I totally get where you're coming from, maybe I could have worded the title differently. In contexts such as publishing scientific papers and journals, patience and attention to detail are really important.
There are however many other contexts where I would argue speed and a simple UX makes a big difference.
* Notes that need to be taken on the fly: class notes, lab notes, field observations, general notes
* Prototyping, brainstorming, ideation sessions, especially collaborative ones
* Drafting outlines
* Creating presentations on work you've already completed
* Doing schoolwork, such as assignments or lab reports
* Creating teaching material on content material you're a subject matter expert in
That's a few examples but there are plenty more. The goal isn't to rush the scientific process. The goal is to have a tool that doesn't get in your way and enables speed-of-thought writing for science. This can be helpful in many ways, especially for students, but also for scientists.
I think you are very right. I have been missing a "simple" UI for digital scientific notes and your project looks great. Less for documentation or papers maybe, more as a tool of thought or impromptu communication. Or both, who knows.
During my Master's or PhD I would have agreed with the "slow science" sentiments here. These days I want to get things done and work with collaborators.
While the concept of slow work has merit, the ideas in this manifesto are deeply flawed and lack nuance. Also the application of this manifesto to the tool above is similarly flawed.
The tool helps save time in non thinking work e.g faster representation of information.
Slow works happens after the representation of notes. Rarely during the creation of notes, creation of notes being the goal of this Stempad.
The original idea of this notebook is a new system which can reduces bad time usage e.g. writing A x A x A x A x A. becomes A^5
The tool allows representation of ideas quicker. This means there's more time for important work, more time for slow work mentioned in the last paragraph of that manifesto.
Points in regards to the flaws of this manifesto:
To use the same framework of the initial statement to show flaws in thinking:
>We are scientists. We don't blog. We don't twitter. We take our time.
We are experts. We don't reflect online. We don't communicate online. We take our time.
If the quote said:
We are scientists. We protect our time to focus on important work. We choose to not engage in shallow discourse. And value depth over speed even at the cost of time. We believe speed for speed's sake comes at a cost.
Then there is a leg to stand upon to protect "slow work".
>Slow science was pretty much the only science conceivable for hundreds of years; today, we argue, it deserves revival and needs protection. Society should give scientists the time they need, but more importantly, scientists must _take_ their time.
Slow science is not defined in any way, and so prevents discussion and debate.
Something being the only conceivable option does not mean it was the best option. Nor does the time span it existed give the process extra value. For millennia humans used 2 legs for our primary mode of transport.
There is no movement to protect the usage of slow transport -
"Walking was pretty much the only transported conceivable for hundreds of years; today, we argue, it deserves revival and needs protection. Society should give humans time to walk to destinations, but more importantly, humans must take their time"
I agree science does need time to think, explore and discuss, but it does not need time to express ideas using AxAxAxAxA when tools such as Stempad exist to write A^5.
It is good that the actual scientists aren’t going to do this task.
It is a shame that we’ve more or less given up on the idea of having science communicators to do that job.
IMO when journalism ended the worst side-effect was that people who would be otherwise employed actually doing things have had to start blogging about the fact that they were doing them, instead of actually doing them.
There are however many other contexts where I would argue speed and a simple UX makes a big difference.
* Notes that need to be taken on the fly: class notes, lab notes, field observations, general notes
* Prototyping, brainstorming, ideation sessions, especially collaborative ones
* Drafting outlines
* Creating presentations on work you've already completed
* Doing schoolwork, such as assignments or lab reports
* Creating teaching material on content material you're a subject matter expert in
That's a few examples but there are plenty more. The goal isn't to rush the scientific process. The goal is to have a tool that doesn't get in your way and enables speed-of-thought writing for science. This can be helpful in many ways, especially for students, but also for scientists.