@jasonekratz @markmcelroy @tommi
> Logseq will always be a second-class experience for writing.
Why? It has Document Mode (t>d shortcut) and with a bit of CSS you can easily hide bullet points for specific blocks:
It supports headers and almost everything from Markdown, even footnotes.
Also Logseq is evolving, it could feature even better support for longform writing in the future.
@alexl @jasonekratz @tommi I loves me some #Logseq, and would never say any tool will "always" be anything, as did the original poster.
That said:
- While document mode offers cosmetic relief from the distraction of bullets in longform text, the exported text will still contain them, even when copied/pasted. Yuk!
- The moment a solution requires "a bit of CSS," we're in a territory that won't appeal to casual users.
Being able to designate a page as a doc (no blocks) would work better.
@markmcelroy @jasonekratz @tommi
Yes, the text is *stored* always as indented lists and can be *exported* without them.
About the CSS, while I agree that a GUI solution would be nice for this issue in particular, I think of software as tools in the hands of people that can eventually learn something new that empower them and CSS basics is something useful for almost everyone.
Not everything is meant to be a product that people consume as it is 🙂
@alexl @jasonekratz @tommi I understand your opinion. But I'm reminded of conversations with Fed Reserve economists who insisted that everyday people didn't need quantitative easing explained because "everyone knows that."
I'd say CSS is a very specialized type of knowledge, and I doubt that almost everyone is inclined to (or should be expected to) pick it up.
This is less about the product being used "as is" and more about approachability and long-term viability among unskilled users.
CSS might be very specialized knowledge, but I'm pretty sure that everyone using a PC frequently visit Web pages or using apps with elements they would like to hide and it is really easy with CSS (it's how I hid those bullet points and shared the result so *everyone* can copy-paste it) 🙂
Also Logseq is in development, it is even marked as beta, and what it will be depends on how people use it now, especially because it is FOSS and everyone can contribute.
@alexl @markmcelroy I think to Mark’s point, if the answer is every user needs to spend time leaning code (however little), finding code, checking forums, or however you want to put it, so they can do something they expect is a feature or capability of a tool, you’ve already narrowed the potential user base dramatically. There can be no widespread adoption of such a tool, and it will remain a hobbyist’s tool. Convincing a business, for example, to adopt such a tool is a pipe dream.
Of course, but there will never be the perfect application and you will end up like this:
https://pkm.social/@markmcelroy/110021895154841422
or you can join FOSS community, learn new things, greatly expand your possibilities and enjoy building tools with other people 🙂
@alexl I'm glad you've found a way of working that works for you. I also submit that your last post about my app history may be making some unfair assumptions about my motivations around switching apps over the last two decades.
This is the first time, since coming to Mastodon, I've had a bit of an "ick" feeling about a conversation. Rather than linger add to that, I'll just wish you well and hope the best for your work with the FOSS community!
What are the motivations for switching apps other than "they didn't work for me/found something better"?
