CD Evans — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 18:18:30 GMT

I think the funtionality is much better! Much added, and much improved.

...though the tag nav could be improved, it looks much to focused on big terms. I’m working on a similar tag nav, and I’ve needed to really hone it down to get it to be not distracting or presenting preferred content.

Speaking of preferred content, I really feel that the ratings system is slightly tacky, not quite as tacky as unrelated ads, but pretty darn tacky, to say the least. This is a pretty big gripe I’d think, and even devalues the portal, in my opinion. I wouldn’t be suprised if this leads to less readership.

I think the primary problem with voting / rating systems is that they tend to be driven by the ‘true believer’ type personas and not by the other personas. Voting doesn’t work with a sceptical audience, which many people are. You are better off to measure sucess by page views, I would reckon, that is if you want popularity as a motivator.

I also noted that most of the content on the site isn’t at all rated, only the last 20 or so with any kind of consistency. I would think this comes accross as people rating themselves, or even worse. I don’t think this idea really compliments the site at all really. It’s only gotten to 10-15% of the articles, and the ratings are completely askew, either 4 or 5 stars, or none at all.

Like I said, it’s not a fair representation of the readership. And, I would think, that with an audience of systems designers, you would be a bit more reluctant to add something both unreliable and unnavigable, in essence.

I think the redesign is nice, however, as I said inititally, it’s got tons of new functionality, and might better represent the amount of content that you have.

My only real concern is the popularity contest model employed as of late. It’s not a very realistic or sustainable model.

I hope that it’s either improved (i.e. made real), or removed.

Thanks
CD Evans

CD Evans — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 09:58:00 GMT

Yes, to me it’s a simple balance, there is no right or wrong, just more or less of one thing or another.

I just see the business and technology sides of this industry (and I use that word with regret) taking over the possibilities of the medium. Disastrously. I think we live in such corrupt times, times when a local baker is about as close to having local design as we currently have. Gone is the tailor, the iron worker, the shoemaker, and even the farmer and the machinist. We are living without design, and to be perfectly frank, you have to be an artist to see this.

Wouldn’t you prefer to have a local shoemaker, someone who knew your feet and could design the shoes you needed? There was a time when all of the railway cars in America were designed by different people, for different areas, and they typically worked on a piece by piece model, not a time and materials model, leading to some of the most distinguishable designs by region that transportation has ever had. An artist is paid per piece, not by how many hours it took to make the piece. But look at programming… yikes!

I see programming as an art as well, and science, and, well everything really. The problem is that as design is so close to a fine art, it becomes difficult to lump it into into the industrial revolution model of time and materials. I would say the same is true of other areas, disciplines, that are frantically producing, yet yielding little, or at least repetitive results, just for the sake of time, instead of quality, or even quantity.

I think those of us who are closer to seeing that the time and materials model does not work, by necessity, should be proud in our reservation, and in our knowledge that it simply does not work. Unfortunately the business world does not agree with these simple facts, as accountants have never learned to subtract.

It’s very easy to see the problems caused with the manufacturing / industrial revolution model, when you look at it from the perspective of the ‘end users’, but the solution is not as easy as witnessing the results. I simply think that the arts have narrowly escaped the industrial production model, and people who produce arts are have the decency and the right to announce alternative models of production.

There is a better world out there, and it’s hanging on your wall, it’s in your photo albums and it’s in your sketchbook.

Boxes and Arrows: Comments by CD Evans