Re: [O] would take more than an org-mode strip-down.

[Allen S. Rout]

On 09/27/2011 01:04 PM, James Levine wrote:

> I thought I’d zoom out and tell you what a consumer experience is
> like:

I'm replying off the list.  BTW, are you either The Conductor, or The
Author? ;)

Your experience seems to be informed by a sense that 'org-mode' is
eager for market share or some such.  I think you'll find that's not a
common case.  Certainly, org-mode afficionados are eager to expound on
their preferred tools; but that doesn't mean they're after mass-market
appeal.

For example:

> 2) Some things are just better with a gui.

to a project subtitled "Your life in plain text" suggests your
perspective is not aligned with that of many of the project
participants.  I do not mean by this a disparagement of your
perspective, merely discriminating it from that of the average nerd.



Your composition style is literate and prolific; you might enjoy this
series of essays by Neal Stephenson, entitled "In the beginning was
the Command Line".

http://steve-parker.org/articles/others/stephenson/

(also available from the author's website in other formats)

http://www.cryptonomicon.com/beginning.html


but the discussion of 'fallibility...' includes several paragraphs
which I feel might be illuminating, especially on the topic of
documentation.

http://steve-parker.org/articles/others/stephenson/fallibility.shtml

In My Opinion, the current docs in org-mode are targeted at those who
expect to have their own heads and shoulders inside the 'engine
compartment' of org and emacs.  This makes them a poor tool to
communicate with End-Users.  But this might be acceptable, because
there's no hood on the engine, and the bloody thing is steered with a
rudder and laterals, instead of the nice sane wheel and pedals
everyone else uses. :)


- Allen S. Rout