Re: Salvation in Cyberspace

Snakes of Medusa (mathew@mantis.co.uk)
8 Feb 1994 14:14:17 -0000

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Snakes of Medusa: "Re: WORST L.D. FLAMES EVER!"
Previous message: Paul Schmidt: "Who is moderator?"
Maybe in reply to: Ping Huang: "Salvation in Cyberspace"
Reply: Bob McCormick: "Salvation in Cyberspace"

In article <199402050551.WAA16189@longs.lance.colostate.edu>,
L. Detweiler <ld231782@longs.lance.colostate.edu> wrote:
>Mrs. Medusa mathew@mantis.co.uk (Snakes of Medusa) writes some blather:
>>There are some tasks which a good FAQ editor performs which cannot be
>>performed simply by making a link to an existing document. To me, a
>>good FAQ is one which condenses and summarizes information, and
>>presents it in some sort of prioritized order, with a sense of "flow"
>>from section to section. You can't do that simply by transcluding
>>other people's text verbatim.
>
>I stand by my comments. the distinction between FAQ writing and good
>hypertext document creation is blurring into oblivion. Yes, there is an
>art to both. But *anyone* can do this. It is nothing but *good
>editing*.

You contradict yourself from sentence to sentence. Good editing is not
something anyone can do. Apart from anything else, you need above
average linguistic skills.

> I don't understand what you are saying. Is it-- `faq writing
>is hard. therefore, we should limit the people who are allowed to do
>this.' well, @#$%^&*

FAQ writing is hard. Therefore the proportion of *good* FAQs will be
small, if everyone writes FAQs. At the moment, it takes significant
effort and determination, not to mention technical skill, to write an
FAQ. This weeds out a few lusers. If it gets to the stage where BIFF
can write an FAQ, we'll be back where we started.

>[FAQs as merely links]
>>True, there are many
>>FAQ files that are like that, but we shouldn't rush to assume that
>>that's the way FAQ files *should* be.
>
>I see. Well, God, how *should* FAQs be?

I said above. They should be documents which condense and summarize
information, presenting it in some sort of prioritized order, with a
sense of flow.

>>WWW is really a "poor man's Xanadu", and fails to solve any of the
>>basic problems with hypermedia (which I won't go into here). It's
>>therefore fundamentally unsuited to anything more than light use.
>> I sincerely hope that PAX (Public Access Xanadu) arrives soon,
>>before these second-rate technologies get too entrenched.
>
>`second-rate technlogies'? @#$%^&* Where is Xanadu?

Ask XOC. I don't know what the latest status report is; last I heard,
the back end was up and running in beta.

> Where is this
>fantastic system that is going to revolutionize the world? WWW and
>Mosaic are here *now* and are revolutionizing the world *now*.

That's the problem. I fear we're going to have a "VHS effect". WWW
is superficially enough like Xanadu to seem revolutionary, and will
therefore catch on, and we'll be stuck with it even when something
much, much better comes along in a year's time.

>and I again reiterate that WWW is *evolving*. These protocols are
>slowly being improved to the point that all the problems you claim they
>have will be eliminated

I'll believe it when I see it.

>just because you hide behind your tentacle and conceal your
>affiliations to Xanadoodoo does not give you any authority to smear the
>systems that *millions* of people are using *today*.

I have no affiliation to XOC. Go ask them if you don't believe me.

mathew

-- 
I have a flawless philosophical and scientific model of reality.
Unfortunately, it's actual size.  We must never be dogmatic.  Anyone
who says otherwise is wrong.  Will betray country for food.

Next message: Snakes of Medusa: "Re: WORST L.D. FLAMES EVER!"
Previous message: Paul Schmidt: "Who is moderator?"
Maybe in reply to: Ping Huang: "Salvation in Cyberspace"
Reply: Bob McCormick: "Salvation in Cyberspace"

[ Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive | Search Mail Archive | Authors | Usenet ]
[ 1993 | 1994 | 1995 | 1996 | 1997 ]