Putting content of a Summary Table into the text of a note

Hmm. Where to start? At outset, not of what follows is ad hominem be a meta-reflection on the points raised in this thread (indeed, with that in mind I’ll leave out attribution on quotes taken from above ).

but what surprises me is that I am the first person to ask for the ability to export them.

This is (unintentionally!) as good example of one common ‘learning’ issue. I think our internalised logic fails us thus: I’m a bright person, I’m doing something sensible, other bright people doubtless do the same, therefore others must be doing what I am doing. Yet, I suspect if were were to take a recent case, a nice zettelkasten demo a user posted here, then I’d wager if we looked at the TBXs of users who downloaded and use a copy they would already have idiosyncratic differences.

I think @eastgate’s term ‘edge case’ is valid here. I didn’t read it as oblique dismissal but rather the point as stated: simply, the container table was created with a different design intent. But—after some spelunking—container tables were added _over 10 years ago (cite: RN $seq 1575 created 18 Aug 2008). Whilst long-term users will know this, I’d agree it is not self-evident to a newer user (I’ll amend aTbRef to point up this fact). Which leads us to the next step in the chain of confusion:

A simple task like this shouldn’t need to have a multi step solution. I will need to keep a special file on this solution so I can remember all the steps next time I need to export a summary table again.

Again, we think … I am a bright person, I can see the the out come quite clearly in my minds eye. Thus it is clearly a trivial thing to implement. therefore it is strange and annoying that such an obvious, trivial thing isn’t implemented. Thus when the above point about design intent is pointed out it feels like a rebuke.

This disconnect is also fed by the habits created by using utilities that do one—or a few this only, but do them well. Utilities generally have a narrow range of function (which aids ease of use) but habituates us to think having to work in a particular way.

Our habituation to their being a ‘correct’ way is unhelpful when we use a wider, more complex app with choices. It is even more confusing if the app is an open ended toolbox like Tinderbox, part of whose USP is supporting incremental formalisation—i.e. letting structure emerge. If we don’t know the exact out come, or more often the path to that out come, how can there be a right way. In fairness there are wrong ways, ways that lead to sub-par results or presume features that don’t exist.

My stock-in-trade here is fixing other folk’s problems within Tinderbox, so I’ll cede to others the task of defining underlying philosophies. It took me some time (i.e. use) of the app—and deliberate _engaged—use—before I began to really get things. And yet, I am pleasantly regularly schooled here by fellow users showing with intriguing new aspects: every day a school day.

To circle back to the start… Counter-intuitive as it may be now every possible task is baked in to the app as a feature, or available via things like export or action code (or more recently AppleScript). Suggesting a feature isn’t an affront, though it is best done by emailing info@eastgate.com with an explanation (a) of the need and (b) the use case. I think the latter is important as it makes it easier to figure out a suitable implementation (in all but the most trivial cases). Although none mat be ding what we are doing—or wish to do—but usually there will be people doing something functionally similar to achieve some unrelated outcome. By moving to asking for help in terms of general process (indeed, using abstraction), it opens the opportunities for fellow users to help if if they don’t have the same need or end-point in mind.

My last observation would be not to hold too tightly to a notion of things having to work a certain way: in the app, as in life, a diversity of approach enriches our understanding and knowledge. Vive la différence, or so I’ve learned from my 16-odd years of using this app. It is a big tend, with room for lots inside.

Sorry for the long post. :slight_smile:

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

I apologise if anything I wrote came across as a rebuke. I see the enormous amount of effort you and other users have put into helping new (and old) users accomplish the tasks they set out to achieve. My comments were (and are) intended as feedback to help make Tinderbox better.

I’ll keep on working my way through my projects, with the benefit of the The Tinderbox Way, which arrived today, and as I get more accustomed to Tinderbox, I’m sure my understanding will improve.

I’ve been an active member of user communities for various software products since 1991 and I must compliment this user group. It has the friendly welcoming atmosphere of early internet groups. It hasn’t degenerated into the narky or commercially oriented discussions I see in too many places today.

Thanks again.

Paul

1 Like

No rebuke assumed, but thank you. We’re just getting our various intuited assumptions aligned!

We’re definitely on the same page re forums. Most of my initial learning about computers was via the kindness of strangers in online forums in the 90s.