I'd just like to say that this is a great discussion now - better than all
tht spam stuff <g>.
Tom Neff said:
>There are many refinements possible in flexible topic management, filtering,
>supertopics, subtopics, etc, IF you assume that the end user has access to a
>Web based control interface for his or her "profile" on your list. The Web
>is great that way - the feature set would be limited only by your
>programming imagination - and I hope to see more examples of this approach.
>The dialectic Ivan and Chuq bring up - "Better tools!" vs "Better user
>behavior!" - has been around since the beginning, and will probably always
>be around. But it may be that, 10-15 years after the inception of the
>e-list, we're ready for a new take on things. Using the Web for purely
>optional control of a list that still gets delivered (in some form per user)
>via traditional email: this is probably an idea whose time has come.
I think this is about right. I don't take the tools v. user behaviour
route. I know from experience that better tools beget better user
behaviour. I'm amazed how often I hear that if only these users would get
their act together and write a bit of Perl, they could solve all their own
problems in short order! Most users don't have a clue. I've been running
and using email lists for about ten years now, and I still don't really
have a handle on how to control the buggers. That's why I like eGroups,
whatever others say. It is just so simple.
But, that is the management end. I am as if not more interested in the user
end. I think people get burned by lists, they get on them one way or
another, then they can't work out how to get off them. They blunder around,
get shouted at, hate the trafic overload, don't understand what they did
and stop joining lists. And then the Internet loses, because a classic
input route is stifled. I mean, Web sites aren't on the whole communicative
in both directions.
>Requiring the Web, plus Java, flash, etc, for ALL aspects, including reading
>messages and the rest of it, is something I'd resist.
I agree, can't see the use of it.
Basicallly, I am interested in a next generation of technology that may
allow us to operate a bit more as we do in the 'real' world. The other day
I wrote that I didn't like 'real world' analogies, and then used one in the
next sentence! But, in the world we operate with a huge range of sensors
turned on. We are very, very good at reading the signs and understanding
how to manage the noise around us and get value from it. Most of this is
intuitive, we don't see ourselves doing it, it just happens. If you stop
and think about how you act in any social or public scenario, it can be a
bit more obvious. We filter and moderate and choose and send out signals
and censor and mishear etc etc, all to allow us to survive. We probably
evolved these functions a long way back.
However, we haven't had that evolution on the Internet, so we are still in
basic cave person mode - talk/don't talk.
I want to move beyond that point!
Thanks,
Ivan
