From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: John Hendy Subject: Re: Org Tutorials need more structure Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 19:29:26 -0500 Message-ID: References: <52474101.7010904@verizon.net> <20130928233159.56203f9f@aga-netbook> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47428) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VQ4t6-0005Ee-Ky for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 28 Sep 2013 20:29:29 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VQ4t5-0006NF-90 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 28 Sep 2013 20:29:28 -0400 Received: from mail-ob0-x22d.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22d]:35627) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VQ4t5-0006N9-1N for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 28 Sep 2013 20:29:27 -0400 Received: by mail-ob0-f173.google.com with SMTP id vb8so4203267obc.18 for ; Sat, 28 Sep 2013 17:29:26 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: "Thomas S. Dye" Cc: emacs-orgmode , Marcin Borkowski On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Thomas S. Dye wrote: > Aloha John, Marcin, and Charles, > > Yes, I completely agree with you. Apologies if my remarks were taken to > be exclusionary in any way. They weren't intended to be. The diversity > of the Org-mode community is one of its great strengths. > I don't take them as exclusionary, just didn't want to see folks going down a rabbit hole that diverges from the original intent :) > My comments were intended to be ideas on how we might introduce Org-mode > to a wider audience. > > In this vein, I think it would be useful to have a brief statement about > Org-mode that gives the interested reader from any background a good > feel for the scope of Org-mode and how it presents itself to the user. > I don't think the current statements about what Org-mode "is" do this > very effectively, though they might have done so in the past. > Absolutely love that, and this puts some of your earlier comments in perspective -- you're looking for the 30sec elevator pitch for Org-mode, and saying "this outline-y task manager" is not cutting it. John > The "research programming interface" is meant to encompass situations > where all of the software's major components are put to use and thus to > indicate the software's scope. The bit about scientists likely needs > some qualifications to be absolutely true, but it also prepares the > reader for an interface of a particular kind, one that is logical and > complex rather than "intuitive". The core values bit for me helps > distinguish the Org-mode community from innumerable others we all deal > with every day. > > There are probably better ways to give the novice a sense of the > Org-mode experience, but these are the things that stand out for me. > > All the best, > Tom > > John Hendy writes: > >> On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 4:31 PM, Marcin Borkowski = wrote: >>> Dnia 2013-09-28, o godz. 16:50:09 >>> Charles Millar napisa=C5=82(a): >>> >>>> On 9/28/2013 3:52 PM, Thomas S. Dye wrote: >>>> > Aloha Carsten, >>>> > >>>> snip >>>> > First, I think that most statements about "what Org-mode is" are >>>> > outdated. Many of them are quite good, but they represent the >>>> > previous state of an evolving system and so fail to capture the >>>> > full scope. To my mind, Org-mode is a "research programming >>>> > interface" written by and for scientists who take very seriously >>>> > certain core values of the scientific enterprise--reproducibility, >>>> > open access, and open source (a partial list). >>>> Strongly disagree with the sentiment. My undergraduate degree may >>>> gave been Physics, but I work as a freelance paralegal. I use Org >>>> Mode for project (file) planning, scheduling, drafting documents, >>>> etc. Also, I believe that there are some very active participants on >>>> this list who are not scientists and have made great contributions. >>> >>> +1. Although I'm also a scientist (mathematics), I used Org-mode /once= / >>> for science, and it turned out that I felt very much constrained and >>> quickly got back to LaTeX, where I felt much more comfortable. >>> http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski >>> Adam Mickiewicz University >>> >> >> This is starting to remind me of bike-shedding. Org-mode is a toolbox >> providing various things that can work toward whatever end one wants. >> It's agnostic to field. It doesn't really matter what the end uses are >> -- Org-mode "is" what functions it provides. How those are combined by >> others in various fields, lines of work, or so on are simply >> illustrations of it's capabilities with respect to neat ways of >> combining various aspects of what Org "is." >> >> Thus, I wouldn't try to pitch these things one way or another ("Org is >> great for paralegals" or "Org is the answer for those doing >> re-producible research"); I'd simply list what it does as what is "is" >> and what it can be used "for" as a way to entice new users and help >> get into the top results of some google searches for >> tools/solutions/etc.. >> >> It seems we all get what it really "is," (TODOs/agenda, universal >> markdown -> export to tons of formats, allowing mixing of >> prose/code/results, and so on), but are sort of trying to lay claim to >> why these tools make it best suited toward some particular field. >> >> Whether you use one of Org's features or all of them, it is what it is >> and this can be highlighted in a neat manner and made appealing to >> those looking for help in these relevant areas of life. >> >> >> John >> >> > > -- > Thomas S. Dye > http://www.tsdye.com