Yeah this this has gone from "must-read" to "rarely check" for me for the reasons being discussed.
Personally, I think that the public and google-indexed nature of the list leads to people trying to win arguments and not to friendly discussions between peers like other lists. -- Paul Nuschke Principal, Research & Strategy ELECTRONIC INK© www.electronicink.com On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 3:12 AM, dave malouf <dave....@gmail.com> wrote: > Jon, thanx for pointing out the guideline. Which implies that > enforcement is the issue, not the rule, eh? > > But before I read Jon's reminder, I had a slightly different thought > about this thread which permeates most of my thoughts around design at > the moment. Not everything works for everyone. There are VERY few > examples where a single precise product or version of a product is > good for everyone. There are very few markets that have single > brands, single product lines, single channels, etc. etc. > > The complaints that Dante made about Jared & Andrei in my mind don't > hold. That isn't to say that Dante isn't right for Dante, but I LOVE > Andrei's retorts on this list. I find them meaningful and they > constantly add to and push my own thinking time and time again. > Often, Jared's simple retorts demonstrate to me how clearly the > person he's responding to is incorrect and how I can use those clear > statements myself. (maybe with slightly less snark, but that is style, > not content). > > I also started thinking about the interaction dynamics of a > discussion list in all its forms. First, it is interesting how my > experience of the this forum has changed once I moved from email to > the RSS/Web hybrid approach to engaging with this community. In the > end, I still get everything individually but b/c it is not in the > perhaps more sacred space of my "email" it doesn't pull on the > attention that I really need to protect. I don't say this to > evangelize MY way of doing it, but to say that how we engage effects > how we perceive. > > The other part of this dynamic is the asynchronous nature of it all. > In the "heat of the moment" of a discussion there can be a flurry > of emails back and forth. For those participating it feels like it is > 1 instance, even though that single exchange can include a multitude > of messages. So for those that come later to the conversation it > feels well overwhelming. > > Then there is the other side of the asynchronous. I post something, > come back and see a slew of responses. Often I try to finish reading > them all and then respond at the end of the thread. But if I'm > writing and things come in and new points are raised that demonstrate > I have not been comprehensive enough in my previous reply I may reply > again. This dynamic is often what happens when someone has more than > 10 replies in a given topic on a single day. > > The issue is the maintenance of the hybrid dynamic of "post" and > "conversation". One of the things that has always set apart this > list from like CHI-WEB was that we did have conversation. That > implies a back & forth dialog which requires multiple postings. It is > in the dynamic of the dialog where I find the greatest value, where I > find I get my mind changed, where my own thinking is added to, where > I learn to crystalize my thoughts, etc. > > While I respect the reason why the plurality of voices is in there, I > do feel that anyone has really (in quite a long time) broken that > rule. > > In the recent threads re: principles and UCD, there have actually > been people speaking whom I have not seen contribute before. There is > new passionate energy mixing with the old guard. This to me is > valuable as well and sometimes it is important to let things breath > and see where they go. > > A little snark and a a few run-ons really don't hurt anyone and I > would feel like we would be missing a big opportunity if we did all > of sudden started enforcing too critically the guideline of plurality > of voices the way that Dante is suggesting. > > (BTW, I know, this is a long post, and I'm often someone who posts > over and over again on a single topic.) > > -- dave > > > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > Posted from the new ixda.org > http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=45693 > > > ________________________________________________________________ > Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! > To post to this list ....... disc...@ixda.org > Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe > List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines > List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help > ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
