Org-mode versus Taskpaper - now for real

Org-mode versus Taskpaper - now for real

[Carsten Dominik]

Dear all,

I hope that you will all forgive me my little joke.  It worked so
well because there is a certain amount of truth in the matter, of
course, and I would like to address this in a more serious
manner.

Org-mode has indeed become very feature-rich in the run of the
years.  However, while adding features, more often than not
triggered but lots of truly excellent suggestions on this forum,
I have been using one principle as the overruling requirement for
Org-mode: That the simple stuff should remain simple, that no
part of the complexity is forced on the user.  If you think I
have failed to live up to this, I definitely would like to know
about it.

The important point I would like to make here is that for all
intents and purposes, Org-mode *is* taskpaper!  It is a
zero-setup, totally simple TODO manager that works with plain
files, files that can be edited on pretty much any system out
there, either as plain text in *any* editor, or using Emacs which
runs everywhere.  To follow the taskpaper webpage, open a file
tasks.org and type

     * Project 1
     ** TODO task1
     ** DONE task2

     * Project 2
     ** TODO task 3
     ** TODO task 5

You can add tags by hand, get lists for certain tags as sparse
trees, it really is totally as simple as taskpaper in every way!

Of course, Org-mode allows you to do more, but I would hope in a
non-imposing way!  It has lots of features under the hood that
you can pull in when you are ready, when you find out that there
is something more you'd like to do.

My ideal picture would be that newcomers indeed use Org-mode as a
simple outliner and list manager.  And then, that they find
themselves often in a situation where they think "Gee, I wish I
could to this", they open the manual and, voila, yes, I can!

So the complexity of Org-mode is, as I see it, mostly a problem
of perception rather than a real issue.  How can this be
addressed?  As the author of the manual I see it as my task to
document Org-mode compactly and as completely as possible.  So
the full set of features will hit you when reading the manual.
This is why I have asked, so often, for people to write more
tutorials, describe a simple setup they use on the web, to
re-enforce the notion that Org-mode really the most simple system
out there.  Initially.

It seems to me that Merlin Mann in his review of Taskpaper has
hit the nail on the head (he always does).  What is so great
about taskpaper that it is (so far?) almost fiddle-proof.  It is
a list, and there is no way to fiddle with it.  People who use
fiddling with the TODO system as a way to procrastinate can
clearly benefit from such a system.  I am for sure the biggest
example of a person who uses fiddling in that way.  But: Hey, we
use Emacs *because* it allows us to fiddle, to get things right,
the way *we* want it.

The problem with a program like taskpaper is that you will
eventually be hit by its limitations.  The day comes when you
need to clock the working time on a task, when you wish you
could record a link to that email that triggered the task, when
you would like to put the task list on an internal webpage, and
make it look pretty too.  And then you cannot, you need to get an
external program to do the timing, you need to copy your list
into a web editor to make it look nice, and you need to find that
email back by hand.

What people miss when they are new to Org-mode is this:

Don't try to set up the "final" task managing system from the
start.  Because you have no idea yet what your system should look
like.  Don't set up many TODO states and logging initially,
before you actually have a feeling for what you working flow is.
Don't define a context tag "@computer" just because David Allen
has one, even though you are sitting at a computer all the time
anyway!  Start by creating and managing a small TODO list and
then develop your own system as the needs arises.  I wrote
Org-mode to enable this development process.


Happy April fools day!

- Car

Re: Org-mode versus Taskpaper - now for real

[Rainer Stengele]

Dear Carsten,

I was terribly shocked for about 18 seconds - my brain storming through thoughts about protesting and forking the project and what else...
But as I am too convinced of the useful features of Org it became clear in a moment

Next year same day will be a very interesting date to look again over a year of Org news.

Keep up the good work!

Rainer


Carsten Dominik schrieb:
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> I hope that you will all forgive me my little joke.  It worked so
> well because there is a certain amount of truth in the matter, of
> course, and I would like to address this in a more serious
> manner.
> 
> Org-mode has indeed become very feature-rich in the run of the
> years.  However, while adding features, more often than not
> triggered but lots of truly excellent suggestions on this forum,
> I have been using one principle as the overruling requirement for
> Org-mode: That the simple stuff should remain simple, that no
> part of the complexity is forced on the user.  If you think I
> have failed to live up to this, I definitely would like to know
> about it.
> 
> The important point I would like to make here is that for all
> intents and purposes, Org-mode *is* taskpaper!  It is a
> zero-setup, totally simple TODO manager that works with plain
> files, files that can be edited on pretty much any system out
> there, either as plain text in *any* editor, or using Emacs which
> runs everywhere.  To follow the taskpaper webpage, open a file
> tasks.org and type
> 
>     * Project 1
>     ** TODO task1
>     ** DONE task2
> 
>     * Project 2
>     ** TODO task 3
>     ** TODO task 5
> 
> You can add tags by hand, get lists for certain tags as sparse
> trees, it really is totally as simple as taskpaper in every way!
> 
> Of course, Org-mode allows you to do more, but I would hope in a
> non-imposing way!  It has lots of features under the hood that
> you can pull in when you are ready, when you find out that there
> is something more you'd like to do.
> 
> My ideal picture would be that newcomers indeed use Org-mode as a
> simple outliner and list manager.  And then, that they find
> themselves often in a situation where they think "Gee, I wish I
> could to this", they open the manual and, voila, yes, I can!
> 
> So the complexity of Org-mode is, as I see it, mostly a problem
> of perception rather than a real issue.  How can this be
> addressed?  As the author of the manual I see it as my task to
> document Org-mode compactly and as completely as possible.  So
> the full set of features will hit you when reading the manual.
> This is why I have asked, so often, for people to write more
> tutorials, describe a simple setup they use on the web, to
> re-enforce the notion that Org-mode really the most simple system
> out there.  Initially.
> 
> It seems to me that Merlin Mann in his review of Taskpaper has
> hit the nail on the head (he always does).  What is so great
> about taskpaper that it is (so far?) almost fiddle-proof.  It is
> a list, and there is no way to fiddle with it.  People who use
> fiddling with the TODO system as a way to procrastinate can
> clearly benefit from such a system.  I am for sure the biggest
> example of a person who uses fiddling in that way.  But: Hey, we
> use Emacs *because* it allows us to fiddle, to get things right,
> the way *we* want it.
> 
> The problem with a program like taskpaper is that you will
> eventually be hit by its limitations.  The day comes when you
> need to clock the working time on a task, when you wish you
> could record a link to that email that triggered the task, when
> you would like to put the task list on an internal webpage, and
> make it look pretty too.  And then you cannot, you need to get an
> external program to do the timing, you need to copy your list
> into a web editor to make it look nice, and you need to find that
> email back by hand.
> 
> What people miss when they are new to Org-mode is this:
> 
> Don't try to set up the "final" task managing system from the
> start.  Because you have no idea yet what your system should look
> like.  Don't set up many TODO states and logging initially,
> before you actually have a feeling for what you working flow is.
> Don't define a context tag "@computer" just because David Allen
> has one, even though you are sitting at a computer all the time
> anyway!  Start by creating and managing a small TODO list and
> then develop your own system as the needs arises.  I wrote
> Org-mode to enable this development process.
> 
> 
> Happy April fools day!
> 
> - Car
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Emacs-orgmode mailing list
> Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
> Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
> 

Re: Org-mode versus Taskpaper - now for real

[Russell Adams]

On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 12:28:37PM +0200, Carsten Dominik wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> I hope that you will all forgive me my little joke.  It worked so
> well because there is a certain amount of truth in the matter, of
> course, and I would like to address this in a more serious
> manner.

You got me. Serves me right replying across date lines. ;]

> ...

> Of course, Org-mode allows you to do more, but I would hope in a
> non-imposing way!  It has lots of features under the hood that
> you can pull in when you are ready, when you find out that there
> is something more you'd like to do.
> 
> My ideal picture would be that newcomers indeed use Org-mode as a
> simple outliner and list manager.  And then, that they find
> themselves often in a situation where they think "Gee, I wish I
> could to this", they open the manual and, voila, yes, I can!

Thats exactly the way I've been discovering Org's feature set. I've
been using Org full time for almost two years now, and every time I've
started to push a limit, I go back to the manual and find out it's
already there!

First agendas, then tables, exporting, properties (ok, so it was coded
after my request), clocking time...

Its a great tool, keep up the good work!

Thanks.


------------------------------------------------------------------
Russell Adams                            RLAdams@AdamsInfoServ.com

PGP Key ID:     0x1160DCB3           http://www.adamsinfoserv.com/

Fingerprint:    1723 D8CA 4280 1EC9 557F  66E8 1154 E018 1160 DCB3

Re: Org-mode versus Taskpaper - now for real

[Eddward DeVilla]

To be honest, if I were looking for an outliner today as I was when I
found org-mode, I might have been scared off.  Org-mode has gotten
very big.  But as you said, the easy things are easy.  There are a
great many feature in org-mode that I have not used nor have I had
time to learn to use.  They have had no negative impact on me.  For
the most part, I've found the features I don't use can be safely
ignored and the ones I am using require very little setup.

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.

Edd

Re: Org-mode versus Taskpaper - now for real

[Carsten Dominik]

On Apr 1, 2008, at 5:52 PM, Eddward DeVilla wrote:

> To be honest, if I were looking for an outliner today as I was when I
> found org-mode, I might have been scared off.  Org-mode has gotten
> very big.

Sometimes I am wondering:  what do you mean when it has gotten big?
How do you measure it?

One way would be the size of the manual.  Your first email to emacs- 
orgmode
seems to have been some time october 2006 if my records are correct.   
The
manual was 100 ages long then, now it is 134, a 30% increase.  Is that  
much?

If I try to figure out what features I have been adding - it seems to me
that most of it still is perfecting what is already there.  The last  
really
big new feature added was Properties and column view in 5.01 in July  
2007,
3 quarters of a year ago.

So while I am producing lots of releases with all kinds of small  
additions,
the basic concepts are not nearly growing as fast.

- Carsten

Re: Org-mode versus Taskpaper - now for real

[Sven Bretfeld]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2035 bytes --]

Hi

Carsten Dominik <dominik@science.uva.nl> writes:

> The important point I would like to make here is that for all
> intents and purposes, Org-mode *is* taskpaper! 

Here is what I think: Carsten *is* Clint!

This was a very well planned, long prepared, identity-shifting and,
indeed, very nasty April's joke.

I'm reminded on the philosopher Paul Riccoer, who stated that words
cease to be controlled by the speaker as soon as he writes them down
and, thereby, makes them subject to interpretation. I think I was the
first one to bring up the issue of complexity in the org/taskpaper
thread. I never wanted to complain about this. In fact, I like it that
way, because coping with complexity creates new ideas from time to
time, even for a simple user. Since I use Org-mode (for more than a
year now) I have learned many new features that I would miss very
much, the table editor being one of them. I deem it an absolutely
meaningful feature within a task management system, since it allows
one to store a certain type of "reference material" (as David Allen
would term it) directly in connection with associated projects. Great!

I didn't take a look at the new ++ schedules and, so far, have no idea
what they are for. But sooner or later I will come across a posting in
this list, that will produce a new idea how this feature could make my
life a little more easy. I'm sure about that. This is how a non-geek
like myself makes use of complexity: slowly growing into it. And this
is one of the main reasons why I read this list.

By the way, I don't think that many newcomers are terrified by the
complexity of Org-mode. Who -- as a non-geek newbee -- reads through
the code and notices its complexity at all? They hear of it by a short
howto on the web, download the package and start using it according to
the howto. Gradually, as they read more and more pages of the manual,
they become acquainted with the more subtle functions. Am I right?

Thanks a lot for creating Org-mode

Sven

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 188 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 204 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Emacs-orgmode mailing list
Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode

Re: Org-mode versus Taskpaper - now for real

[Clint Laskowski]

You got me! April Fools!

-- Clint (aka Carsten)

On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 6:05 PM, Sven Bretfeld <sven.bretfeld@gmx.ch> wrote:
> Hi
>
>
>  Carsten Dominik <dominik@science.uva.nl> writes:
>
>  > The important point I would like to make here is that for all
>  > intents and purposes, Org-mode *is* taskpaper!
>
>  Here is what I think: Carsten *is* Clint!
>
>  This was a very well planned, long prepared, identity-shifting and,
>  indeed, very nasty April's joke.
>
>  I'm reminded on the philosopher Paul Riccoer, who stated that words
>  cease to be controlled by the speaker as soon as he writes them down
>  and, thereby, makes them subject to interpretation. I think I was the
>  first one to bring up the issue of complexity in the org/taskpaper
>  thread. I never wanted to complain about this. In fact, I like it that
>  way, because coping with complexity creates new ideas from time to
>  time, even for a simple user. Since I use Org-mode (for more than a
>  year now) I have learned many new features that I would miss very
>  much, the table editor being one of them. I deem it an absolutely
>  meaningful feature within a task management system, since it allows
>  one to store a certain type of "reference material" (as David Allen
>  would term it) directly in connection with associated projects. Great!
>
>  I didn't take a look at the new ++ schedules and, so far, have no idea
>  what they are for. But sooner or later I will come across a posting in
>  this list, that will produce a new idea how this feature could make my
>  life a little more easy. I'm sure about that. This is how a non-geek
>  like myself makes use of complexity: slowly growing into it. And this
>  is one of the main reasons why I read this list.
>
>  By the way, I don't think that many newcomers are terrified by the
>  complexity of Org-mode. Who -- as a non-geek newbee -- reads through
>  the code and notices its complexity at all? They hear of it by a short
>  howto on the web, download the package and start using it according to
>  the howto. Gradually, as they read more and more pages of the manual,
>  they become acquainted with the more subtle functions. Am I right?
>
>  Thanks a lot for creating Org-mode
>
>  Sven
>
> _______________________________________________
>  Emacs-orgmode mailing list
>  Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
>  Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
>  http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
>
>



-- 

-- Clint

Clint Laskowski, CISSP
clint.laskowski@gmail.com

Re: Org-mode versus Taskpaper - now for real

[Rick Moynihan]

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 then we need to 
address this and some other problems:

- It's pitched at Emacs users.  I mean seriously, WTF is Emacs to anyone
   who isn't a geek?
   + It's called org-mode.  A side effect of it's Emacs heritage, but not
     the greatest name.
   + Installation is hard.  You need to install this obscure thing called
     Emacs, then you need to download org-mode, extract it in the right
     place and edit a .emacs file by entering some obscure computer code.
     In my experience most people can't follow instructions on how to
     copy a file from A to B.

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!

(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!)

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). :-)


R.

Re: Org-mode versus Taskpaper - now for real

[Manish]

  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.

  > then we need to address this
  > and some other problems:
  >
  >  - It's pitched at Emacs users.  I mean seriously, WTF is Emacs to anyone
  >   who isn't a geek?
  >   + It's called org-mode.  A side effect of it's Emacs heritage, but not
  >     the greatest name.
  >   + Installation is hard.  You need to install this obscure thing called
  >     Emacs, then you need to download org-mode, extract it in the right
  >     place and edit a .emacs file by entering some obscure computer code.
  >     In my experience most people can't follow instructions on how to
  >     copy a file from A to B.
  >
  >  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.

-- Manish

Re: Org-mode versus Taskpaper - now for real

[Rick Moynihan]

Manish wrote:
>   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.
> 

Absolutely it is.

>   >  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.

As am I.  My point here is only to illustrate the differences between 
design philosophies.  RMS produced a tool for developers.  Taskpaper 
appears to be a tool for people who don't have the time or inclination 
to do anything in the least bit complicated.

>   >  (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.

I do use Emacs for other things, and have quite extensive 
customisations.  Mostly these days though it's org-mode and distel that 
I use it for.  I hope to use more of it, but prefer to discover it 
piecemeal.  Org is a great introduction to Emacs.

>   >  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.

I'm not convinced of it's worth either.  But having more org files out 
in the wild would be nice :-)  It's a shame Taskpaper doesn't just use a 
subset of org-mode's syntax really.

R.

Re: Org-mode versus Taskpaper - now for real

[Tim O'Callaghan]

To be honest when i first read it i thought it was a good idea. I saw
it as an extension of your splitting the big org file into the smaller
include files in the git repo.

>
>  What people miss when they are new to Org-mode is this:
>
>  Don't try to set up the "final" task managing system from the
>  start.  Because you have no idea yet what your system should look
>  like.  Don't set up many TODO states and logging initially,
>  before you actually have a feeling for what you working flow is.
>  Don't define a context tag "@computer" just because David Allen
>  has one, even though you are sitting at a computer all the time
>  anyway!  Start by creating and managing a small TODO list and
>  then develop your own system as the needs arises.  I wrote
>  Org-mode to enable this development process.
>

I think a way to address this in Org-Mode would be to start with a
chapter explaining what Org-mode is about and an example of how to use
the very basic TODO functionality. A single file TODO project,
probably based around cooking a recipe or something. Then in later
chapters you could apply the new feature(s) described by expanding on
the initial use-case.

Also with that use-case as a baseline we could generate an appendix of
usage/best practices or whatever, for the clock-in-out-people, the
print every day people, one big ass text file people etc....

I for one would be interested in knowing how other people use
org-mode, and always on the look out for interesting tweaks.

Tim.

Re: Org-mode versus Taskpaper - now for real

[Joel J. Adamson]

Manish <mailtomanish.sharma@gmail.com> writes:

>   On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 3:25 PM, Rick Moynihan wrote:
>   >  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.

I absolutely agree.

First of all, do you want to be a mainstream computer user?  I don't.

Secondly, rms was pretty close to mainstream computer users in 1983.
Consider historical context.

And while you're still considering historical context, consider that
most of the "developments" in computer use since then, outside of
hardware improvements, have been in the *wrong* direction, toward less
concise, less expressive and overall less powerful computer use
behavior.

Joel

-- 
Joel J. Adamson
Biostatistician
Pediatric Psychopharmacology Research Unit
Massachusetts General Hospital
Boston, MA  02114
(617) 643-1432
(303) 880-3109
Public key: http://pgp.mit.edu

The information transmitted in this electronic communication is intended only
for the person or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential
and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other
use of or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this
information in error, please contact the Compliance HelpLine at 800-856-1983 and
properly dispose of this information.

Re: Org-mode versus Taskpaper - now for real

[Bastien]

Rick Moynihan <rick@calicojack.co.uk> writes:

> It's a shame Taskpaper doesn't just use a subset of org-mode's syntax
> really.

What would it be useful for?  Using both TaskPaper and org-mode?  I
think people using TaskPaper are not likely to use org-mode and vice
versa.  

I tend to agree some of the remarks about the website, but I think we
should read/evaluate them without referring to much to other websites
which have other purposes.

-- 
Bastien

Re: Org-mode versus Taskpaper - now for real

[Rick Moynihan]

Bastien wrote:
> Rick Moynihan <rick@calicojack.co.uk> writes:
> 
>> It's a shame Taskpaper doesn't just use a subset of org-mode's syntax
>> really.
> 
> What would it be useful for?  Using both TaskPaper and org-mode?  I
> think people using TaskPaper are not likely to use org-mode and vice
> versa.  

No.  Like you, I can't see anyone realistically using both Taskpaper and 
Org-mode.  It's purely an academic argument as it's not going to happen, 
but hypothetically if Taskpaper had adopted a subset of Org's syntax 
then you could more easily exchange files between Org and Taskpaper users.

For example, you *might* be able to convince your mum to use Taskpaper 
but there's no way she'd ever use Emacs and Org-mode.

Personally, I'll never require such a thing.

R.

Re: Org-mode versus Taskpaper - now for real

[Rick Moynihan]

Joel J. Adamson wrote:
> Manish <mailtomanish.sharma@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>>   On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 3:25 PM, Rick Moynihan wrote:
>>   >  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.
> 
> I absolutely agree.
> 
> First of all, do you want to be a mainstream computer user?  I don't.

Absolutely not.  But techie's have a tendency to assume things are 
simple, intuitive and obvious, when they're no where near.  Apple has 
for example made a fortune by making things seem simple and intuitive. 
   Amazon felt it necessary to patent one-click, because two-clicks is 
too hard for many people.  Taskpaper appears to me to be a similar 
attempt and follows this design philosophy.

My point was only to illustrate that this is where the difference in 
simplicity lies.  It's not in the complexity of the file format (as org 
files can be as simple as you want), it's in everything else!

> Secondly, rms was pretty close to mainstream computer users in 1983.
> Consider historical context.
> 
> And while you're still considering historical context, consider that
> most of the "developments" in computer use since then, outside of
> hardware improvements, have been in the *wrong* direction, toward less
> concise, less expressive and overall less powerful computer use
> behavior.

Agreed.  But sometimes simplicity helps everyone without a loss of power.

R.

Re: Org-mode versus Taskpaper - now for real

[Jason F. McBrayer]

Rick Moynihan <rick@calicojack.co.uk> writes:

> 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.

IMO making sure that Emacs-W32 and Aquamacs always ship a current
version of org-mode would be the more straightforward and more
productive way of doing this.  Once someone starts using Emacs, they're
likely to spend more and more of their tube time in it.  The main good
thing about org-mode as opposed to TaskPaper or GTDTiddlyWiki (etc.,
etc.) is that it's in Emacs, and you always have all of Emacs'
facilities available to you in it.

-- 
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| Jason F. McBrayer                    jmcbray@carcosa.net  |
| If someone conquers a thousand times a thousand others in |
| battle, and someone else conquers himself, the latter one |
| is the greatest of all conquerors.  --- The Dhammapada    |

Re: Org-mode versus Taskpaper - now for real

[Carsten Dominik]

On Apr 3, 2008, at 4:26 PM, Manish wrote:
>
> 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.

I am certainly doing exactly that.

- Carsten

Re: Org-mode versus Taskpaper - now for real

[Carsten Dominik]

On Apr 3, 2008, at 5:14 PM, Rick Moynihan wrote:
>
> I'm not convinced of it's worth either.  But having more org
> files out in the wild would be nice :-)  It's a shame Taskpaper
> doesn't just use a subset of org-mode's syntax really.
>
> R.

Well, indeed not exactly the same, but very close.  A way to measure
the distance between two formats is using a discrete p-N metric.
The distance between two formats is said to be N if there is
perl program with less than 2^N (2 to the power N) significant
characters that will turn this test taskpaper file

/----------------------------------------------------
| Project 1:
| - Task 1 @home
| - Task 2 @work @boss
| 	- Subtask 2.1 @done
| 	- Subtask 2.2 @Alice
|     More text belonging to subtask 2.2
| - Task 3
| This is not a project, but text belonging to task 3
|
| Project 2:
| - Task 4
| - Task 5 @done
\----------------------------------------------------

into this equivalent Org file:

/----------------------------------------------------
| * Project 1:
| ** TODO Task 1 :@home:
| ** TODO Task 2 :@work:@boss:
| *** DONE Subtask 2.1
| *** TODO Subtask 2.2 :@Alice:
|     More text belonging to subtask 2.2
| ** TODO Task 3
| This is not a project, but text belonging to task 3
|
| * Project 2:
| ** TODO Task 4
| ** DONE Task 5
\----------------------------------------------------

Anyone wants to take up the challenge?  What N can be achieved?

Bonus points if the program also adds

/---------------------------------
| #+TAGS: @Alice @boss @work @home
\---------------------------------

somewhere, but that is not required for a valid entry.

No more than 2^N *significant* characters means that
after stripping the line invoking the perl interpreter

  #+/usr/bin/perl -p

and after stripping newlines and other insignificant whitespace,
the program may have at most 2^N bytes.

In fact, any other language is also allowed - however, usually
perl makes the smallest converters and is therefore the best
measure for distance in p_N space.

- Carsten

Re: Org-mode versus Taskpaper - now for real

[Bastien]

Rick Moynihan <rick@calicojack.co.uk> writes:

> For example, you *might* be able to convince your mum to use Taskpaper
> but there's no way she'd ever use Emacs and Org-mode.

I'd prefer my mum not to use or send me todo-lists! 
Even with a Org syntax.

I'd been 20 years now that I try to convince her I'm not playing with
computers, but working.  Look like finally she was right all this time!

-- 
Bastien

RE: Org-mode versus Taskpaper - now for real

[Egli Christian (KIRO 433)]

> Anyone wants to take up the challenge?  What N can be achieved?

Haha, it's Friday afternoon and I decided to take the challenge. I
implemented a very simplistic and stupid translator which is quite small
but just barely manages to pass the test. It does so with 480 bytes
which makes for N = 9 (2^9 = 512).

Here's the script:

#! /usr/bin/perl

while(<STDIN>){
    print unless /[:-]/g;
    print if s/^(.*):$/* $1/;
    print if s/^- (.*)\s+(\@done)$/** DONE $1/;
    print if s/^- (.*)\s+(@\w+)\s+(@\w+)$/** TODO $1 :$2: :$3:/;
    print if s/^- (.*)\s+(@\w+)$/** TODO $1 :$2:/;
    print if s/^- (.*)$/** TODO $1/;
    print if s/^\s+- (.*)\s+(\@done)$/*** DONE $1/;
    print if s/^\s+- (.*)\s+(@\w+)\s+(@\w+)$/*** TODO $1 :$2: :$3:/;
    print if s/^\s+- (.*)\s+(@\w+)$/*** TODO $1 :$2:/;
    print if s/^\s+- (.*)$/*** TODO $1/;
} 

Christian

Re: Org-mode versus Taskpaper - now for real

[Carsten Dominik]

:-) Prety good, but it does have a minor flaw, the line with several  
tags is emitted as

    ** TODO Task 2 :@work: :@boss:

But I am sure this can be fixes within the N=9 envelope.

- Carsten

On Apr 4, 2008, at 2:20 PM, Egli Christian (KIRO 433) wrote:

>
>> Anyone wants to take up the challenge?  What N can be achieved?
>
> Haha, it's Friday afternoon and I decided to take the challenge. I
> implemented a very simplistic and stupid translator which is quite  
> small
> but just barely manages to pass the test. It does so with 480 bytes
> which makes for N = 9 (2^9 = 512).
>
> Here's the script:
>
> #! /usr/bin/perl
>
> while(<STDIN>){
>    print unless /[:-]/g;
>    print if s/^(.*):$/* $1/;
>    print if s/^- (.*)\s+(\@done)$/** DONE $1/;
>    print if s/^- (.*)\s+(@\w+)\s+(@\w+)$/** TODO $1 :$2: :$3:/;
>    print if s/^- (.*)\s+(@\w+)$/** TODO $1 :$2:/;
>    print if s/^- (.*)$/** TODO $1/;
>    print if s/^\s+- (.*)\s+(\@done)$/*** DONE $1/;
>    print if s/^\s+- (.*)\s+(@\w+)\s+(@\w+)$/*** TODO $1 :$2: :$3:/;
>    print if s/^\s+- (.*)\s+(@\w+)$/*** TODO $1 :$2:/;
>    print if s/^\s+- (.*)$/*** TODO $1/;
> }
>
> Christian
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Emacs-orgmode mailing list
> Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
> Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode

Re: Org-mode versus Taskpaper - now for real

[Carsten Dominik]

Hmmmm no more entries. :-(

Anyway, here is my entry, just to prove that N is 8 (at least for now),
and also to show that perl can function as a write-only language.

- Carsten

#!/usr/bin/perl -p
# taskpaper-to-org converter including #+TAGS setup in 239 bytes
/^(\t*)-(.*?)((@\w+ *)*)$/;
@u=grep{$_ ne'@done'}(@t=split/ +/,$3);
@v=@u?('',@u,''):();
$t{$_}++for@u;
$_="*"x(2+length$1).(@t==@u?" TODO":" DONE").$2.join(":",@v)."\n"if$&;
s/^\w.*:\s*$/* $&/;
END{printf "* Setup\n#+TAGS: %s\n",join' ',keys%t}




On Apr 4, 2008, at 11:12 AM, Carsten Dominik wrote:
>
> Well, indeed not exactly the same, but very close.  A way to measure
> the distance between two formats is using a discrete p-N metric.
> The distance between two formats is said to be N if there is
> perl program with less than 2^N (2 to the power N) significant
> characters that will turn this test taskpaper file
>
> /----------------------------------------------------
> | Project 1:
> | - Task 1 @home
> | - Task 2 @work @boss
> | 	- Subtask 2.1 @done
> | 	- Subtask 2.2 @Alice
> |     More text belonging to subtask 2.2
> | - Task 3
> | This is not a project, but text belonging to task 3
> |
> | Project 2:
> | - Task 4
> | - Task 5 @done
> \----------------------------------------------------
>
> into this equivalent Org file:
>
> /----------------------------------------------------
> | * Project 1:
> | ** TODO Task 1 :@home:
> | ** TODO Task 2 :@work:@boss:
> | *** DONE Subtask 2.1
> | *** TODO Subtask 2.2 :@Alice:
> |     More text belonging to subtask 2.2
> | ** TODO Task 3
> | This is not a project, but text belonging to task 3
> |
> | * Project 2:
> | ** TODO Task 4
> | ** DONE Task 5
> \----------------------------------------------------
>
> Anyone wants to take up the challenge?  What N can be achieved?
>
> Bonus points if the program also adds
>
> /---------------------------------
> | #+TAGS: @Alice @boss @work @home
> \---------------------------------
>
> somewhere, but that is not required for a valid entry.
>
> No more than 2^N *significant* characters means that
> after stripping the line invoking the perl interpreter
>
> #+/usr/bin/perl -p
>
> and after stripping newlines and other insignificant whitespace,
> the program may have at most 2^N bytes.
>
> In fact, any other language is also allowed - however, usually
> perl makes the smallest converters and is therefore the best
> measure for distance in p_N space.
>
> - Carsten
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Emacs-orgmode mailing list
> Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
> Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode