I wish I could have said more, but I don’t exactly have an explanation for why paper zettelkasten is particularly good in my case. I suspect I got good habits from paper zettelkasten which I could now implement on digital versions, but which I wouldn’t have learned if I had started out implementing it digitally. In other words, the constraints of the paper version were good for me.
There are pros and cons to digital formats. Historically, I go back and forth. I agree that it’s worth seriously trying, but I also think paper is worth seriously trying.
Typing is somewhat faster than handwriting.
Editing is significantly better in digital.
Search is significantly better in most digital formats.
Many typewritten formats have limited access to math symbols or make them harder to use than on paper. Basically all typewritten formats, if you want to invent your own symbology freely.
I don’t know of a digital system which allows switching between written and drawn content as easily as one can do on paper. This should be possible with touchscreen laptops with high-quality stylus input, but I don’t know of software which makes it nice. (Maybe OneNote, but it lacks enough other features that it didn’t seem like a real option for me.)
Digital formats are greatly constrained by the features implemented on a given platform. I found myself spending a lot of time looking for the best apps, always getting a compromise between different feature sets I wanted.
I seem to be really picky about stylus input; most systems do not feel comfortable for regular use (including apple pencil).
Sometimes I just feel like writing on paper.
I definitely think digital formats are still worth using sometimes (for me). I think a lot of this depends on the particular person.
Many typewritten formats have limited access to math symbols
In case you don’t already know, you can use unicode to type things like ω₀ ≲ ∫ ±√(Δμ)↦✔·∂∇² and so on directly into a web browser text box, or into almost any other text entry form of any computer program: I made a tutorial here with details .
There’s a learning curve for sure, but I can now type my 10-20 favorite special characters & greek letters only slightly slower than typing normal text, or at least fast enough that I don’t lose my train of thought.
It’s obviously not a substitute for LaTeX or pen&paper, but I still find it very helpful for things like emails, python code, spreadsheets, etc., where LaTeX or pen&paper aren’t really options.
Nice, thanks! I knew that I could type a fair amount of unicode on the mac keyboard via the ‘alt’ key (for example, ¬ is alt+l), but this might be helpful for cases which aren’t covered by that.
I’m a little paranoid about whether unicode will render properly for other people, since I still occasionally find myself in situations where I’m unable to read unicode which others have sent me (eg when reading on certain phone apps).
Many typewritten formats have limited access to math symbols or make them harder to use than on paper. Basically all typewritten formats, if you want to invent your own symbology freely.
This is true, but if you take LaTeX to be a sufficiently close approximation to the ease of paper, then there are many software platforms that should suit you.
If Latex is the only constraint, then this is true. However, as you multiply requirements, the list of software grows shorter and shorter. In a lot of cases it is easier to modify a paper system to get what you want than it is to modify a software option (if it’s even open-source).
Roam and Dynalist are both good options for outlining tools with LaTeX support. Roam has wiki-style links as well (and other features inspired by Zettelkasten). Of course some (most?) wiki software supports LaTeX.
Seconded. This sort of thing is exactly what I meant when I asked what advantages this has over a wiki. If I wanted to do something like this, I’d use a wiki for sure!
For a similar reason I still take handwritten notes in conferences, I almost never review it but it helps me remember. The whole point of an archive system is to help me find notes when I need them ,so the extra overhead seems worth it.
[Deleted]
I wish I could have said more, but I don’t exactly have an explanation for why paper zettelkasten is particularly good in my case. I suspect I got good habits from paper zettelkasten which I could now implement on digital versions, but which I wouldn’t have learned if I had started out implementing it digitally. In other words, the constraints of the paper version were good for me.
There are pros and cons to digital formats. Historically, I go back and forth. I agree that it’s worth seriously trying, but I also think paper is worth seriously trying.
Typing is somewhat faster than handwriting.
Editing is significantly better in digital.
Search is significantly better in most digital formats.
Many typewritten formats have limited access to math symbols or make them harder to use than on paper. Basically all typewritten formats, if you want to invent your own symbology freely.
I don’t know of a digital system which allows switching between written and drawn content as easily as one can do on paper. This should be possible with touchscreen laptops with high-quality stylus input, but I don’t know of software which makes it nice. (Maybe OneNote, but it lacks enough other features that it didn’t seem like a real option for me.)
Digital formats are greatly constrained by the features implemented on a given platform. I found myself spending a lot of time looking for the best apps, always getting a compromise between different feature sets I wanted.
I seem to be really picky about stylus input; most systems do not feel comfortable for regular use (including apple pencil).
Sometimes I just feel like writing on paper.
I definitely think digital formats are still worth using sometimes (for me). I think a lot of this depends on the particular person.
In case you don’t already know, you can use unicode to type things like ω₀ ≲ ∫ ±√(Δμ)↦✔·∂∇² and so on directly into a web browser text box, or into almost any other text entry form of any computer program: I made a tutorial here with details .
There’s a learning curve for sure, but I can now type my 10-20 favorite special characters & greek letters only slightly slower than typing normal text, or at least fast enough that I don’t lose my train of thought.
It’s obviously not a substitute for LaTeX or pen&paper, but I still find it very helpful for things like emails, python code, spreadsheets, etc., where LaTeX or pen&paper aren’t really options.
Nice, thanks! I knew that I could type a fair amount of unicode on the mac keyboard via the ‘alt’ key (for example, ¬ is alt+l), but this might be helpful for cases which aren’t covered by that.
I’m a little paranoid about whether unicode will render properly for other people, since I still occasionally find myself in situations where I’m unable to read unicode which others have sent me (eg when reading on certain phone apps).
ClarisWorks did this (and, to a lesser extent, similar software, which unfortunately is increasingly rare these days).
We’re working on it with Roam.
Agree it’s a big deal
This is true, but if you take LaTeX to be a sufficiently close approximation to the ease of paper, then there are many software platforms that should suit you.
If Latex is the only constraint, then this is true. However, as you multiply requirements, the list of software grows shorter and shorter. In a lot of cases it is easier to modify a paper system to get what you want than it is to modify a software option (if it’s even open-source).
Roam and Dynalist are both good options for outlining tools with LaTeX support. Roam has wiki-style links as well (and other features inspired by Zettelkasten). Of course some (most?) wiki software supports LaTeX.
[Deleted]
Seconded. This sort of thing is exactly what I meant when I asked what advantages this has over a wiki. If I wanted to do something like this, I’d use a wiki for sure!
The link between handwriting and higher brain function has been studied a lot, it seems that at least for recall and memory writing things down by hand is very helpful, so it is likely that more neural connections are formed when using actual note cards. Just one random study: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/154193120905302218 (via https://whereisscihub.now.sh/ )
For a similar reason I still take handwritten notes in conferences, I almost never review it but it helps me remember. The whole point of an archive system is to help me find notes when I need them ,so the extra overhead seems worth it.