I defer to Logie's more accurate and nerdoise account! I also remember the t-shirts. I think I bought two to celebrate being invited onto the AoIR executive that year. On a broader matter, does anyone know of a good article or two that discusses 'versions' in software from a cultural / socio-political perspective? I am still working on my historicity of Web 2.0 stuff and need something which helps me explain the semiotics of writing / reading in versions.... Matt Dr Matthew Allen Associate Professor and Head of Department, Internet Studies School of Media, Culture and Creative Arts Curtin University of Technology, CRICOS 00301J Australia m.allen@curtin.edu.au http://netcrit.net <http://netcrit.net/> @netcrit +61 8 92663511 (v) +61 8 9266 3166 (f) Australian Learning and Teaching Council Fellow ________________________________ From: Logie [mailto:logie@umn.edu] Sent: Wed 7/28/2010 12:32 AM To: Matthew Allen Cc: aoir list Subject: The Date and the Version Thang On Jul 26, 2010, at 3:55 PM, Matthew Allen wrote:
Re date and version confusion:
Personally I blame Nancy and Steve - why didn't they have the first conference in 2001 or (in one of those kooky computer-speak things, call the first conference v0.0). *grin*.
Matt - Don't blame Nancy and Steve. Blame me. The first conference was simply called "Internet Research" full stop. As I was working as local chair for the second conference, I set about designing a logo for the program and for the t-shirts that I hawked incessantly throughout the conference. In a moment of cutey-pie nerdosity, I hit upon the all-too-obvious idea of calling the conference "version 2.0" and thus we descended into the rabbit hole. That logo is online (as are the remnants of the conference site, to my horror) here: http://aoir.org/2001/. Personally, I think we should have followed Apple's move, and called the 10th Conference "Internet Research X" and then all subsequent conferences would have been decimal increments within "X." More to the point, we COULD all decide that the whole "point oh" thing is sounding a bit 20th Century these days. Which reminds me, why didn't anyone fix that whole 20th Century = the 1900s thing in time for it to not confuse the hell out of me? Yours, in befuddlement, Logie John Logie Associate Professor of Rhetoric Department of Writing Studies University of Minnesota