Jeremy Zilar
Since 2003
Works in Brooklyn United States of America

BIO
I am an artist an photographer living in Brooklyn, NY.
Discussions (55) Opportunities (0) Events (0) Jobs (0)
DISCUSSION

Re: Re: Re: Re: web evolution


I found this essay by Manuel de Landa a couple of years back.
it is called - MESHWORKS, HIERARCHIES AND INTERFACES
I think it would go really good with this discussion.

http://t0.or.at/delanda/meshwork.htm

-jeremy

Plasma Studii - judsoN wrote:

>> For years developers tried to create handwriting recognition software
>> that could learn to a users' particular handwriting style (e.g., the
>> Newton)... but in the end, the first really successful pen-computer
>> (the Pilot) gave up on adapting the the software to the user's needs
>> and instead trained the user to adapt a short-hand that the computer
>> could understand.
>
>
>
> that's be nice if it was the whole story, but think of this goal another
> way. this assumes "handwriting recognition" is a viable thing outside
> of a human reader. handwriting is chaos to anything but humans.
> firstly, it is just fundamentally impossible to teach anything (a monkey
> or program) to differentiate between writing and discoloration. the
> Newton experimenting revealed that. there is no straightforward way to
> comprehend the seemingly infinite variables.
>
> neither people nor machines are more or less adaptable, people just have
> finite perspectives and machines have infinite ones. so it's hard for
> people to figure out precisely how they narrow it down, to tell the
> machines. Palm ended up opting for the Graffiti method only because
> that was at least a lot easier, in fact, the alternative wasn't going to
> happen.
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>

DISCUSSION

Re: Re: Re: Re: web evolution


that is really interesting...
It made me think of the tim Hawkinson piece at the Whitney at the moment.

However, i wasnt talking about user-focused vs. machine-focused software
but rahter a debate over the intent behind the development of the software.
Do we start to develop software based on our economic needs - thus
teaching the user to work in a particular way, or do we give the user a
bunch of tools, and see where they take it - and develop the software
based off the directions they take.

-jeremy

I really enjoyed reading it again. I am glad that i found it again.
Ethan Ham wrote:
> Jeremy Zilar wrote:
>
>
>>I think the key is to develop the product that teaches adaptability
>>and
>>not the end result. Infact, develop is totally the wrong word here.
>>"Grow" might better used. If you grow a piece of software that frames
>>the process of it's own growth, rather than focusing the user on the
>>software as a means to and end result, then you will begin to teach to
>>a
>>more adaptable, learning audience.
>
>
> The discussion of user-focused vs. machine-focused software/UI brings pen-computing to mind.
>
> For years developers tried to create handwriting recognition software that could learn to a users' particular handwriting style (e.g., the Newton)... but in the end, the first really successful pen-computer (the Pilot) gave up on adapting the the software to the user's needs and instead trained the user to adapt a short-hand that the computer could understand.
>
> People are more adaptable than machines.
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>

DISCUSSION

Re: Re: web evolution


instead of looking at the software to change, shouldnt we be looking at
our need that the software accomplishes, and try to develop our needs,
our desires?

All good forms of innovation come from finding a new way to live and
experience the world.

I know i get lost these days .. i really dont havr the time to stop,
step back and look at the caucophony of things happening, because i am
too busy playing some part in it.

-jeremy

Jim Andrews wrote:

>>>But isn't this exactly what's done? I can't think of a single program
>>>that's still the same as it was 10 years ago, or am I misunderstanding
>>>you?
>>>
>>>Pall
>
>
> How about most email list technology? I realize that there are things like
> Fusetalk and yahoo groups and so on, but haven't the administrative options
> for lists themselves pretty much stayed the same?
>
> ja
> http://vispo.com
>
>
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>

DISCUSSION

Re: web evolution


I think Pall was right earlier when he said "Today, your 13 year old
cousin is likely to be running his/her own database driven website,
written from scratch."
And if notthe average 13yr old,.... the it WILL be the average 13yr old
in 20yrs. You know some kid is going to be slumping his body down, in
some chair in his 10th grade "Web Evolution Class" because his teacher
just announced that the assignment is to make a 5 page website by the
end of the semester! At some point in the very near future, they will
be offering XHTML classes as a followup to keyboarding class in grade
school.

> As this previously priviledged
> knowledge becomes more common, we'll see more innovation.

I just want to make sure that that innovation is encouraged as much as
possible.

-jeremy

Pall Thayer wrote:
> I think some of the most significant changes we see today have to do
> with public familiarity with technology. A few years ago you had to hire
> someone with a degree in computer sciences if you wanted a dynamic web
> site. Today, your 13 year old cousin is likely to be running his/her own
> database driven website, written from scratch. And why not? Most of
> today's home computers come with included webservers with server-side
> scripting abilities and the most widely used databases are available for
> free download all over the place. As this previously priviledged
> knowledge becomes more common, we'll see more innovation.
>
> Perl is a very powerful, versatile and extensible programming language
> that far exceeds anything PHP is capable of. You really can't compare
> the two because Perl, among many other things, just happens to be
> usefull for web automation whereas PHP was designed specifically for web
> automation and isn't very good for anything else. Perl should be
> required learning for all first year digital arts students.
>
> Pall
>
> Plasma Studii wrote:
>
>> ivan,
>>
>> these are great examples. but i'm talking about using some/any of the
>> methods available at a given time to result in DOING something
>> different, than we could have before. possibly, the technology could
>> have been been there, but the tools impractical and needed to be
>> developed. but as time has elapsed, that didn't end up being the real
>> obstacle. PHP is much newer and a lot easier to use than Perl, but
>> folks still use Perl and the functions we use now, we're available a
>> decade ago.
>>
>> object oriented programming is a semantic improvement, but not a
>> functional one. if C (written code) was ever supplanted by MAX
>> (designing flow chart), that would be a far greater change though
>> still C can do all the things MAX does (and much more). There's no
>> actual functional advantage to using MAX, only semantic. Semantically,
>> PHP is a breeze to use compared to Perl, but functionally differs
>> mostly by 2 related functions (getting a users IP address and
>> referring document) and Perl comes out slightly ahead.
>> Technology-enthusiasts generally do not acknowledge this sort of
>> distinction. (there literally IS change, we may even change what we
>> do. but it's not an apples-oranges shift, it's like
>> tangerines-oranges. bigger but not really more useful and the same
>> basic color. is there a big difference in flavor? debatable, but
>> mostly if you pretend there are no apples)
>>
>> the technology has always been there. what changes our actual lives
>> are self-regulatory systems. (like reinforced concrete changes
>> construction of skyscrapers, which changes cities, which changes how
>> we live. imagine if reinforced concrete had been invented in the
>> 1700's but we still lived in huts. that's like web technology. the
>> concrete need not keep evolving, once it works, for the city to
>> continually evolve) our actions fundamentally are transformed by
>> systems that respond to user input and alter themselves, not just
>> automatically, but according to user input. to advance the web by
>> "dialogue" rather than dictation. we could make sites, scripts, pages
>> that manage themselves according to user input (not time specific at
>> all), rather than construct them from an authors final(fixed point in
>> time) input.
>>
>> what are ways the web can be more use-able than as a seemingly
>> infinite sprawling info dumping ground? google is one organizational
>> tool. a really clever one, in how it ranks so you won't bother to see
>> items you're less likely to be interested in, uses 100+ factors to
>> arrive at the rank, ... but it's hardly perfect. ebay is far more
>> self-regulating, but far less cleverly designed and employs much more
>> monitoring/regulating manually by hired humans. there must be more
>> advanced ways to think about organizing than by literal key words.
>> (wikipedia (you mentioned) is a variant use of the amazon scheme
>> previously sited, where readers can rate blog-esque submissions. a
>> feature i'd love to see a common for business and individuals alike, a
>> given like different colors for links than text).
>>
>>
>>> Really, it's the mindsets that change and as tools become available
>>> and accepted, mindets change and we all see things that we didn't see
>>> before.
>>
>>
>>
>> i agree that SHOULD happen. but rather than shift (as in x4 to
>> xb), the trend is to close off change (as in x4 to x=null). maybe
>> the illusion of advancing technology (in a hopeful/wishful
>> self-fulfilling prophesy/mirage way) that we're going through another
>> turn of the century paradigm shift has folks changing their mindsets
>> to rallying for in-substantive hype, rather than the tangible or
>> practical actions. the "available" part has been there for years, so
>> why not "accepted"? (is ignorance a memory management technique?)
>>
>>
>>> Broadband/always on in the home changes everything.
>>
>>
>>
>> you're right, "always on" changes our daily lives. but that was
>> always possible (used to leave dial-up on at home 24/7). it has
>> always been common to be on-line all day for web designers, which
>> essentially has the same result. and actually, BB's not quite an
>> improvement itself. (only effects about 1/3 of the transaction).
>>
>> judsoN
>>
>

DISCUSSION

Re: Re: web evolution


Plasma Studii - judsoN wrote:
> people regularly or belligerently ignore contrary facts in order to
pick the option that will
> cause them the most trouble. how's that?
> maybe that's some protective defense mechanism? maybe many are afraid
> of change (even if it's learning) because of inevitable little
> disappointments along the way. avoid it by ignoring the long term.

I think the key is to develop the product that teaches adaptability and
not the end result. Infact, develop is totally the wrong word here.
"Grow" might better used. If you grow a piece of software that frames
the process of it's own growth, rather than focusing the user on the
software as a means to and end result, then you will begin to teach to a
more adaptable, learning audience. It is the desire for a product, for
an end result that inherently teaches us how to deal with change. In
this view, change is a means to an end. Somehow, through the tools that
we create - we need to teach adaptability, teach a process of learing
and change, and maybe we can dothat by adopting a "growth" oriented
process. If the tools we create are a made to fit the end product, then
it is the end product that will be worshiped.

-jeremy

www.silencematters.com

Plasma Studii - judsoN wrote:
>> Once you start looking for the ways it impacts society you then start
>> to create the possible need develop software with an adgenda . these
>> types of questions bring up the debate as to whether the software gets
>> developed based the users needs, or the programmers needs. I think it
>> is important to ask questions, but maybe the question is how can we
>> develop software that facilitates creative growth and adaptability of
>> the user? or software that allows the user to create their own
>> adgenda? How can we create software that expands the dialogue between
>> the user and the developer, between the child and the adult?
>
>
> this is a really great way of looking at it!
>
> oddly the software that is most programmer-needs oriented, like Flash or
> Windows, is by far the most popular. Though the user-needs software
> continually isn't as popular. why's that? obviously, one way of
> looking at it is to chalk it up to marketing, but wonder if it's also a
> similar phenomenon as folks in the US voting for bush (even though he's
> clearly not going to help that "lower 98%", they're geographically not
> actually at risk from terrorists, are or are close to someone who'll get
> killed in impending wars). i'm picking on these particular examples not
> because they need more picking on, but because there seems to be
> something more at work here than just good design = successful product.
> and marketing and/or price doesn't always explain it.
>
> people regularly or belligerently ignore contrary facts (be it about
> processing, price or presidents), in order to pick the option that will
> cause them the most trouble. how's that? it would seem many folks
> become too discouraged to advance, either technically, economically, or
> just in how they live, only because they use these ill-designed tools.
>
> maybe that's some protective defense mechanism? maybe many are afraid
> of change (even if it's learning) because of inevitable little
> disappointments along the way. avoid it by ignoring the long term.
>
> just an idea, anyone have any others?
>