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 ....... [email protected] Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
