← Back to context

Comment by getnormality

1 day ago

Precisely. Emacs folks often talk about how incredibly powerful and flexible their system is, so working with a reskinned Org Mode markup system when dealing with other people's stuff should be completely trivial for them, right? They should consider accommodating less technically sophisticated people for whom different notations are a bigger burden, no?

4 comments

getnormality

Reply
adityaathalye  1 day ago

Your wish is our command... I'd argue that Emacs package maintainers care a lot about usability, in general. This extends to when they craft a package for general use.

https://github.com/tvraman/emacspeak "the complete audio desktop" by our blind and sight-impaired friends, for our blind and sight-impaired friends (and others who must necessarily use speech interfaces)

https://github.com/pprevos/emacs-writing-studio for writers at large

fountain-mode for screenwriting and playwriting https://fountain-mode.org/

https://chrismaiorana.com/emacs-guides/org-mode-syntax/ ("for writers and thinkers")

markdown beautification

https://www.reddit.com/r/emacs/comments/10h9jf0/beautify_mar...

https://oxal.org/blog/powerful-emacs-hacks-image-markdown/

general beautification

https://github.com/pretty-mode/pretty-mode

etc. etc. etc.

If there is a specific kind of person's specific kind of text editing need, there's probably an Emacs package for that.

The real tragedy is how poorly Emacs itself is conveyed to people. Mouse-pointing etc. works just fine out of the box. And as the emacspeak package demonstrates, at its core, it is a very usable and humane piece of technology.

dietr1ch  1 day ago

The problem isn't customising your editor to use the symbol you want, but to have a spec that allows freely sharing files back and forth without trouble.

Org has no specification other editors can follow (although people have tried adding support to other editors and also writing such a spec).