Short Essay on Community Demographics,With Apologies

A very good point...and glowing evidence, though it does cause me to chuckle, of the danger of using tech-speak to communicate non-technical concepts...you did help me build this house of cards, since you did choose to use language comfortable to you, but not in current contemporary usage outside your technical community.



Ironically, I am also a scientist, in another field...and in my field, we live or die by whether we collaborate to solve problems. We MUST find common language, or the puzzle/solution languishes, wholly or partly directly as a consequence of our inability to understand each other's challenges well enough in the shared context...beginning to sound familiar? My bet is that you are an engineer who does science, and not vice versa...and no disrespect intended, but the two are not the same.


If my car is broken, the mechanic I take it to will take the time to explain to me, in terminology that DOESN'T include torque pressures, ignition firing sequences, chip parameters, gear ratios, and manufacturer's paint shade numbers. What I know is how to get in my car, start it, adjust the controls, put in gas and other fluids, get regular maintenance and go PointA-PointB. Yet, before my mechanic starts repairs, I understand both what is wrong with my car, why it needs to be fixed, and why it will cost as it does...

Why is there NEVER any presumption on the part of the full-blown electronic tech (or medical doctor) that the customer IS relatively intelligent and capable of understanding ANYTHING BUT platitudes...who is generalizing now? Non-full blown tech report = platitude? Not on your life, hehe! Yet it happens, over and over, anywhere I have EVER worked or played that did require computer platform/network servicing. That IS an environment of elitism born of intellectual arrogance, though not every environment necessitates that ALL adhere to the philosphy, so I am being careful not to generalize.

However, none of this do I see as diminishing the value of your opinions or point of view, I am learning from, and enjoying, both.

Don't stop now!

Wow, this NEEDS to be addressed, non-confrontationally...please be careful, okay? You are in huge trouble with everyone who reads this paragraph that ISN'T in the same R&D sectors you and I are comfortable with...do you have any idea how incredibly offensive this paragraph is...and this makes my point stronger than any book I could write...this language ("dumbed right down", phrasing and concept is offensive to anyone not familiar with the vernacular you are using, or the context...

((edit: actually, I've decided this is offensive to me, as well, given that I've already given sufficient reason for you to understand I am not a CS-tech, as well...I would never look at one of my peer/colleagues whom I considered my equal, and use this term in debate, except in the most light-hearted of exchanges...and I am trying to make a serious point with this thread that I feel is deserving of less levity and more gravity, sorry))

...therefore, it is completely inappropriate in this forum, given the readership, and precisely the premise I suggest your tech-oriented peers at LL and within the BBP community are so destructively clinging to...the fatally flawed and disasterous pretention that ONLY those who ARE "part of the fraternity" are reading this...

And THAT, dear friend, is the 100 point bullseye of my entire treatise!

Well I certainly agree with you there!

Omitting unnecessary detail and unnecessary technical terminology and certainly unnecessary theory is clearly a good thing. Even within the ranks of a discipline we often take the mickey out of anyone who isn't playing to the right audience, either teaching grandma to suck eggs or omitting explanations that are obvious to him. So yes, you have to modify your presentation to fit the audience.

When the target audience has some exposure to computing, there isn't much of a problem at all, although the informational content of any communication reduces in proportion to the amount of relevant technical information omitted. Still, as long as *some* technical information is retained, a mixed technical audience will generally tend to be satisfied, at least in part.

But what happens when, as in the topic under discussion (huge influx of non-technical people), the target audience has no exposure to the terminology nor the concepts of computing at all? Should we retain *some* technical references and receive complaints that it's not being pitched at a non-technical audience, or should we omit *all* technical information and receive complaints that it's just glossy PR with near-zero content?

Well, I know what you'll answer, that there's a path between the two, where you supply some technical information without using technical language nor assuming technical knowledge. Well, that's a very interesting premise .... but is it actually real? I'd like to see some example statements about a technical topic that contain no technical language and assume no technical knowledge, yet still say something informational about that technical topic that is clearly not a platitude.

I do see one possible approach to this: it's education. In other words, starting from first principles, you explain topics using only the terminology explained so far, and nothing else. That's not possible in the general case, because the objects of discourse in many subject areas are cross-referential, but it might be possible in this particular case -- I don't know.

But I don't think that you want CR to be delivering education anyway. So I'm really puzzled.

Morg.

Morg, I think I know someone we can talk to about this...and much more discussion needed about mechanisms, this one is a huge personal-SL-time-compressor!!!

Oops, apparently, intelligence breeds profound extrasensory powers, in addition to contempt. (Just kidding)...Actually, though, you could not be more wrong...about my ideas...you and I really really need to talk to a Linden I know, grab up some like-minded friends, and start some serious roundtable discussions...this venue is just too incremental and fraught with perils!

I actually intended to offer up for discussion the concept that the two need not be mutually exclusive at all...that there is a obligation for the PR hacks to offer both. You know what I am talking about...even the hallowed pages of Nature and Science and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences find their way to the Washington Post! Everyone in entitled to be informed, in ways they both understand and can then use to make reasoned decisions. That doesn't mean that some who read the Post don't read Nature, and vice versa...nor does it mean that folks are incapable of taking technical information and drawing their own conclusions....and most importantly, intellectual arrogance does not give us the right to decide who is and is not qualified to consume information at various levels. The job of the informed is to inform, period. One either decides to treat factual information as currency of the realm which only the landed gentry are entitled to hold, or you view it as the means by which anyone can become empowered to do good in the world...

Lack of information due to presumptions from on high about what is fit and necessary for consumption, that is the agent of stasis, not progress in any society.



And on you go, the debate already decided, thanks to your ability to successfully argue both sides of the issue without any need for me or anyone else to participate...this is a dark day LOL

LOL, I give up.

This is what scientists do, Parsimony, look at all the known possibilities, for and against a proposition, without taking sides. Only debaters take sides a priori, because they seek to support one particular proposition, whereas scientists let logic lead them to a consistent proposition.

So, although I could not see any way to achieve your goal in the manner you described, I assumed it was flawed understanding on my part and passed it over to you to explain.

And you labelled it "contempt", semi-jokingly.

So, as I said, I give up.

Just to be clear, go back and read the original post, please...me thinks you are (with apologies to everyone) "out of domain"...the essay never purported to be a scientific treatise, only a point of view based upon one person's personal conversations and observations. Therefore, the current venue, safe to say, IS an invitation to debate...and you need only have asked, and I would candidly tell you that, if you had opportunity to visit other threads I am in, you would see that I AM a vocal advocate for change, and make no pretentions of being scientific about it, only pragmatic.

While I continue to try to respond to at least some of the points, the counterpoints have moved further and further away from discussing the underlying causes of problems, and closer and closer to attempts to undermine the source of the viewpoint (me).

Having played the "scientific thinking" card...now that it is on the table, I'm not quite sure how "preaching to the choir" helped anyone 'save souls' here...

Scientifically speaking...language IS critical, and between scientists, it is clearly understood that language cannot be used haphazardly, and out of context, to safely communicate...and it is also understood that, many times, you will need the informed support of people who do not know the intricacies of your work...therefore, it is your responsibility to establish EFFECTIVE communication. In this case, your choices are simple, you either take years to educate your collaborator, or you (yes you) find language that will clearly explain your work, your needs, and your goals (just as my high-school-educated, effective-communicating auto mechanic!!!)...and that is also what Linden techies MUST do if they wish to continue to use their subscribers as beta testers-on-the-main-grid.




In sidebar, attributing one point of view to me, without giving me the opportunity to speak to the topic, as you have done, while not addressing the points I DO profer...well, that's not objective and that's NOT science, it's simply a rather transparent attempt at intellectual bullying (a failing I freely admit susceptibility to, myself, from time to time)...and clearly a laudable attempt to derail the conversation by forcing me to spend all my time disavowing your allegations...NO THANKS, but nice try! Thanks for the conversation, and sorry you weren't able to sway me as you seem to have hoped.

I still think the conversation has been enlightening, and even constructive. Contact me if you're interested in helping organize some sort of round-table discussion.

After that rather exhausting side-trip, let's get back on the path of finding ways Linden and we CAN reduce the distance between customer needs and technical needs...Susanne? Bodger? Anyone?

That's very commendable.

However, shouldn't you start with, at the very least, a very rudimentary idea for how you can get limited technical information across without using technical language nor assuming technical knowledge?

Even just some sort of very vague idea? Anything at all? Something, anything? Even just a hint of an idea?

Because unless that is possible to achieve, then the most likely outcome would appear to be delivery of empty platitudes. I've been there, and that's not useful nor pleasant.

Morg.

Good afternoon

You're right...let's change the status quo! Some very bright folks here...I say let's: a)raise the bar, and b)give the gift of answers, not restatements of the obvious challenges.

I continue to be unhappy with the idea of binary reasoning. I continue to think both the "1" switch (technical jargon) and the "not-1" switch (customer satisfaction) BOTH have to be turned on. Unlike the mainframes and miniframes and platform-dedicated computers you and I use for our work, as the consumer, our use of Second Life is NOT driven by compelling need for the resource, but by compelling need to be entertained. Second Life is in the business of providing entertainment.

To use a 100% relevant example, that is why Electronic Arts, Microsoft, and the majority of other software providers, now, supply both "plug and play" and "techie" versions of their installation/activation instruction packets. There IS a need for both...and if that requires resources to address, then so be it. I am sorry, but Linden, not their customer base, created that need when they shifted marketing from the previous profile to the broader public.

You and I can, and probably will, debate the applicability and relevance to everyone elses' absolute exhaustion...but that does not change the fact that, once the need is created, it must be fullfilled, from purely a marketing (not technical) standpoint.

Just to give both your fingers a break I will interject here as a non-techie. I am a marine planner, have a limited knowledge of IT, yet use a huge range of software applications, which I usually apply the "learn while you use approach".

SL to me is just another software ap. It must have a great deal of processor power behind it and an army of poor programmers in some sweat shop in down town San Fran, but I need not care nor want to know about the techy backroom stuff. It is the front of house stuff I am interested in.

All I want to know is what is not working and when it will be working again. A current example is the BBCode. I am told it is turned off because they need to do an update on some server. That is more than enough information regarding the technical problems. What displeases me, as a general consumer, is that no time frame has been put on this problem being resolved, not even a ball park figure.

I understand the techies out their either need or want additional info, but is this not provided for in the new JIRA that LL have set up. Therefore, does it not make sense for official blog posts to be as non technical and is in plain English as possible, with a link to the JIRA thread and appropriate techy explanation?

First WB, Bodger! Believe me, you were missed! Thanks again for the Icarus Paradox reference. It was both enjoyable and chilling/enlightening...also giving me pause to consider the direction of the SL-embedded firm I am ramping up.

I don't know HOW I could have stated it any more clearly than you have...and no amount of "scientific reasoning" or thoughtful analysis can change (or willfully hide, hehe) the fact that you have hit the nail dead on the head, with (unintentionally) 1 foot-kiloton of force...a nail that is subject to physics, and therefore must now move!

Morg, if you want to know, in all of its elegant detail, how evolution works, go to the finest genetics/biology publications and texts currently available in graduate classrooms, but DO NOT attempt to suggest that we should be sinking the HMS Beagle, muzzling Charles Darwin and banning "Origin of Species: Voyages of the HMS Beagle", or burning high school science books, simply because your textbook is more high-end-information-specific...

The worldly reality now is that it's time to either raise the CR/PR bar, and join us in leaping a little higher, or it may be time to seek out another game of Limbo. (I'll take the hit, gladly, for mixing metaphors here LOL)

It is worth noting, I think, that I feel like the tech posts coming out since all this discussion started (two phenomena I am doubtful are directly related) HAVE been couched in much more broad community-friendly language. I DO agree with you that any discussion about timelines would be very reassuring, as would, I think, even general revelations about manhours being invested in solutions (not asking for number near decimal points, just general info).

You are welcome.
You techies always wanting more

Me techie? Me Plug&Play with big mouth

Parsimony, I have just no idea whatsoever what you're talking about.

I'm sure that what you say about HMS Beagle and Charles Darwin fits into the topic somehow ... but I just haven't figured out how.

Bodger in contrast gives a good example of LL feedback:
So, he's not asking for additional technical detail by some mysterious process that offers technical information without mentioning anything technical ... all he wants is non-technical info, like WHEN will it be fixed.

This is perfectly rational.

Whereas HMS Beagle and Charles Darwin seem to be ... less rational.

So, why don't we simply list the types of non-technical information that the general public normally finds helpful, and suggest to LL that these items of information be provided whenever they issue a statement acknowledging a current problem? Sounds quite straightforward.

Morg.

Perhaps one solution is for LL news releases to link into their wiki and knowledge base so that less technical residents can more easily look up terms they are not familiar with.

There are issues in this world that do not have real world parallels and analogies that are easy or clear to draw upon... For every easy "when" or "who" there are complex "how" and "what" topics that will elude people that haven't a sufficient grasp of what's going on. The "why" questions, who knows, they're as often simple as they are complex.

I, in my RL, am required to do some degree of broad communication, and have learned that it helps to identify my intended audience right up front, so that those that see my messages know whether they can ignore the rest quickly. It's not so simple here.

This world has everyone from first-time-newbies-never-before-in-an-MMO to people that have created MMO's on their own. Crafting useful messages for that spectrum of diversity is *HARD*.

If anyone thinks that LL is insulting their intelligence by not dumbing down their communications sufficiently... they should take that as a challenge, not an insult.

Too bad, you had me up to this point...not nice...I never said such a thing...go back, and look, stop diatribing and LOOK AT WHAT HAS BEEN CREATED...that absurd statement/assessment, that I was looking for any such thing, well, that was YOURS, all yours...all I have ever asked for in here is adequate and appropriate treatment of customer needs, regardless of the technical level of the consumer...not in spite of....again, that was a monster of your creation...omg...I am so done here...sadly, this attempt at derailment has fizzled without getting me to say anything to lock the thread, sorry.



May I caution you that your reference to irrationality borders on something no-longer resembling an effort for intellectual discourse, but a serious and undeserved personal attack. I prefer to believe you did not intend that...

Sorry, didn't mean to cloud the issue (in our duplex "exchange" of information) with an analogy...the point I was trying to make is information (as well as the vehicles of communication) about the same exact topic, and at all those diverse levels of consumption, and in those times and to those diverse consumers, was equally relevant, to them!...if you are ready to concede that point, and to concede that there is, in fact more than one relevant level of information complexity here, by golly, I think we really can move on...and do some good.

I'm so ready to move on...how about you? I have given up, as well, since we clearly do not have a mechanism in place that will ever successfully allow you to filter your presumptions from my statements...this entire digression is of your creation...the conversation was constructive, and will continue to be, I have faith...at this point, the rhetoric far outwieghs the facts...so let's just get back on task.

The point remains, as you also seem to agree, to work within the process...and to make necessary (dare I say?) changes...

Both Bodger's and Rusty's suggestions emerge from the fog of obfuscation (techie-term, sorry, but fun to look up in the dictionary, hehe), seemingly manmade and surrounding this issue of late (and who does that serve?), as bona fide, top notch, legitimate suggestions, utilizing technical resources already existent...

I don't disagree with this, Rusty, but again, your audiences are not of your making, and all you can give it is your best effort to "bracket" as much of the group as you can...but that effort must be made, right? You also don't have the advantage, I surmise, of long-term advance notice (months to years) as to what the composition of the group will be, nor the power to select the audience...if this is the case, and I concede I am guessing myself out on a limb...then this is one more case where RL doesnt mirror SL...for SL has had that time to prepare, and they did know what their target demographic during The Big Push would be.

It is not the concept of "dumbing down" that would offend a knowledgeable audience, I speculate...although the term and its use are patently offensive, except, apparently, within the programming community...what I am a bit more sure of is that I personally don't want an expert in any field talking about their interaction with me in those terms, since this is all-too-easily taken as a disrespect for me as a person, and for my feelings...which may or may not be related to any feelings I have about my intellectual self-image...does that make sense?

Regardless, I think your suggestions about utilization of the resources as an educational opportunity, in addition to Bodger's reccomendation for mean-level-targeting the blogs and providing relevant tech links...right on the money.

Well I propose a solution which is pretty much the opposite of the premise of this thread.

Instead of filtering out technical detail from the eyes of non-technical users, I propose that as much info as possible be made available online, classified under well-chosen headings.

In that way, all SL users whatever their background can find the level and type of information that suits and interests them personally.

So, for example, if Bodger is annoyed at BBcode being disabled and wants to know when it'll be fixed, all he need do is drill down to SL->Problems->Forum->Presentation->BBcode->ETA to discover LL's estimated time for this to be fixed. And so on.

What's more, it's quite easy to generate an automatically updated information system of this type, based around a predefined classification tree of subject areas and information boxes. Once set up, users could suggest more branches and leaves for the tree if they feel it needs filling in, and in particular, non-technical users could suggest useful categories that the technical developers may have missed out.

In effect it's a more organized presentation of the info that LL already provides, so it wouldn't cost too much to set up and expand.

Morg.

Did you try to say that in the first place, and I just missed it? It never seemed that way...I would feel really bad if I let you get wrapped around an axle while the stuff that matters languished (AND vice-versa)... but this does make a great deal of sense to me...NOT that I think for a moment that, just because I did start the thread I DO know either the extent of the problem or the scent of the solution...and I'm completely opposed to any model for tech support reporting that presupposes anything about either the expertise or the needs of the user(s), so this seems to be a bump in the right direction.

Questions that come to mind, hoping everyone except me has some relevant ideas or information:

1. Does one (this suggestion v. Bodger's v. Rusty's) negate the utility, application or need for the others?
2. At what level of applicability is each of these three, in terms of present state of the platform? (ie, what support structures are already in place, or probably routine implementable)
3. What IS the workable model? (extension of first two questions)
4. What would an implementation team look like?
5. What would the static support team look like?
6. Who controls the in-place resources needed for development and integration?
7. Who needs to hear about this model, at Linden, once it actually IS a model?

I never seem to tire of hearing myself run on and on...one qualification to your proposal...in order to be non-tech-friendly, it is critical to have ongoing participatory (and valued) input from non-tech users, not just during the beta phase, but during design and development, as well.