Org expert mode?

Org expert mode?

[Bastien]

Hi all,

Org tries to stay as simple/accessible as possible for newbie and as
complete/flexible as possible for power users.

The documentation and the UI are central for this: the documentation
should promote core features, document complex ones, and give pointers
on how to hack Org -- it does that already IMO; the UI should give
access to core features and give hints on complex ones, so that the
user can learn more.

I've just added the ability to run a custom function for bulk agenda
actions (thanks to Puneeth for the patch!)  This is clearly for power
users -- or those who are willing to take the time to find functions
that we might document in Worg.

So I naturally thought of something like an "Org Expert mode": when
turned off, the UI would *not* give access to complex features and
perhaps display more helpful messages on simple ones; when turned on,
Org would have a less verbose UI (think of the C-c C-e window, do we
really want to *read* it all the times?) and give access to all the
complex features.

This is really just a call for ideas/comments -- I wonder if people
already came accross such an idea and and what they think.

I'm myself not convinced: it's a good thing that Org doesn't need an
Expert mode so far, it means newbies are not confused by the UI, and
experts are not frustrated by it either.  But I expect neat features 
can emerge from the discussion.

Thanks for your thoughts!

-- 
 Bastien

Re: Org expert mode?

[Bastien]

Bastien <bzg@altern.org> writes:

> So I naturally thought of something like an "Org Expert mode": when
> turned off, the UI would *not* give access to complex features

More precisely: the UI would not _display_ complex features, which will
still be available anyway (of course).

-- 
 Bastien

Re: Org expert mode?

[Filippo A. Salustri]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2679 bytes --]

I wonder about the complexity associated with adding an expert mode.
My area is design, and one of my pet peeves about all things designed is how
they tend to increase in complexity for the sake of extending their scope,
without much attention being paid to the brittleness that accumulates
collaterally.
Since complexity is a non-linear thing, adding even one time element can
increase it, and brittleness, significantly.

I think - and I would suggest - that it can all be done with documentation.
 That is, one can lay out doc so that the complex things just aren't staring
one in the face.  If the doc were properly designed, users just wouldn't
know about the 'power' stuff and so wouldn't be prone to getting overwhelmed
by it.  And this keeps the code itself less complex.

I even think this applies to the matter of more compact messaging.

Just a thought.
Cheers.
Fil

On 10 March 2011 05:05, Bastien <bzg@altern.org> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Org tries to stay as simple/accessible as possible for newbie and as
> complete/flexible as possible for power users.
>
> The documentation and the UI are central for this: the documentation
> should promote core features, document complex ones, and give pointers
> on how to hack Org -- it does that already IMO; the UI should give
> access to core features and give hints on complex ones, so that the
> user can learn more.
>
> I've just added the ability to run a custom function for bulk agenda
> actions (thanks to Puneeth for the patch!)  This is clearly for power
> users -- or those who are willing to take the time to find functions
> that we might document in Worg.
>
> So I naturally thought of something like an "Org Expert mode": when
> turned off, the UI would *not* give access to complex features and
> perhaps display more helpful messages on simple ones; when turned on,
> Org would have a less verbose UI (think of the C-c C-e window, do we
> really want to *read* it all the times?) and give access to all the
> complex features.
>
> This is really just a call for ideas/comments -- I wonder if people
> already came accross such an idea and and what they think.
>
> I'm myself not convinced: it's a good thing that Org doesn't need an
> Expert mode so far, it means newbies are not confused by the UI, and
> experts are not frustrated by it either.  But I expect neat features
> can emerge from the discussion.
>
> Thanks for your thoughts!
>
> --
>  Bastien
>
>


-- 
Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University
350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON
M5B 2K3, Canada
Tel: 416/979-5000 ext 7749
Fax: 416/979-5265
Email: salustri@ryerson.ca
http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3388 bytes --]

Re: Org expert mode?

[Rainer M Krug]

On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Bastien <bzg@altern.org> wrote:
> Bastien <bzg@altern.org> writes:
>
>> So I naturally thought of something like an "Org Expert mode": when
>> turned off, the UI would *not* give access to complex features
>
> More precisely: the UI would not _display_ complex features, which will
> still be available anyway (of course).

I think it would be an excellent idea. One could have even more modes,
e.g. babel. This would make working (especially starting) much easier.
Although I mus say, I started without the UI - I only use the menu for
tables and other things I do not that often.

But following on your statement that the features will still be there,
I would actually suggest to introduce an "Org Babel Mode" which would
*disable* features like archiving - the archiving feature (very useful
for time management et al) is quite useless in the use of babel for
literate programming. This "Org Babel mode" should not be a mode for
the whole of org, but rather on a per file basis.

One could define certain base modes (like the mentioned "Org Babel
mode") and allow the user to define new ones.
The activation of two modes, would enable all functionality which is
enabled in one of the modes, while disabling the ones disabled in both
or not enabled in one.


Cheers,

Rainer

>
> --
>  Bastien
>
>



-- 
NEW GERMAN FAX NUMBER!!!

Rainer M. Krug, PhD (Conservation Ecology, SUN), MSc (Conservation
Biology, UCT), Dipl. Phys. (Germany)

Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology
Natural Sciences Building
Office Suite 2039
Stellenbosch University
Main Campus, Merriman Avenue
Stellenbosch
South Africa

Cell:           +27 - (0)83 9479 042
Fax:            +27 - (0)86 516 2782
Fax:            +49 - (0)321 2125 2244
email:          Rainer@krugs.de

Skype:          RMkrug
Google:         R.M.Krug@gmail.com

Re: Org expert mode?

[Greg Troxel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1182 bytes --]


Bastien <bzg@altern.org> writes:

> Bastien <bzg@altern.org> writes:
>
>> So I naturally thought of something like an "Org Expert mode": when
>> turned off, the UI would *not* give access to complex features
>
> More precisely: the UI would not _display_ complex features, which will
> still be available anyway (of course).

I started using org only last summer, and found it a little daunting,
but reading the intro manual was easier than I thought.  There are lots
of complicated features, but I found it entirely easy to ignore
exporting, clocking, and many others.

Looking back, the hardest thing for a new person to learn is the
keybindings for scheduling, priorities, etc. in both the org mode view
and agenda view.

I don't see where having a mode to turn on and off would help any of
this.  I can sort of see the point about the export help, but I type
"C-e C-h h" so fast that it barely blinks by.  (Were I still on dialup I
would be cranky.)

Overall, I suggest enumerating what changes ought to be made for
non-expert mode, and then seeing if the complexity of having a mode is
really worth it, rather than inventing a mechanism and then looking for
ways to apply it.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 194 bytes --]

Re: Org expert mode?

[Rustom Mody]

Bastien wrote:
> I've just added the ability to run a custom function for bulk agenda actions (thanks to Puneeth for the patch!)  This is clearly for
> power users -- or those who are willing to take the time to find functions that we might document in Worg.

> So I naturally thought of something like an "Org Expert mode": when turned off, the UI would *not* give access to complex features
> and perhaps display more helpful messages on simple ones; when turned on, Org would have a less verbose UI (think of the C-c C-e
> window, do we really want to *read* it all the times?) and give access to all the complex features.

Org is a large and diverse system and something to help (us perennial
:-) newbies is always welcome.

But I wonder if there are really too many experts as against users
whose patterns of usage are expert in one area and noob in others.
For example consider: Using org for:
* Brainstorming
* GTD, mobile org
* Publishing
* Literate Programming (via babel)
* Statistical analysis (spreadsheet, R)

Is it not likely that most people are going to be expert in (at most)
a few of these and not really expert in the others?

Re: Org expert mode?

[Rainer M Krug]

On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bastien wrote:
>> I've just added the ability to run a custom function for bulk agenda actions (thanks to Puneeth for the patch!)  This is clearly for
>> power users -- or those who are willing to take the time to find functions that we might document in Worg.
>
>> So I naturally thought of something like an "Org Expert mode": when turned off, the UI would *not* give access to complex features
>> and perhaps display more helpful messages on simple ones; when turned on, Org would have a less verbose UI (think of the C-c C-e
>> window, do we really want to *read* it all the times?) and give access to all the complex features.
>
> Org is a large and diverse system and something to help (us perennial
> :-) newbies is always welcome.
>
> But I wonder if there are really too many experts as against users
> whose patterns of usage are expert in one area and noob in others.
> For example consider: Using org for:
> * Brainstorming
> * GTD, mobile org
> * Publishing
> * Literate Programming (via babel)
> * Statistical analysis (spreadsheet, R)
>
> Is it not likely that most people are going to be expert in (at most)
> a few of these and not really expert in the others?

I completely agree - and that is the direction my suggestion is aiming at.
Somebody using org mode for literate programming might be an expert in
literal programming with R, but no idea (yet?) about GTD and mobile
org.
So a system which provides usage pattern specific menues and enabled /
disabled functions, would be from my point of view the perfect
solutions.
And if this could be set on a file basis, that would even be better.

Rainer

>
>



-- 
NEW GERMAN FAX NUMBER!!!

Rainer M. Krug, PhD (Conservation Ecology, SUN), MSc (Conservation
Biology, UCT), Dipl. Phys. (Germany)

Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology
Natural Sciences Building
Office Suite 2039
Stellenbosch University
Main Campus, Merriman Avenue
Stellenbosch
South Africa

Cell:           +27 - (0)83 9479 042
Fax:            +27 - (0)86 516 2782
Fax:            +49 - (0)321 2125 2244
email:          Rainer@krugs.de

Skype:          RMkrug
Google:         R.M.Krug@gmail.com

Re: Org expert mode?

[Matthew Sauer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2779 bytes --]

So maybe different custom functions that are developed to allow people to
use ORG in different ways.  Some with more help for basic features, some for
GTD, some for publishing, some for advanced features or programming.   All
of the features would always be available but maybe the suggest order for
auto-completion or help functions would be different?

Matthew

On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 7:44 AM, Rainer M Krug <r.m.krug@gmail.com> wrote:

>  On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Bastien wrote:
> >> I've just added the ability to run a custom function for bulk agenda
> actions (thanks to Puneeth for the patch!)  This is clearly for
> >> power users -- or those who are willing to take the time to find
> functions that we might document in Worg.
> >
> >> So I naturally thought of something like an "Org Expert mode": when
> turned off, the UI would *not* give access to complex features
> >> and perhaps display more helpful messages on simple ones; when turned
> on, Org would have a less verbose UI (think of the C-c C-e
> >> window, do we really want to *read* it all the times?) and give access
> to all the complex features.
> >
> > Org is a large and diverse system and something to help (us perennial
> > :-) newbies is always welcome.
> >
> > But I wonder if there are really too many experts as against users
> > whose patterns of usage are expert in one area and noob in others.
> > For example consider: Using org for:
> > * Brainstorming
> > * GTD, mobile org
> > * Publishing
> > * Literate Programming (via babel)
> > * Statistical analysis (spreadsheet, R)
> >
> > Is it not likely that most people are going to be expert in (at most)
> > a few of these and not really expert in the others?
>
> I completely agree - and that is the direction my suggestion is aiming at.
> Somebody using org mode for literate programming might be an expert in
> literal programming with R, but no idea (yet?) about GTD and mobile
> org.
> So a system which provides usage pattern specific menues and enabled /
> disabled functions, would be from my point of view the perfect
> solutions.
> And if this could be set on a file basis, that would even be better.
>
> Rainer
>
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> NEW GERMAN FAX NUMBER!!!
>
> Rainer M. Krug, PhD (Conservation Ecology, SUN), MSc (Conservation
> Biology, UCT), Dipl. Phys. (Germany)
>
> Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology
> Natural Sciences Building
> Office Suite 2039
> Stellenbosch University
> Main Campus, Merriman Avenue
> Stellenbosch
> South Africa
>
> Cell:           +27 - (0)83 9479 042
> Fax:            +27 - (0)86 516 2782
> Fax:            +49 - (0)321 2125 2244
> email:          Rainer@krugs.de
>
> Skype:          RMkrug
> Google:         R.M.Krug@gmail.com
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3417 bytes --]

Re: Org expert mode?

[John Hendy]

On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 6:38 AM, Greg Troxel <gdt@ir.bbn.com> wrote:
>
> Bastien <bzg@altern.org> writes:
>
>> Bastien <bzg@altern.org> writes:
>>
>>> So I naturally thought of something like an "Org Expert mode": when
>>> turned off, the UI would *not* give access to complex features
>>
>> More precisely: the UI would not _display_ complex features, which will
>> still be available anyway (of course).
>
> I started using org only last summer, and found it a little daunting,
> but reading the intro manual was easier than I thought.  There are lots
> of complicated features, but I found it entirely easy to ignore
> exporting, clocking, and many others.
>

I completely agree. I was learning emacs concurrently (started on
emacs specifically for org) and just ignored everything that wasn't
essential. Just navigating files worked. For example, as much as I
wanted to learn all the shortcuts for forward/backward one
char/word/line/para/heading... the arrows worked and I actually got
stuff done.

> Looking back, the hardest thing for a new person to learn is the
> keybindings for scheduling, priorities, etc. in both the org mode view
> and agenda view.
>
> I don't see where having a mode to turn on and off would help any of
> this.  I can sort of see the point about the export help, but I type
> "C-e C-h h" so fast that it barely blinks by.  (Were I still on dialup I
> would be cranky.)

I'm prone to agree here as well, but maybe it's because I never really
used the UI. I just learned the keystrokes as I figured that was the
end goal anyway. I'd be open to hearing from other "noobs" or those
more recently acquainted whether *they* would find something like this
useful. If they are like Greg and I, perhaps learning/usage isn't very
hindered by having extras laying around since we just tend to ignore
them and use what we learn as we learn it.

If anything, having recently started using sunrise-commander, I'm
almost more inclined to suggest something like sunrise-x-buttons as
more helpful. Provide a cheatsheet for what *is* there rather than
hiding what we think new users won't use/care about.[1]

>
> Overall, I suggest enumerating what changes ought to be made for
> non-expert mode, and then seeing if the complexity of having a mode is
> really worth it, rather than inventing a mechanism and then looking for
> ways to apply it.
>

Yes -- a clear list would be fantastic.


[1] http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/Sunrise_Commander#toc2

Best regards,
John

Re: Org expert mode?

[Julien Danjou]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 425 bytes --]

On Thu, Mar 10 2011, Bastien wrote:

> I'm myself not convinced: it's a good thing that Org doesn't need an
> Expert mode so far, it means newbies are not confused by the UI, and
> experts are not frustrated by it either.  But I expect neat features 
> can emerge from the discussion.

I agree that it would be a terrible bad idea to add any sort of expert
mode.

-- 
Julien Danjou
❱ http://julien.danjou.info

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 835 bytes --]

Re: Org expert mode?

[Scott Randby]

On 03/10/2011 05:05 AM, Bastien wrote:
> So I naturally thought of something like an "Org Expert mode": when
> turned off, the UI would *not* give access to complex features and
> perhaps display more helpful messages on simple ones; when turned on,
> Org would have a less verbose UI (think of the C-c C-e window, do we
> really want to *read* it all the times?) and give access to all the
> complex features.

While I don't consider myself to be an org-mode expert, I have been
using it for several years to keep track of appointments, make web
pages, take notes, and record grades. I've never found things like the
C-c C-e window to be a problem even though 99% of the time I'll do
something like C-c C-e h without looking at the window. But I appreciate
that window the 1% of the time I do look at it because it shows me that
there are features available that might be useful in the future. The
window provides an easy opportunity for learning and exploration.

If there is a basic mode that somehow hides complex features, then some
users may never become aware of those features and what they might do
with those features. I've discovered so much because nothing in org-mode
is hidden or separated. The manual provides an excellent introduction
for new users and it allows them to decide which features they wish to
start with, which features they can ignore, and which features they
might want to learn about in the future.

I think everything should be turned on by default. It is easier for an
expert to figure out how to turn something off than it is for the
non-expert to turn something on. And I've never found a feature that I
don't use getting in the way of my work.

Scott Randby

Re: Org expert mode?

[Samuel Wales]

I agree with the comments on complexity and inapplicability.  IMO it
would be better to arrange existing menus and documentation to
emphasize basics.

-- 
AIDS 2.0 is here now:
  http://thekafkapandemic.blogspot.com/2010/12/welcome-to-kafka-pandemic-two-forces_9182.html
I support the Whittemore-Peterson Institute (WPI)
===
I want to see the original (pre-hold) Lo et al. 2010 NIH/FDA/Harvard MLV paper.

Re: Org expert mode?

[Robert Pluim]

Bastien <bzg@altern.org> writes:

> Hi all,
>
> Org tries to stay as simple/accessible as possible for newbie and as
> complete/flexible as possible for power users.
>
> The documentation and the UI are central for this: the documentation
> should promote core features, document complex ones, and give pointers
> on how to hack Org -- it does that already IMO; the UI should give
> access to core features and give hints on complex ones, so that the
> user can learn more.
>
> I've just added the ability to run a custom function for bulk agenda
> actions (thanks to Puneeth for the patch!)  This is clearly for power
> users -- or those who are willing to take the time to find functions
> that we might document in Worg.
>
> So I naturally thought of something like an "Org Expert mode": when
> turned off, the UI would *not* give access to complex features and
> perhaps display more helpful messages on simple ones; when turned on,
> Org would have a less verbose UI (think of the C-c C-e window, do we
> really want to *read* it all the times?) and give access to all the
> complex features.
>
> This is really just a call for ideas/comments -- I wonder if people
> already came accross such an idea and and what they think.
>
> I'm myself not convinced: it's a good thing that Org doesn't need an
> Expert mode so far, it means newbies are not confused by the UI, and
> experts are not frustrated by it either.  But I expect neat features 
> can emerge from the discussion.

I've been using org for about a year, and am by no means an 'expert',
but it does what I want the way I want it (and I learn more every day).
It is in many ways exactly like the surrounding Emacs environment: very
powerful, but simple to get started in.  I personally see no reason at
all to hide any of that power, since as far as I'm concerned it simply
doesn't get in the way, and implementing such hiding would be a waste of
effort.

Regards

Robert

Re: Org expert mode?

[Joost Helberg]

Bastien and others,

When I worked in Hoofddorp in the early 90's, I travelled 2.5 hours by
train every day. I reserved half of the train-time every single day
for a year checking out GNU Emacs stuff I didn't understand on my
notebook. This helped me a lot in going places (aka major modes, elisp
code and, later, customizations) I didn't dare visiting before.

The same is true for most of the *Customization* stuff. Seeing things
beyond your boundaries of understanding satisfies curiosity. Checking out
stuff you don't completely understand is part of the Emacs journey. A
journey which is a lot more exciting than any other virtual software
inspired journey I've encountered. 

The creation of an `Expert mode' will make the exploration of new
features `by accident' or by ambitious curiosity less likely. I think
introducing an expert mode (is the plain and simple org-mode not
already quite for experts already?) a bad thing.

Then the semantics of `expert' come around. Expert in what field?
Organisation? Elisp? Time-clocking? Org-mode key bindings? There must
be over 5 different experts in using org-mode, which may be even
overlapping.

Personally I don't mind superfluous messages in GNU Emacs, if any.
They disappear fast enough and don't appear to slow down things;
though I might be wrong here of course.

Last, but not least, org-mode users are honest people, at least to
themselves they are, they must be! Many of them will have trouble
admitting they're an expert in org-mode; they won't tick the
box. They'll miss features they would otherwise try. 

Org-mode is the best invention since sliced bread and if not, GNU
Emacs is, keep up the good work!
 
many regards,

Joost Helberg

>>>>> "Bastien" == Bastien  <bzg@altern.org> writes:
 > Subject: [O] Org expert mode?
 > From: Bastien <bzg@altern.org>
 > To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
 > Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 11:05:32 +0100

 > Hi all,

 > Org tries to stay as simple/accessible as possible for newbie and as
 > complete/flexible as possible for power users.

 > The documentation and the UI are central for this: the documentation
 > should promote core features, document complex ones, and give pointers
 > on how to hack Org -- it does that already IMO; the UI should give
 > access to core features and give hints on complex ones, so that the
 > user can learn more.

 > I've just added the ability to run a custom function for bulk agenda
 > actions (thanks to Puneeth for the patch!)  This is clearly for power
 > users -- or those who are willing to take the time to find functions
 > that we might document in Worg.

 > So I naturally thought of something like an "Org Expert mode": when
 > turned off, the UI would *not* give access to complex features and
 > perhaps display more helpful messages on simple ones; when turned on,
 > Org would have a less verbose UI (think of the C-c C-e window, do we
 > really want to *read* it all the times?) and give access to all the
 > complex features.

 > This is really just a call for ideas/comments -- I wonder if people
 > already came accross such an idea and and what they think.

 > I'm myself not convinced: it's a good thing that Org doesn't need an
 > Expert mode so far, it means newbies are not confused by the UI, and
 > experts are not frustrated by it either.  But I expect neat features 
 > can emerge from the discussion.

 > Thanks for your thoughts!

 > -- 
 >  Bastien


-- 
Snow B.V.        http://snow.nl

Re: Org expert mode?

[Eric Schulte]

Hi,

I tend to agree with Joost's sentiments.

In my opinion the current Org-mode---despite all of the power lurking
just beneath the surface---is entirely usable as a very simple plain
text notes buffer.  The user need know nothing more than how to press
tab on a headline to expand-contract it's contents.

This is how I try to introduce Org-mode to new users.

  "Just think of it as plain text notes, and whenever you realize you
   want a new feature, look in the manual... chances are someone has
   already implemented it."

Best -- Eric

Joost Helberg <joost@snow.nl> writes:

> Bastien and others,
>
> When I worked in Hoofddorp in the early 90's, I travelled 2.5 hours by
> train every day. I reserved half of the train-time every single day
> for a year checking out GNU Emacs stuff I didn't understand on my
> notebook. This helped me a lot in going places (aka major modes, elisp
> code and, later, customizations) I didn't dare visiting before.
>
> The same is true for most of the *Customization* stuff. Seeing things
> beyond your boundaries of understanding satisfies curiosity. Checking out
> stuff you don't completely understand is part of the Emacs journey. A
> journey which is a lot more exciting than any other virtual software
> inspired journey I've encountered. 
>
> The creation of an `Expert mode' will make the exploration of new
> features `by accident' or by ambitious curiosity less likely. I think
> introducing an expert mode (is the plain and simple org-mode not
> already quite for experts already?) a bad thing.
>
> Then the semantics of `expert' come around. Expert in what field?
> Organisation? Elisp? Time-clocking? Org-mode key bindings? There must
> be over 5 different experts in using org-mode, which may be even
> overlapping.
>
> Personally I don't mind superfluous messages in GNU Emacs, if any.
> They disappear fast enough and don't appear to slow down things;
> though I might be wrong here of course.
>
> Last, but not least, org-mode users are honest people, at least to
> themselves they are, they must be! Many of them will have trouble
> admitting they're an expert in org-mode; they won't tick the
> box. They'll miss features they would otherwise try. 
>
> Org-mode is the best invention since sliced bread and if not, GNU
> Emacs is, keep up the good work!
>  
> many regards,
>
> Joost Helberg
>
>>>>>> "Bastien" == Bastien  <bzg@altern.org> writes:
>  > Subject: [O] Org expert mode?
>  > From: Bastien <bzg@altern.org>
>  > To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
>  > Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 11:05:32 +0100
>
>  > Hi all,
>
>  > Org tries to stay as simple/accessible as possible for newbie and as
>  > complete/flexible as possible for power users.
>
>  > The documentation and the UI are central for this: the documentation
>  > should promote core features, document complex ones, and give pointers
>  > on how to hack Org -- it does that already IMO; the UI should give
>  > access to core features and give hints on complex ones, so that the
>  > user can learn more.
>
>  > I've just added the ability to run a custom function for bulk agenda
>  > actions (thanks to Puneeth for the patch!)  This is clearly for power
>  > users -- or those who are willing to take the time to find functions
>  > that we might document in Worg.
>
>  > So I naturally thought of something like an "Org Expert mode": when
>  > turned off, the UI would *not* give access to complex features and
>  > perhaps display more helpful messages on simple ones; when turned on,
>  > Org would have a less verbose UI (think of the C-c C-e window, do we
>  > really want to *read* it all the times?) and give access to all the
>  > complex features.
>
>  > This is really just a call for ideas/comments -- I wonder if people
>  > already came accross such an idea and and what they think.
>
>  > I'm myself not convinced: it's a good thing that Org doesn't need an
>  > Expert mode so far, it means newbies are not confused by the UI, and
>  > experts are not frustrated by it either.  But I expect neat features 
>  > can emerge from the discussion.
>
>  > Thanks for your thoughts!
>
>  > -- 
>  >  Bastien

Re: Org expert mode?

[Christian Moe]

On 3/10/11 2:12 PM, Rustom Mody wrote:

> But I wonder if there are really too many experts as against users
> whose patterns of usage are expert in one area and noob in others.

+1.

I've been using a fair number of (what I think of as) Org power tools, 
including Org-Babel, the Properties API, custom link definitions etc.

But with Agenda views, for example, `C-c a a' is just about all I've 
tried.

Someday I'll need more of the Agenda's power and complexity, and when 
that happens I'd like it to be there, staring me in the face.

So while I'm not quite clear what an expert-mode would entail, I 
suspect it would probably not be something I'd want.

Yours,
Christian

Re: Org expert mode?

[Bernt Hansen]

Hi,

I also agree with Joost and Eric.  I don't think hiding the menu on
export is a good thing in the long run.  Org-mode is a moving target and
new things show up in the menu over time -- and I for one would miss the
new stuff if the menu was always off.

I do however like the 'expert' setting in
org-fast-tag-selection-single-key and I think being able to turn
sections of org-mode into expert mode is a good thing - but these need
to be areas that are not likely to get new functionality down the road
that the user wouldn't be aware of.

Regards,
Bernt


"Eric Schulte" <schulte.eric@gmail.com> writes:

> Hi,
>
> I tend to agree with Joost's sentiments.
>
> In my opinion the current Org-mode---despite all of the power lurking
> just beneath the surface---is entirely usable as a very simple plain
> text notes buffer.  The user need know nothing more than how to press
> tab on a headline to expand-contract it's contents.
>
> This is how I try to introduce Org-mode to new users.
>
>   "Just think of it as plain text notes, and whenever you realize you
>    want a new feature, look in the manual... chances are someone has
>    already implemented it."
>
> Best -- Eric
>
> Joost Helberg <joost@snow.nl> writes:
>
>> Bastien and others,
>>
>> When I worked in Hoofddorp in the early 90's, I travelled 2.5 hours by
>> train every day. I reserved half of the train-time every single day
>> for a year checking out GNU Emacs stuff I didn't understand on my
>> notebook. This helped me a lot in going places (aka major modes, elisp
>> code and, later, customizations) I didn't dare visiting before.
>>
>> The same is true for most of the *Customization* stuff. Seeing things
>> beyond your boundaries of understanding satisfies curiosity. Checking out
>> stuff you don't completely understand is part of the Emacs journey. A
>> journey which is a lot more exciting than any other virtual software
>> inspired journey I've encountered. 
>>
>> The creation of an `Expert mode' will make the exploration of new
>> features `by accident' or by ambitious curiosity less likely. I think
>> introducing an expert mode (is the plain and simple org-mode not
>> already quite for experts already?) a bad thing.
>>
>> Then the semantics of `expert' come around. Expert in what field?
>> Organisation? Elisp? Time-clocking? Org-mode key bindings? There must
>> be over 5 different experts in using org-mode, which may be even
>> overlapping.
>>
>> Personally I don't mind superfluous messages in GNU Emacs, if any.
>> They disappear fast enough and don't appear to slow down things;
>> though I might be wrong here of course.
>>
>> Last, but not least, org-mode users are honest people, at least to
>> themselves they are, they must be! Many of them will have trouble
>> admitting they're an expert in org-mode; they won't tick the
>> box. They'll miss features they would otherwise try. 
>>
>> Org-mode is the best invention since sliced bread and if not, GNU
>> Emacs is, keep up the good work!
>>  
>> many regards,
>>
>> Joost Helberg
>>
>>>>>>> "Bastien" == Bastien  <bzg@altern.org> writes:
>>  > Subject: [O] Org expert mode?
>>  > From: Bastien <bzg@altern.org>
>>  > To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
>>  > Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 11:05:32 +0100
>>
>>  > Hi all,
>>
>>  > Org tries to stay as simple/accessible as possible for newbie and as
>>  > complete/flexible as possible for power users.
>>
>>  > The documentation and the UI are central for this: the documentation
>>  > should promote core features, document complex ones, and give pointers
>>  > on how to hack Org -- it does that already IMO; the UI should give
>>  > access to core features and give hints on complex ones, so that the
>>  > user can learn more.
>>
>>  > I've just added the ability to run a custom function for bulk agenda
>>  > actions (thanks to Puneeth for the patch!)  This is clearly for power
>>  > users -- or those who are willing to take the time to find functions
>>  > that we might document in Worg.
>>
>>  > So I naturally thought of something like an "Org Expert mode": when
>>  > turned off, the UI would *not* give access to complex features and
>>  > perhaps display more helpful messages on simple ones; when turned on,
>>  > Org would have a less verbose UI (think of the C-c C-e window, do we
>>  > really want to *read* it all the times?) and give access to all the
>>  > complex features.
>>
>>  > This is really just a call for ideas/comments -- I wonder if people
>>  > already came accross such an idea and and what they think.
>>
>>  > I'm myself not convinced: it's a good thing that Org doesn't need an
>>  > Expert mode so far, it means newbies are not confused by the UI, and
>>  > experts are not frustrated by it either.  But I expect neat features 
>>  > can emerge from the discussion.
>>
>>  > Thanks for your thoughts!
>>
>>  > -- 
>>  >  Bastien
>
>

-- 
Bernt

Re: Org expert mode?

[Suvayu Ali]

On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 11:46:16 -0700
Samuel Wales <samologist@gmail.com> wrote:

> I agree with the comments on complexity and inapplicability.  IMO it
> would be better to arrange existing menus and documentation to
> emphasize basics.

I think this might be a more productive proposal than having an
expert-mode. Also in another post, Joost referred to messages in
org-mode. Maybe there could be a verbosity variable that "expert" users
could customise if they are annoyed/don't want to look at the messages.
Org-mode defaults, as it is right now, facilitates becoming more
familiar with the advanced features of org-mode over time. I think we
should keep it that way.

-- 
Suvayu

Open source is the future. It sets us free.

Re: Org expert mode?

[Bastien]

Thanks all for this great discussion.

I close this thread now: there is a nice consensus on not taking the
direction of an "expert mode", and that notion was ill-defined anyway.

Reading all this feedback, I feel confident that the community will be
vigilant and tell me if any new feature somehow disrupts the balance we
have between usability / feature-richness.

Best,

-- 
 Bastien

Re: Org expert mode?

[Matt Lundin]

Rainer M Krug <r.m.krug@gmail.com> writes:

> But following on your statement that the features will still be there,
> I would actually suggest to introduce an "Org Babel Mode" which would
> *disable* features like archiving - the archiving feature (very useful
> for time management et al) is quite useless in the use of babel for
> literate programming. This "Org Babel mode" should not be a mode for
> the whole of org, but rather on a per file basis.

I would suggest that archiving can fit very well into a literate
programming and/or writing workflow. One can use org-archive-subtree,
for instance, to remove unneeded sections of code/prose without deleting
them altogether. I do this all the time when drafting a new bit of code
or an essay.

Best,
Matt

Re: Org expert mode?

[Rainer M Krug]

On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 3:08 AM, Matt Lundin <mdl@imapmail.org> wrote:
> Rainer M Krug <r.m.krug@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> But following on your statement that the features will still be there,
>> I would actually suggest to introduce an "Org Babel Mode" which would
>> *disable* features like archiving - the archiving feature (very useful
>> for time management et al) is quite useless in the use of babel for
>> literate programming. This "Org Babel mode" should not be a mode for
>> the whole of org, but rather on a per file basis.
>
> I would suggest that archiving can fit very well into a literate
> programming and/or writing workflow. One can use org-archive-subtree,
> for instance, to remove unneeded sections of code/prose without deleting
> them altogether. I do this all the time when drafting a new bit of code
> or an essay.

Right - never thought about that.

I always delete functions which I do not need any more and feel bad
(What if I need them again???) - with archiving I would be able to
retrieve them again.

OK - I use svn as well, but...

I should probobly read the org manual again and look at each section
from the viewpoint of literate programming.

Cheers and thanks for the tip,

Rainer


>
> Best,
> Matt
>



-- 
NEW GERMAN FAX NUMBER!!!

Rainer M. Krug, PhD (Conservation Ecology, SUN), MSc (Conservation
Biology, UCT), Dipl. Phys. (Germany)

Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology
Natural Sciences Building
Office Suite 2039
Stellenbosch University
Main Campus, Merriman Avenue
Stellenbosch
South Africa

Cell:           +27 - (0)83 9479 042
Fax:            +27 - (0)86 516 2782
Fax:            +49 - (0)321 2125 2244
email:          Rainer@krugs.de

Skype:          RMkrug
Google:         R.M.Krug@gmail.com