[MG] Clearing entry paths for new users

[Michael Allan]

Ed and Thomas wrote:
> > Steps 7-9 seem very unintuitive, since "diff me" serves the
> > opposite purpose earlier (explanatory text aside, it's still
> > confusing).  Couldn't these three steps be automated? After saving
> > in step 6, it could then run the diff against my original and
> > present the user with a convenient link to that diff, with the
> > text: "Here is the link to the differences between your draft and
> > the one you based it on." or other such plain language.
> 
> I dont know, if I would want an automatic diff, after I finished my
> position. But to solve the problem: How if we would have a "diff vs.
> candidate" besides every "diff me"?

We might have to return to these questions later, when the entrance
and exit ways are clear.  That's the key problem, as I think Ed points
out.  Whatever the solution is, it'll affect how the traffic flows.

Likewise for the other suggestions involving UI details.  I'll skip
them just for now if it's OK, because we can revisit them more
productively later.

Ed and Thomas:
> > This methodology became cumbersome when I looked at both of these
> > (above) which are related to each other.  ...  I Went to Mike's
> > first ...  and patched it into mine...  Then I went to Thomas' ...
> > and the fragment 3 is still there, even though half of it is now
> > the same as mine. This is because the diff links are static. Once
> > I patched in Mike's, the diff link I should have been looking at
> > was ...
> > 
> > Is there a desire to eventually make this sort of thing avoidable
> > somehow?
>
> Possible solution: Have a message on top of the page: "This diff is
> outdated! For the current one click here."

Yes I agree, we need to indicate whether or not the diff is current.
To be sure, we can still patch from old diffs without harm (except
maybe they fail), but it's better to see the latest.

I forget why that post had multiple diffs in the first place.  I can't
see the diffs themselves because they were broken by that bug fix.
But usually we need only a single diff per post.

> >
> >        (1)          (2)
> >
> >        -->           -->
> >  List       Bridge       Wiki
> >        <--<--
> >
> >        (4)          (3)
 
Thomas wrote:
> I like very much, what you propose, Mike! The easier it is to move 
> between the three places the better.
> 
> I didnt know, that it is possible to have the wiki also show the diffs 
> and have links to and from them. But if this is true, the only function 
> left exclusivly for the diff-bridge is patching then. Couldnt this also 
> be done with the wiki?

I don't think so.  The draft page can't actually show the diff.  Or
rather, I think it shouldn't.  The job of that page is to show the
draft text.  If we introduce structural changes to it, I think we risk
a "train wreck" in the UI.

The bridge footing has a lighter touch.  It's like a shadow.  It only
shows the portions of text that differ, not *how* they differ.  It's
light enough that it can be installed as a user script, and yet it's
still sufficient to anchor the bridge on the wiki side, which is all
we need in order to solve the problem.

I think these light touches are going to pay off.  What we're doing is
interconnecting the various media (drafting, discussion, voting) with
flexible bridges or channels.  So the media continue doing their work
unimpeded, each spinning according to its own logic and mechanism.
Interference problems are avoided, yet the additions are sufficient to
bring the media into new relations with each other.  That's really all
we need to do.

Because society is like that, too.  Maybe this justification isn't
needed, but I think it's interesting.  It's one of the insights we get
from Habermas that society is not moulded all of a piece.  Its various
parts, or aspects each has its own internal logic and "design fit"
with the whole.  The greatest danger is that one of them is allowed to
interfere too much with another and prevent it "spinning" as it
should.  So here too, it takes a light touch.

That said, the engineering task at this level is not to interconnect
the various parts of society differently, but only to free up one of
them.  I mean what Habermas calls the "public sphere".  Theory says it
got caught up in the machinery of the other parts and deflated.  Yet
if we reconnect its communication media with a suitably light touch,
then the public sphere is going re-inflate and float free.

-- 
Michael Allan

Toronto, +1 416-699-9528
http://zelea.com/



Originally posted to the mailing list of the Metagovernment Project:
http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org