Re: [DDN] Conferencing Discussion
Suggestion to Stephen Snow: If one wants to think about improving email, one would get little help by thinking about how it resembles and is different from snail mail. Despite the mail designation, and the fact that both genres involve messages , at this point in time there is little that one form can learn from the other. And the desire to create a hybrid form--call it blended mail, combining the strengths email and post office mail--is that really worth trying to accomplish ?. Unless the analogy I am suggesting is misleading--and you may decide that is so--I'm suggesting that one can't improve face-to-face conferences by studying virtual conferences, and vice-versa. And like blended learning, which purports to combine the benefits of classroom learning with those of online learning, the hybrid may end up canceling the virtues of the two disparate and irreconcilable media. (The classroom component cancels the ability of distance learning to serve students unable to get to the classroomn; and the distance learning component negates the impact of face-to-face communication.) This is NOT to say that one can't print out an email and snail mail it to a relative without a computer. Or that one can't put a camera on face-to-face presentations and make those presentations available online. Hybridizing, however--trying to combine the virtues of two locales, two setting, two environments, two media--may not be the best way to improve each. We may end up combining the weaknesses of two powerful but distinct forms. Steve Eskow [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 10:34 AM Subject: Re: [DDN] Conferencing Discussion In a message dated 2/4/05 12:53:49 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am wondering perhaps if there are better ways to begin thinking about designing F2F conferences so they capitalize more on their greater strengths and the ways they are differentiated from the virtual ones. Both appeoaches have their place, even for the same information!, so I am wondering what people think about that, how F2F might be designed differently and how virtual might be designed differently, also. I spend a lot of time in both sets of conferences. There are ways to make FTF better, there are many constructs for those. I spend lately, time trying to access online conferences. I do like not having to wrap myself in a silver plane and spend all kinds of money for hotels, the conference fee, and other expenses... But people forget that the spontaneity, the interaction in a real conference do have some value. I have been trying to access the conference in Baltimore, but sometimes depending on how the on line is constructed it can be deadly boring , the level of interactivity is bad, and the project is more designed for the people at the real conference. There are ways of involving outside audience. PopTech and other conferences do this.. and one more thing. If you are at a real ftf people can't invade your space as they can when you are at home. The advantage to the online is the lack of expense and, the ease of being connected . Its just that it is an evolving art and lots of people have not spent many hours looking at a tiny window and understanding the possibilities that would make it more interesting and interactive. John Hibbs has some ways of combining both. The disadvantage of ftf is the integrity, and the reality of the conference.. that is hard to judge sometimes and when you get there, well, you are stuck. but the networking might still work well... usually. Just some thoughts.. my ideas.. Bonnie Bracey bbracey at aol com ___ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list DIGITALDIVIDE@mailman.edc.org http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message. ___ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list DIGITALDIVIDE@mailman.edc.org http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message.
Re: [DDN] Yale Global Flow of Information Conference - Apr. 1-3, 2005
Steve Eskow wrote: Steve Eskow wrote: The listserv is a mode of dialog that fits the genius of the online environment, and thus there are thousands of them, and they will continue to flourish and multiply. and Taran Rampersad replied: Listservs are self limiting because in propagation, they split the attention of people. If all listservs are equal - and they are not, because our judgement brings weight which makes them unequal - and a person subscribes to one listserv, then they spend their time 'there'. Introduce another listserv, the attention would be split 2 ways. 3 listservs, 3 ways. And so on. theregy illustrating the genius of the listserv and its natural fit with this online medium:: the easy, unforced flow of dialog over time, with folks like me choosing to enter into a discussion, or not, and folks like Taran choosing to engage with me, or not. I hope, Taran, we can avoid talking past each other. :-) I was not comparing listservs to other forms of communication that emerge from the grain of this online medium, like content management systems or Wikis. I could as well have used these last two to make my point, which was and is that all three are designed to fit this medium, while the conference is an import from the face-to-face world, an alien format that is uncomfortable online, no matter how it is tweaked. Taran, you talk of self limiting. All form are self-limiting. When I spend my time traveling to a conference, and attending that conference, travel and attendance limit me to that one event. More than that: if there are ten break-out sessions scheduled from 9am, to 11, I am self-limited to one session and missing nine: no, the time-space structure of the conference limits me to one of ten sessions. Why imitate that form online, and repeat that same limitation, when online all ten sessions can be so organized that I can attend all of them?. Exactly. But you see, people are slow to adopt things. This is why we're using listservs for most of the communication here on the DDN, because many are simply not comfortable unless they can use Microsoft Outlook to inform us when they are out of town (perhaps so that someone can burglarize them and they can make insurance claims? I do not know). Perhaps on a busy day, such as when you sent this, I would not respond because I'm up to my neck in other listservs. There are forms which are not as self limiting. As you say, all forms are self limiting - but the degree to which they are self limiting varies. For broad communication with large groups, websites are less self limiting - and are decreasing even further over time. Email hasn't really changed in the last 10 years that much... however, website technology has changed quite a bit, and has shown itself to be more adaptive to the demands we place on this medium. It even uses email as a tool at times. The online medium needs designs that don't begin by limiting themselves to mimicking a face-to-face form. A face to face form like the conference. I don't necessarily agree with this. We must not forget our roots either. Man is a social creature, and as such the senses play an important part. Face to face conferences are social gatherings - maybe some things are discussed, maybe not. But they are social gatherings, in the hopes of attaining some purpose that the attendees wish to achieve. How odd for me to defend face to face conferences - and yet, if web conferences incorporate audio and video, what is missing from the conference? Proximity? The ability to have dinner or drinks with each other? I do not ask that to be flippant, and it is not rhetoric - I don't think anyone knows the answer, and in a way we're being forced to answer that very question. Oddly enough, both the Cathedral and Bazaar deal a lot with social gathering. Bonfires or grand events about Linux... even voting. I wonder how much voting would change if candidates took part in web conferences instead of broadcasting and only answering questions that the speechwriters and strategists want answered. As a sidenote, here's an interesting thing to look at for US politics and bandwidth: http://www.longdarkteatime.com/2005/01/broadband-democracy.html In the end, we have to do things which increase participation on the internet - which means that we have to adapt our use of it to this purpose. And that means that we need to adapt things which are less self limiting and more inclusive. Take for example this Yale conference - the discussion has been neglected by the organizers. This tells me that they aren't too serious about the Global Flow of Information, and it sends me a signal that there will be little discussion - instead, there will probably be the same dull monologues that we can get from anywhere. Therefore, I have come to take this conference as an aberration; they are not practicing what they preach. Drive by postings to mailing lists in the hope of advertising an event
Re: [DDN] Yale Global Flow of Information Conference - Apr. 1-3, 2005
Taran Rampersad writes But you see, people are slow to adopt things. Perhaps this is one of those enduring fictions, helped along as it is by Ev Rogers' taxonmy of early adopters and the like. The speed with which people all over the world are adopting the new technologies is astounding. The digital divide is caused more by poverty than by resistance to change. People are indeed reluctant to disrupt styles of work and play that offer them important satisfactions because an outsider--often a marketer of some new product--tries to convince them that if they throw out the baby as well as the bathwater they will be happier in the long run. This is why we're using listservs for most of the communication here on the DDN, because many are simply not comfortable unless they can use Microsoft Outlook to inform us when they are out of town (perhaps so that someone can burglarize them and they can make insurance claims? I do not know). Perhaps on a busy day, such as when you sent this, I would not respond because I'm up to my neck in other listservs. I am one of those who prefers to use Outlook and remain comfortable. (I don't quite get the point of the burglarize reference.) I don't choose to get uncomfortable unless there are important benefits --benefits that appeal to me--offered to me in exchange for my discomfort. I don't yet see the benefits--to me--in what you are proposing. There are forms which are not as self limiting. As you say, all forms are self limiting - but the degree to which they are self limiting varies. For broad communication with large groups, websites are less self limiting - and are decreasing even further over time. Email hasn't really changed in the last 10 years that much... however, website technology has changed quite a bit, and has shown itself to be more adaptive to the demands we place on this medium. It even uses email as a tool at times. The hand-held hammer is not more limited than the jackhammer or the piledriver: indeed, for certain purposes the more powerful tools are almost useless. I, for one, don't want to have use shortcuts or insert URLs into a brower to conduct email eschanges: I much prefer the speed and simplicity of the listserv. I may be fooling myself, but I don't believe that preference is because I resist change. Steve E said: The online medium needs designs that don't begin by limiting themselves to mimicking a face-to-face form. A face to face form like the conference. And Taran said: I don't necessarily agree with this. We must not forget our roots either. Man is a social creature, and as such the senses play an important part. Face to face conferences are social gatherings - maybe some things are discussed, maybe not. But they are social gatherings, in the hopes of attaining some purpose that the attendees wish to achieve. How odd for me to defend face to face conferences - and yet, if web conferences incorporate audio and video, what is missing from the conference? I think here we are indeed talking past each other. My point is that although we call both forms conferences, they really have little in common with each other. Better: they ought not to resemble each other, since they are using different technologies with different strengths and weaknesses. The fac-to-face conference ought to improve by understanding and exploiting the virtues of assembling people together what you are calling proximity. The online form ought to exploit the lack of proximity--the overcoming of time and space restrictions at the expense of proximity. When forms like email and listservs and newsgroups continue to flourish and multiply despite the appearance of better forms like web sites, perhaps the explanation is not the rather tired one of resistance to change, but the continuing strength and vitality of a form that is maintaining its usefulness. Steve Eskow [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list DIGITALDIVIDE@mailman.edc.org http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message.
Re: [DDN] Rebuilding my blog
Actually, I wasn't running mysql; it was a berkeley database and when my web host changed their software, my data bacame obsolete. Reloading backups didn't make a difference. :-( ac Taran Rampersad wrote: Looking good. I guess you don't back up your MySQL database yourself, but it's worth doing... it's really pretty simple. -- --- Andy Carvin Program Director EDC Center for Media Community acarvin @ edc . org http://www.digitaldivide.net http://www.tsunami-info.org Blog: http://www.andycarvin.com --- ___ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list DIGITALDIVIDE@mailman.edc.org http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message.
[DDN] Draft Concept Paper on a National All-Hazards Warning System for Sri Lanka
In response to the catastrophe of December 26th 2004, the World Dialogue on Regulation's Asian partner, LIRNEasia, is collaborating with the Vanguard Foundation to help better prepare Sri Lanka to face disasters that may come its way. Following an expert consultation on the topic, a draft paper, Specifications of a National All-Hazards Warning System for Sri Lanka, has been released for comment. The paper is based on international and local expertise and the input from an expert consultation held on January 26th, 2005. All comments received prior to February 19th will be taken into account in finalizing the report. It is intended that the final report will be handed over to the appropriate authorities in government on or around the 26th of February, 2005, two months to the day from Sri Lankas greatest calamity. http://www.regulateonline.org/content/view/294/31/ Best regards, Amy Mahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] LIRNE.net and World Dialogue on Regulation www.lirne.net www.regulateonline.org ___ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list DIGITALDIVIDE@mailman.edc.org http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message.
