Friday, June 22, 2018

Reading versus Writing

I noticed this claim today in Christian Tietze's blog:
Some software nudges you, sometimes even pushes you, towards system design decisions. Take Wikis as an example. Most of them have two different modes:
  • The reading mode.
  • The editing mode.
The reading mode is the default. But most of the time you should create, edit and re-edit the content. This default, this separation of reading and editing, is a small but significant barrier on producing content. You will behave differently. This is one reason I don’t like wikis for knowledge work. They are clumsy and work better for different purposes.
This is, unless I am very much mistaken, a subjective reaction not an objective observation. It isn't my experience, in any case.
  1. "The reading mode is the default." There may be some wikis that make reading mode the default. The personal wiki I chose, ConnectedText, let's you decide whether you want to always view topics in view mode. I did not turn on that option. But even if I had, hitting Alt-E for edit (or getting out of edit) is automatic. There is no barrier in my experience.
  2. {Wikis] "are clumsy." Not my experience either. On the contrary, I find the separation between topic names and topic identifiers that is a basic feature of The Archive much motre clumsy. It may be true that "to create links between notes" in an application like nvALT, "you need to define how to target a note first. One response is to use file names. If you want clickable links the full path to the note could be used. However this is a fragile solution. It breaks when file names change or the location of the file changes. A better answer is to use an unique ID for each file. The Archive uses a timestamp ID. These timestamp IDs are by definition unique" (from a review). In a real wiki, the program keeps track of name changes for you.

I do not want to knock The Archive: to each his or her own. I would find the opaque first layer a much larger problem.