https://www.markbernstein.org/Feb24/TinderboxforHistory.html
My two cents…
Worth the read. A key points to infer, as quite reasonably not stated:
- don’t rush to assert process/methodology. We tend to do this, with good intent, but without care our work becomes following the process/filling in the boxes, and our original task is lost in the noise. It’ds not that method is not important: it’s about timing and not crushing the tender shoots of research under the panjandrum of process.
The essay also quietly shows how Tinderbox supports emergent structure (incremental formalisation). We don’t need what we don’t need—we can add that as the need becomes clear. Unless re-doing a specific task, premature formalisation is often wasted effort and unneeded angst, though it is something many of our process-defined software tools unwittingly
Some documentary references to feature alluded to (citing in aTbRef only 'cos I can’t web-link into app Help):
- Hyperbolic view. N.B. the view only plots linked notes (which, after all, is its whole point). But recall, links don’t have to be visible (i.e. can be there for intent, not display) and Hyperbolic view can filter by link type.
- Attribute Browser view.
- Integration with Bookends (reference manager app).
- Adding new User attributes and using them as Displayed Attributes in a note.
- Geographic adornments (Map view).
- Table view. New - so, untried by many.
…and all just from a bit of gentle exploration of the source material, without any rush to process.
3 Likes