Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
I'm thinking of going primitive, with discursion into zettelkasten
Dormouse:
i use yaml and slugs to solve this issue.
-superboyac (June 16, 2022, 10:12 PM)
--- End quote ---
I gave up yaml a few years ago. Knowing that I could hide it (in some programs) and could delete it wasn't enough. I want my visible file to contain what I want, not a load of extra clutter. I'd rather have that in a database or a json (Bartender takes the json approach) - and did consider doing exactly that. But it would have been extra work and reduce interoperability.
Also had a good look at the linked embed options (the only reasonable way to export multiple files into one document from Obsidian or iA Writer). Could have made it very mouse-friendly if I attached it to an outline format (at the minor cost of removing the outline before exxport). But interoperability wasn't great and it it didn't allow the simple system of selecting all the files using a file manager.
In the end, interoperability and primitive won.
Also observed how easily I fall into 'better' solutions that improve life for now, but potentially store up problems or limitations in the future.
Dormouse:
interoperability and primitive won.
... observed how easily I fall into 'better' solutions that ... potentially store up problems or limitations in the future.
-Dormouse (June 17, 2022, 04:15 PM)
--- End quote ---
I've learned that the actuality of markdown falls far short of the promises of its evangelists. However you look at it, the interoperability of markdown programs is limited unless they restrict themselves to very basic functions. And adding the extra functionality required for many purposes today, creates the same conversion lock-in as databases. I'm not sure there is a good answer to this for Notes programs (PKM| & research). afaics, all programs either use a database or their own version of markdown (with wikilinks pretty much a standard now); other variants of plaintext might be better, but none are sufficient. The database programs are free to use rich text or markdown syntax, but the latter confer a marketing advantage for the moment. The small number of programs based around files (Obsidian probably the most prominent) also use databases (O uses indexedDB & json files); I can live with that, but feel most comfortable keeping my notes as clean and easily readable as possible (and by 'easily' I imply ability to read at speed). Looking at the conversion difficulties suffered by Roam, Logseq, Dendron users in switching to another program, I suspect they all fail the 'forever test', but there's slightly more protection using programs based on files rather than having everything in a database that requires exporting. And there's definitely more protection from structural simplicity.
So, for the moment, I write all notes/research in simple markdown using Obsidian syntax. I do that whatever program I write the notes in. And whether the file is a .md or .txt. I might write those notes as a a docx, but will also save them as .txt.
Writing is a completely different thing. Forever is unnecessary, long-term likely to be unnecessary. Writing is either published or it is worthless. I retain my preference for files, but have no problem in using databases short-term. I am unwilling to incur an extra cognitive load simply to reduce computing complexity or longevity. If I could do all writing effectively in docx or other form of rich text, then I would. The programs tend to be more robust and reliable than the markdown equivalent. But much of my writing involves complex notes, which tips me to using programs that can easily access my notes for the first draft. So these workflows are unsettled (as yet) and very depending on what I am writing. Variability in what my eyes need adding to that lack of stability.
Comments and manuscript notes are a major source of frustration. There is very little syntax of display consistency in markdown programs - or between word processors if it comes to that. The Obsidian %% works, to an extent, in a number of other editors. This lack of compatibility is a major restriction once comments become part of an active process - converting to another format once is practicable, but going backwards and forwards isn't.
Dormouse:
Tangent
-urlwolf (May 30, 2022, 06:40 AM)
--- End quote ---
(A file based PKM program like Obsidian.)
I find it slow to start up, especially moving to a new workspace. And it effectively freezes on very large files (and maybe folders). Maybe I ought to revert to a stable release.
I think it's fundamentally a better design for zettelkasten, and possibly most notewriting, for those without special requirements (eg those who need code, maths, formulae, latex etc). The map views are simple and useful, but outlining is not a strength. It's not as good for structured writing as programs designed for that purpose (but most PKM programs aren't good for this either). Documentation and context sensitive help is a weakness (but again no worse than most PKM apps in rapid development). Far less noise and distraction than is found in Logseq, Obsidian etc, but able to share the same folders/vaults.
Still too early for me to use regularly - and I need to spend much of my time in structured programs anyway.
Dormouse:
Still too early for me to use regularly
-Dormouse (June 21, 2022, 08:52 AM)
--- End quote ---
I've changed my mind on this.
Working on folders of markdown notes, just as iA Writer, Inspire Writer, Obsidian etc do means that there are no disadvantages to using it. The major features it lacks (eg export/convert/publish) can easily be provided by those other programs.
And, in any case, it's easy to have the folders and files open in more than one program at the same time, for easy switching.
What it offers instead is a genuine writing environment. The focus features are well selected. The card view for a folder is instantly useful. The Andy sliding panes and a usable mapview (though that still wouldn't be enough to tempt me) are all good extras.
Vis à vis Obsidian, it doesn't have the range of themes (which I sometimes need because of my eyes), it doesn't have a novel word count plugin equivalent, it's not designed to handle long markdown files with headings (neither really is Obsidian, but it does have a heading outline view that can be manipulated and navigated). And a whole slew of other features. Including folding, which I use a lot. So there is a lot missing.
But it is a very easy environment to write in and its combination of features makes it much easier to focus on the writing.
Dormouse:
I was attracted to Obsidian originally because it worked with files. Plaintext files which are easily read by, it feels, nearly all programs. That attraction was undermined when I understood that Obsidian meant only .md files as most of the programs that I used preferred .txt. More recently, my preference for files has expanded to word processor files - .docx, .odt, .rtf; despite the claims from markdown activists about plaintext being the only eternal format, I have found word processor formats to be robust and widely interpretable in use - even files that originated decades ago. And these formats have the advantage over markdown in that they are *complete* - they contain their own images, have colour and instructions for printing; markdown needs multiple files, CSS and HTML to achieve the same capability.
Be that as it may, the first, greatest idea I learned with Obsidian was Nested Vaults. I happened on the idea very early, realised the benefits, tested out the risks (because the developer warnings were so strong and stridently repeated), and have used them ever since. In practice the risks are minor and small - far lower than the sync risks that most Obsidian users run regularly - and easily managed by those with a modicum of sense. I soon learned to add all files to a vault, not only those that Obsidian could read; this is great for file and project management because everything required is always contained within a specific folder.
The major advantage of nested vaults is essentially focus. There is some similar advantage to nested folders, but it is slight so I'm not surprised that I hadn't really taken to it. But within a program like Obsidian, the advantage is supercharged because the vault system restricts every action to files that are available in the vault. That includes linking, search, tags &etc &etc. Which then means that tags, star files, links can be constructed with just that vault in mind.
I tend to set up a vault for each project. As I develop and then home in on a project, there might be progressively more restricted vaults. Because it is a single system of nested vaults, it is easy to switch focus to a different area or to a much wider area of interest. I suppose it is, in effect, an indexed filter system.
As I shift towards predominantly using Tangent Notes, I am very pleased to see that its architectural similarities to Obsidian include the possibility of nested vaults (nested workspaces in Tangent language). In some ways, it takes the idea further by having a card view of the files within a folder - so I am structuring my vaults/workspaces now to take advantage of this functionality. There are many features still to be added to Tangent Notes, but it is easy to switch to Obsidian or other programs for those.
At some point I will write a review of Tangent Notes. Though I'm not sure where I will post it (my reviews here are intended for donationcoder rather than a wider audience), since I might want it to publicise it a little if my views on TN turn out to be as positive as I believe they will. I will at least post a summary review here. But this will be at least a month or two away. Might only be a first look, but I'm pretty slow even with those.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version