| |
|
 |
|
42 Results for [derekr@derekrogerson.com]
 Search the SIGIA-L list Archives
|
Results for derekr@derekrogerson.com
1 to 20 of 42 results.
|
Run time: 0.596 seconds |
Search time: 0.006 seconds
|
| Page:1 2 3 Next 20 |
- 1 [Sigia-l] Applying Information Foraging Models (Re) -- rank: 1000
- Victor wrote: > Has Jakob been lurking? :) > > Jakob Nielsen's Alertbox, June 30, 2003: > Information Foraging: Why Google Makes People Leave > Your Site Faster > > http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20030630.html I wouldn't mind talking about this. I am particularly interested in the Alertbox *title* -- namely -- 'Why Google Makes People Leave Your Site Faster' as a definition/consequence of 'Information Foraging.' It is curious Jakob would put this yin/yang, good/bad spin on the foraging science as it would appear to knock http://google.com/ technologies while, at the same time, endorsing them. :: Optimal food-gathering behavior is all that's left :: 'Behaving ...
| Poster's Name: | Derek R |
| Poster's Email: | derekr_at_derekrogerson.com |
| Message Date: | 2003-07-01 01:02:33 EDT |
- 2 [Sigia-l] Applying Information Foraging Models (Re) -- rank: 1000
- Maybe it would stir some discussion if I simplify things: To present: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=present - To offer for observation, examination, or consideration; show or display - Existing or happening now; current - To introduce; to bring before the public To refer: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=refer - To assign to or regard as belonging within a particular kind or class - To direct to a source for help or information (delay) - To submit to an authority I would like to address the difference between the two above 'interaction design' approaches, (in light of Jakob's assertion of 'Information foraging' as "the most important concept to ...
| Poster's Name: | Derek R |
| Poster's Email: | derekr_at_derekrogerson.com |
| Message Date: | 2003-07-03 01:45:57 EDT |
- 3 [Sigia-l] Applying Information Foraging Models (Re) -- rank: 1000
- Victor wrote: >| "How can we better represent artifacts to help >| people find the artifact?" whereas the information >| foraging researchers are asking, "Given what >| representations exist, how do people go about finding >| the artifacts?" These are both good questions, and ones we should be asking. Thank you Victor. Nevertheless, the problem I see developing with this methodology is that it only considers a single individual performing single functions. In short, the 'foraging science' is not social-based, but comes from a mechanical view-point. It ignores the gestalt (big-picture) in favor of concentration on 'achievement of parts.' For ...
| Poster's Name: | Derek R |
| Poster's Email: | derekr_at_derekrogerson.com |
| Message Date: | 2003-07-03 22:15:39 EDT |
- 4 [Sigia-l] Applying Information Foraging Models (Re) -- rank: 1000
- spcoon / ziya wrote: >>| Innovation in online applications is stirred >>| by the behavior of users. > >| Of course, the most spectacular and lucrative example >| of this is Amazon.com, which, I'm told, was once a small >| online bookseller That's right. Successful movements are grassroots and have agreement (self-preservation) as their motivating agent. Things happen because the people involved so desired it (therefore interaction). Of course, the idea that one can individually conspire without consultation to effect change (i.e. apply an academic model) -- in essence, to try and 'manufacture' credibility, human-interaction, or 'the way of things' -- ...
| Poster's Name: | Derek R |
| Poster's Email: | derekr_at_derekrogerson.com |
| Message Date: | 2003-07-05 23:16:06 EDT |
- 5 [Sigia-l] Applying Information Foraging Models (Re) -- rank: 1000
- ziya wrote: >| So expose your app's internal >| objects to external AppleEvents Expose. I like this word. Nothing much mechanical in there. It's an 'all-at-once' kind of deal unconcerned with 'parts' and not obsessed with the safety of allowing nothing to happen in order to escape any problems. For instance, I had a landlord once who had so many rules about the apartment I was renting that basically you couldn't move a muscle without breaking the lease. He had it down to a science. He claimed he had run into problems before with various things and now he had ...
| Poster's Name: | Derek R |
| Poster's Email: | derekr_at_derekrogerson.com |
| Message Date: | 2003-07-05 23:16:57 EDT |
- 6 [Sigia-l] regarding mental model diagramming and gap analysis (Re) -- rank: 1000
- Peter wrote: >| I would suggest an essay written by my partner >| Janice about how we used mental models and gap >| analysis for PeopleSoft: http://boxesandarrows.com/archives/rearchitecting_peoplesoft_from_the_to p_down.php Is it fair to say your company http://adaptivepath.com/ was brought into the PeopleSoft redesign to deflect internal heat-and-friction, resulting from the change-process, away from executives and senior managers who prefer to preserve working relationships with their subordinates? I ask this because it appears PeopleSoft already had a planned course, so that, in essence, your company was hired to facilitate an executive-ordered redesign using conciliatory methods (i.e. all the interviewing, inquiry, and hand-holding):
...
| Poster's Name: | Derek R |
| Poster's Email: | derekr_at_derekrogerson.com |
| Message Date: | 2003-07-07 23:41:21 EDT |
- 7 [Sigia-l] [PLUG] JJG's Got A Brand New Bag (Re) -- rank: 1000
- Peter wrote: >| http://www.jjg.net/ia/pillars.pdf >| An attempt to provide a holistic view of web teams, and >| help web teams figure out how the competencies relate While I don't mind creating a mysticism around what is both obvious and commonsensical, JJG's diagrams nevertheless present visual remedial learning as some sort of prerequisite . Really, if the people responsible for implementing design and development processes for an online business are ignorant of what JJG's diagrams represent -- they don't need to look at the diagrams to discover what's wrong, or how to improve, their business (hint, hint!). The diagrams look very pretty, ...
| Poster's Name: | Derek R |
| Poster's Email: | derekr_at_derekrogerson.com |
| Message Date: | 2003-07-10 06:52:48 EDT |
- 8 [Sigia-l] JJG + A Brand New Bag (Re) -- rank: 1000
- I wrote: >>| if you *don't know* how the basic life-cycle works Lyle replied: >| If you don't know (everything) about... >| If you don't know (everything) about... >| If you don't know (everything) about... > etc. First off, there is an obvious difference between how *basic* stuff works and 'everything.' Let's be serious here. Second, if you *don't know* that in order to have an online business you need an idea to bring online -- where are you? Realistically, you are at square-one, which is out-of-the-business. What are JJG's diagrams indicating beyond 'idea-for-market' --> 'online' ? I understand he is ...
| Poster's Name: | Derek R |
| Poster's Email: | derekr_at_derekrogerson.com |
| Message Date: | 2003-07-10 18:43:30 EDT |
- 9 [Sigia-l] Re: Re: JJG + A Brand New Bag -- OFF TOPIC Ageism Rant (Re) -- rank: 1000
- >| Sorry, the boomer in me can't let an injustice pass Josephine, I used the adjective 'uninformed' to describe 'baby-boomers' because they did not have the opportunity to grow up with pervasive technology products others have today. In other words, they are 'uniformed' in these matters (without experience), and require 'elementary' definitions (i.e. 'boomers' are new to the technology but, being older, are too busy to explore it and learn it, like, for instance ~ can the average boomer set the clock on their VCR/DVD or do they need a 9-point plan to follow to accomplish this? OR more to ...
| Poster's Name: | Derek R |
| Poster's Email: | derekr_at_derekrogerson.com |
| Message Date: | 2003-07-11 21:00:20 EDT |
- 10 [Sigia-l] Redundant information and content (Re) -- rank: 1000
- Hello Thomas, The funny thing about content is that it is contextual. Which means any decisions you make about it must, necessarily, take into account what the content 'represents.' This is why we call it content -- because it *has* meaning or significance. Following from this, to *abstractly* make decisions about your content -- in other words, to 'ignore' the content you are making decisions about in favor of a desperate search for some 'rule of thumb' or '9-point plan' to absolve you of responsibility -- will result in a solution no more valid than throwing-the-bones or consulting the I-Ching. ...
| Poster's Name: | Derek R |
| Poster's Email: | derekr_at_derekrogerson.com |
| Message Date: | 2003-07-14 21:11:13 EDT |
- 11 [Sigia-l] Redundant information and content (Re) -- rank: 1000
- Peter wrote: >| Content often shouldn't be considered to have >| a "place" but simply a set of attributes that help >| people locate it Have you considered that these 'sets of attributes' may be what the object really represents -- itself, for instance (i.e. presentation)? If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, does it have a 'fallen' attribute, or not? My point being that one cannot so easily separate the content from the presentation: For instance, you may get an itching for fast food for lunch and enter into a McDonald's restaurant. Then ...
| Poster's Name: | Derek R |
| Poster's Email: | derekr_at_derekrogerson.com |
| Message Date: | 2003-07-15 06:09:07 EDT |
- 12 [Sigia-l] Redundant information and content (Re) -- rank: 1000
- Ziya wrote: >| iTunes lets you place that song (not the file, the song >| that gives pleasure when clicked on) in many different >| places that makes sense to you [..] ...the "song" is liberated I predict people are NOT going to be spending their days 'classifying' things for later use. At best, they'll give something a title... maybe... if they feel ambitious -- unlikely. Even if you do classify or use 'smart lists,' whenever you request a song you must submit yourself to 'negotiation of attributes' you have placed between yourself and the song. You're taking feature-creep to a ...
| Poster's Name: | Derek R |
| Poster's Email: | derekr_at_derekrogerson.com |
| Message Date: | 2003-07-15 07:34:07 EDT |
- 13 [Sigia-l] Redundant information and content (Re) -- rank: 1000
- Eric wrote: >| remember when people made up mix tapes >| for their friends or loved ones? >| >| people do classify, they just don't >| do it exhaustively, usually Now this behavior is interesting because it is *occasional* -- and not *fixed* into the system like Ziya's 'places-that-make-sense-to-you' classification for iTunes. When you 'make a mixed tape' you do so based on contemporary feelings/emotions which prompt you pick certain songs over others because those songs are synchronous and attendant to your personal experience. This is NOT classification, this is presentation -- or more simply -- an expression. ...
| Poster's Name: | Derek R |
| Poster's Email: | derekr_at_derekrogerson.com |
| Message Date: | 2003-07-15 08:11:04 EDT |
- 14 [Sigia-l] Useful tools (Re) -- rank: 1000
- Dr. Marios Pittas wrote: >| I have seen only one attempt of developers to document >| system requirements using UML. Then, all involved in the >| project politely left the many many pages of UML notation >| to the side and turned to the "english" like requirements section The best prototype is the image you can create in your mind, often through language, which includes the flexibility to make or erase any part, or the whole, via the imagination (i.e. the flexibility of interpretation; Ziya's 'realization' in 'whatever language/paradigm they feel comfortable in'). The whole point of the prototype, I believe, ...
| Poster's Name: | Derek R |
| Poster's Email: | derekr_at_derekrogerson.com |
| Message Date: | 2003-07-17 03:16:35 EDT |
- 15 [Sigia-l] Terms & the rest of us: Findability (was: Vive la France! Vive Napoleon!!) (Re) -- rank: 1000
- fabrizio ulisse wrote: >| in Italy we surely don't >| have a term for *findability* Well... you really only need to know that if you 'seek' you *will find* -- so there is no good reason (beyond creating confusion) to come up with a term which is the *consequence* of another action. Kill the head and the body will follow. ------------ When replying, please *trim your post* as much as possible. *Plain text, please; NO Attachments Searchable list archive: http://www.info-arch.org/lists/sigia-l/
| Poster's Name: | Derek R |
| Poster's Email: | derekr_at_derekrogerson.com |
| Message Date: | 2003-07-18 21:33:01 EDT |
- 16 [Sigia-l] Terms & the rest of us: Findability (was: Vive la France! Vive Napoleon!!) (Re) -- rank: 1000
- fabrizio wrote: >| I'm not sure I got your point, and your use of ** Hi fabrizio, No jokes -- I was indicating that the 'concept' of findability is just a useless addition because it is already a consequence of Jakob's 'scannability' --> http://www.useit.com/alertbox/whyscanning.html i.e. You must first 'seek/scan' in order to 'find' 'Findability' is just a marketing ploy. If you KNOW 'scannability' there is no need to know 'findability' since 'finding' is a *consequence* of seeking/scanning (i.e. if you don't seek/scan you will NEVER 'find' anything). Therefore, there is no need to translate concepts into other languages which only ...
| Poster's Name: | Derek R |
| Poster's Email: | derekr_at_derekrogerson.com |
| Message Date: | 2003-07-18 22:21:58 EDT |
- 17 [Sigia-l] Terms & the rest of us: Findability (was:VivelaFrance! Vive Napoleon!!) (Re) -- rank: 1000
- Peter wrote: >| I continue to find the term "findability" quite useful >| and interesting. It resonates well with business people >| who are familiar with the term "usability." Very well. Deception has always had its uses, as well as the old bait-n-switch routine . . . . Nevertheless, you should recognize a responsibility, (in light of forming organizations which claim industry-consensus -- and particularly for the benefit of 'Polar Bear groupies' who cannot, or will not, think for themselves) that 'findability' in actual fact puts the cart before the horse. In other words, as long as everyone actually understands to ...
| Poster's Name: | Derek R |
| Poster's Email: | derekr_at_derekrogerson.com |
| Message Date: | 2003-07-19 00:55:57 EDT |
- 18 [Sigia-l] Terms & the rest of us: Findability (was: Vive laFrance! Vive Napoleon!!) (Re) -- rank: 1000
- Eric wrote: >| If you cannot find the thing you want, >| then you cannot scan it Let's be serious about this please. There is a logical order to things (causation) which you cannot hi-jack and rearrange to suit your marketing message. I don't think it behooves anyone to argue you can 'find' things before you seek them. The only pseudo-case of this is to come upon things 'by accident' (i.e. spam) which is not relevant to our purpose. So again, let's be serious and not fall prey to delusion within our personal networks. Yeesh! >| [Scanning] doesn't mean that you ...
| Poster's Name: | Derek R |
| Poster's Email: | derekr_at_derekrogerson.com |
| Message Date: | 2003-07-19 05:50:54 EDT |
- 19 [Sigia-l] Terms & the rest of us: Findability (was: Vive laFrance! Vive Napoleon!!) (Re) -- rank: 1000
- fabrizio wrote: >| Google interface would be totally useless >| without the back-end technology that makes >| things *findable* Just *how* do you think those things are found? Via ESP? Or is there an actual search/scan of documents/objects taking place which *results* in a 'find' ? The magic of http://google.com/ is in their search algorithms -- not in the useless additions of meta-tags (i.e. spam) which http://google.com/ doesn't even pay any attention to (for obvious reasons). >| not necessarily true Yes. It is necessarily true that the logical order of causation is cause *then* effect. Now this is 'elementary!' 'Findability' is ...
| Poster's Name: | Derek R |
| Poster's Email: | derekr_at_derekrogerson.com |
| Message Date: | 2003-07-19 20:27:42 EDT |
- 20 [Sigia-l] Findability (Re) -- rank: 1000
- Eric wrote: >| [Google] may ignore externally applied meta-tags, >| but they add their own meta-data, and rely on it >| extensively. Maybe you've heard of it, they call it >| "page rank" We're really drifting here, but as far as meta-data goes, nobody is arguing against 'normative considerations.' This type of meta-data is calculated from -- NOT 'attached' as addition to -- the original document. Google page rank technology is just a simple algorithm, based on examination, not a system to bloat content in order to create industry for librarians (i.e. 'findability'). ------------ When replying, ...
| Poster's Name: | Derek R |
| Poster's Email: | derekr_at_derekrogerson.com |
| Message Date: | 2003-07-20 06:26:35 EDT |
Powered by Swish-e swish-e.org
|