• The Reader. They will not contribute, no matter how easy it is. They're too busy or they have nothing to contribute. This is most of my professional user base.
• The Commenter. They will contribute snippets, but not if it requires learning a new syntax or learning a system of any complexity. They like the comment boxes with a single "post" button. This is much of my personal user base.
• The Writer. They want to contribute. They have something to say. They'll write whole pages if you let them. But they don't understand the syntax or how to get an account. They don't want the WikiWay, they just want to post their thoughts. This is the group most likely to become frustrated with a TWiki. I have a few of these in my personal user base.
• The WikiGeek. They will learn the WikiWay because it's cool and because it lets them publish really fast. These are the same guys who hack Perl scripts. They do not like WikiZen. They like embedded HTML. They'll run a wiki for their own use even if no one else ever contributes. I am a WikiGeek.
• The WikiMaster. They appreciate WikiZen. They embrace the community. They evangelize and bring the WikiWay to others.

IMO, the WikiWay is definitely directed to the WikiMaster. TWiki is focused at the WikiMaster and the WikiGeek. Adding KoalaSkin seems to help Readers and CommentPlugin seems to help Commenters somewhat (though it's pretty primitive). IMO the slashdot-like systems (postnuke, etc) all focus on the Reader and the Commenter.

No one, however, seems to focus on the Writer. I am personally a WikiGeek, but would rather be a Writer. I just want to get content out. I don't want complicated setups. I don't want confusing user account systems. And I definitely don't want to remember the difference between two single-ticks and six single-ticks. As a Writer wannabe, I find that TWiki does the best job for me so far, but I'd like to see more focus on this group. If you want to see a tool totally focused on the Writer, look at the blogging engines (http://www.livejournal.com, http://www.blogger.com). If I could find a tool as easy to use a blogger, with the formatting capabilities of TWiki, and the plug-in power of TWiki+postnuke, I'd have my tool

-- RobNapier - 18 Jun 2002

This is a really good classification; it states what users want to do and how they do it. It gives me an idea of how the type of users influence the choice in system design.

In ShorterCaseInsensitiveURLs you write that True novices ... generally do not try to guess things from the URL ... They just want to see the latest updates ... They never browse; they never write. They just follow links. It's the intermediate people, users who have tried to guess at how the system works without reading the docs, who get confused.

At my workplace we are just starting out on TWiki, and I see these intermediates a lot. They've got the concept of WikiWords but not the art of it, so they'll write words like AddRes and AppliCation. Let's assume that a real company-wide training seminar is not considered; how then could one educate the users to think up better WikiWords like AddressPolicy or ApplicationSupport (or whatever clarification would make sense for the examples)?

-- TorbenGB - 20 Jun 2002

I have special system page in each web, called WebNames, with suggestion how to name new pages. Ie. if it should be BugBlaBla, or BlaBlaBug. How pages are grouped by names.

Works for me to remind me how I want to name pages, but for some reason other are reluctant even to browse... Working on adding content to browse... Plugins.CommentPlugin is still not fixed, but I enabled it again on my twiki. Maybe it will add incentive to contribute...

-- PeterMasiar - 21 Jun 2002

I'm probably a bad person to ask about this because I personally don't like the WikiWord system. It's convenient, yes, but it's incredibly non-scalable and IMO is the antithesis of WikiZen in that it elevates the form way above the content. That's why I highly prefer the [[link]] notation and recommend its use almost exclusively. It's clear right in the plaintext that you really meant this to be a link.

My opinion, ditch WikiWords altogether. Heck, I'd pull it out of the rendering engine altogether, but that would require us to rethink TWiki. That's not a bad idea, IMO. I think TWiki has a killer template and rendering engine. I just wish it weren't tied to the Wiki ideas.

-- RobNapier - 24 Jun 2002

I feel much the same way! Get rid of WikiWords, make all links using the square bracket syntax (and spaces), and display all page titles with the spaces. The one dilemma I see is naming the text files -- oh, never mind, I take that back -- include the spaces in the file name, and, when necessary in the code, refer to the names in quotes. I believe this can be done in both Linux and Windows. (And improve some other things, like searching.)

-- RandyKramer - 25 Jun 2002

To get rid of BumpyWords is radical proposal, and I doubt it will pass highest instances. OTOH, I like it a lot. It will increase usability for less-geeky individuals, IMHO. Spaces might be translated to underscores, lower case only, so one can tell page name into phone. Let's face it, this is not going to happen. Way to radical.

Maybe it is possible to implement it via some plugin?

-- PeterMasiar - 26 Jun 2002

Dear Rob, I think this is a very good classification which maybe is missing just one type Wiki Corporate Proffesional! The one who inplements and improves the system for specific professional work in his company and later provides community with new development branch that was unknown before. If lucky this individual gets awarded by it's employer some free time to actually contribute back the code in documented way and merge it with existing code.

By the way I am also missing basic NewsLog features in TWiki... Everything2.com is similar system that developted quite nicely to cover this field also(not to mention web chat and massanging services).

-- ZeljkoBlace - 06 Jully 2002