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.
> 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.