Tinderbox is more than an application—it is a means of thought. You must delve deep into Tinderbox to start to understand it process. It is rather like what the CREB protein is thought to be in the human brain—you can build long-term relationships.
I had quite a lot to say about Tinderbox, here. Short answer to your question: I do not use it so much to brainstorm; I use it to keep track of every detail. Outside of a writing context, I’ve also used it to publish my web site, and as a massive, complicated to do list.
I knew Jay Bolter a long time ago when he invented StorySpace, the ancestor of TinderBox. His ideas arose from using HyperCard, a single-card interface. Jay created a GUI that featured boxed spaces in which users could write notes, drag them into arrangements, and draw lines of relationship and sequence between them. It was a fascinating use of Mac technology, and initially it was free or inexpensive.
Later he sold it to Eastgate, and the price exploded. The product has improved, but I can’t see paying $200 for any software under the sun. You may get many of the same effects from Inspiration ($69), and personally a combination of OmniOutliner and Scrivener is all the outlining or mind-mapping that I need.
I’ve tried Inspiration, and while it is definitely a very good program, it does not have nearly the capacity for information processing that Tinderbox has. If you use Tinderbox for something along the lines of Inspiration, then it would be a rip off. However, its built-in logic language, template exports, and UNIX connectivity is something Inspiration cannot touch.
Thanks for your posts and references, AmberV. I’m one of those folks who could never get into TB. As you point out in your posting on the other thread, TB’s learning curve is long (and for me at least, steep). I just wasn’t prepared to invest the time.
In addition, a personal predilection. It’s so darned ugly. I mean ug-lee! For me, one of the great pleasures of Scriv is its attention to aesthetics. Maybe it’s just me, but staring at that homely, design-challenged TB interface for more than a short while became truly irritating.
Again, AmberV, thanks for your knowledge and insight.
T
T,
When you get to know about Tinderbox, you will learn it is not at all about the looks. I do agree with you, visually it is a letdown from the opening screen, but it is so powerful that you quickly forget about its looks.
I feel the same way. Sure there are some obvious aesthetic things that could be improved, but much of what could be considered ugly is actually an expression of information. Given that the project is basically being created by one individual, I’d rather see him focus on refining and expanding the core functions of the application, than retooling the interface in subjective appearance directions. Remember, what looked good 10 years ago looks “bad” today; mostly for reasons of aesthetic fad. Appearance refinement does not advance in the way that other technological achievement does. While there is a clear advancement in the way of say, chip design, there is no real advancement in fashion or widget design.
Now, all of that changes when it comes to creative application (for me, anyway). For an application to be effective at allowing my creativity to flourish, it must not be jarring or cluttered. I have long stated that Tb never suited me at all as a creative interface. As a tool to help my creative mind be free? Absolutely, but to actually be a canvas upon which I can write? Not so much. When it comes to visualising information, though, it is excellent at that; it can “say” so much immediately. So it is really a matter of focus. It is vital that an application like Scrivener can be a canvas.
And this is of course different for every person. I have heard of people writing novels in Tinderbox. More power to them.
Tinderbox is hard on the eyes, and challenging to the mind of a new user, but totally unique and invaluable once you “grok” it. I’ve used it since v1.0 and there are nooks and crannies I still don’t use or fully understand.
I’ve written dozens of articles, organized one commercial book, and tens of thousands of words on my professional blog, which is about to turn five years old, using Tinderbox. Clearly, I think it’s a great tool.
If you think you might enjoy the product, but aren’t quite sure, invest just a small amount and buy the book The Tinderbox Way. Read it, and you’ll know if the product is for you.
That said, the last few things I’ve written have been completed using Scrivener. I don’t see it as a Tinderbox competitor in any way, but its aesthetics are certainly quite enticing.
It’s not meant to be a competitor to Tinderbox any more than it’s meant as a competitor to Photoshop. 
I have to admit that I never quite “got” Tinderbox, but then again I never was much of a mindmapping person…
Best,
Keith
Incidentally, I’ve been considering buying this book, but holding off until I hear some feedback on it. In your opinion, is it worth the price for a reasonably advanced user?
Keith – That’s OK, I’m not a “mindmapper” either, but I understand that some people see Tinderbox as a tool for doing that. Perhaps someday I’ll try it. And of course, in regards to competition, just pointing out that trying to decide between Scrivener and Tinderbox is like trying to decide between eating breakfast and tying your shoe. 
Amber - I think there’s a lot of value in The Tinderbox Way, and if you’re anything like me, you’ll discover several “aha!” bits that make it worth the money. It’s also much more interesting to read than the TB documentation.
Now, Keith, when will The Scrivener Way be out?
The Scrivener Way cannot be out because it cannot be in - the Scrivener Way is everywhere. It is all around you.
Um.
Interesting that you say that you have never used TinderBox as a mindmapping tool - I guess I am missing a lot in that program. I agree with your analogy - the two programs do completely different things, and they can probably be used alongside depending on your workflow…
Best,
Keith
That’s an understatement! 
While I haven’t been able to “delve” into TB due to lack of unicode, I own it and have used it at times. For those who don’t understand what it can do (I don’t say “what it does” because it can do many things), or who feel it’s just like Stickies, or who aren’t sure about the difference between it and other outliners, I’d recommend taking a look at some of the screencasts they now have up on the Eastgate site…especially the ones about setting up a “diabetes tracker”; they show the basics of what TB is really capable of.
I do think that’s the BIG problem with Tinderbox: just what the hell IS it?
I am in a minority of users in that I “got” it pretty much straight away. There is one conceptual flaw (lack of semantic linking, for Tbx fans here) but otherwise I’d have to describe it as an almost limitlessly flexible thinking/writing environment. I’ve used it for three books & currently on the fourth, and for numerous other projects (a couple of academic papers, lecture notes, a stage play in progress etc etc), and I’d not want to be without it.
The downside is that the almost limitless flexibility comes at the price of almost limitless complexity. Out of the box it’s fine as a note-keeper, organiser and retrieval system, but to go beyond that you need to get under the hood. As for the price – it’s like saying “I drive a Volvo and the hell I’d pay $400,000 for a Cessna”… until you realize that a Cessna can actually fly. Then the cost/benefit equation changes somewhat…
For me, earning my living from words, $200 is a small price to pay (especially written down over three years) for something I use every day. I think we’ve got used to Really. Cheap. Software. Tinderbox costs me $0.25 a day. That’s cheap.
And, yes, I would have paid a lot more for Scriv
8)
The strange thing about typed links is that Tinderbox does allow you to create them, whether from note to target, or from text link to target. You can say, “This link means ‘supporting evidence.’” Then comes the oddness in that you can do very little with that information automatically. Sure you can manually browse it, but that is tedious. The latest release does include a template function that allows you to export link lists, filtered by type, which is getting there – but you still cannot say in an agent: Status=unverified & #linkedTo(supporting evidence), to find all notes that need to be fact checked, that also have been marked as being supporting evidence by some other item in the network.
You can somewhat work around this problem in certain scenarios, but it would be so much easier if agents reacted to the notion of whether or not a note is networked, and why. Hopefully that gets addressed in the coming year.
Agreed on the price. If you actually figure out how to pull back on the yoke and take off in Tb, the cost is a pittance for what it does.
I bought it and have yet to get too deep into the text. I’ve read a bit and am enjoying the book. I am definitely a Tinderbox newbie however.
Too many apps, too little time, I’m afraid.
Yes – I was surprised at the lack of that functionality. As you say, it can be kludged, sort of, but a simple “Show me all the “see also” links from this note” – a sort of Nakakoji view but useful – would do more than anything else to demonstrate to new users the power of Tbx. (That, and a live Road Map view, which Tbx users here will immediately grok.) I’ve been harrassing Mark Bernstein about this for years but without success, so far.
Perhaps Scrivener 3 will have something…
That analogy made me laugh out loud … I drive a Volvo, and I wish I could afford a Cessna, because I’m learning to fly one
And then when you figure out how to pull back on the yoke even further and stall and spin in, the cost is ruinous 
(From one who, playing with rules, replaced the text of an entire book draft with ten thousand notes saying “This is some note text blah blah yadda” and then, in a hideous reflex, hit Save.)