The problem we're trying to fix is that ctrl-f can only take you so far. Linear text, while conventional isn't the best way to organize and navigate knowledge. Sure, tacked on UX can help add functionality, but the data structure has an implication with its usage. By standardizing a data structure, any good UX is just pulling out functionality afforded by the structure instead of imposing functionality via UX.
You interact at the level most meaningful for your task. You don't need bricks to analyze the architecture of a house or paint a wall, but if you want herringbone tiling for your kitchen you'll have to work at the level of tiles. Modular articles provide that level of grouping and introspection as an option, emphasis on option.
What pieces of existing libraries have you needed to use for your current client and why? What are they in service for, and how do they compose together to form your library? Are there other ideas that already exist that this implementation points toward, say in math and computer science? You point directly to the pieces of text involved in the synthesis of new knowledge, or you can just use the existing content verbatim as another note in your collage of notes.
Having these interactions on nostr allow for anyone to follow the trail of ideas that have been traversed and learn the same ideas for themselves. Something like that can't be afforded by a change in UX alone.
liminal
npub1m3…qa5sf
2024-08-27 19:24:06
in reply to nevent1q…34hc
Author Public Key
npub1m3xdppkd0njmrqe2ma8a6ys39zvgp5k8u22mev8xsnqp4nh80srqhqa5sfPublished at
2024-08-27 19:24:06Event JSON
{
"id": "d3c93929f50644f5ffcc42242152b0941a8cfcb2fe3daa1acfada4fad92fa3ae",
"pubkey": "dc4cd086cd7ce5b1832adf4fdd1211289880d2c7e295bcb0e684c01acee77c06",
"created_at": 1724779446,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"c824e8600a217b851a6c1582a8a9b417665d4e492682aee589c9e115f275d384",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"5c397e5f69d7dd84ad8054ce9814f8bb7d37f38b229d51dc1a0a2bc3e7ac7252"
],
[
"e",
"58dff4409551bb1ff29242b5e860b5acf9afc017c2e5496721870601a4e4fec5",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"dc4cd086cd7ce5b1832adf4fdd1211289880d2c7e295bcb0e684c01acee77c06"
],
[
"p",
"32e1827635450ebb3c5a7d12c1f8e7b2b514439ac10a67eef3d9fd9c5c68e245"
],
[
"p",
"460c25e682fda7832b52d1f22d3d22b3176d972f60dcdc3212ed8c92ef85065c"
],
[
"p",
"97c70a44366a6535c145b333f973ea86dfdc2d7a99da618c40c64705ad98e322"
]
],
"content": "The problem we're trying to fix is that ctrl-f can only take you so far. Linear text, while conventional isn't the best way to organize and navigate knowledge. Sure, tacked on UX can help add functionality, but the data structure has an implication with its usage. By standardizing a data structure, any good UX is just pulling out functionality afforded by the structure instead of imposing functionality via UX. \n\nYou interact at the level most meaningful for your task. You don't need bricks to analyze the architecture of a house or paint a wall, but if you want herringbone tiling for your kitchen you'll have to work at the level of tiles. Modular articles provide that level of grouping and introspection as an option, emphasis on option.\n\nWhat pieces of existing libraries have you needed to use for your current client and why? What are they in service for, and how do they compose together to form your library? Are there other ideas that already exist that this implementation points toward, say in math and computer science? You point directly to the pieces of text involved in the synthesis of new knowledge, or you can just use the existing content verbatim as another note in your collage of notes.\n\nHaving these interactions on nostr allow for anyone to follow the trail of ideas that have been traversed and learn the same ideas for themselves. Something like that can't be afforded by a change in UX alone.",
"sig": "b22feca2454944bfee8c4dbb166449bbed3a765a13f5dddea5fe529b77046bb5bdb64c916e94c1e77368323c186065009d79f48a14abde6e3d9dbf0594351684"
}