« Down but not out - Annex | Main | Beyond the Valley of the Bush Doctrine »
Truth, Beauty, and Graphic Design
The Geekspeak thread is working so well, I figured I'd start a corresponding thread for the artistically inclined. Consider this a home for declaring your abilities and intererests in Web design, Gimp/Photoshop, fonts, color theory, composition, digital photography etc.
This is not altruistic. ;-) Anyone who's read the Geekspeak thread will know that Disillusioned and dirtgirl and Kate_Storm have been zeroing in on the close relationship between graphics and site design, and hence program design. So those of us from the Geek Squad will want to come demanding guidence Pretty Soon Now.
Special note to cross-dressers who can do Art and Tech work both: you are doubly cherished. Post both threads. Be our bridge.
And again, for those of you who are not graphic/web designers or artists: steer clear of posting to this thread. Give these folks the same professional teaming/problemsolving space you're giving us techies at Geekspeak.
Viva la Frente Popular!
Posted by trips arecopsem on July 1, 2004 at 06:56 PM | Permalink
Comments
I don't want to get in a flame war, so I'll just state this once, on both the "Truth, Beauty and Graphic Design" and the "Geekspeak" threads.
You can't build the scaffolding and then do interior design without first doing the architecture.
Architecting sustainable social spaces online is a discipline of its own, and involves both the basic, eternal dynamics of human group interactions, and the unique characteristics of online interaction.
Having been personally involved with this for about 15 years, I have seen it over and over and over again: focusing on the mechanics and the appearances, without determining the essence. It won't work. I know you're going to do it anyway, but I have to know that, at least, I tried to communicate the message.
You seem to understand that the skills that make an outstanding geek, and the skills that make and outstanding artiste rarely overlap in the same person.
Well, the skills that make an outstanding social architect don't overlap much with the other too, either.
And it's not just a matter of making another thread for community design; it's also a matter of linearity; choosing the car model and choosing the color before understanding whether you need a pick-up truck, a family van, and 18-wheeler, a tank, a bicycle or a mini compact almost guarantees failure.
There, I've said it, probably pissed off everyone, and promise not to come back and say "I told you so" when it doesn't work. I just wish folks wouldn't be in such a damn hurry to go ahead and build the thing before a consensus on what the hell we're building.
Posted by: galiel | Jul 1, 2004 8:30:58 PM
Just like a bunch of fucking liberals. :)
Form over substance.
Go take a look at Atrios. Basic Blogger.com. Much more basic than All Spin Zone. And Atrios has a pretty big community - $200,000 plus to the Kerry campaign with nothing more than a virtual slate and chisel approach.
Don't overthink this thing, guys. What's your end game? Regime change or Home and Garden channel?
JMHO.
Posted by: Richard Cranium | Jul 1, 2004 8:58:39 PM
Hey, hey, hey. I'm being misquoted! Is there a slotman in the house? ;-) I said "content" folks... and as for what the blog will be -- "we" are the content. The architecture comes first. I'm a Wrightian at heart ... form follows function. I like clean and simple ... understated elegance. I was speaking before about designing sites where I have to hound the client to death to give me stuff to put on the pages while they're complaining to the boss that their site isn't done yet. I can make just about anything pretty and flow well if I have the anything first.
Let me just add ... LOL ... maybe that should be the name of the place, that if the effort, muscle is visable it doesn't work for me. Like being a prima ballerina ... the thing done should look effortless, even though it's far from that. I only ask one thing from whoever has the final say ... please, no "mystery meat navigation". Okay?
Posted by: Kate_Storm | Jul 1, 2004 9:20:54 PM
Richard C,
I think we're seeking a place that allows for multiple conversations to persist over time. Blogs don't do that very well - as we are proving right now. Successful blogs feature a single voice, or very few.
While acknowledging Billmon, we will (more importantly, as rgiap has suggested) acknowledge ourselves.
Just look - Billmon silent, and nearly 500 comments in 2 1/2 days. Something is seeking a means of expression. A hundred-tentacled gestalt, a choir ready to preach.
I doubt Atrios' regulars would do the same if he went off-line.
As galiel says, the beast's habitat needs to be carefully thought out. I don't think we can kill it, but we can stunt its growth.
Posted by: OkieByAccident | Jul 1, 2004 9:58:44 PM
Standing. Applauding. Smiling.
Posted by: Kate_Storm | Jul 1, 2004 10:04:07 PM
I doubt Atrios' regulars would do the same if he went off-line.
I doubt it. Maybe. I dont' know. There were certainly more hardcore thinkers at Billmon, which is what made/makes it great.
My point, though, is that it doesn't make a darn bit of difference. The question you have to answer is, do you want an echo chamber or an actual forum for action?
Action in the real world is what changes things. Not incessant online bloviating (gawd, I love that word).
An ideal blog supports both in equal measures.
Posted by: Richard Cranium | Jul 1, 2004 10:08:45 PM
There, I've said it, probably pissed off everyone, and promise not to come back and say "I told you so" when it doesn't work. I just wish folks wouldn't be in such a damn hurry to go ahead and build the thing before a consensus on what the hell we're building.
That's fine with me. Look, I'm not a techie- but I know a lot about design.
I got photoshop- I got camera skills and I have a good eye. I'm good with fonts too.
That said, I don't think this thing has to be all fancy.
Posted by: fourlegsgood | Jul 1, 2004 10:16:43 PM
First about name …we have quite a few suggestions and I think someone needs to organize voting at this point.
1. We’ll have place to comment Bilmons writing not (only) because we were “born” there but because it’s interesting and provoking to our thoughts. This section needs to have name associated with WB, off course.WB Annex seems appropriate to me.
2. We’ll also have our own space to develop interesting discussions on various topics. Here we have to agree who is to be entitled to start those topics (all of us or group of people whom we trust, people that have time and will to put it together as an interesting text…like Meteor Blades, Steve G. and Billmon earlier on D-Kos)…We can use some of the suggestions that will not win in voting process for the name of this part…
3. We’ll have poetry room. We may also have book room or different other art-related rooms that may all go under same roof .We almost agreed to call this “house of art” – “Le Chat Noir”…didn’t we? And we have great poster to put up front door…
4. We may have a chat room (here or anywhere) for personal chat and conflicts that may occur from time to time.
5. Looks like some of the posters would like to have “Members only” part but to be honest I believe it should be time consuming for all of us to go through so many different sections and if you ask me I’d like to see it open but with a larger number of moderators. Registration yes but very simple – e-mail address only…We may also vote on this.
It is pretty hard to implant democracy in net-communities and I personally wouldn’t waste time on it. We may vote who we want to moderate/administer this place but I have a feeling it’s just not necessary cause few people already enlisted themselves and looks like we silently agreed on them.
I also wouldn’t bother making any rules (I have previous experience with it and it went wrong) other then we all need to be civil and we all are in moderators hands on this. By civil I don’t think we need to agree all the time but what ever opinion we need to express towards each other, we’ll all need to choose words carefully. (This does NOT apply to Bushco and politicians or other public persons we are talking about LOL)
So I suppose at this point we are done with suggestions and we just have to agree through voting on some of the things and let geeks and designers work on it…. My 2 cents
I also wouldn’t discuss at this point body and a way of discussions…it will develop during the time…With so many great minds I don’t feel we need to worry about it. If there is need for action – action will be “born”…not that we have much more of the “weaponry” but our thoughts…
Posted by: vbo | Jul 1, 2004 11:41:37 PM
Do you want an echo chamber or an actual forum for action?
Both. And more. A refuge, bar, reference library, armory, and yes, a playground. A place where you can leave the impromptu seminar on biostatistics or Straussian dialectic, go into the next room, and don a lampshade.
At the risk of stretching a metaphor past the Geneva Convention limits, I agree we don't need to decide which plants to hang and what color the bathroom soap is. But the required rooms need to be securely framed in, the roof leakproof, the utilites working, and the bar well stocked. And the decor should abet (or at least not inhibit, at first) the function of each room. It must be easy to get in, move from room to room. And not have to put up with uncomfortable chairs and tables that require a folded package of sugar under one leg.
It should look like someplace you want to go into.
And new rooms easy to add, with no zoning hassles from the administrators.
We can always replace the sign & repaint the walls, and decide which rooms are private.
Ogg wisely say haste make waste. But at the same time, the sooner we can move into a more proper habitat, the sooner we can quit hunching over and spilling drinks on each other. And start practicing auto-taxonomy.
(the metaphor is packed in ice and wheeled furtively out on a gurney,)
Posted by: OkieByAccident | Jul 1, 2004 11:47:07 PM
Poetry yes and maybe books too?
No, no, no. Books for sure. I couldn't care less about the rest. Especially about poetry.
I suspect I'm not the only one who feels that way.
Posted by: fourlegsgood | Jul 2, 2004 12:15:15 AM
Oops, did I post on the wrong thread? I just put suggestion on format over on Billmon down but not out thread? I'm uhhh confused. What I suggested basically was retaining the Whiskey Bar idea, but having guests do the original post - for ex. Sam Smith, who had just been mentioned by DeAnder. I've corresponded w/him about starting a Whiskey Bar type blog. He was very interested, but said he didn't have time. My thougt was that Billmon found it too time consuming to both write & maintain the Bar. So maybe it's worth considering separating the two. Sam Smith, who is an interesting knowledgeable fellow (see his prorev.com which sends out digest of impt., interesting & amusing digests of the day every day) may be interested in participating if all he had to do was write. But we could invite a range of people...(I don't know how this compares to Kos - who is funded by the dangerous Geo. Soros, as I have trouble accessing his site, thght. the format too alienating & techie & the it's content too limited in scope & politics.) If I'm repeating prev. discussions, I apologize. This is the first day in ages I've been able to read the site. In the past the font was too tiny on my screen.
Posted by: jj | Jul 2, 2004 12:57:16 AM
Someone has to be a little bit right wing about the whole thing and "just do it" otherwise we'll be debating bullshit instead of sharing news and facts and real opinions.
Posted by: Cloned Poster | Jul 2, 2004 3:26:47 AM
guys
I've sent my basic blueprint to most of those that have participated in the threads in the past few days. I still think that it answers most of the questions that have been put here.
In order to move forward, can I suggest that comments on site design suggest concrete changes to the proposal on the table. If each of us sends its general suggestions, we'll never go anywhere. So I invoke the privilege of first mover to get everybody to focus on my specific proposal. If you have not read it, send me an e-mail or go read it in "Le Speakeasy" thread.
Let's get moving on the concrete stuff. Add design, logo, etc... to my very naked template, or add specific sections or features, if you want.
As for the name, the overwhelming consensus of those that posted in the first two days was for The speakeasy or Le Speakeasy. Of course each of us has its own ideas (including myself) but we need to start deciding things. I've done that, trying to reflect the comments then available, so let's build on that or we'll never go anywhere.
And no, it's not a takeover. It's just getting things done. Please help me do it.
As has been said above, we have 500+ comments here in a temporary site, several parallel active threads, so let's not waste the energy.
Posted by: Jérôme | Jul 2, 2004 5:23:00 AM
And no, it's not a takeover. It's just getting things done.
Thanks Jérôme,
that was exactly my intention too - trying to get things done.
The last two days I have -some 90% finished- a site that has some look and feel of Billmons Whiskey Bar. The name of the site was choosen from the chorus of the Brecht/Weil Alabama Song Billmon cites on his site. The domain name and hosting is payed for up to July 2005.
There can and shall be multiple authors activated for the site to post and to moderate when needed. Design/function changes can be done within the limits of the typepad hosting system and when desired by the community.
So I propose to use www.MoonOfAlabama.org as the starting point of a probably more extensive community site.
I have no personal interest in that site other than being a member of the community and discussing politic/economic/philosphocal questions along Billmons post.
Posted by: Bernhard | Jul 2, 2004 6:00:03 AM
Design/function changes can be done within the limits of the typepad hosting system
Um, that is the whole problem. I love typepad - as a blogging system.
Like all current blogging systems, it *sucks* as a community tool. Why would we want to simply reproduce Billmon's problems by using a fork as a screwdriver?
We need to use the right tool before we decorate it, and we need to decide what we want to do before we choose the tool.
Simple.
Posted by: galiel | Jul 2, 2004 10:43:59 AM
@Jérôme
I'm not sure where to put architecture comments, because they are not technology and they are not graphic design comments. But, for lack of a better place, I'll put them here.
From your Blueprint;
The initial goal is to provide a place for regular Billmon readers to make comments on his posts and continue the lively discussions that have taken place so far in his comments section. An additional goal is to provide a place for the same people to discuss other topics of interest on the same site.
I would add one more goal: to facilitate a sustainable community (a word nearly absent from your proposal, and from most of the specific proposals here, yet one that comes up time and again in conversations here as the key, intangible “thing” that we had, which we want to preserve and nurture), and to provide a better way to support ongoing discussions (which, in turn, facilitate community, prevent the same things from being hashed over and over, and make it easier for new community members to be engaged and absorbed).
The community on Billmon developed *despite* the interface, not because of it, and collapsed *because* of the interface, not because of it (I'm using "interface" as an awkward shorthand to describe our interactions with the site, please do not confuse it with the visual design). Our stumbling efforts here on this blog are a perfect example. We manage, but we are forced to contort painfully to comply with the tool, rather than the tool working to accomplish what we want.
Blogs are designed primarily as a broadcast tool, with comments added as a rather lame afterthought.
The entire administration of a blog is top-down - that is what killed Billmon's comment section. Blogs are fundamentally dictatorial, or at best oligarchic, and they are asymmetrically skewed toward broadcast.
There is no ability to maintain a thread, no matter how lively the discussion; There is no ability to self-police the community, because there is no ability for the community to act as a self-policing community.
There is no ability for the community to create topics, even if there is wide-spread interest in the topic.
There is no ability to defuse flames, save the brute-force ability to manually delete trolls, and two decades of online discussion has proven that to be a futile exercise.
I could go on, but the point is, blogs are not community tools, so, if the stated goal is to maintain community, a blog is the wrong tool.
What makes a sustainable community? Sigh, that is the topic of umpteen books, bazillions of essays, oodles of discussions, and my own life’s work. But, for the purposes of this discussion, there are just a few principles that need be kept in mind:
1) Design for the right scale. Taking your General Concept point at face-value, it sounds like the scale is relatively small, consisting overwhelmingly of people who are naturally attracted to Billmon’s sensibilities, style and substance, and who wish to continue the conversation in a better “space”; Therefore, I would suggest, it should require registration to post, which requires a real-email, is otherwise free and unrestricted, but has no exceptions. Anonymous comments are not allowed, and “temporary registration” is not an option. What is the purpose of distinguishing between “temporary membership to post” and “permanent membership?” Why provide for another category of “quick comment” that will only attract trolls or people who are not really committed to the conversation? Why provide another administrative headache? Virtually every serious, sustained online forum I know of, requires simple email registration in order to post (reading is open to all). What is the purpose of creating that additional category of poster?
2) Provide tools that empower the community to self-govern. Rather than think of layers of moderation, which is a “last-generation” way of thinking, why not avail of “next-generation” community tools, which provide means for the community to police itself? Intrusive manual moderation is not a sustainable practice, there are thousands of case-studies over two decades to learn from. And, it is not necessary. Trolls can be dealt with by a healthy community through a combination of culture and peer pressure, and the provision of tools for ranking/rating/otherwise collectively rewarding constructive and penalizing destructive commentary.
3) Above all, make sure the system enables and facilitates what the community wants to do, rather than force the community to fight the tool. Note that this, along with everything else, requires giving the community itself some measure of power, of letting go of the authoritarian instincts that tend to prevail in these kind of design exercises.
Contrary to what someone said on one of these threads, a measure of democracy is not only implementable in online communities, it is an essential ingredient. Note that I said democracy, not anarchy. And note that this does not conflict, despite the implication in his essay, with Sharky’s correct observation that ultimate power must reside in a small group of people who have a special emotional stake in a) the survival of the community, and b) in keeping it true to its original intent.
The way we solve this seeming contradiction in the physical world is with representative government. The way to solve it in online community is with a meritocracy. That is, one provides built-in affordances that encourage constructive behavior and penalize destructive behavior; one provides tools for key-players to meta-administer, which means tinkering at the edges when needed, while the majority of the self-policing happens at the membership level; one builds in a certain barrier to entry, by making the community membership only, which provides for accountability and authentication; but one opens it up to the world, by making membership free and easy. But one allows people to naturally, by group consensus, graduate upwards into the “meta” category, rather than having it happen by fiat, or by attrition/replacement.
Basically, if we identify our needs correctly, the right, existing tools *already have* all these “affordances” built in (or, at least, many of them, the technology is still evolving).
All I am saying is that, as Shirky points out, you can learn from other’s experience, or you can learn from your own. If the lesson is “there are crocodiles in that river”, which type of experience would you prefer to learn from?
Posted by: galiel | Jul 2, 2004 11:30:34 AM
Ok, here are the requests and requirements as I've understood them so far (from the last 500 or so comments I've waded through over the last few days). I've come up with some ideas, so let me lay them out here, and see if everyone agrees:
1. For the community to 'discuss' things and be able to sustain flowing conversation, Blog software of any kind is (as stated above) not practical. For this type of interaction we will need a Bulletin Board type of software. A good BB will allow searches, e-mail registration (but not too intrusive), a search feature, the ability to track posts as well as posters, a calendar, and allow administrators to moderate as needed.
2. Even though Blog software is not feasible for the community 'interaction', it is essential so that the community has something to interact about. My idea is to have volunteers who want to write be able to do so using a Blog. It is familiar, it is logical and makes sense. My thought is that instead of having a 'comments' link at the bottom, the link at the end of the post can be directed to the appropriate thread within the Bulletin Board.
3. With the Blog and Bulletin Board set up, those two things are 95% of the entire site, with MOST of the activity going on in the forums. The BB will also provide a place for any and every type of discussion ranging from politics, to poetry and book reviews, etc. It is easy enough to add links from the main page (the Blog) to whatever we want them to point to.
4. Alternately, we can have another Blog set in place specifically for people to post poetry should they want them presented in a Blog format rather than in the Bulletin Board. It would have the exact same look and feel as the main Blog (so continuity throughout the site will not be too confusing, the same links, etc..), it will just have its own little home nested in the bigger site.
The way I see it is that we need a Blog with the comments pointing to a Bulletin Board. This setup (from what I can reason out in my tiny brain) is ideal for every purpose we have in mind, no matter the direction.
Since Outraged has more than enough space, bandwidth, etc...and over the last few days the name Le Speakeasy seems to be the overall general agreed upon consensus, it boils down to these two things.
Maybe I am over simplifying, but the way I see it, anything else that will pop up (and I'm sure it will), is just something that can be added on to from there. Setting these things up doesn't take a hell of a lot really, and if we can agree upon what I've said up above, there is no reason it can't be up, running and fully decorated within a week's time (if that).
Please let me know if what I've said is not feasable or workable in any way, because this is the thought that has been going through my mind over the last several days. There is more than enough software out there off the shelf or open source that would take care of the needs of these two main features. Am interested in feedback on this so I'm not running off in the totally wrong direction...
Posted by: Disillusioned | Jul 2, 2004 12:03:26 PM
@ Disillusioned
1) Yes. We need forum software.
2) No. We don't need blog software. it is essential so that the community has something to interact about. Um, isn't Billmon's blog that thing? And, beyond Billmon's posts, there are the events of the day. Forum software can allow anyone to create a thread, optionally within a certain category,and people either contribute to that thread or not. The opening post of the thread creator is analagous to your multiple blog posters. Why do we need another blog?
3 & 4) none of this requires a blog. Why do you need a blog to post poetry? You simply post it in the Poetry section of the forum.
We should use an open source forum system. Depending upon the expertise available, we can use one based on PHP (my personal recommendation, thought I am not a coder or scripter), Perl, Python, Java, or whatever.
There. You wanted specific recommendations, there they are. We still need to have a discussion about the first part, the "what" part, before we implement the "how", but, for some reason, people are so impatient that we can't even spend a few days doing that. I bet Jerome and others here spend more than 72 hours planning a vacation, I fail to understand why we can't spend a few days having a discussion about what we want to do.
Billmon had his post about ending comments just three days ago, for crying out loud!
Posted by: galiel | Jul 2, 2004 3:34:23 PM
Hey, if you want to wait, and discuss this for a few more weeks, that's all fine and dandy with me too.
It just seemed to me that we all wanted something functional and tasteful that would satisfy the majority of requests that I've seen posted here. And it also seemed to me that we would like it sooner, rather than later, before things here become too confusing and out of hand as they did over at Billmon's. Easy enough to understand.
I guess I am on the list of the 'impatient'. That's fine, that's just me. If all anyone needs is a Bulletin Board to strictly discuss Billmon's posts, ezboard is free and can be setup and maintained in a matter of minutes, and we can just be done with it.
I just came out with the understanding that we might want to have featured articles of the day 'in addition to' whatever Billmon has time to post. Perhaps opinions written by other patrons here who would like to take a stab at writing and having that piece discussed. I presumed that a Blog format would be familiar and easily used by those who were interested. But as you stated, there is no 'need' to have it, it was just my vision.
On the other hand, I don't want to repeatedly bog myself down in trying to get 500 different people on the same page via commenting here. I have a better chance of winning the lottery. I would just like to see a general consensus of the population here, which is what I thought had been occuring over the last few days already?
I'm a person of action, sometimes that's a good thing and sometimes that's a bad thing. I've never been one to spend more than a few days discussing something. I think about it, envision what I want done, and then set about doing it. You'll notice a lot of 'I's' in there though. So since this is a 'team' effort, as it should be, I'll just sit back and wait for my assignments as they come. I'll leave the final discussion and decison making up to those who want it, when they want to do it.
Posted by: Disillusioned | Jul 2, 2004 4:08:58 PM
galiel - you have more experience than I do in online communities and make valid points. How do you suggest we proceed? I think that desillusioned is also making valid points and I am not sure how to reconcile both - valid approaches.
My blueprint used the following logic, based on my limited knowledge of online communities:
- have what we had at billmon's (the community)
- have the few things missing (specialised and OT threads)
- make it a collective effort, to avoid burnout of anyone
- leave the door open to something more ambitious
- be reasonably easily feasible IT wise (again, from the perspective of my limited knowledge in such matters)
and
- get something actually up and running.
Now, we have the community here, we have the various threads, and we also have Billmon's proposal (made to me and a few others) to make this the official billmon annex when we're ready, so what's the hurry?
The only thing I am sure of - we need one person, or a very small number of persons, to take the initiative and do stuff. My early proposal got a positive feedback from a reasonable proportion of the "regulars", which gives some legitimacy within the community to use it, which is why I have been pushing. Sadly, I cannot do it myself, but this also allows from other's ideas to be implemented in that phase, thus avoiding a one-man-show.
Yours make seems to make sense as well, and I'm happy to support it, but will you be willing to "work" to get it done at some point (by you or others)? Will others care to comment either way?
Hope this helps.
Posted by: Jérôme | Jul 2, 2004 4:51:25 PM
How do you suggest we proceed?
Have a separate discussion topic about what people want to be able to do at this annex - within the parameters of the statement of purpose that you outlined, which none of us disagree with, which is that this fundamentally is meant to sustain the community of Billmon commenters (thus, IMO, setting up a full-fledged multi-author blog is outside these parameters, as is setting up another dailykos).
That is what needs to be done right now, IMO. A conversation.
To ensure your sanity, I would recommend suspending the geekspeek and graphic design threads, and other dangling ones, and having just three ongoing topics:
1) What do we want to be able to do at the Annex?
2) Comments on Billmon's latest (he will get back to posting soon).
3) Open thread - commenting on news of the day, etc, other discussions, whatever.
Thus you fulfil the purpose of getting to a consensus on what the Annex should look like, you have continuity of commenting on Billmon for the moment, and you have a catch-all thread for everything else.
All admins need to do, maintenance-wise, for the moment, is move off-topic posts from #1 and #2 to #3.
Set a time-limit on the discussion in #1. Take into account that this is an international, asynchronous conversation, so take the time it would normally take offline on a casual, free-time basis, and multiply by three.
Take into account that this is the 4th of July weekend in the US, so most will not be around.
My recommendation: Keep the conversation open on thread #1 until Friday, July 9. I can't be available reliably to admin, but I volunteer to keep the discussion on a productive tack on that thread between now and July 9, by which I mean keeping the discussion on the "what", not the "how", and on what is called in geek-speek "affordances", that is the things you want to be able to *do*, as opposed to how to do them, or about doing more grandious and ambitious things that are outside the parameters of our mission.
Then, I volunteer to summarize the discussion and come up with a proposed list of "affordances". We'll get feedback on that, which you have to give a few days for, again because of the nature of the medium.
Then, I'll publish the final list of affordances, which will serve as a specifications list for the technical folks.
At this point, you close thread #1 and replace it with a geekspeek thread.
Looking at what we want to do, they will decide what is the best tool to get us there. A proposal will be made, and comments allowed. A tool will be chosen. (note: someone should take responsibility to honcho that discussion as well, to keep it on track and faithful to the spec list).
The geekspeek thread will then go private, or at least off the top of this site, so that the geeks can work out the technicalities.
Next, a design thread will be put up. Given the list of affordances, and knowing the constraints of the technological tool we choose to use, the designers will come up with a look and feel for the site. We'll do a little iterative design, with them putting up mockups and getting feedback. (again, I would recommend a single individual to lead this discussion, not necessarily lead the design, just the conversation about it).
Finally, we'll put it all together, live in it for a while, realize all the shit we got totally wrong and fix it.
That is my proposal. YMMV.
Posted by: galiel | Jul 2, 2004 5:15:41 PM
Just wanted to note that, while all this is going on, you still have only the two other threads to worry about (or fresh iterations of them, when they get too heavy with comments): comments on Billmon's latest, and an "other stuff" thread.
Posted by: galiel | Jul 2, 2004 5:17:57 PM
