Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Re: **** Instant Outlining !!! ***
play machine wrote: (01)
> "Probably the worst problem with the focus on instant
> things is that it is very easy for early experience to
> be quite atypical....Early adopters aren't necessarily
> better, but it is quite probable that they are
> different in what may prove to be very important
> ways." (02)
This is a non-sequitur. Sometimes early adopters lead the
pack. Sometimes they're first over the edge and into the
canyon. True, not all early-adopted things transition
effectively. The question is the merits of the technology,
and that's where the focus should be (and is, in ensuing
points). (03)
> Find the full article (and others regarding wikis and
> blogging):
>
> http://mywebpages.comcast.net/dness/Current/PHD.html#7April2002
>
> It's not a quick read. The author, David Ness, touches
> on email, newsgroups, outlining, the whole gamut. Good
> stuff from a retired MIT professor. (04)
Should be good. Thanks for the pointer. (05)
> And from http://www.e7l3.com/2002-04-03.htm:
>
> "I wonder what the fuzz is all about, regarding
> instant outliners. (06)
See my previous post showing how it is most likely to be used
effectively for knowledge capture and (structured) collaboration. (07)
> ... a lack of expressive flexibility of all hierarchically
> structured presentations, be they supported by tools
> or not. It may sound trivial, but this exactly is the
> reason why I don't like outliners. Not in NNTP, not in
> Notes, and also not in Groove. They are too rigid:
> just try to reassign a text snippet to another train
> of thought. (08)
Absolutely correct. Full hierarchies fail in a lot of ways.
For this, categories and more maleable node-graphs are
required. A steamshovel is better than the manual version,
too. But a hand shovel still beats the hell out of shoveling
dirt with your hands. (09)
> There are also no simultaneous tracks
> (crosspostings are strictly forbidden here), plain
> trees only, no meshes, no rhizomes. (010)
Valid criticism about things that definitely need to be addressed.
However, there will always be two ways to look at the
content in such a system. One is TouchGraph / Tinderbox
mechanism, with graphs. The other will be a hierchical
projection of the underlying data. I suspect that the interface
in use here -- with the potential for collaborative sharing --
will remain in use, even when deeper semantics are implemented
underneath. (011)
> This is by no means a new concept, Deleuze and Guattari
> wrote about rhizomes 25 years ago (Merve Verlag, Berlin
> 1977), but the techies now seem to have to re-invent the
> concept again some day in the future. (012)
"It's not a new concept" is not a particulary effective indictment
of a successful implementation. Hell, Jules Verne had the
*concept* for a submarine more than a hundred years ago. (013)
> And David Gelernter also noticed long ago, thinking about his
> Lifestreams metaphor, that only chronological order is objective
> enough to serve as kind of a primary index. Everything
> else could/should/will change soon or later." (014)
However, that is quite possibly the least useful of all possible
indexes. The fact that indexing schemes change is an argument for
tools which better support reclassification and reorganization. (015)