disconnection
Several people (cam and brig , to name
two) are pointing to the latest
DaveNet. I’m not sure I get Dave’s vision. He riffs on user
interface design, and how it’s hard. I can’t argue with that. He then
talks about making the user interface for web site writing
easier. That’s where my disconnect comes in; ‘Easier for who?’, I
wonder. I can imagine two distinct situations: sites with one or two
people doing everything, and sites with a team (or teams) of people
handling separate tasks: text, images, layout, serving. The tool he
describes might help the small site some, but the time savings isn’t
going to be all that large, and if you can get a site off the ground
by yourself, and then keep it up, figuring out how to FTP files is
just not an issue. This isn’t bad interface design; FTP uploads and
keeping a site sync’d with a local copy aren’t hard to figure out,
just boring.
Maybe the product is targeted at large team-produced web sites. A tool
to help get non-technical writers into the web world. I can’t see this
either. In my experience, as soon as a team gets formed to do
something, the PHBs want to check the text before it goes live. The
situation Dave describes, of seeing a problem, fixing it, and
re-publishing the page won’t happen with a team-driven site, because
the text is going to be extensively rev’ed before it hits the
server. Once there, it’s not changing, and the PHBs aren’t going to
like the idea of writers being able to arbitrarily tweak the text. So,
the writer is going to write a draft, circulate it, make changes, and
mail it to a server person. The server person checks it over, maybe
grooms it with some Perl she wrote (because she’s the real geek in the
bunch), and then puts it on the server. The geeks aren’t going to want
the writers anywhere near the server either, because (1) the geeks see
the writers as clueless luser bumblers who break things and (2) if the
writers can do all the posting themselves, the geeks are out of a job.
It seems like this is a tool that small site owners might appreciate,
but don’t really need, and one that large site teams might need, but
won’t appreciate. That’s a tough row to hoe for anyone. Dave’s got the
personality to be a good salesman, but the ‘you need to discard your
existing tools’ approach isn’t going to win him any points. (Remember,
only Microsoft can get away with acting with Microsoft.) People get
emotional about tools, and they aren’t too thrilled with
change. Instead of gutting the File menu and replacing it, why not
add a Page menu, or a Web menu? Give me new options, but not by
taking old ones away.
P.S. Hate hate hate the InterCapped.Com style of domain names.
lying down with dogs Nice little article on p1990524.html”
the effects of industry sponsorship on academic
research. Remember, boys and girls, the point of being an
academic scientist is to ask questions and get
answers, to figure out how stuff works. Prestige,
fame, and money can be found more easily in other places. Signing
non-disclosure agreements or secrecy pacts to get research funds is a
Bad Idea.
dread Short update today. Had to go to bed early last night,
because I have to go to the dentist this morning. Growing up, I had
the Dentist from Hell. Consequently, I’ve got an absolutely
unreasoning fear of dental checkups. Thinking about it, my heart
speeds up, my palms begin to sweat, and I start to look for the
exit. Not good. This also means the continuing slow-as-a-Mac-SE
content update isn’t continuing, at least for today. Still haven’t
heard from the genpage author,
either.