

750 Words - ams1
http://www.750words.com/

======
ams1
One thing that struck me as weird was-- after the spiel about the site being
private (between 'you and you'), it asks you to sign in via facebook.

~~~
3pt14159
I deleted my facebook account due to the fact I think the various world's
intelligence services are more than a little interested in it. NOW this guy
wants raw, unfiltered brain dumps to it? Excuse my French but, FUCK THAT. My
moleskin journal works just fine and can be pulverized into a fine powder if
need be, rather than endlessly backed up through the cloud and associated with
my name.

~~~
rinich
The CIA absolutely cares about the three pages of fiction you write every day,
and there is certainly a way they could take that and use it to make the world
worse.

I like this service. I don't like writing in journals, regardless of the brand
name, and I think I might give this a try. I guess you're allowed not to like
it, but it bothers me that you're so obnoxious about your dislike. If you'll
excuse me, I'm off to open every Hacker News article I have a disagreement
with and loudly state my opposition, because excuse my French but, FUCK THAT.

------
ryanwaggoner
One of my daily habits for the last few years has been writing morning pages,
though my goal is 500 words, and I typically write 550 - 600. I use the
excellent WriteRoom, which helps block distractions and also provides a handy
word count in the bottom left corner. I now have hundreds of text files
documenting my inner monologue over the last few years...I expect it'll come
in handy if I ever decide to write my memoirs :)

~~~
SlyShy
For those of us on Linux, PyRoom is a nice clone, which has the additional
benefit of being easily hackable via Python.

------
derefr
So what do they mean when they say "it's online?" It's obviously a web
application, but _why_ is it one (other than that being the paradigm the
author is most acquainted with)? What's the advantage of using this over, say,
a desktop tool like WriteRoom/OmmWriter plus a scoring script?

~~~
GHFigs
This question comes up a lot, but to me it always sounds like "Why eat at a
restaurant when you can cook at home?" The main reason people do it is that
simply to have someone _else_ do all the work other than the eating, or in
this case, the writing.

~~~
derefr
I never said that this application shouldn't _exist_ ; I just don't see the
point in making it a _web_ application, when both the process and the product
of using it are completely anti- or a-social. Is it just that you don't have
to worry about where to store it/when to back it up? I've forgotten about that
concern since I started using Dropbox.

There are a few implicit advantages to making something a web application:
upgrades for free, no installation, etc. but there are also implicit
disadvantages: network latency, inability to use when out of service range,
and so on.

What I'm really saying is that this application seems like the perfect
candidate for <http://mozillalabs.com/prism/> \-- it's not really _web_
application, per se, it's just an application that requires an Internet
connection, and happens to use HTML as a presentation layer.

~~~
GHFigs
_I never said that this application shouldn't exist; I just don't see the
point in making it a web application_

And that's exactly what I was responding to. A web application is _somebody
else's problem_ , from start to finish. In this case, everything but the
writing. Any other solution has its own constraints and so on that become
_your_ problem, which quite often isn't worth the expenditure of attention.

 _What I'm really saying is that this application seems like the perfect
candidate for<http://mozillalabs.com/prism/> _

<http://fluidapp.com/> \+ 30 seconds.

~~~
derefr
And you just agreed with me without realizing it, because we're talking past
each other. The term "web application" doesn't refer to a technology, but
rather a means of access. I never asked "why does this product use
HTTP/HTML/CSS", or "why is this product accessible over the network", or
anything like that—those are technical questions, and have technical answers.
The question I asked was "why is this a _web application_ —meaning, _why
should this be accessed through a web browser?_ "

Web browsers imply a certain _social_ cognitive model. Prism, and Fluid as
well, as you pointed out, are programs written to shift the user's _mental
image_ of how the application works, from the social, public, status-seeking
"web application" mindset, to the local, safe, tinkering-around "desktop
application" one. The fact that these programs exist is a testament to the
fact that how a user accesses your application _matters to them_.

Remember, Prism/Fluid apps are _still_ "somebody else's problem"—that's what
makes them so great, compared to regular desktop apps. So the question is, why
did the developer choose the web mindset, rather than the desktop mindset,
when options (Fluid, Prism) are available that nullify the disadvantages of
the desktop mindset?

~~~
GHFigs
_why should this be accessed through a web browser?_

I have no idea what kind of answer you're looking for. If not technical then
what, philosophical? I never knew that writing a web app required such
justification. Especially one as trivial as this.

 _Web browsers imply a certain social cognitive model._

Bullshit. Remember that the single most successful kind of web application--
the kind which nobody will bat an eye at you for using instead of a desktop
application--is email, which is exactly as social regardless of how you access
it. There is no "public, status-seeking" mindset to web based email that is
missing with desktop email. The web is just an interface in that case. So to
with this.

* So the question is, why did the developer choose the web mindset, rather than the desktop mindset, when options (Fluid, Prism) are available that nullify the disadvantages of the desktop mindset?*

Why should the developer care at all about these? He doesn't have to do
anything special for the small number of users who choose to use them.

~~~
derefr
> If not technical then what, philosophical?

Aesthetic. User-experiential. However you want to put it. The thing that makes
Facebook different from MySpace, text messages different from push email,
isn't technical, it's all in how users _think_ about what they're doing.

> There is no "public, status-seeking" mindset to web based email that is
> missing with desktop email.

There _is_ a public, status-seeking mindset _inherent_ in using email—that's
why it works so well on the web. It's actually kind of useless to make it a
desktop application; it's just a historical accident that it was first
incarnated through the desktop metaphor at all.

> Why should the developer care at all about these?

The point is to _hide_ the fact that the user is using a website, because the
user has certain connotations about web sites that he or she doesn't have
about desktop applications, even if those desktop applications happen to
render HTML over HTTP under the hood. The user should be able to download a
desktop application and not _know_ that there's a web application sitting at a
URL somewhere that it's just accessing and displaying.

For a perfect example of this, look at the iTunes Music Store. It's all
HTML—but would it feel the same if you accessed it as a website, rather than
through iTunes? People trust iTunes with their credit card information more
readily than they trust a website. People are more willing to click a "Buy"
button in a desktop app than a website. There are usability studies that prove
both of these things. Again, it's about how the user thinks about your
service—and by using Fluid or Prism on the _developer's_ side to package your
service as a desktop app, you can _change_ how the user thinks about your
service, without having to change how your service works internally.

~~~
GHFigs
_Aesthetic. User-experiential. However you want to put it._

Which is it? I'm asking _you_ because it's _your_ argument. You're craving a
justification for developing a web application that isn't inherently social--
that is clear--but it isn't clear _why_ you think there needs to be a reason
or what answer could possibly suffice.

 _There is a public, status-seeking mindset inherent in using email—that's why
it works so well on the web. It's actually kind of useless to make it a
desktop application; it's just a historical accident that it was first
incarnated through the desktop metaphor at all._

With all due respect, this is a giant pile of bullshit. Every bit of it.
You're just taking what I said and turning it around rather than actually
explaining how the web has an inherently social cognitive model. Of course
email is social--I pointed that out myself--but it was social long before the
web even existed. You've made no connection between the task and the supposed
cognitive model. That's the big gaping whole in your argument that I was
pointing to.

(The bit about desktop email clients being "kind of useless" is just ignorant,
and a pointless tangent, so I won't waste words.)

 _The user should be able to download a desktop application and not know that
there's a web application sitting at a URL somewhere that it's just accessing
and displaying._

...but _why?_ And more specifically...why should this developer do that for
this application?

 _the iTunes Music Store. It's all HTML_

It isn't, actually, and the degree to which it does is more likely due to
technical reasons than people somehow inferring a social or asocial cognitive
model. It also helps that, y'know, _iTunes_ is a desktop application, and that
for the first several years the store existed, iTunes was explicitly required
to _play_ the music the store sold. Incidentally, it also is not accessible
from the web, except in a different form, making it a poor example of a web
application.

I'm not clear on what this is supposed to be a "perfect example" of, other
than something completely unrelated to the site in question. Yeah, yeah, I get
that desktop apps and web apps are different, but please, get to the point.

 _you can change how the user thinks about your service_

...but why? Do you have usability studies to back up the idea that only
'social' applications should be on the web, and that 'non-social'
applications, even if they are web-based, should be desktop applications?

------
jacquesm
the guy that made it:

<http://busterbenson.com/>

Bottom of the page, 'rules to live by', good stuff!

------
mattwdelong
Perhaps posting the source code and allowing people to host it on their own
terms would be a bit more realistic. If someone is to write as 750words
intends, spilling their deepest thoughts; I don't think they want to attribute
their facebook account to it, let alone entrust someone they know nothing
about with that very data. It would be interesting to know if they changed the
authentication procedure + made it anonymous, how much the conversions would
change.

------
FraaJad
Journler -- <http://journler.com/> is a good desktop app for Mac users. It
shows the number of paragraphs words in the status bar. It also has a load of
other features without getting in the way of writing.

Thanks for bringing the idea of writing morning pages into our attention.

------
SlyShy
I really liked this. I've written a shell script that does something similar,
but there isn't any chart generation or word tagging, for example. This is
nice and polished. I'm always overjoyed when someone works on something I
want. :)

------
jamesbritt
"typically encouraged to be in 'long hand' ... "

Probably because your brain works differently when you write that when than
when you type, a difference that matters.

------
berlinbrown
Looks cool but I wish you could publish your writing.

~~~
kowen
I did morning pages (long hand) for a while, and while the process certainly
was interesting and helpful, most of it was garbage, trite, uninteresting, and
truly boring. Any interesting pieces would have required rewrite/cleanup
before being anything close to publishable.

