Data point from a fairly new (<1y) user. "Tiddlywiki" and "tiddler" stopped sounding weird to me very quickly. Renaming "because there's something inherently wrong with the name" seems silly to me.
Renaming because of a new baseline codebase/breaking changes? that makes more sense. It does make me sad for the existing TW5 codebase with all the incredible work that's gone into the code itself and to plugins (like Tiddlymap! Tiddlymap is so amazing! Would it be ported over? It's the best!). And worried about stuff being left behind. In accordance with Jeremy's wishes, I hereby have no opinion whatsoever about what a good new name would be. :) One thing I would be actually concerned about, is what a new codebase would do in terms of "minimum browser version needed." It's fun to chase the new JS technology available by default in newer browsers, but it would be a real shame to exclude people with old browsers any more than was necessary. On Wednesday, December 30, 2020 at 11:17:47 AM UTC-5 Osin wrote: > My disjointed 2 cents: > > The names "TiddlyWiki" and "Tiddler" got a few chuckles from my manager > when I proposed it as a solution for an internal Wiki/Knowledge Base, then > we moved on. It's a funny and unique name, but I don't think it's > necessarily that bad once that initial bump has been passed over. Now I > just say "Wiki". I didn't know Wiki was perceived as outdated. So in that > sense, I agree with whoever gave the example of construction jargon. > > My first reaction to "xememex" was to re-read it a few times to figure out > how to read it (granted, I barely slept and haven't had coffee yet). It is > easy to type once I figured out where to put the e and the m and the x, but > that's the only benefit to the current name. People pronounce GIF two ways > as well, so maybe the pronunciation aspect of it isn't as bad. How often > would one communicate the name in writing vs speech? "Meme" screams funny > images with text, but that connotation might just be a fad. > > That being said, reading through the replies, I feel that the renaming > brainstorm is focusing on power-users and developers as the "target > audience". What is being sought exactly with the name change? To make > people in the google group like the name and make things easier for the > devs, or popularize the platform? I think defining this needs to be a > priority before starting to brainstorm names. In that sense, maybe > crowdfunding and paying a branding/communication consultant might be > something to consider? It reminds me of a time when software engineers made > design decisions, before UX Research was a thing. I say this as a > non-programmer outsider-type who is just interested in organizing his crap, > slowly trying to wrap my head around TW. > > I tried to brainstorm in vain. I thought that maybe keeping the "TW" in > some shape or form would make sense (TW+Quine=Twine? [already exists] > qTwine? Qwine?) or keeping the "Tid" part, "Wiktid'? It could be even used > as a verb: "I wiktid my thoughts". "Let me wiktid what you just said". As > you can see, my brain cells are starting to give out. > > > On Wednesday, December 30, 2020 at 6:00:36 AM UTC-5 TiddlyTweeter wrote: > >> Ciao Jeremy >> >> I get the point that meandering over all possible names ain't helpful. >> >> And I also LIKE the general idea that our tool is dealing with >> FUNDAMENTAL SEMANTIC ARCHITECTURAL re-composition at will ... In other >> words, basically our tool explores and refoliates the nature of information >> retrieval and organisation via the Net ... >> >> And that REMAINS an open-ended project. It is that ROOTING of our tool in >> that problematic (Bush's) I find both fascinating and very enlightening. >> >> And that is WHY I'd prefer MEMEX / XEMEMEX type name over other options >> ... simply because it roots the problematic back into Vannevar Bush's >> superb insights (and prior to the Berner-Lee production steps) of the >> nature of the problem (indexing human memory = memex). >> >> Regarding scope. Well, I'd roughly say we have our tool as an ENGINE FOR >> MAKING new tools. But also our tool is ALSO the TOOLS MADE. It is that >> recursive "Quine-ish" thing I think can be most hard to grasp or >> communicate. *The Maker is also The Made.* >> >> Where we, overall on promotion, are likely lacking is more explicit >> promotion of Tools Made rather than the Tool-Maker. We do lack thorough >> SHOWCASING. >> >> In that sense there is more than one aspect to deriving a compelling >> moniker. IMO we need promote both Maker and The Made. >> >> But Jeremy, thanks so much for bearing the weight forward. I really do >> feel your connection back to the "big problem" --- one that TW/xememex is, >> basically, still always facing and dealing with. >> >> Best wishes >> TT >> >> [email protected] wrote: >> >>> The best alternatives I've got are "xememex" for the product, and "card" >>> for the unit of information. I've had the domain xememex.com for a few >>> years and the @xememex user account. >>> >>> "Xememex" is of course a palindromisation of Vannevar Bush's "memex": >>> >>> >>> https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1945/07/as-we-may-think/303881/ >>> >> >>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/486eefd1-9026-4f83-990f-2f4918b7f85cn%40googlegroups.com.
