Conversation

Understood. The vertical learning 'curve' of org+emacs has held it back. *But* its capabilities cover most needs of TFT/PKM tools, so it could be used for interop. EG my own works w because they both read/write plain text org - zero effort integration.
1
1
Appreciate itโ€™s an incredibly flexible and empowering format for some % of people who might need TFTs related to knowledge management ๐Ÿ‘ I just worry itโ€™s not as accessible to people with no programming experience (or desire to gain any), which is likely the higher % of folks
1
3
I'm missing something. Surely orgmode text is more accessible than a schema.org representation? Build WYSIWYG tools, but use plain text org to exchange data between them. A TODO item created in BrainTool shows up as a TODO when viewed in LogSeq or emacs, Orgzly etc
1
2
You are correct. The interchange format must be human readable, and able to be written raw, but what people see and use will hid it behind a nice UI.
1
1
Why does the interchangeable format needs to be โ€œhuman readableโ€ if itโ€™s his behind a UI? If youโ€™re integrating data in UIs itโ€™s kinda great when itโ€™s easy to program against.
1
4
Please understand, I have NO standing, this is, at best, a half-baked opinion. Binary formats are efficient, and with good viewing tools are easy to read/use.
1
3
Nothing to disagree with in any of the above. Readable raw data has advantages but yes most users will be in a graphic ui built on top. Its the fact that orgmode exists and is widely used (compared to any alternative), so why reinvent the wheel.
1
2
Hard to answer in a tweet, mostly yes! Remembering we're talking about the data format not the UI functionality. EG table sorting or Kanban: org has tables and tasks (TODOs), sorting tables or processing tasks would happen on top of that in the UI (both can be done in emacs)
1
2
Show replies