Categories
Random

On shopping with MacUser…

This is the second time it’s happened and it’s as weird as the first. On the bus this morning I was reading the latest issue of MacUser (nice magazine redesign, shame about the old-style Mac typeface in the logo) when I find myself reading about myself.

Back in the real world, Tom Coates has been blogging from his trip to Los Angeles, lamenting the lure of the Apple Store and that all-so-familiar dilemma of need versus want. “The shoes that I needed to replace last year at ETCon are still firmly on my feet. And I have no new clothes of any sort. I do, however, have an enormous pile of stuff from the AppleStore and a desperate salivating urge to go back and blow another £200 on a new iPod. I only wish I could claim to be surprised by this turn of events.

Weird. In case anyone is interested, I did not buy an iPod after all, although I kind of wish I had. I bought an iSight, which I can recommend whole-heartedly, some Apple earbuds that sucked ass with such commensurate skill that they should set themselves up with a business catering to the needs of Hollywood celebrities, and some rather useful and not-available-here Apple-oriented screen-wipes. Since my return I have bought myself shoes by the same company as my last pair (I’m not a great shoes man) and basically the same green as my last pair went after a couple of years. So in the end, everything worked out OK, I guess…

Categories
Random

On the "Air Ministry"…

There are many organisations in my working life that I have decided – retroactively – to refer to as the Air Ministry:

“You can have any combination of features the Air Ministry desires, so long as you do not also require that the resulting airplane fly,” said Willy Messerschmidt, preeminent World War II German aircraft designer.
[From The Humane Interface]

Categories
Net Culture Politics

On a difference between wonks and geeks…

Here’s a suggested difference between geeks and policy wonks that might go some distance towards making the two groups get on with one another better. It is my contention that the two groups simply have radically different registers and types of interaction. Policy wonks – like all politically oriented people – are encouraged to think in terms of combative point-making. The most respected and well-thought through acts of Parliament being those that have been fought over the most. The most convincing politicians are the ones who have solid positions that they can stick with and defend. Political life is a combative life, with positions being tested and retested before they’re taken out into the world. In terms of doing things you want to know that the thing you’re going to do is the right thing before you get too far down the line, particularly when the consequences of getting things wrong are so potentially enormous.

The life of the creative geek community is very different. The atmosphere of an event like ETCon is not one of absolutist positions (or at least it is on occasion but it’s mostly frowned upon), but of gradual accretion, iteration and development. Particularly (but not exclusively) in those realms where development requires time but not a lot of capital investment, ideas are thrown out into the world to see if they’ll stand or fall. Those that succeed are iterated upon. Those that fail are either abandoned or taken further by other groups who will try to solve the errors and mistakes that surround them. In terms of making things, each new idea is expected to be flawed and clumsy and full of holes and everyone knows it and works from that point onwards. It’s the model of the technologist community as competitive craftspeople, and it operates on the assumption that whether something will be successful or unsuccessful / useful or useless is something that must be left up to how people interact with it and its take-up with a community. You make it the best you can, in the way you think is right, and let the world decide if you got it right…

I think this is the distinction that explains why there are so many disagreements between the groups. One group looks for immediate application where there may be only potential. One group sees possibility where there is no immediate practical benefit. And in talking to each group, you have to use a different register. There’s no point talking RDF to policy wonks, because they’ll see no application until you can show them something made with RDF that they consider actually politically useful. And there’s no point telling technologists that their creations are politically naive, because they’ll consider them works in progress, building from a position of naivety towards – in time – something legitimately useful and ground-breaking.

It’s a difficult job – understanding which register to use in which circumstance – but it’s an important one for those people who have to straddle disciplines. Because one way or another they’re going to have to work with geeks or wonks who will by necessity have a very different mind-set. Being aware of the distinction will not only create the possibility of legitimate discussion (and minimise the possibility of large cross-disciplinary enmities) but also inspire actual creativity to emerge between the disciplines…

Categories
Random

The problems of visualising social networks…

From a pithy and somehow true post by Stewart Butterfield on the problems of creating visualisations of social networks:

Artist/curator friend Mark Soo did a piece for one of the Infest openings where he visualized the curators’ social network using balloons with people’s names printed on them as the nodes and ribbons tying them together as the edges (the data comes from “invites” he got the curators to send to one another). This was a great, inviting, tactile “graph manipulaton interface”. But the reason I liked it so much was that it really brought out the problems of social networks visualizations as a way of learning about the networks being visualized: too confusing!

He also cites a few examples of some of the attempts to visualise them – the problems should become self-evident:

Two things immediately occur to me – firstly how do we as humans make sense of this data in our everyday lives (because we’re incorporating at least some of it into our mental models, surely, and understanding that would make it easier for us to enhance those models rather than creating new ones that create nothing but cognitive overload), and secondly What would Tufte do?.

Categories
Technology

What is the future of typing in public?

ETCon is a conference like no other. This is not because of the quality of the speakers but because of the type of audience it gets and the culture that has self-generated around it. One of the most notable features of the ETCon culture is in the near-permanent and overt use of the laptop during sessions. It is not an exaggeration to say that half the people in the auditoria will have a computer open during a keynote. It’s not an exaggeration to say that a significant proportion of those people will be multi-tasking enormously – finding a massive variety of ways of interacting with each other around the main topic of discussion.

There will be an IRC channel – co-occupied by (1) the kind of attendees who can’t work at home without having fifty windows open on their computer, the TV on with the sound off and loud trance music pounding into their frontal lobes and (2) those poor unfortunate long-distance virtual hecklers who couldn’t get out of work or couldn’t afford to participate in person who spend half their time trying to work out what’s going on and the other half of their time trying to get someone to ask questions on their behalf.

There will be the SubEthaEdit gang (a group I fear I belong to), whose mission will be to attempt to get the clearest transcription of the event in question and who may or may not require the discipline of writing to help them keep everything in their heads. There are a variety of sub-types of SubEthaEditors, including the blind transcribers, the commenters and the newbies. This year I fell into the role of blind transcriber, by dint of being able to type faster than most people. I hoped that other people would amend the notes around the place, and fix any errors I created, but – on the whole – SubEthaEdit this year for me became more of a broadcast experience.

Then there are the people who are surfing the net, or posting direct to their weblogs, or throwing files between each other over iChat or AIM or who are playing with the subject of the talk in question (cf. Ludicorp’s piece on Flickr, are actually trying to finish off their own papers or (as I often think might be the case with Cory Doctorow) paying their bills, organising their next speaking gig and knocking out a draft of their latest novel.

All in all then, the experience of ETCon is of a place in which a hell of a lot of people do a hell of a lot of typing.

At ETCon this year, Cory Doctorow did a piece on e-books that I’ve talked about before. His argument is that e-books can’t compete with paper at what paper does best. The DRM’d versions of novels that only allow you to read in a linear fashion – well these aspire to be ‘proper’ books, but they can’t hope to reach that level because of the absence of viscera. E-books simply aren’t attractive, engaging, smelly, textural or beautiful objects. This kind of e-book may be portable, but you still can’t take it into the bath with you.

But why should e-books be operating only at the level of what paper does best? Why shouldn’t they concentrate more on what they can add to the experience. If you give out a plain text version of your novel, then so much more becomes possible that wasn’t before – grepping / cutting / selective printing / copy & pasting / running simple scripts against / reading in any platform in any place and at any time / distributing and redistributing. If viewed in this perspective, then the gestalt of the paper book and the e-book is enormously potent. And if you take away the e-book, then the paper book might seem – well, broken.

At ETCon, that’s how those of us who are continually backchannelling think the experience of the conference for those without backchannel wifi-enabled social access to the concurrently written-into-existence e-conference must be. Those people who don’t engage in the larger conference are having a truncated experience of the event. It’s as if they’d decided to walk into a paper with a blindfold on.

I say all of this because I’m aware how odd it can sound. Since my return to the UK I’ve been to two events – one was ConCon, and there simply weren’t enough power-points to allow people to be engaged in any signicant degree of back-channelling. But then the papers were summaries, they were truncations, densely-packed contextualisers that served little purpose other than to inspire questions. ConCon was of a scale where the size and social dynamics of the group meant that back-channelling was simply less necessary. And even here typing went on here and there, unremarked upon, normal.

The other event I’ve attended was the AIGA UK event at the Design Council where representatives of the BBC spoke. And there a very different dynamic was in place. I was pretty much the only person in the room with an open laptop – trying to take very sparse and occasional notes (given the paucity of power-supplies) – and it became very clear to me very quickly that in a room of roughly 100/150 people, the muffled noise of my very occasional typing was considered to be rude and intrusive. The assumption was that I was doing stuff that was not related to the event concerned, that I was demonstrably not engaging with what was going on and that the open laptop was a direct affront to the spirit of the event. And in the meantime, I wanted to follow up some of the points online, I wanted to explore the issues more fully, I found myself passing my laptop to a neighbour so that he could see what I was thinking about. Much like a book without an e-book, the event seemed a little broken without a backchannel, without wifi. And I seemed to be the only one who noticed.

A couple of years ago I wouldn’t have been surprised by this attitude, but after two ETCons it seems vaguely archaic – particularly when surrounded by an apparent fraternity of highly web-literate Londoners. But it’s not limited to London – Stewart reports going to Infest in Vancouver and discovering an environment in which large numbers of geeks go to a conference and feel absolutely no need to backchannel, no need to have their laptops open, no need to note-take or collaborate or discuss in parallel.

So I wonder to myself which way are we moving. Are we moving more towards a ubiquitous computing presence where laptop note-taking at events and back-channelling are more common than now, where it breaks out of the individual contexts of ETCon and spreads more widely into other geek conferences, discussion-based events or even into work or conversational meetings. Or is this kind of overt back-channelling going to remain the provenance of a very particular clump of conference cultures – perhaps only percolating elsewhere in a more backgrounded, perpetual but less overtly lean-forward kind of way.

In essence what I’m asking is: What is the future of typing in public?

Categories
Random

Festering in my head…

The secret of successful weblogging is – it seems – never to pause for a moment. Never let the fact that you’re kind of not in the mood for a few days to stop you putting some old crap up on your site. Because the longer you leave it, the more pressure there is to make your return worthwhile, valuable, interesting. I am currently backlogged with about three weeks worth of things I feel I need to say – mostly about ETCon, but also about online communities, social software, ConCon and politics – but I know now that I’ll never manage to get most of it out onto the page. Had I not been so self-indulgent about making it perfect, then anything useful I had to say would actually be out there doing some limited good rather than festering in my head. It’s all terribly frustrating.

Categories
Personal Publishing

On DowningStreetSays.com…

So here’s a useful and interesting application of weblog-style publishing using Movable Type: downingstreetsays.org – yet again demonstrating how useful it is to have a relatively standard format for publishing date-organised sites. The site contains transcripts of the daily briefings that Downing Street give to journalists – in itself profoundly useful – but also opens them up for further debate around webloggia by giving them a fixed reliable and stable URL, having built-in comments and even building in trackbacks.

So far – apart from the beautiful and conceptually appropriate logo – the design is pretty sparse. But it’s also highly functional – in fact the only UI/IA/interface things I can see that I’m not totally convinced about are the URLs and the implementation of trackback – both of which look like MT defaults. The URL structure at the moment uses basic MT post-numbers (rather than title or date) as the basis for the file name, which works relatively well if nothing goes wrong, but don’t work terribly brilliantly if you’re forced to reimport entries at a later date. If that happens, you end up having to purge your MT installation’s database completely, as otherwise it’ll number all the reimported posts sequentially up from the last post added (ie. post one of 300 ends up being reimported as entry 301, with a URL to match). There are any number of articles on sorting out MT URL structures so I won’t go into any more detail at this pointl.

My issue with the implementation of Trackbacks is – I think – more rooted in aesthetics than usability. I’m probably alone in thinking that having a separate page for the Trackbacks is an error and that the URL to ping to shouldn’t be made visible (but instead reached only via autodiscovery). Personally I consider the overt description of Trackback jargony and confusing, a bit of usability no-no and basically unnecessary, but (from what I see on other people’s sites) I may be alone in believing that. Again, I don’t think I need to go too far into my reasons in this post. I’ve written a lot about this stuff before: A microcampaign to turn on autodiscovery).

Otherwise, I have to confess that I think this is a bit of a first-stage triumph for the mysociety crew and is exactly the kind of thing they should be doing – simple, clear sites using mostly off-the-shelf technology to do valuable and constructive things that add to the value and utility of the web (particularly with regard to public service matters) but which probably wouldn’t be natural projects for individuals in their bedrooms. Well done to all involved.

Categories
Random

On Creative Commons and attribution online…

Imagine a circumstance where someone was building a weblog aggregator like Haddock Blogs, but imagine for a moment that they were doing it with the full text of other people’s weblog entries, sectionalised by theme and with the name of the writers put by them (like a byline), but without any link back to the site where they originated. You might have to look pretty close to realise that the posts didn’t originate on the aggregator site in the first place. That would seem, well, wrong to me – like a kind of passing off. But as far as I can tell, there isn’t a single Creative Commons license that wouldn’t allow someone to do that with your work if they wanted to perfectly legally. There’s something weird there about the nature of attribution on the web, I think, that maybe doesn’t sit too well with the concept of attribution named in the Creative Commons licenses. Naming an author isn’t enough to attribute online, you should be making a connection with them…

Categories
Random

A few beautiful images…

A few beautiful images from daily dose of imagery:

Categories
Random

My visited countries…

I’ve visited seventeen countries so far (I’m sure I’ve left some out), and if I could remember the names of the places I went to in America I’d do the dedicated map for that too. But I can’t. Why not play too: Create your own visited country map.