[Sigia-l] Web 2.0 99% bad
MJJAIXEN at up.com
MJJAIXEN at up.com
Tue May 15 12:28:30 EDT 2007
> "Research suggests that users of a site split into three groups. One that
> regularly contributes (about 1%); a second that occasionally contributes
> (about 9%); and a majority who almost never contribute (90%).
>
> By definition, said Mr Nielsen, ONLY A SMALL NUMBER OF USERS ARE LIKELY
TO
> MAKE SIGNIFICANT USE OF ALL THE TOOLS A SITE PROVIDES."
>
> "Most people just want to get in, get it and get out," said Mr Nielsen.
"For
> them the web is not a goal in itself. It is a tool."
>
>
>
> I haven't seen any credible research that proves the above. But assuming
for
> a millisecond that it could be true, what does it say?
>
> I mean, people may not regard phones as "a goal in itself" either. Does
that
> mean we should downplay its significance in human communications?
Peoples'
> innate desire to connect, listen, talk, observe, etc?
>
> > The "99% bad" comment started with Ziya, not with Jakob.
>
> Yep. The '99% bad' describes the degree of blindness (by the promoters of
> dogma) to the social aspects of software that Web 2.0 is just beginning
to
> unearth.
But that's not all cell phones can do. I just checked my phone, and it has
a notepad, calculator, and alarm clock among other "features" that I never
use. If I had a more advanced phone, it might have a camera or MP3 player
as well.
sigia-l-request at a
sis.org To: sigia-l at asis.org
Sent by: cc: (bcc: Mike Jaixen/UPC)
sigia-l-bounces at a Subject: Sigia-l Digest, Vol 32, Issue 17
sis.org
05/15/2007 03:20
AM
Please respond to
sigia-l
Send Sigia-l mailing list submissions to
sigia-l at asis.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigia-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
sigia-l-request at asis.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
sigia-l-owner at asis.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Sigia-l digest..."
Searchable list archive: http://www.info-arch.org/lists/sigia-l/
Today's Topics:
1. Re: What do you call that place between the database and
the
live site? (Lisa Goldberg)
2. Atlanta IA meetup TOMORROW 5/15/07 at 6:30 pm sponsored by
OneSpring (Laurie Gray)
3. SJSU SLIS (Ziya Oz)
4. Re: boo.com/london (Dmitry Nekrasovski)
5. Web 2.0 99% bad (Ziya Oz)
6. Re: Web 2.0 99% bad (Andrew Boyd)
7. Re: Web 2.0 99% bad (Andrew Boyd)
8. Re: Web 2.0 99% bad (Ziya Oz)
9. Re: Web 2.0 99% bad (Eric Reiss)
10. Re: Web 2.0 99% bad (Andrew Boyd)
11. The Art of Forgetting... (Ziya Oz)
12. Re: Web 2.0 99% bad (Eric Reiss)
13. Re: Web 2.0 99% bad (Ziya Oz)
14. Re: "Devignders"? (Adrian Howard)
15. Re: "Devignders"? (Adrian Howard)
16. Re: What do you call that place between the database and
the
live site? (Adrian Howard)
17. Re: What do you call that place between the database andthe
live site? (Adrian Howard)
18. Re: Web 2.0 99% bad (James Aylett)
19. Re: Web 2.0 99% bad (James Aylett)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 14:01:10 -0400
From: "Lisa Goldberg" <lisag67 at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Sigia-l] What do you call that place between the
database and the live site?
To: sigia-l at asis.org
Message-ID:
<cba15eae0705141101k55425c4cqfb38df1fcffa0291 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Jay,
I have a few thoughts regarding the "sandbox" thread. I am an IA who has a
fair amount of experience working with custom content management systems. I
also worked briefly in a RUP environment, so I think I understand where
you're coming from. However, IMO the "sandbox" environment does not add
much
to the UCD process until you are near the end of the design cycle and can
usability-test your designs for validation.
Furthermore, if usability testing uncovers serious problems, changes might
be required to the requirements as well as the design. Is it worthwhile to
set up that sandbox until you have validated the design and requirements in
the first place?
Someone mentioned the problem of content not fitting the templates. A
sandbox tool would be helpful in that situation. But even better would be a
fully developed UCD process so that you don't run into those snags with a
content-driven site. Templates should not be developed until content
requirements are in place. If your team is not generating the content, then
someone also needs to work with the client to ensure that their content
meets the agreed-upon requirements. This effort may require the combined
efforts of an RA, IA and content specialist, depending on how things stack
in your organization. In my experience this process cannot be automated and
it's crucial to the successful launch of a content-driven site. It's also
critical for the RA, IA and developers to collaborate before development
begins.
I can think of a few places where automation would be helpful, however:
(a) If you are redesigning a site that is already dynamic, it would be nice
if that site could generate a content index for inventory purposes. I have
not worked with a CMS that exported file information in hierarchical
format.
Has anyone else?
(b) If you have the time and budget to run a usability test on the
prototype, it helps to test that prototype onscreen, as long as your costs
for doing so are not more expensive than designing and testing on paper.
You
need to factor in the costs for changes after the usability test.
To sum up, I think that the sandbox is best used for small QA adjustments
near the end of the design process, unless your IAs prefer to design using
this tool and it is cost-effective for them to do so.
Other insights welcome.
Sincerely,
Lisa
-----------------
http://www.lisagoldberg.info
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 15:32:41 -0400
From: "Laurie Gray" <laurie.gray at gmail.com>
Subject: [Sigia-l] Atlanta IA meetup TOMORROW 5/15/07 at 6:30 pm
sponsored by OneSpring
To: SIGIA-L <sigia-l at asis.org>
Message-ID:
<f088b3140705141232h2eedf12fjbea0c48338e23f54 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
At TacoMac perimeter (http://taco-mac.com/location/perimeter.htm)
Come let OneSpring buy you a drink...
Hope you can make it!
Laurie Gray
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 16:26:57 -0400
From: Ziya Oz <listera at earthlink.net>
Subject: [Sigia-l] SJSU SLIS
To: SIGIA-L <sigia-l at asis.org>
Message-ID: <C26E3E51.228C9%listera at earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
San Jose State University's School of Library and Information Science is
apparently unveiling a new instructional design paradigm whereby they
?break
the hierarchical metaphor? and construct a new 3D metaphor in Second Life:
<http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/index.php?id=2064> [video included]
Harbinger of things to come or misguided?
----
Ziya
In design, interaction is the last resort.
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 14:42:33 -0700
From: "Dmitry Nekrasovski" <mail.dmitry at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Sigia-l] boo.com/london
To: "Eric Scheid" <eric.scheid at ironclad.net.au>
Cc: sigia l <sigia-l at asis.org>
Message-ID:
<858e80430705141442ie824919re1bae1438f44c79f at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
True. However, doing this the boo way (separate hostname for each CSS
file) increases the number of DNS lookups, which the Yahoo people
specifically advocate against:
http://www.slideshare.net/techdude/high-performance-web-sites/ (slides
73-74).
Dmitry
On 5/3/07, Eric Scheid <eric.scheid at ironclad.net.au> wrote:
> On 4/5/07 1:53 AM, "Dmitry Nekrasovski" <mail.dmitry at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The IA is pretty messed up, and there are other things that mark this
> > site as truly awesome in its cluelessness. The fact that the CSS is
> > loaded from a separate server, for instance.
>
> How is this clueless? Given that the html of a page may vary subject to
> cookies, but the css probably wouldn't, it actually makes sense to
offshore
> the static resources to eliminate needless cookie exchanges .. which has
an
> impact on the cacheability of said resources. Same goes for the
javascript
> resources and image resources.
>
> Yahoo put out a bug caching white paper at some point that explained this
> concept (they use yimg.com, for example).
>
> (Also, just because they are loaded from separate *domains*, they might
> actually be still be the same servers)
>
> e.
>
> ------------
> IA Summit 2008: "Experiencing Information"
> April 10-14, 2008, Miami, Florida
>
> -----
> When replying, please *trim your post* as much as possible.
> *Plain text, please; NO Attachments
>
> Searchable Archive at http://www.info-arch.org/lists/sigia-l/
> ________________________________________
> Sigia-l mailing list -- post to: Sigia-l at asis.org
> Changes to subscription: http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigia-l
>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 23:34:53 -0400
From: Ziya Oz <listera at earthlink.net>
Subject: [Sigia-l] Web 2.0 99% bad
To: SIGIA-L <sigia-l at asis.org>
Message-ID: <C26EA29D.228DD%listera at earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
In case you haven't heard:
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6653119.stm>
----
Ziya
In design, interaction is the last resort.
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 14:03:41 +1000
From: "Andrew Boyd" <facibus at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Sigia-l] Web 2.0 99% bad
To: "Ziya Oz" <listera at earthlink.net>
Cc: SIGIA-L <sigia-l at asis.org>
Message-ID:
<6e115bb00705142103r19544577m1d4fd9545eca88f3 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 5/15/07, Ziya Oz <listera at earthlink.net> wrote:
> In case you haven't heard:
>
> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6653119.stm>
That is why some of us now speak of Enterprise 2.0, Business 2.0 and
Knowledge Worker 2.0 - Web 2.0 was seen by some as being too
geek-centric. Who knew? :)
Cheers, Andrew
---
Andrew Boyd
http://skonkwerks.net/facibusreviews
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 14:08:58 +1000
From: "Andrew Boyd" <facibus at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Sigia-l] Web 2.0 99% bad
To: "Ziya Oz" <listera at earthlink.net>
Cc: SIGIA-L <sigia-l at asis.org>
Message-ID:
<6e115bb00705142108p70e4fcc5vdbf724b17aae121b at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 5/15/07, Andrew Boyd <facibus at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/15/07, Ziya Oz <listera at earthlink.net> wrote:
> > <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6653119.stm>
>
> That is why some of us now speak of Enterprise 2.0, Business 2.0 and
> Knowledge Worker 2.0 - Web 2.0 was seen by some as being too
> geek-centric. Who knew? :)
PS: does anyone know where Jakob was when he made these panoramically
sweeping generalities?
Cheers, Andrew
---
Andrew Boyd
http://skonkwerks.net/facibusreviews
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 00:15:58 -0400
From: Ziya Oz <listera at earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [Sigia-l] Web 2.0 99% bad
To: SIGIA-L <sigia-l at asis.org>
Message-ID: <C26EAC3E.228E4%listera at earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Andrew Boyd:
> PS: does anyone know where Jakob was when he made these panoramically
> sweeping generalities?
You can't make me say: in his own universe, where all traces of design have
been antiseptically cleansed by factory floor managers in white-coats.
----
Ziya
In design, interaction is the last resort.
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 07:01:07 +0200
From: "Eric Reiss" <elr at e-reiss.com>
Subject: Re: [Sigia-l] Web 2.0 99% bad
To: sigia-l at asis.org
Message-ID: <279200-220075215517359 at e-reiss.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
The mere title, "Web 2.0" suggests a linear progression. But rather
than expanding our toolkit, many think the techniques of 2.0 are
meant to REPLACE the techniques of 1.0, which they don't. This was
Nielsen's fairly important point - if one looks past some of the more
sweeping statements.
Some of us have been singing a similar song for well over a year now.
Now that Jakob Nielsen has said it, maybe the message will reach
beyond our little circle.
Best,
Eric
- - - - - -
Eric Reiss
FatDUX Copenhagen
www.fatdux.com
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 15:30:01 +1000
From: "Andrew Boyd" <facibus at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Sigia-l] Web 2.0 99% bad
To: "Eric Reiss" <elr at e-reiss.com>
Cc: sigia-l at asis.org
Message-ID:
<6e115bb00705142230u643c15ednff1d1decc8d57db3 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 5/15/07, Eric Reiss <elr at e-reiss.com> wrote:
> The mere title, "Web 2.0" suggests a linear progression. But rather
> than expanding our toolkit, many think the techniques of 2.0 are
> meant to REPLACE the techniques of 1.0, which they don't. This was
> Nielsen's fairly important point - if one looks past some of the more
> sweeping statements.
>
> Some of us have been singing a similar song for well over a year now.
> Now that Jakob Nielsen has said it, maybe the message will reach
> beyond our little circle.
Hi Eric,
I feel that there is a difference between:
- "Web 2.0 is no excuse for a poor user experience" that I've heard on
this list (and that I support fully, you could ask the poor devils
that I've beta tested for and hounded mercilessly), and
- "Web 2.0 is a waste of space, 99% of content is provided by 1% of
users" (to generalise after Jakob's generalisations).
I fully support the former, and deplore the latter as reactionary.
Best regards, Andrew
---
Andrew Boyd
http://skonkwerks.net/facibusreviews
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 01:42:38 -0400
From: Ziya Oz <listera at earthlink.net>
Subject: [Sigia-l] The Art of Forgetting...
To: SIGIA-L <sigia-l at asis.org>
Message-ID: <C26EC08E.228E8%listera at earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
"As humans we have the capacity to remember ? and to forget. For millennia
remembering was hard, and forgetting easy. By default, we would forget.
Digital technology has inverted this. Today, with affordable storage,
effortless retrieval and global access remembering has become the default,
for us individually and for society as a whole. We store our digital photos
irrespective of whether they are good or not - because even choosing which
to throw away is too time-consuming, and keep different versions of the
documents we work on, just in case we ever need to go back to an earlier
one. Google saves every search query, and millions of video surveillance
cameras retain our movements. In this article I analyze this shift and link
it to technological innovation and information economics. Then I suggest
why
we may want to worry about the shift, and call for what I term data
ecology.
In contrast to others I do not call for comprehensive new laws or
constitutional adjudication. Instead I propose a simple rule that
reinstates
the default of forgetting our societies have experienced for millennia, and
I show how a combination of law and technology can achieve this shift."
Useful Void: The Art of Forgetting in the Age of Ubiquitous Computing
<http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP07-022>
Implausible or a mirror of the design process: constraint-based omission?
----
Ziya
In design, interaction is the last resort.
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 08:13:50 +0200
From: "Eric Reiss" <elr at e-reiss.com>
Subject: Re: [Sigia-l] Web 2.0 99% bad
To: facibus at gmail.com
Cc: sigia-l at asis.org
Message-ID: <213290-22007521561350328 at e-reiss.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Andrew Boyd wrote:
I feel that there is a difference between:
- "Web 2.0 is no excuse for a poor user experience" that I've heard
on this list (and that I support fully, you could ask the poor devils
that I've beta tested for and hounded mercilessly), and
- "Web 2.0 is a waste of space, 99% of content is provided by 1% of
users" (to generalise after Jakob's generalisations).
I fully support the former, and deplore the latter as reactionary.
- - -
Well, Andrew, we have no argument there - except that there is
nothing in the Nielsen article that even comes close to your
"generalisation of Jakob's generalisations."
The "99% bad" comment started with Ziya, not with Jakob.
To quote from the actual article, Nielsen said:
"There was a risk, he said, of a return to the dotcom boom days when
many sites, such as Boo.com, looked great but were terrible to use.
"That was just bad," he said. "The idea of community, user generated
content and more dynamic web pages are not inherently bad in the same
way, they should be secondary to the primary things sites should get
right."
"The main criticism or problem is that I do not think these things
are as useful as the primary things," he said.
Personally, I think Nielsen has hit it right on the head.
Cheers,
Eric
- - - -
Eric Reiss
FatDUX Copenhagen
www.fatdux.com
------------------------------
Message: 13
Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 02:36:42 -0400
From: Ziya Oz <listera at earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [Sigia-l] Web 2.0 99% bad
To: SIGIA-L <sigia-l at asis.org>
Message-ID: <C26ECD3A.228ED%listera at earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Eric Reiss:
> there is nothing in the Nielsen article that even comes close to your
> "generalisation of Jakob's generalisations."
"Research suggests that users of a site split into three groups. One that
regularly contributes (about 1%); a second that occasionally contributes
(about 9%); and a majority who almost never contribute (90%).
By definition, said Mr Nielsen, ONLY A SMALL NUMBER OF USERS ARE LIKELY TO
MAKE SIGNIFICANT USE OF ALL THE TOOLS A SITE PROVIDES."
"Most people just want to get in, get it and get out," said Mr Nielsen.
"For
them the web is not a goal in itself. It is a tool."
I haven't seen any credible research that proves the above. But assuming
for
a millisecond that it could be true, what does it say?
I mean, people may not regard phones as "a goal in itself" either. Does
that
mean we should downplay its significance in human communications? Peoples'
innate desire to connect, listen, talk, observe, etc?
> The "99% bad" comment started with Ziya, not with Jakob.
Yep. The '99% bad' describes the degree of blindness (by the promoters of
dogma) to the social aspects of software that Web 2.0 is just beginning to
unearth.
----
Ziya
In design, interaction is the last resort.
------------------------------
Message: 14
Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 07:55:08 +0100
From: Adrian Howard <adrianh at quietstars.com>
Subject: Re: [Sigia-l] "Devignders"?
To: SIGIA-L <sigia-l at asis.org>
Message-ID: <A976C8AC-75D0-455A-B341-24445DE16232 at quietstars.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
On 14 May 2007, at 13:10, David Malouf wrote:
> This is all just part of their great evangelist effort to create a
> role that is actually suitable for Expression Blend. A tool that is
> part of a Designer suite, but is really a tool for developers.
I don't really think it needs much selling. I see people with these
skill sets all of the time. The Apple software dev community is full
of these folk. The web world is full of these folk.
I know folk who've gone from the Apple toolset to the MS toolset and
have been crying out for tools like this.
Adrian
------------------------------
Message: 15
Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 07:53:13 +0100
From: Adrian Howard <adrianh at quietstars.com>
Subject: Re: [Sigia-l] "Devignders"?
To: SIGIA-L <sigia-l at asis.org>
Message-ID: <A62A3AA6-0828-441F-A2E4-D049548851A4 at quietstars.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; delsp=yes;
format=flowed
On 14 May 2007, at 09:32, Ziya Oz wrote:
> "People who spend half their time in developer tools and half their
> time in
> design tools? are internally called by Microsoft "devignders,"
> according to
> John Richards of the Windows Live team.
>
> Would you ever use "devignder" to label yourself, if you fit the
> description?
Fit the description - possibly (graphic design isn't really in my
skill set, but other design skills are.)
Use the term - never. Trez ugly :-)
Cheers,
Adrian
------------------------------
Message: 16
Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 08:55:52 +0100
From: Adrian Howard <adrianh at quietstars.com>
Subject: Re: [Sigia-l] What do you call that place between the
database and the live site?
To: SIGIA-L <sigia-l at asis.org>
Message-ID: <E6B46578-17AC-48E3-B1E4-0A7AC1C9AE7F at quietstars.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
On 13 May 2007, at 02:56, Jay Morgan wrote:
> I've heard it called "sandbox", "staging", "test server", "dev
> (elopment)
> server". What do you call it?
>
> Also:
> Do you actually get to work on it or in it? If yes, how do you
> interact
> with it? (Sample answers: Yes, I shape it w/ SQL. I do QA on it.
> I own
> it. I built it.)
[snip]
Well pretty much everywhere I've worked has a set up that's something
like:
1) Sandbox/development/whatever - where ongoing development happens.
There may be one of these per-developer (and developer here may be
graphic guy, html dudes, etc. - anybody who will be changing the site)
2) Staging/UAT/test/whatever - where client sign off / testing happens
3) Live
If it doesn't - then one of my first tasks will be setting something
like this up :-) Preferably with an automated process to promote
stuff form dev->sandbox->live
> I want to know what you all call it because I want to discuss the
> value of
> that intermediate space between data and live as an integral part
> of how to
> do Design. I think there's more potential in that approach than in
> linear
> design approaches - i.e., conceive, define, design, build, launch.
> This
> will lead to a presentation and an article. Hopefully, it will
> lead to all
> my future employers adopting the practice of enabling their teams
> with a
> sandbox or staging server within arm's reach.
I have to admit that to me not having some sort of staging area is
like not having source control, or double entry book keeping. It
verges on incompetence. You need to have a way of keeping a steady
flow of features running through the development process.
Cheers,
Adrian
------------------------------
Message: 17
Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 08:59:07 +0100
From: Adrian Howard <adrianh at quietstars.com>
Subject: Re: [Sigia-l] What do you call that place between the
database andthe live site?
To: sigia l <Sigia-l at asis.org>
Message-ID: <80298C26-EED9-4905-AE00-09AD148B132A at quietstars.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
On 14 May 2007, at 11:08, Jonathan Baker-Bates wrote:
[snip]
> Could this be related to what you are describing? My reason for
> thinking
> about this is to allow work on content (it's length, type, structure,
> style, etc.) to start far earlier in the information architecture
> process. Right now, we usually deal with such things after the IA has
> been designed and signed off - only to find the content doesn't
> actually
> fit very well when the two are integrated into the CMS. And that's
> just
> one of many content-related issues that might be alleviated by such an
> approach.
[snip]
Isn't that more an artefact of seeing the IA as a "phase" that can be
complete and signed off before development. If you start looking at
it as part of the ongoing process of development this problem
disappears.
Cheers,
Adrian
------------------------------
Message: 18
Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 09:18:18 +0100
From: "James Aylett" <james.aylett at tangozebra.com>
Subject: Re: [Sigia-l] Web 2.0 99% bad
To: "Ziya Oz" <listera at earthlink.net>, "SIGIA-L" <sigia-l at asis.org>
Message-ID:
<F6A60FEE75522640AD9B229EABC6CBAE6401D1 at mailer.tangozebra.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Ziya Oz wrote:
> "Research suggests that users of a site split into three groups. One
> that regularly contributes (about 1%); a second that occasionally
> contributes (about 9%); and a majority who almost never contribute
> (90%).
>
> By definition, said Mr Nielsen, ONLY A SMALL NUMBER OF USERS ARE
> LIKELY TO MAKE SIGNIFICANT USE OF ALL THE TOOLS A SITE PROVIDES."
>
> I haven't seen any credible research that proves the above. But
> assuming for a millisecond that it could be true, what does it say?
There was some work done by either the BBC or the Guardian (apologies, this
was at a one-day conference last year that was largely very boring, so I
didn't take notes). It probably only looked at their own users, so isn't
broadly representative, but the figures were somewhere around that number
(I think they only quoted did/didn't contribute).
I'm not aware of any independent or wider studies.
James
--
James Aylett
Chief Technical Officer, Tangozebra
Supplier of the Year, 2007 Revolution Awards
t +44 20 7183 9334
________________________________________________________________________
This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The
service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive
anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit:
http://www.star.net.uk
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------
Message: 19
Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 09:20:30 +0100
From: "James Aylett" <james.aylett at tangozebra.com>
Subject: Re: [Sigia-l] Web 2.0 99% bad
To: "Eric Reiss" <elr at e-reiss.com>, <sigia-l at asis.org>
Message-ID:
<F6A60FEE75522640AD9B229EABC6CBAE6401D2 at mailer.tangozebra.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Eric Reiss wrote:
> Some of us have been singing a similar song for well over a year now.
> Now that Jakob Nielsen has said it, maybe the message will reach
> beyond our little circle.
I find it more than a little frustrating that this gets coverage when King
Nielsen jumps on the bandwagon. Respected speakers and commentators have
been talking about this, as Eric says, many of them with books to back it
up.
On the other hand, maybe this will make it easier to sell a sensible
approach to business folk (the tiny fraction who have heard of community
features and Web 2.0 in the first place...).
James
--
James Aylett
Chief Technical Officer, Tangozebra
Supplier of the Year, 2007 Revolution Awards
t +44 20 7183 9334
________________________________________________________________________
This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The
service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive
anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit:
http://www.star.net.uk
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Sigia-l mailing list
Sigia-l at asis.org
http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigia-l
End of Sigia-l Digest, Vol 32, Issue 17
***************************************
. This message and any attachments contain information from Union Pacific which may be confidential and/or privileged.
If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this message is strictly prohibited by law. If you receive this message in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete the message and any attachments.
More information about the Sigia-l
mailing list