|
|
| (66 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | [[Welcome]] to [[AboutUs]], Martin! I saw (and responded) to your note in the [[SuggestionBox]] as well, but I wanted to say hello here to make sure you got it. Your site is ready for cultivation and editing at [[IBESI.org]]. You can look on the [[Help]] pages for references, or you can ask us for help. You can always contact me on my user pages. We're glad to have you here! [[Drew]] | + | [[Inventing that Helps Tiny Businesses]] |
| | | | |
| − | == welcome! ==
| + | {{RightTOC}} |
| | | | |
| − | Martin,
| + | In general I am a student of “process”. I try to observe and understand what really makes things tick. This has relevance to transparency, democracy, and empowerment issues. Sometimes the most important things for the populace to know, are things that some relatively “few” people within the populace don’t want others to know. When students of process are observing and trying to understand your process, they risk being viewed as a pain in the neck – it’s not an activity where one should expect to get lots of “high fives”. |
| | | | |
| − | I saw what you wrote on the community portal page, even though you took it off. Very poetic! Let me know if I can help! [[User talk:TedErnst|TedErnst]]
| + | Some subjects that catch my interest are listed below: |
| − | : Martin, I'm responding to what you wrote on Drew's talk page. I'm afraid that the future you want is not yet here. I also want what you want. I want to be able to edit a page using the aboutus.org software and have that change show up at ibesi.org. That day is not yet here. What we have right now is a page ABOUT ibesi.org at aboutus.org/ibesi.org and that actual ibesi.org page at ibesi.org. Some others are working with this now, like http://intentionalnetworks.com. Click that link and see that it actually goes to teh [[IntentionalNetworks.com]] page. That's cool, but not exactly what you want. You want what we do not yet have the ability to do. I don't know when. Brandon knows better, I think. Hope this helps, at least with expectations. peace, [[User talk:TedErnst|TedErnst]]
| |
| − | Yes, I was guessing you had been talking with Brandon, as your desires match perfectly with what he talks about for the future, but we don't know when. He's been promising me to do a test for a few weeks now, but it hasn't happened yet. It will happen, just don't know when.
| |
| | | | |
| − | As for your questions about [[talk page etiquette]], we ought to start a page on that, to document. In most wikis, you simply reply to a comment wherever it was left. So if I asked you a question on your page, you'd answer it there. That makes sense, right? Well, for now, we're using MediaWiki here, the Wikipedia software, and at Wikipedia, they do it differently. I'm not sure exactly why, except that there's a different kind of notification when someone leaves a message on your talk page. Of course there's a software issue and a social issue. YOU are exactly the person to bring this up because those already here before you are already familiar with Mediawiki so don't notice how wrong (not understandable for a person inexperienced in these ways) this way of doing things is. By the way, did you know that a link that is red means the page it points to doesn't exist yet? So clicking on it is actually starting the new page. Hope this helps and look forward to more dialogue.
| + | == [[RiskSharingPassiveReturn]] == |
| | + | == [[IncomePilotProject]] == |
| | + | ==[[Topsoil]]== |
| | + | ==[[Process Transparency]]== |
| | + | ==[[RiskParticipation]]== |
| | + | ==[[BetterAutomation]]== |
| | | | |
| − | :: And unfortunately, if the url is really important and you want a community process, I don't think aboutus.org will meet your needs right now. peace, [[User talk:TedErnst|TedErnst]]
| + | Martin, word to the wise, give a link when sending a message asking someone to look at something, like this: [[IncomePilotProject]]. It's now on my watchlist. |
| | | | |
| − | Really helpful stuff Ted - much thanks!
| + | == consensus == |
| | | | |
| − | So as you tell me, I reply to you here, in my own talk section.
| + | We haven't actually started the [[WhoWeAre]] process yet. I think it was a mistake that someone invited every active member there. It's like inviting people to a pool party when the pool's not been dug yet. Conensus is work, that's for sure. All decision-making methods are work. The great thing about a wiki is we can sweep up after ourselves once we've made progress, and all that's left is the result, without the process weighing us down. I haven't actually been following the [[WhoWeAre]] page itself yet, because we haven't started the consensus poll. I've been working on [[Projects:WhoWeAre]]. I know you've been reading that too. It's been frustrating for me to see all the round and round in circles without any clear proposals. I've been working with folks to see if we could get clear. How do you like the 3 stage idea I posted? [[User:TedErnst|TedErnst]] |
| | + | ------- |
| | + | "OPPS we made a mistake. There are people at the WhoWeAre page that assume the consensus poll process is already underway (Ted, I myself had this impression). In contrast there are some folks still trying to figure out how to make this consensus poll process more efficient at Projects:WhoWeAre. After we work out some of the bugs then we plan to start the WhoWeAre consensus poll process. Please forgive us for for this misunderstanding, we are learning as we go." |
| | | | |
| − | I wonder if the computer techies could figure out a way to "mark" new people coming to aboutus, perhaps after a short query like, "do you know what a Wiki is and the relevant etiquette?" If their answer is "no" they might get a symbol next to their name. Thus more experienced users reading their postings might cut them some slack, or offer useful advice, at exactly the time they need it- when they had noticeable bad conduct or messed up. It is exactly at this time (that the new person needs the help or is frustrated) that they are most receptive to getting the help and remembering the advice given (in contrast to reading lots of text in a help section). Thus an "old timer" might say to this new person, "I see you are new here, so let me give you a tip" Maybe the Newbe symbol is even a number, so one also knows how new this person is - been here only 2 days or 30 days, etc. Ted, maybe this has already been thought of? - do you think this content should go in the suggestion section? | + | Ted, I think something like the above needs posting at the WhoWeAre page, or people that continue to contribute to this page, under the assumption that the polling process is already underway, are going to get mad if they discover their work was premature. In fact one posting I read already has one person mad for this reason, claming that those that now want to go back and start all over again, are actually hi-jacking the process – which itself is problematic. |
| | | | |
| − | : ''Hi Martin, I think everyone should be cut some slack :-) this is the one goal of [[AssumeGoodFaith]] and I like to think that folks are inexperienced ([http://omidyardotnet.us/cgi-bin/odd.pl/ExperiencedInteractionWithInexperience ExperiencedInteractionWithInexperience])'' [[Mark]]
| + | In terms of process what this reveals is never ever never invite people to a consensus poll process until it is actually started – or people are going to get mad, and then you have to go back and figure out how to make them happy again. |
| | | | |
| − | : Hi again, Martin. Your suggestions are great, AND that's exactly what Mark and all of the community team has been working on, not with a symbol, but with an attitude. We all have lots to learn! [[User talk:TedErnst|TedErnst]]
| + | In contrast if you want to invite people to participate in making the consensus polling process better and more efficient, do not even mention a potential polling topic such as “WhoWeAre” within such invitations, because then people tend to associate the topic with the underlying polling process, when in fact they are actually two completely different beasts. The underlying process can be brainstormed outside of any particular topic. Once people are within this brainstorming polling process area, then one can bring up issues like, “how might this process we have now devised work for this or that type of topic?” – in this context people are less likely to get confused about what is actually happening and the participation role they want to take on. |
| | | | |
| − | Thanks Mark and Ted – from my “green” perspective I note a very helpful tone at aboutus.
| + | I think if this issue is not addressed soon on the WhoWeAre page more people might arrive, and more people might end up getting mad. I see no purposeful ill intend, rather just misunderstanding, which I think most people will forgive, since all of this “stuff” is so new and we are learning as we go. My point is somebody needs to make a posting on WhoWeAre and in effect beg for some forgiveness – or don’t you think a mole hole might turn into a mountain? |
| | | | |
| − | == DesignerSearch ==
| + | Ted, below is what I think about your 3 stage idea: |
| | | | |
| − | Hey thanks for your comments on the [[DesignerSearch]] page. It's real encouraging to see input coming from outside the office. [[Scott]]
| + | The outcome of this process will be a document for AboutUs.org that says WhoWeAre as a community. Once we agree to this stage 1 document |
| | + | , stage 2 begins which will contain Solution Pieces. |
| | + | Stage 2 - Solution Pieces |
| | + | • This stage definition and framework are modifiable in stage 1. Stage 2 is designed to get all the different "pieces" out in the open. |
| | | | |
| − | I’m glad if any of the info can help you. A good friend of mine used to manage Nike’s prototype printing facility, and in that capacity he was very involved with their computer art talent. We also had a business going outside of Nike, routinely using this pool of “moon lighting” art talent – it is exceptional in terms of computer graphics. Also my wife and I used to own a business where the adidas (at the time their International headquarters located in Portland) was our major client, so we knew lots of the people within, including art talent. This computer graphic talent changes jobs, bouncing between entities like Nike, adidas, and at times Wieden & Kennedy – meaning lots of this art talent know each other, even though they work at different local companies – and within their own community they know who is exceptional relative to their peer perspective (if you form a relationship with one or two of these artists, they can lead you to others).
| + | The above is confusing to me. It states, “stage 2 is designed to get all the different pieces out in the open?" Great! but it seems to me that what is so quickly breezed over is stage one, stating (as I understand it), “the outcome of the stage one process will produce a document for AboutUS.org, that says “WhoWeAre as a community. Once we agree on this initial version we move on to stage 2” |
| | | | |
| − | * Martin, thanks for the help. Is there anyone from adidas or Nike you could recommend that could help us with the skinning of our site? I'm hoping to have an ad out later today or tomorrow, but recommendations always help a lot.
| + | Seems to me that to do stage 1, one must also get “different pieces out in the open” – so to me, this raises the question, "in terms of the process how is stage 1 “openness” different than stage 2 “openness”?" |
| | | | |
| − | Scott, if you call Nike’s switchboard at 671-6453 and ask for “Gary Evans” in the art department, they will transfer to his voice message machine. I worked on some projects long ago with Gary, mention that I referred you.
| + | Also I think your noble attempt to gain process clarity in others also raises an issue that I see repeatedly raising its head, but we seem to sweep under the carpet (I think I know why). As mentioned some time back, one can classify how people’s brains work in perhaps 3 to 5 different ways. |
| | | | |
| − | He is “very” good at computer graphics (master of Painter, Photoshop, Illustrator and Freehand, etc. graphic programs), also has done his own web site (Flash) design stuff long ago. He is an “old timer” in the graphic arts world that knows “who is who” in the local area (other good talent). He used to have his own design shop, and at that time had other graphic artists working for him – but has since returned to Nike (he also knows artists at adidas, etc.).
| + | For example some brain types like a quick overview first to put everything into context. Other brain types view that explanatory process as too much verbiage and initial complexity, rather just want to be steered through the process one step at a time, keeping the next step invisible until they get there. Other brain types don’t like all the text in any sense and would prefer things like flow charts or visual images, etc. |
| | | | |
| − | Of course you realize to watch what you say on his phone message, for he works for Nike. If you can get him to meet with you some time after work, I think you might find this a valuable experience. If you get him “live” on the phone ask if he can bring along his portfolio.
| + | We are dealing with process issues (consensus details) that are foreign or never previously considered by many people, thus there is an underlying learning curve. Make the learning process painful and most folks will stop doing it. An important way to reduce learning curve “pain” is to better tailor explanations to one “brain type”. In this way one does not have to figure out explanations that will make everybody happy and gain more efficient clarity, which from my life experiences is simply not possible (somebody is always left short changed). |
| | | | |
| − | Also in the world of computer graphics are now many younger artists that do only computer work. Too often their downfall is they have lost the ability to sketch by hand, to whip out fast “thumbnail” concept sketches – Gary also does this very well.
| + | In such regard the bigger issue I don’t see being addressed by the aboutus staff and management is, “are we going to spend some of the company's start up money to figure out how to determine peoples' brain types at early stages of visiting our web site?" I argue if this is not done, then over and over again this “how do we best explain this or that” problem will continue to rear its head. In contrast if some basic brain types were determined early on, then people like us, trying to figure out how to better explain process issues, could tailor different explanations or tours, for perhaps 3 to 5 different brain types. |
| | + | |
| | + | This approach obviously requires more work by people with different skill sets. Content creation folks like us, might produce tour content, but I sure don’t have the smarts to figure out the automation needed to initially filter out the brain types in the first place. Ideally automation would peg each person with some type of code. Then anywhere they go on the web site after this, when an explanation or tour is given, the computer automatically recognizes the person it is dealing with, and they automatically get the tour for their brain type (rather than each time and explanation is needed or wanted having to tell the computer what is their brain type). I know that given enough money and resources this could be made to work – it is a matter of management priorities. |
| | | | |
| − | I could give you some other names, but I think if you can tap Gary, the world of the best local talent will be opened – and he knows where to recruit great help. Also last time I worked with Gary, I noted he is one of those guys that could work nonstop late into the early morning – again and again (not sure if so many years later if he still has this passion and stamina).
| + | In the world of “explaining” and “learning” and “gaining clarity” the underlying process issue that I bring up is actually the elephant in the room. Not everybody's brain type is the same - first figure out what brain type one is dealing with. Prior to computer automation this process problem was simply not possible to solve, now it is – if relevant resources are committed. |
| | | | |
| − | Again it has been a long time since we worked together on graphic projects so I don’t know Gary’s current status and if he would have interest in helping aboutus – but at least worth a call from you to find out. If you get him on the phone tell him I said “Hi”.
| + | == Ibesi.org == |
| | + | Martin, while I was updating some entries on AboutUs last week I found I was unable to access the website for [[IBESI.org]]. Kristina also left a note she was unable to access it. Is this group still in existence? Or did the server simply fall over & needs someone to help it up? -- [[User:Llywrch|Llywrch]] 08:46, 14 August 2007 (PDT) |
| | | | |
| − | If Gary does not work out let me know, I have another contact I can tap. Be aware of the “politics” involved. One of my contacts uses this Nike and adidas talent all the time. However the best art talent is very busy. If a person gives out the names of the art talent they use, then they risk having this talent being busy on another person’s project, when they need them to do work on their project (that is also why art directors typically have a big file of available talent in their drawer).
| |
| | | | |
| − | Also be aware of another problem I have personally experienced in the past. Some of the best artists are terrible business people (creativity and business don’t’ always reside in the same brains). Too many artists try to bend over backwards to please their clients – taking on too much work. The result is they fail to meet a promised deadline, which can be a “killer” in the business environment.
| + | === WikiWork === |
| | | | |
| − | You can’t predict this in advance, you just have to get to know the personalities of your art talent pool. If some have this problem, not to cut them loose (then you lose the good talent), but rather to factor in extra project time, even if the artist says they can do the job faster (and check up on their work now and then, some of them try to cram it all in on the last day, then the quality of their work suffers). An art director often has to play this “mothering role” to gain the best work from the talent (I used to do some of this long ago so know the drill). Good luck!
| + | Martin, I'd like to return to [[WikiWork]] soon, and see if I can summarize some useful points out of the great ideas you've posted there. |
| | | | |
| | + | == [[WhoWeAre]] == |
| | + | Hi Martin. I left you a message here: [[WhoWeAre:Stage2Status/MartinPfahler]] [[User:TedErnst|TedErnst]] | <small>[[User talk:TedErnst|talk]]</small> 13:12, 15 November 2007 (PST) |
| | + | {{DEFAULTSORT:Martin}} |
| | | | |
| | + | == long tail == |
| | | | |
| − | == Mark's message ==
| + | thought you might be interested in this: http://howtosplitanatom.com/news/lessons-from-entrepreneur-morten-blaabjerg/ |
| − | | + | [[User:TedErnst|TedErnst]] <small>([[User talk:TedErnst|talk]])</small> 16:30, 8 June 2008 (PDT) |
| − | Not sure if you saw this, Martin, but Mark left you a message here: [[MartinPfahler]]. [[User talk:TedErnst|TedErnst]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | And that was a mistake:
| |
| − | | |
| − | : ''Hi [[MartinPfahler]] , I generally leave comments on a persons talk page rather than my own! That way it alerts the person that there is a message for them. It is a bit of a disrupted conversation that way, but I personally think it works better. What way do you think it will work for you? (What, there are differing opinions at [[AboutUs]]?!!?! ;-) Best, [[MarkDilley]]''
| |
| − | | |
| − | == Thanks Ted! ==
| |
| − | | |
| − | I did not see Mark’s comment. In terms of “process” this seems to indicate that I (new guy) was given two conflicting pieces of advice from those more experienced (you and Mark).
| |
| − | | |
| − | From my perspective there is not really better advice coming from either of you – just different. It is a matter of what standards should be used – and then to make those standards easily seen by the new people. Seems to me smart folks like Brandon should be able to figure out some ways to automate the process to make it more idiot proof (me the idiot). For example even if I reply to you in my talk section, the automation is smart enough to know that you first made a comment in my section, so if I reply here, the automation automatically copies it to your talk section, or in another way notifies you where my reply can be found.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Also I currently see at about us sections, “concerns” and “suggestions” but the existing content at these pages does not seem to reflect a lot of process content, meaning where people discuss certain process issues that are problematic, and then suggestions on how they can be improved – seems a more easily found “bulls eye” for this topic might help if closer to the homepage. When a web site is in Beta mode, doesn’t it seem such process content should be easy for new people to find – so they can share their experiences?
| |
| − | | |
| − | In such regard (as new guy) I also find the general Wiki mode too difficult to find prior stuff. For example I read something on the aboutus home page today, but make no comment (so it is not in my tracking box). Then a week from now I remember this information, and want to access it again – but then too hard to find. In such cases I have tried the “search” box, and to often the search results come back with nothing, or being irrelevant. This is one area I think more traditional web site formats have an advantage, simply easier to find “prior stuff”.
| |
| − | | |
| − | It might also be that I have trouble with this “finding process” because I do not know how to use existing Wiki tools. If that is the case, then again as a “new guy” I can say (one guy’s opinion), where these finding tools are, and how to use them, is currently not easy to find.
| |
| − | | |
| − | : Martin, I'm not sure what you mean about "traditional website." The web has only been around 12 or 13 years or so. It's all beta, really. As for search, well, this place is huge. Search is hard. Smaller websites are likely easier to search. Search is a huge weakness of the web in general still, and this place as well. Hopefully the technology will improve at some point.
| |
| − | | |
| − | to make it more clear where that conversation is going on. In the meantime, keep it coming!
| |
| − | | |
| − | : [[User talk:TedErnst|TedErnst]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | "Martin, I'm not sure what you mean about 'traditional website.'"
| |
| − | | |
| − | Bad term on my part Ted. Maybe I should have said, “web sites that are not currently aware of or using Wiki modes”. For example I hang out at lots of science related web sites, and there, when I want to find some prior “stuff”, it is not hard (and they are admittedly not interactive like the Wiki mode).
| |
| − | | |
| − | "As for Mark and I giving different advice, could you say more about that?"
| |
| − | | |
| − | You are making too much of this comment Ted – its simply a technical issue. You told me, “Martin reply to my comment in your own talk section”, Mark told me, “Martin reply to my comment in my talk section”. Two modes cause confusion. Some entity (not me) needs to decide on the standard, then just tell me (new guy) what it is.
| |
| − | | |
| − | "As for process content, from my point of view, AboutUS could really use more of that, for sure. Maybe you can help it get created? You can make a page, name it anything you like, and just start writing. Martin's Suggestions About Process, for example."
| |
| − | | |
| − | Ted, I just went to omidyar.net to read your threads at about us, and noted one person saying, “long ago I gave a suggestion but got no response" – you replying, the aboutus folks are currently overloaded. If that is the case (I suspect it is, because I wrote to Brandon recently and have still to hear a reply), then adding even more suggestions just creates a bigger backlog. We all have limited time, and heading up a new section to add even more “backlog” at this time, doesn’t seem to be a good use of my mine.
| |
| − | Currently I try to contribute where I can, meaning where others already seem to be heading up a page, for example on the "Logo" and "Design pages".
| |
| − | | |
| − | I have previously spent my time to put content on Wiki pages (prior to the existance of aboutus.org) that end up “dead” and being used or read by few if any – thus really a waste of my time. Martin, I'm not sure what you mean about "traditional website."
| |
| − | | |
| − | Bad term on my part Ted. Maybe I should have said, “web sites that are not currently aware of or using Wiki modes”. For example I hang out at lots of science related web sites, and there, when I want to find some prior “stuff”, it is not hard (and they are admittedly not interactive like the Wiki mode).
| |
| − | | |
| − | As for Mark and I giving different advice, could you say more about that?
| |
| − | | |
| − | You are making too much of this comment Ted – its simply a technical issue. You told me, “Martin reply to my comment in your own talk section”, Mark told me, “Martin reply to my comment in my talk section”. Two modes cause confusion. Some entity (not me) needs to decide on the standard, then just tell me (new guy) what it is.
| |
| − | | |
| − | As for process content, from my point of view, AboutUS could really use more of that, for sure. Maybe you can help it get created? You can make a page, name it anything you like, and just start writing. Martin's Suggestions About Process, for example.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Ted, I just went to omidyar.net to read your aboutus thread, and noted one person saying, “long ago I gave a suggestion but got no response" – you saying the aboutus folks are currently overloaded. If that is the case (I suspect it is, because I wrote to Brandon recently and have still to hear a reply), then adding even more suggestions just creates a bigger backlog. We all have limited time. Heading up a new section to add even more aboutus “backlog” at this time, doesn’t seem to be a good use of my own time.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Currently I try to contribute where I can, meaning where others already seem to be heading up a page, for example on the "Logo" and "Design" pages.
| |
| − | | |
| − | I have previously spent my time to put content on Wiki pages that ended up “dead” and being used or read by few if any (this raises the question, "for the R&D community and related work Martin is involved with on a daily basis, is the Wiki mode “currently” the most effective way for Martin to communicate and make progress in his community?). Aboutus managment understand the mentioned Wiki “silo problem". My tiny pea brain is still not sure if the aboutus folks have the solution to this problem, its a very tough one - meaning do they have a solution that many others in the populace will accept in a big way (if that does not happen, in effect there is just another silo being built) – so I must factor this "unknown" dynamic into my own “time available” equation.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Does this mean I won’t offer process suggestions in the future? Not at all, I hope to do more of it in the future. For me it’s really a matter of timing (plus Brandon already knows some of my process suggestions, so perhaps no need to clutter up Wiki space with “stuff” he already knows).
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | : ''Martin, I am guilty of not responding to Norbert's message. It really wasn't a backlog, it was just me not placing high enough, his question on how to add 100,000 pages in batch form. [[MarkDilley]]'' | |
| − | | |
| − | No apologies needed! personally I don’t see how you folks keep up with answering all of these questions, especially as the site scales up.
| |
| − | | |
| − | == process suggestions ==
| |
| − | | |
| − | Martin, I think it's a mistake to think that having a conversation with [[Brandon CS Sanders]] is "better" than writing stuff on the wiki. In that mode, [[Brandon CS Sanders]] is the bottleneck. For some stuff, he's going to be the bottleneck no matter what you do, like suggestions that need tech resources to impliment. For other stuff, like improving the information flow here on the [[wiki]], can be done right here right now by those of us here on the [[wiki]]. That's the beauty of it. No bottleneck. I think your suggestions about how people can come to find the [[SuggestionBox|suggestion box]] and have their suggestions address is really important. Creating a page doesn't add to anyone's workload, especially if you come up with a solution that works. We can just impliment it directly. It doesn't have to go through [[Brandon CS Sanders]] or any one specific person. [[User talk:TedErnst|TedErnst]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | == talk pages and where to have conversation ==
| |
| − | | |
| − | [[MarkDilley|Mark's]] answer of "answer on my talk page" is the standard [[MediaWiki]] way of doing things. The reason for this is technical. When that person will get the orange banner across the top of every page saying they have a message. Since that was feeling disjointed for you, and I'm more familiar with wiki than you are, I gave the answer that we would just converse on your talk page, and I'd follow it there. So my answer was more of a beginner answer, and
| |
| − | [[MarkDilley|Mark's]] was a more advanced answer. I think they're both right. There is not going to be some higher authority that "decides" about what is right. A community norm has developed at [[Wikipedia]] that you answer on the other person's talk page. That's the only kind of higher authority we're going to have, a community norm. And it'll have to develop here. [[User talk:TedErnst|TedErnst]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | : By the way, there's some action at [[talk page etiquette]] now. :-) [[User talk:TedErnst|TedErnst]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | Thanks for all the Feedback Ted and Mark! In general I have passion for “user friendly” issues and have had many conversations about this with Brandon in the past. For example he mentioned that lots of Techies simply don’t have passion for doing relevant software development for this “front end” stuff, rather they get their kicks by working on “back end” stuff – yet he knows that without the more user friendly front end, its tough to attract the larger populace – so there is some Techie cultural stuff at work (I don’t hold this lack of front end passion against computer experts – they like what they like – but the process dynamic should be recognized and addressed).
| |
| − | | |
| − | In such regard I hope more computer experts over time get more involved with “front end” development. In that case I just view myself as one type of brain (mine a tiny pea sized one) willing to offer input, as to what I see as being hard or easy (knowing other brain types will have a different perspective). For that reason in Ted’s mentioned new Talk Etiquette page, I brought up what I thought are some of the ways this might be framed, as a process of first identifying a brain type (with a “no pain” mode perceived by the new user), and then having this automatically routing them to an introductory “tour” that is customized for their brain type.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Rather than have the new user click to “tour” (many won’t even know what this means, or its value), to instead automatically have them in this process when they first show up at aboutus. If a tour is expertly done, with a prior “brain match” weeding process, the upside potential is having the new user come out on the other end of the tour with far fewer questions (in contrast to going to typical FAQ pages or other Wiki help pages – just tracking these other help pages down is confusing), and that hopefully also reducing the burden of “question answering” by those more experienced like Mark and Ted.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Currently this "process content" seems to be on Ted's new "talk etiquette" page, but perhaps it might all be a subcategory of a page such as “how to best welcome new users and make familiar with aboutus processes and culture”. In terms of navigation, my particular brain type has trouble to keep track of all the page links, I start to lose track of how they relate. For example under the title mentioned above, one might have subcategories. I now this creating categories conflicts with some tagging philosophies but personally I think more needs to be done to see in a graphical way, how topics are related or interconnected.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Ted, I also hear your comments about Brandon, and possible bottleneck. Put a room full of people like me (not computer savvy) in a virtual space and we can create all manner of Wiki page content offering suggestions about process. However at the end of the day, if these suggestions are not converted into automation (code writing etc.), then efficiency is not gained – and it is Techies like Brandon that make that happen. Without this element it is just people like me doing lots of talking but not having the skills to create the needed “efficiency gaining” automation. That is also why I try to determine how much Techie manpower is behind a particular web site – because complex and novel automation, to gain increased group efficiencies, is tough to do with just one person – there are way more good ideas and process suggestions than this one person can implement.
| |
| − | | |
| − | : ''Martin, one of the reasons that I, a non technical person, like [[wiki]] is that I don't have to rely on a technical person for 98% of the way a [[wiki]] works. [[MarkDilley]]'' | |
| − | | |
| − | Mark, I agree with you, “wiki” ways are a big improvement. What I’d really like to see is a cross between the tools provided by homestead.com (If you get a chance, play with their system - their full design version is very easy to use and gives power design tools - drag and drop - I have seen at no Wikis). I also see that some web companies are offering “white board” capabilities, which is nothing more than a blank wiki page with just one save button (without all the extra buttons and sidebar ‘stuff’ typical of most wikis), which I also like (less noise for various communities to deal with).
| |
| − | | |
| − | == Another process issue ==
| |
| − | | |
| − | Let’s assume somebody reads a post made by MartinPfahler and it captures their interest so they do a search for “MartinPfahler” and end up at this talk page. Here they can read communications I have with others. In such regard it is a conversation “thread”. It is easier for others to follow this thread if a person (in this case MartinPfahler) replies to comments in his own talk section, rather than to the person making the comment (or the thread reader would have to bounce back and forth between two talk pages). Thus does it not seem that a nifty piece of automation would notify the person (in this case Ted or Mark) when I reply to their comment in my talk section? Seems the ideal would be to have this notification occur only when I reply to “your” particular comment, so you do not get lots of “junk” from my replies to other people’s comments.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Also if there are three or four people making replies and comments on my talk page, it would seem a real pain in the neck for a reader to bounce to all of these different talk pages, to read my replies (if I reply instead to the comment maker’s talk page).
| |
| − | | |
| − | In response to the above, perhaps you might tell me, “Martin, you can already do this by making this or that setting”. Then I might say, “well this setting explanation I did not yet find at aboutus, as a new person, and if making this setting is a pain, I might not do it”. In that case perhaps to have the system automatically notify, then with a box that says, “if you don’t want this automatic talk notification click on the box below to disable this feature”.
| |
| − | | |
| − | : We do not yet have such a technology. I'm not sure if we're going to develop such a thing, either. You can do something like that at [[LiveJournal.com]], for example, but that's not a wiki, so no way to pull out [[ThoughtChunks]] and sweep away the rest. It's not an easy issue.
| |
| − | | |
| − | : Now, one thing that I've seen at [[Wikipedia.org]] is that substantive conversations don't happen on user talk pages, they happen on the talk pages of the articles in question. If there's a dispute about the [[Chicago]] page, the discussion of that dispute happens there. That way I can put the [[Chicago]] page on my watchlist and receive notifications of talk that's happening there. What's not possible (yet, or maybe at all) is to have notification fined-grained like you suggest, so you'd only get notification of when I respond to you, not when I respond to Mark. It's hard for me to imagine such software because once your words are on the page, they're not yours anymore. They're not discrete posts the way they are in blog comments or in a forum.
| |
| − | | |
| − | : Complicated stuff, all. Great job outlining the issues. [[User talk:TedErnst|TedErnst]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | == User Interface - edit box ==
| |
| − | | |
| − | Currently at a Wiki page one clicks “edit”, then waits for the edit page to pop up. The fact is the edit page does not look like the prior page. One makes the edit, then clicks “save”. Then one waits, and often reads the final page to see if it “looks right” – and sometimes notices a minor typo – then goes back to repeat the process. This is really not an efficient process. A more efficient process is to be looking at the page, and never have its format change (as when the edit page pops up), and be able to start typing, and “what you see is what stays on this page”. Why can’t the systems assume that the typed content will be saved – for if that was not the intend, why would one begin typing in the first place? If one makes a mistake and does not want their text saved, then should come the command mode to erase the just typed contents, or perhaps to then highlight the content one does not want saved, and click “delete”. For my brain type the process described above is more intuitive and faster.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Ted and Mark, I ramble too much, thus I leave it up to you to judge if any shorter "thought chucks" can be extracted from the above, and moved to “talk etiquette” etc. pages.
| |
| − | | |
| − | == [[Topsoil]] ==
| |
| − | | |
| − | When I say "hot" in this context, I mean "exciting." I am impatient to have it developed, sure thing. When I was out at [[RecentChangesCamp.org]] 6 weeks ago, that was my big question, "When?" Then on that Wednesday after the conference, I was in the [[AboutUs.org]] office for their first iteration of the [[Planning Game]], which is an agile programming technique where [[User Stories]] get put on index cards, the customers ([[Ray]] and [[Mark]] in that instance, as proxies), and the developers ([[Brandon]], et al) put "cost" in terms of development time on those stories. Anyway, the point is there's action happening. At [[omidyar.net]] there was no action happening, as it turns out. I agree with your pushing. And, I recognize that they might not be able to accurately guess that far out (3-6 months, maybe?). I'd be satisfied knowing what's on the plate for the next 2 weeks, and maybe what's tentatively next up, for the next month after that or something. Maybe ask the question "When?" on the [[Topsoil]] page itself? [[User talk:TedErnst|TedErnst]]
| |
| − | : To be honest, I'm not that concerned with people other than you and I being able to follow the back and forth. If we have something for the larger community, we need to put it on a page that doesn't belong to you or I. I do see messages much, much sooner when you put them on my talk page, but feel free to respond here if that's easier for you.
| |
| − | | |
| − | : As for the substance here, you might be viewed as being a pain, and so what? Asking me does you no good whatsoever. I totally agree with you on your questioning. And, at some point maybe it's good to let it go, to just decide that it's not going to be ready in our lifetimes and try something else. I'm confident that it will happen, but I don't know when. So now you've inspired me to go to [[topsoil]] and ask when. :-) Thanks! [[User talk:TedErnst|TedErnst]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | "If we have something for the larger community, we need to put it on a page that doesn't belong to you or I" - very good point Ted, so it is not such a big issues as I thought in terms of "process".
| |
| − | | |
| − | "Asking me does you no good whatsoever". Seems to me an indication of a well "communicating" and transparent community is one where more than just a few "back end" people are in the know, so not unreasonable for one to ask another community member if they know about this or that. And I asked you, because I have found from experience that you seem to be an “exceptional” communicator across various communities and boundaries, so then not an unreasonable “hunch” that you might know more about this or that, than me.
| |
| − | | |
| − | I'll watch the topsoil page to see if any feedback shows up.
| |
| − | | |
| − | == Thoughts on your thoughts ==
| |
| − | | |
| − | Martin, many thanks for thoughtful commentary on several subjects. I've responded to the [[Corporate_Positioning]] thoughts and [[Process Transparency]] so far. - [[Ray]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | == [[WatchedPages]] ==
| |
| − | | |
| − | Martin, I believe this page [[WatchedPages]] will help? I've gotten used to the feature so it's hard for me to evaluate the worth of the help page on it. Please go ahead and make it more clear if you see a way to do that, or ask for more detail and I'll see what I can do. [[User talk:TedErnst|TedErnst]]
| |
In general I am a student of “process”. I try to observe and understand what really makes things tick. This has relevance to transparency, democracy, and empowerment issues. Sometimes the most important things for the populace to know, are things that some relatively “few” people within the populace don’t want others to know. When students of process are observing and trying to understand your process, they risk being viewed as a pain in the neck – it’s not an activity where one should expect to get lots of “high fives”.
Martin, word to the wise, give a link when sending a message asking someone to look at something, like this: IncomePilotProject. It's now on my watchlist.
"OPPS we made a mistake. There are people at the WhoWeAre page that assume the consensus poll process is already underway (Ted, I myself had this impression). In contrast there are some folks still trying to figure out how to make this consensus poll process more efficient at Projects:WhoWeAre. After we work out some of the bugs then we plan to start the WhoWeAre consensus poll process. Please forgive us for for this misunderstanding, we are learning as we go."
Ted, I think something like the above needs posting at the WhoWeAre page, or people that continue to contribute to this page, under the assumption that the polling process is already underway, are going to get mad if they discover their work was premature. In fact one posting I read already has one person mad for this reason, claming that those that now want to go back and start all over again, are actually hi-jacking the process – which itself is problematic.
In terms of process what this reveals is never ever never invite people to a consensus poll process until it is actually started – or people are going to get mad, and then you have to go back and figure out how to make them happy again.
In contrast if you want to invite people to participate in making the consensus polling process better and more efficient, do not even mention a potential polling topic such as “WhoWeAre” within such invitations, because then people tend to associate the topic with the underlying polling process, when in fact they are actually two completely different beasts. The underlying process can be brainstormed outside of any particular topic. Once people are within this brainstorming polling process area, then one can bring up issues like, “how might this process we have now devised work for this or that type of topic?” – in this context people are less likely to get confused about what is actually happening and the participation role they want to take on.
I think if this issue is not addressed soon on the WhoWeAre page more people might arrive, and more people might end up getting mad. I see no purposeful ill intend, rather just misunderstanding, which I think most people will forgive, since all of this “stuff” is so new and we are learning as we go. My point is somebody needs to make a posting on WhoWeAre and in effect beg for some forgiveness – or don’t you think a mole hole might turn into a mountain?
The outcome of this process will be a document for AboutUs.org that says WhoWeAre as a community. Once we agree to this stage 1 document
, stage 2 begins which will contain Solution Pieces.
Stage 2 - Solution Pieces
• This stage definition and framework are modifiable in stage 1. Stage 2 is designed to get all the different "pieces" out in the open.
The above is confusing to me. It states, “stage 2 is designed to get all the different pieces out in the open?" Great! but it seems to me that what is so quickly breezed over is stage one, stating (as I understand it), “the outcome of the stage one process will produce a document for AboutUS.org, that says “WhoWeAre as a community. Once we agree on this initial version we move on to stage 2”
Seems to me that to do stage 1, one must also get “different pieces out in the open” – so to me, this raises the question, "in terms of the process how is stage 1 “openness” different than stage 2 “openness”?"
Also I think your noble attempt to gain process clarity in others also raises an issue that I see repeatedly raising its head, but we seem to sweep under the carpet (I think I know why). As mentioned some time back, one can classify how people’s brains work in perhaps 3 to 5 different ways.
For example some brain types like a quick overview first to put everything into context. Other brain types view that explanatory process as too much verbiage and initial complexity, rather just want to be steered through the process one step at a time, keeping the next step invisible until they get there. Other brain types don’t like all the text in any sense and would prefer things like flow charts or visual images, etc.
We are dealing with process issues (consensus details) that are foreign or never previously considered by many people, thus there is an underlying learning curve. Make the learning process painful and most folks will stop doing it. An important way to reduce learning curve “pain” is to better tailor explanations to one “brain type”. In this way one does not have to figure out explanations that will make everybody happy and gain more efficient clarity, which from my life experiences is simply not possible (somebody is always left short changed).
In such regard the bigger issue I don’t see being addressed by the aboutus staff and management is, “are we going to spend some of the company's start up money to figure out how to determine peoples' brain types at early stages of visiting our web site?" I argue if this is not done, then over and over again this “how do we best explain this or that” problem will continue to rear its head. In contrast if some basic brain types were determined early on, then people like us, trying to figure out how to better explain process issues, could tailor different explanations or tours, for perhaps 3 to 5 different brain types.
This approach obviously requires more work by people with different skill sets. Content creation folks like us, might produce tour content, but I sure don’t have the smarts to figure out the automation needed to initially filter out the brain types in the first place. Ideally automation would peg each person with some type of code. Then anywhere they go on the web site after this, when an explanation or tour is given, the computer automatically recognizes the person it is dealing with, and they automatically get the tour for their brain type (rather than each time and explanation is needed or wanted having to tell the computer what is their brain type). I know that given enough money and resources this could be made to work – it is a matter of management priorities.
In the world of “explaining” and “learning” and “gaining clarity” the underlying process issue that I bring up is actually the elephant in the room. Not everybody's brain type is the same - first figure out what brain type one is dealing with. Prior to computer automation this process problem was simply not possible to solve, now it is – if relevant resources are committed.
Martin, while I was updating some entries on AboutUs last week I found I was unable to access the website for IBESI.org. Kristina also left a note she was unable to access it. Is this group still in existence? Or did the server simply fall over & needs someone to help it up? -- Llywrch 08:46, 14 August 2007 (PDT)
