutely love that, and this puts some of your earlier comments in
perspective -- you're looking for the 30sec elevator pitch for
Org-mode, and saying "this outline-y task manager" is not cutting it.


> The "research programming interface" is meant to encompass situations
> where all of the software's major components are put to use and thus to
> indicate the software's scope.  The bit about scientists likely needs
> some qualifications to be absolutely true, but it also prepares the
> reader for an interface of a particular kind, one that is logical and
> complex rather than "intuitive". The core values bit for me helps
> distinguish the Org-mode community from innumerable others we all deal
> with every day.
> There are probably better ways to give the novice a sense of the
> Org-mode experience, but these are the things that stand out for me.
> All the best,
> Tom
> John Hendy <address@hidden> writes:
>> On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 4:31 PM, Marcin Borkowski <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> Dnia 2013-09-28, o godz. 16:50:09
>>> Charles Millar <address@hidden> napisaƂ(a):
>>>> On 9/28/2013 3:52 PM, Thomas S. Dye wrote:
>>>> > Aloha Carsten,
>>>> >
>>>> snip
>>>> > First, I think that most statements about "what Org-mode is" are
>>>> > outdated. Many of them are quite good, but they represent the
>>>> > previous state of an evolving system and so fail to capture the
>>>> > full scope. To my mind, Org-mode is a "research programming
>>>> > interface" written by and for scientists who take very seriously
>>>> > certain core values of the scientific enterprise--reproducibility,
>>>> > open access, and open source (a partial list).
>>>> Strongly disagree with the sentiment. My undergraduate degree may
>>>> gave been Physics, but I work as a freelance paralegal. I use Org
>>>> Mode for project (file) planning, scheduling, drafting documents,
>>>> etc. Also, I believe that there are some very active participants on
>>>> this list who are not scientists and have made great contributions.
>>> +1.  Although I'm also a scientist (mathematics), I used Org-mode /once/
>>> for science, and it turned out that I felt very much constrained and
>>> quickly got back to LaTeX, where I felt much more comfortable.
>>> http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski
>>> Adam Mickiewicz University
>> This is starting to remind me of bike-shedding. Org-mode is a toolbox
>> providing various things that can work toward whatever end one wants.
>> It's agnostic to field. It doesn't really matter what the end uses are
>> -- Org-mode "is" what functions it provides. How those are combined by
>> others in various fields, lines of work, or so on are simply
>> illustrations of it's capabilities with respect to neat ways of
>> combining various aspects of what Org "is."
>> Thus, I wouldn't try to pitch these things one way or another ("Org is
>> great for paralegals" or "Org is the answer for those doing
>> re-producible research"); I'd simply list what it does as what is "is"
>> and what it can be used "for" as a way to entice new users and help
>> get into the top results of some google searches for
>> tools/solutions/etc..
>> It seems we all get what it really "is," (TODOs/agenda, universal
>> markdown -> export to tons of formats, allowing mixing of
>> prose/code/results, and so on), but are sort of trying to lay claim to
>> why these tools make it best suited toward some particular field.
>> Whether you use one of Org's features or all of them, it is what it is
>> and this can be highlighted in a neat manner and made appealing to
>> those looking for help in these relevant areas of life.
>> John
> --
> Thomas S. Dye
> http://www.tsdye.com

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]