cue ‘godfather-like’ music. enter the dons of usability. raspy voices in unison, “you come to us on the day of our usability studies, aska usa fora favah…”
Category Archives: Uncategorized
oops. it would appear that some people at m$ [actually msn] aren’t happy about ie’s new “cookie-catcher” feature [and hey – it shouldn’t be hard to figure out who sent the anonymous letter. it’s that person at m$ who’s concerned about usability]:
“MSN and all the other Web properties in Microsoft are incredibly irate at the IE team for the cookie catcher feature. They claim they talked to MSN about the feature. Well, they did, *after* they had already implemented and coded it and Brad Chase and his team gave them an earful.
“What doesn’t come out in the Wired article is how obtrusively the third-party cookie notification feature is implemented. If you enable this feature (and right now it’s enabled by default), every time you hit a page with a banner that sets a third-party cookie, a warning dialog pops up. Every page. That’s not a behavior that anyone’s going to tolerate. And the all the Web sites will not be able to respond, even if they’re willing, quickly enough.
End result: users will turn off the feature.”
[anonymous m$ message via scripting news]
with the increasing popularity of peer-to-peer methods for decentralization it’s always nice to get a little critical thought on the what will happen if it really explodes in popularity:
“This giant selection of systems to choose from may be great for keeping out of work open source programers fed, but it will hurt the “information” being shared. One of the big features for any of these
networks is the ability to quickly find whatever content you’re looking for. When it was just Napster (and just mp3’s) you could fire up your client, search for Van_Morrison-Brown_Eyed_Girl and *boom* you’d find every type of file under the planet available, things are much cloudier.”“As more distributed filesharing systems are deployed, the value of all the systems will drop (there are various Laws of nature and the Internet to back up this kind of statement). Either Darwin (survival of the
best network) or standards will have to be the saviour. And winning via Darwinnian methods can be a painful process.”
it will be interesting to see if advogato’s peer rating system will survive the test that will come from salon’s recent story which, ironically, talks up the merits of the reviewing system:
“It is both a community hangout where hackers cluster, jotting down daily tidbits of info in publicly accessible diaries, and a forum for discussion, like Slashdot. There’s also an extra twist: On Slashdot, readers can rate the value of posts as part of a not-always-perfect filtering mechanism. But at Advogato, people rate one another.”
“What’s revolutionary about Advogato’s model is that like the Net itself — and unlike VeriSign’s top-down bureaucracy — it’s self-organizing, self-repairing and therefore hard to corrupt or otherwise compromise. “In all previous systems, once you get a certain number of wrong certificates, the whole thing falls apart,” says Levien. In Advogato, at least in theory, the system should continue to function even if abuse is widespread.”
some see trouble ahead. i think it’s appropriate to recall the powerful forces at work over the natural life cycle of mailing lists :
“1.Initial enthusiasm (people introduce themselves, and gush a lot about how wonderful it is to find kindred souls).
2.Evangelism (people moan about how few folks are posting to the list, and brainstorm recruitment strategies).
3.Growth (more and more people join, more and more lengthy threads develop, occasional off-topic threads pop up).
4.Community (lots of threads, some more relevant than others; lots of information and advice is exchanged; experts help other experts as well as less experienced colleagues; friendships develop; people tease each other; newcomers are welcomed with generosity and patience; everyone — newbie
and expert alike — feels comfortable asking questions, suggesting answers, and sharing opinions).
5.Discomfort with diversity (the number of messages increases dramatically; not every thread is fascinating to every reader; people start complaining about the signal-to-noise ratio; person 1 threatens to quit if *other* people don’t limit discussion to person 1’s pet topic; person 2 agrees with person 1; person 3 tells 1 & 2 to lighten up; more bandwidth is wasted complaining about off-topic threads than is used for the threads themselves; everyone gets annoyed).
6.Finally:1.Smug complacency and stagnation (the purists flame everyone who asks an ‘old’ question or responds with humor to a serious post; newbies are rebuffed; traffic drops to a doze-producing level of a few minor issues; all interesting discussions happen by private email and are limited to a few participants; the purists spend lots of time self-righteously congratulating each other on keeping off-topic threads off the list).
OR 2.Maturity (a few people quit in a huff; the rest of the participants stay near stage 4, with stage 5 popping up briefly every few weeks; many people wear out their second or third ‘delete’ key, but the list lives contentedly ever after).”
can advogato defy the natural order the virtual?
o.k. so i’m just getting around to unloading taylor’s extensive monologue on the content management bit that i snarkily blogged awhile ago [yes, i’m barely keeping my head above water on this whole blogging thing – i do have a dayjob you know]. i make snarky comments while taylor actually makes the effort to say something meaningful [indicative of why i apparently have one faithful reader]:
“My real feelings is that content management is going to be the basis for all future operating systems. We have too much information stuff, and we want all of our personal information sphere to interoperate will our environment. We need something to manage all this. And we need it to work in a way that doesn’t require a call to an engineer to make changes. ”
psssst. taylor also links to a discussion on content management systems that you might find interesting:
“The basic message to that article is that you’ll be better off writing a custom Content Management System for your company than you will be if you use one from a vendor like Vignette. Those tools (pre-packaged CMS’s) require so much customization that you end up writing most of a CMS anyway, they claim.
What I think the author misses is that it’s a lot of work to write the underside of a CMS. Sure, Vignette’s system has a lousy reputation among those who actually use it, mainly because their workflow system sucks… but what so many companies will find is that it’s an awesome amount of work to try to develop the services that Vignette provides in your own in-house product… and then you have to try to support it. If IT staffs were static, that would be fine, but they’re not.”
i really need to update the ‘rhetoric’ box. respect, schrespect. i like to see wholesale dismissal of the customer. i mean, c’mon, it’s not the technology’s fault. it’s that stupid freakin’ guy that’s buying the stuff:
“”To say that all people are giving their permission for Scour to do this is wrong,” said Bruce Forest, director of new-media projects for Viant Inc., an Internet services firm. “The average lug can’t configure a VCR, let alone a secure Internet connection.””
i understand the point that bruce is trying to make, but it would seem that the blame game should be directed at the obfuscation perpetuated by the technology providers – not the ‘average lug’.