Month: April 2001

Plaudits should be given to those blog authors who do not publish abstruse writing.

Following on from my long and late-night ramblings about the nature of the net, I notice this morning that Meg has posted the initial conclusions of her thinking session. Conclusion #1 encapsulates what I was trying to say, applied to notsosoft.com:

This site is about me. Don’t forget the crucial “about”. It’s a little word, but it makes a big difference. I am not my website.

That is something that applies to everything on the web, particularly blogging – or at least, it should do, in my opinion. The web is about communication, not about the web itself.

The parlous state of my finances has been made much worse this morning by the arrival of a bill I should have had in September – for my college course fees. Perhaps I shouldn’t have gone on that retail therapy session last week, as now I have to find £335 from somewhere, and quickly. Anyone need a lecture on plants given any time soon? My rates are very reasonable!

so much blogging – so little time.
This morning, as I walked down South Street on my way to the station, I passed a woman walking the other way who was clearly in tears. She was smartly dressed, on her way to work – I’ve passed her most weekday mornings. I wonder what has happened in her life today?

I’ve thought a little more about my earlier comments about the weaknesses of the net as a communication tool.
Whilst I stand by what I said, I feel I should add this qualification: the net is no different to any other tool. It is only effective in the hands of a skilled operator.
Handy analogy: think of the internet as a big bag full of builders tools. You could use those tools to form materials (your thoughts and ideas) into something beautiful, like a lovely home, a super extension or even just a smart set of shelves. But to do that, you need to know how to use those tools effectively. Otherwise, the result will be a bloody mess at best, or dangerous at worst.
I suppose what I am trying to say is this: the internet, including email, instant messaging, websites, blogs, e-commerce – the whole lot – is simply a tool. It is a means. It is not an end in itself. It is, without doubt, a very exciting, innovative, constantly changing, hugely mutable and malleable tool. But, in the end, it is only a means of getting a message across.
You must decide what that message is – it could be that you want to entertain, educate, promote, market, inform, humour, excite, titillate, provoke. But these are all forms of communication, and that is what you do with the net – communicate. The net is not the end – the message is the end, the purpose. The net is merely a method of getting that message across.
And, just like our analogous builder with his set of tools, you need two things – the correct, good quality materials and the correct tool for the job. You might have the most wonderful piece of wood in the world for making your shelf, but if the only tool that you are willing to use is a chainsaw, it isn’t going to look that good when you’re done.
So the value of what you do with the net depends on two things – the quality of the message that you send in the first instance, and the way in which you send it.
If you forget that, then you are pissing in the wind.

I’ve had a mostly restful evening, consisting of sitting around doing very little, reading, playing games, looking at other blogs, cooking and eating, chatting with a couple of friends. I even managed to spend most of the evening offline.
I’m still tired.
My head is still full.
I had the chance to go to the pub this evening for a quiz, but felt a bit too tired and certainly too skint.
But maybe I should have done. Yesterday I went through most of the day feeling a bit melancholy, and ended the day on a bit of a high. Today has been the other way round. I started off feeling great and kept that going for most of the day. But now I feel a bit….feh.
And no lottery win tonight either. guh.

“Grahambo“??!! I think I’ll stick to Graybo, thanks. (link poached without compunction from the newly-employed Mo)

Today I have been witness to an excellent example of why the internet can, at times, be a hopeless mode of communication. I’m thinking particularly of email and instant messaging, and I feel qualified to comment as I have been an intensive user of the net for nearly six years.

The reason it is hopeless is, in my view, the result of its predominantly text-based format and its instantaneous nature.

The only way to communicate is through the word itself. There is no intonation or inflection, no smile or frown, no waving hands or folded arms, no touch or stance. Consequently, perhaps less than half the message is actually communicated, and it is left to the reader to put their own interpretation on the words, to flesh out the bones of the message, something that may be coloured by past experience, their surroundings, their mood, even the weather outside.
Compare the telephone – there at least you have the intonation, the change in the tone of voice. You really can hear a smile or a frown in someone’s voice, and, with someone you know, get a feeling for their mood – happy, depressed, upset, jocular.
The instantaneous nature of the net then provokes a prompt response. And this is where the internet differs greatly from the printed (or written) word. It has been said that the greatest strength of the net is its rapid interactive nature, but I also believe that it can, at times, be its greatest weakness – all you have to do is hit “reply” or the “mail me” link and off you go, pounding your keyboard with your rapidly formulated response based on your ill-informed perception of a poorly phrased communication. It is even worse with instant message services. And, worse still, is any attempt to inject humour – what might be funny or tongue-in-cheek to you may be quite offensive to the person reading your message, even if offensiveness was not your intention.
Compare the printed/written word. You have the opportunity to read and re-read many times, to chew it over, consider the message, roll it around in your mind, get an impression of what was truly meant. And when you’ve done that, you can then take up your pen or turn on your PC and write a considered reply. Unlike email, there is no pressure to respond quickly – that is not the expected norm.

Another issue with the internet is its youth. I mean that in two senses: it is a relatively new mode of communication, especially as many of its users have only been introduced to it in the last twelve months or so. Many people are still not adept at communicating over the internet – they do not understand the nuances and pitfalls of pure text communication. Also, many of its users are young people, and please, do not think that I believe people younger than myself are useless communicators, or, for that matter, that after thirty years I am by any means the world’s greatest authority, a pillar of wisdom. But, it has to be said that the younger web users can, at times, be a little impetuous and testy, too ready to either take offence, offend or flame. Perhaps their impassioned idealism is something the rest of us could learn from, but equally I feel that a little pragmatism is a quality that a few web users would do well to acquire.

Maybe I’m just being cynical. And don’t get me wrong – I love the net – look at this blog as proof!
But today I witnessed people who I had previously considered to be friends have a fairly public falling out on the web. I hope it is only temporary, and given some considered time and a spot of non-net communication, the people will resolve their differences and understand what has happened and the causes.
But, to my eye, the principal cause was the weakness of the net as a mode of communication.

British space science. (Thanks Ian)

“your eyes require very little digital editing” – let me note that line down for future reference.