On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 9:54 PM, Marc A. Pelletier <marc(a)uberbox.org> wrote:
On 09/07/2014 01:57 AM, Diego Moya wrote:
a major property of a document-centric
architecture that is lost in a
structured one is that it's open-ended, which means that end users can
build new features and flows on top of it, without the need to request
the
platform developers to build support for them
(sometimes even without
writing new software at all; new workflows can be designed and maintained
purely through social convention).
And yet, after over a decade of open-ended design through social
convention, the end result is... our current talk pages. Perhaps
another decade or two will be needed before that document-centric
architecture gives us a half-decent discussion system?
I don't see talk pages as not being a half-decent discussion system. They
support a lot more functionality than simple threaded discussion, so
forum-style or social media-style software won't work for them. They
provide a flexible system that allows them to serve the purpose of hosting
discussions as well as a significant number of other functions.
Sorry if that sound snarky, but I have difficulty buying an argument
that the current system has the potential to suffice when it has
demonstrably already failed.
You said demonstrably, so I'm going to ask you to demonstrate it. What
basis do you have for saying it's failed?
It does no good to have the hypothetical
capacity for a good system if, in practice, it's unusable.
Sure, that statement is true, but it's irrelevant here given that a system
used thousands upon thousands of times a day can hardly be called unusable.
Todd