UWEB:Status/TVerBeek

(Wikitravel ...)

NotYet I'm OK with the idea, but a bit unclear on the goal, and totally unclear on (and therefore uncomfortable with) the "process" this page is apparently supposed to embody. I'm certainly not about to vote "yes" on something where the logo being voted on changes without warning after I've voted, and includes examples that I don't think work at all. (If I wanted that, I'd move to Florida.) Since I don't know how/where I'm supposed to comment on the proposed icons, I'll do it here: The "two way web" is an esoteric buzzphrase that means nothing to most people, so an icon based on it would be equally meaningless. Delta as a symbol of change is only meaningful to math/science geeks, and the shape has connotations of danger in other contexts. The "stylized pencil" is the only one that I think conveys the concept of "edit". Most of the others are just arbitrary graphics.
Update: The "chalk" icon doesn't particularly look like chalk. Besides: who uses chalk to "edit"? Has anyone in the post-industrial world actually seen chalk in a classroom in the past decade? At least a pencil is a symbol that people might actually recognize and understand... and perhaps even have experience using. Stop trying to be so "original"; an icon should be obvious, not clever. This a weak idea (chalk), weakly implemented (doesn't look like chalk). Edit-chalk-10bo12.png edit

Discussion

Couple of comments. ConsensusPolling is what we call this crazy process, where the document we're working on keeps changing. That's why we don't use the word "vote." We use "status" instead, and you're encouraged to change your status as often as you like. We're learning that this process works better with text than with images, so far. So, all that being said, how do you feel about the change of frame to Good Enough For Version 0.1? peace, TedErnst

What about my comments leads you to believe I think this is good enough for anything? A process in which criticisms are not answered and instead someone comes along and pressures people "So do you think it's good enough?" seems pretty fundamentally broken, not just "works better with [other material]". It certainly gives me little reason to think this ill-considered "chalk (that doesn't look like chalk)" notion will ever be fixed before "1.0". I'm all for consensus as a process, and have a bit of experience with it both off- and on-line... and this isn't that. In consensus-building, participants not only get to talk, but they get some assurance that others are listening to them, and those others respond to what they say. I don't see that happening here at all. - TVerBeek 04:40, 6 July 2007 (PDT)

You're absolutely right. I wasn't talking about the chalk at all. Because we've had so many different images, and it's so complicated and confusing to attempt to settle on the "best" one that everyone likes, the change of frame was proposed. I was asking only about the change in frame, not about whether the current icons actually satisfy that change of frame. I apologize for not listening deeply enough. I really appreciate you pointing that out. How do you see us moving forward now? Would you like to contribute to the facilitation of this process? We're using Projects:UniversalWikiEditButton to keep track of that part. Perhaps that would be a good place for you to write about the meta actions that would help your concerns to become satisfied? peace, TedErnst

I've tried starting a discussion about the content of the current proposal, but I really don't have time or energy to wade through the process process on this. I'll simply suggest dropping obfuscatory jargon such as "change of frame" and "meta actions" and explain what you mean in English. Consensus works so much better when you try to make yourself clear. - TVerBeek 10:27, 6 July 2007 (PDT)

Consensus takes work. I apologize if the way I'm doing it isn't acceptable to you. That's why I'd love your help! Change of frame is a change in point of view. When this work towards an agreement on a UniversalWikiEditButton started, the frame, the point of view, was that we were attempting to agree on the actual button itself. We weren't talking about the "why." Since we obviously are not coming to agreement on an actual image, either because we don't have any good images yet (as your comments above point out) or because we're not very skilled at this process, or both, or maybe some other reasons, an attempt was made to change the point of view, to see if the "good enough for v0.1" idea was sufficient to for people to start coming to agreement. I'm guessing this change of point of view doesn't do it for you. Any ideas about how we can move forward now? Thanks again for being engaged here and speaking your mind! TedErnst

TVerBeek, which icon would be good enough for version 0.1 as far as you're concerned? Would you mind adding that "good enough" icon to the list on the page? If you'd like, you can just point out the one you like and I'll add it for you :-) For me, the chalk icon added to the list by Peter is "good enough" even though it's hard to recognize. The [[ icon added by Angela (and then later removed by her) also works for me even though it is a bit wiki engine dependent. I also am fine with many of the pencil icons ("good enough for version 0.1") even though I don't think they are perfect either. Do I hear you saying that the chalk is definitely not "good enough" for version 0.1 and so should be removed from our consideration? Regards, Brandon


"Has anyone in the post-industrial world actually seen chalk in a classroom in the past decade?"

[Comment edited after looking up the precise meaning of "post-industrial world"]

Why would you choose to limit the application of this symbol to the post-industrial world? Chalkboards are still in use globally, especially in the Third World; wikis are a tool for everyone, regardless of where they are. And yes, chalk is still in use in privileged countries: even U.S. Department of Energy astrophysicists use chalkboards. -- Earle Martin 01:44, 13 July 2007 (PDT)




Retrieved from "http://aboutus.com/index.php?title=UWEB:Status/TVerBeek&oldid=8132342"