@kimreece Out of idle interest, and only if you have time and the inclination, does this make sense:
@kimreece I feel it generally unlikely that one would want to reply to more than 3 nodes simultaneously, so I feel that three is the right value for three.
Do you have a reason for setting it to a higher value?
@ColinTheMathmo Just a feeling for how many things my mind would want to pull together and a symmetry as to how things branch out vs. in
@kimreece It seems to be working well. It's still possible to get lost once a discussion becomes big enough.
@kimreece I'm finding it useful for marshalling my thoughts prior to constructing a talk/presentation/workshop.
@dredmorbius I end up with a lot of email discussion with people top-posting, and no one know hat a given comment is in reply to. So it's intended to allow multiple threads that can subsequently be closed, merged, or continued.
I see it as a great replacement for some types of conversations currently on email, slack, discord, Twitter, and the like.
@ColinTheMathmo @dredmorbius Torn between 'we already have tree views in forums that aren't awful like fedi' and 'this is halfway to becoming a zettelkasten when it could have gone full bore' ... I feel like having created such an interpretive rift means you've hit a sweet-spot. I'd probably feel it was 'almost like' mind-mapping too if I ever did that... but again, not quite. And that not quite matters.
@kimreece I have three or four long-running discussions ... it's useful to be able to track a single thread, then to search and connect ideas.
I also use it to brain-storm/mind-map subjects for constructing presentations. I can provide examples, or you can look here:
@ColinTheMathmo @dredmorbius I don't find the interface natural; for me it's a visual clutter that disables my information processing. But I could see working with the same data structure in another interface, while collaborators were able to work with it in this interface, as a way of supporting both mind types.
@dredmorbius OK ... I have a command-line script that takes a toot ID as a parameter. It then recursively traces the conversation and produces the SVG. It's not integrated or automated, I run it by hand on conversations I think have got out-of-hand and for which I need navigational assistance.
@kimreece Having multiple presentations of an internal structure is not only possible, it should be the right thing to do. The DiGraph is one way of presenting the data we have ... how would you prefer it to be presented? Perhaps an alternative could be put on the same underlying data.
@ColinTheMathmo @dredmorbius The navigation difference is one of being outside the graph looking down, versus travelling within the graph. I prefer to navigate within, with a sideview of where I am. Maybe I see less surrounding context at a time that way, but I get less distracted because my own mind doesn't have to keep track of where I am.
@ColinTheMathmo This seems to reflect the client/user freedom problem in open-protocol discussions.
Email being a classic caase for the reasons you've just given: clients (programs, apps, services) can implement (or extend, violate, ignore, ...) standards as they wish. Users can follow / flaut / innovate conventions as well.
Without some mechanism for enforcing standards (or penalising variances), conventions and standards will drift.
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!