Re: [Air-L] Change of default reply setting on air-l
Is it really that onerous a task to manually include the entire list into your reply fields when you want to? We're talking something that's a matter of keystrokes at most. If you want your reply to go to the entire list, nobody is preventing that from happening. This list, in particular, is not populated by people who are Internet illiterate. It's not that difficult to add the mailing list to the reply field. Also, as someone on digest, when I hit "reply" this morning's digest message, I got the list address in the reply-to field automatically. I didn't even have to C&P. Dr. Stephanie Tuszynski Assistant Professor of Communication Bethany College This message may contain confidential information for the use of the addressee(s) above and may contain legally privileged information. If you are not the addressee, or the person responsible for delivering it to the addressee, you are hereby notified that reading, disseminating, distributing or copying this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message by mistake, immediately notify us by replying to the message and delete the original message immediately. Thank you.
On May 11, 2009, at 11:30 AM, Tuszynski, Stephanie wrote:
Is it really that onerous a task to manually include the entire list into your reply fields when you want to?
Obviously the answer is no. And it's not really necessary to cut and paste or rearrange the addresses, really, unless you have an extraordinary need to keep someone from getting more than one copy of a post. But I don't think that's what the real issue is. Rather, I think that people have invested the "reply" and "reply-all" buttons in their email programs with particular meanings. (This particular example reminds me of what Reeves and Nass' report finding, in The Media Equation, regarding people's orientation to TVs. Among other things, they found that people who normally watched news on one TV and entertainment on another tended to treat news reports as more credible when received via the TV on which they most regularly watched the news.) Due in large part to previous experience, they have come to regard hitting reply-all to replying to a number of individuals and regard hitting reply to replying to a singular entity, whether one individual or a group. Why should their present actions be driven so powerfully from past habit? Perhaps, as Langer's research suggests, this has a bit to do with our supposed cognitive miserliness and a concomitant desire to operate as mindlessly as possible. Perhaps, too, it has something to do with the power of ritual and the security it provides, as suggested by Durkheim and many who have followed. That's my .02$ on the subject, anyway. --Christian Nelson
I don't wanna get caught up in the spiral of silence, so I'll speak my mind. I prefer the new setting. As several members have noted, it's not a big deal to hit the reply all button. It has been a bit annoying, I have to say, when people set automatic vacation replies and then everybody gets these for every message anybody sends on the list. I had wanted to set an automatic reply recently and actually didn't because I knew this would happen on this list and didn't have time to figure out how to stop it from happening without missing out on the list messages. Again, I just don't think it's that big of a deal to hit reply all, and I think all members are capable of figuring out whether their message might be of benefit to others or if it's along the lines of "good to hear from you, hope all is well."
-- Rasha A. Abdulla, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Journalism and Mass Communication The American University in Cairo www.rashaabdulla.com
There have been some requests for research that might help indicate whether the change to the email list is beneficial/problematic for the list. The research that informs my concerns about the shift to the new default-to-individual reply focuses on norms. Norms are shaped not only by other people but by the technology that frames the interaction (Martey and Stromer-Galley, 2007; Stromer-Galley and Martey, forthcoming). If the old norm of the AoIR list was that a replied-to message went to the entire list, then the expectation for the list was that interactions on the list were, by default, public. The norm then for communication through this list was that it was public communication. If the new norm of the list is that a replied-to message goes to the individual, then the norm for the list will shift to become the case that most interaction is private. To put it another way, the structure of the technology establishes the norm for interaction. Although I don't disagree that it takes but a moment to push the necessary buttons to make a replied-to message go to the list, there is more at play here than just pushing buttons. Individuals have to cognitively engage the question of whether the message should be public or private. The default setting suggests that the norm for interaction is that replied-to messages should be private; hence, it requires a new level of justification on the part of the sender to determine that the message is appropriate for public consumption. The net result, I predict, is that there will be significantly less traffic on the AoIR list over the following months as people adapt to the new norm that's established by the technological shift. I personally would find that disappointing, as I learn a great deal from the public conversation, and would lose their insights as the conversation shifts to private channels. References: Martey R. M., & Stromer-Galley, J. (2007). The digital dollhouse: Context and social norms in The Sims Online. Games & Culture, 2, 314-344. Stromer-Galley, J., & Martey, R. M. (in press). Visual spaces, norm governed places: The influence of spatial context online. New Media & Society. Regards, ~Jenny Assistant Professor Department of Communication, SS 340 University at Albany, SUNY Albany, NY 12222 518-442-4873 jstromer@albany.edu http://www.albany.edu/~jstromer
Thank you for putting it this way. I don't agree that the default reply option in and of itself powerfully sets a norm about communication expectations on a list, but the fact that you have put forward such an argument and a prediction that flows from it means that it can be empirically tested. Let's see if the traffic to this list slows down over a certain period of time, and, if so, by how much. I would contend that a certain slowing down is desirable (if, for example, there previously were messages sent in error to the entire list, and now there are not). But if the reduction is traffic is dramatic, and the list becomes less useful to people because of that, then we'll find that out in due time. Mark Mark Warschauer Professor of Education and Informatics University of California, Irvine Berkeley Place 2001 (for mail); Berkeley Place 3000C (for visitors) Irvine, CA 92697-5500 tel: (949) 824-2526, fax: (949) 824-2965 markw@uci.edu; http://www.gse.uci.edu/markw Jennifer Stromer-Galley wrote:
There have been some requests for research that might help indicate whether the change to the email list is beneficial/problematic for the list.
The research that informs my concerns about the shift to the new default-to-individual reply focuses on norms. Norms are shaped not only by other people but by the technology that frames the interaction (Martey and Stromer-Galley, 2007; Stromer-Galley and Martey, forthcoming).
If the old norm of the AoIR list was that a replied-to message went to the entire list, then the expectation for the list was that interactions on the list were, by default, public. The norm then for communication through this list was that it was public communication.
If the new norm of the list is that a replied-to message goes to the individual, then the norm for the list will shift to become the case that most interaction is private.
To put it another way, the structure of the technology establishes the norm for interaction.
Although I don't disagree that it takes but a moment to push the necessary buttons to make a replied-to message go to the list, there is more at play here than just pushing buttons. Individuals have to cognitively engage the question of whether the message should be public or private. The default setting suggests that the norm for interaction is that replied-to messages should be private; hence, it requires a new level of justification on the part of the sender to determine that the message is appropriate for public consumption.
The net result, I predict, is that there will be significantly less traffic on the AoIR list over the following months as people adapt to the new norm that's established by the technological shift. I personally would find that disappointing, as I learn a great deal from the public conversation, and would lose their insights as the conversation shifts to private channels.
References: Martey R. M., & Stromer-Galley, J. (2007). The digital dollhouse: Context and social norms in The Sims Online. Games & Culture, 2, 314-344.
Stromer-Galley, J., & Martey, R. M. (in press). Visual spaces, norm governed places: The influence of spatial context online. New Media & Society.
Regards, ~Jenny
Assistant Professor Department of Communication, SS 340 University at Albany, SUNY Albany, NY 12222 518-442-4873 jstromer@albany.edu http://www.albany.edu/~jstromer
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
the list is not something we should experiment with, there used to be an exec-comm statement to that effect somewhere. it is likely in the archives. it basically said please don't use the list for experiments without permission of the list participants or something pretty similar. which basically means, don't make people research subjects without their permission, which given it is nearly impossible to ensure you have every recipients permission... it is pretty much impossible to do research. archives are a different concern of course. if the exec comm isn't going to revert the setting, then it should change the list etiquette page and disclaimer notices. http://aoir.org/?page_id=3 On May 11, 2009, at 5:09 PM, Mark Warschauer wrote:
Thank you for putting it this way. I don't agree that the default reply option in and of itself powerfully sets a norm about communication expectations on a list, but the fact that you have put forward such an argument and a prediction that flows from it means that it can be empirically tested.
Let's see if the traffic to this list slows down over a certain period of time, and, if so, by how much. I would contend that a certain slowing down is desirable (if, for example, there previously were messages sent in error to the entire list, and now there are not). But if the reduction is traffic is dramatic, and the list becomes less useful to people because of that, then we'll find that out in due time. Mark
Mark Warschauer Professor of Education and Informatics University of California, Irvine Berkeley Place 2001 (for mail); Berkeley Place 3000C (for visitors) Irvine, CA 92697-5500 tel: (949) 824-2526, fax: (949) 824-2965 markw@uci.edu; http://www.gse.uci.edu/markw
Jennifer Stromer-Galley wrote:
There have been some requests for research that might help indicate whether the change to the email list is beneficial/problematic for the list.
The research that informs my concerns about the shift to the new default-to-individual reply focuses on norms. Norms are shaped not only by other people but by the technology that frames the interaction (Martey and Stromer-Galley, 2007; Stromer-Galley and Martey, forthcoming). If the old norm of the AoIR list was that a replied-to message went to the entire list, then the expectation for the list was that interactions on the list were, by default, public. The norm then for communication through this list was that it was public communication.
If the new norm of the list is that a replied-to message goes to the individual, then the norm for the list will shift to become the case that most interaction is private. To put it another way, the structure of the technology establishes the norm for interaction. Although I don't disagree that it takes but a moment to push the necessary buttons to make a replied-to message go to the list, there is more at play here than just pushing buttons. Individuals have to cognitively engage the question of whether the message should be public or private. The default setting suggests that the norm for interaction is that replied-to messages should be private; hence, it requires a new level of justification on the part of the sender to determine that the message is appropriate for public consumption. The net result, I predict, is that there will be significantly less traffic on the AoIR list over the following months as people adapt to the new norm that's established by the technological shift. I personally would find that disappointing, as I learn a great deal from the public conversation, and would lose their insights as the conversation shifts to private channels.
References: Martey R. M., & Stromer-Galley, J. (2007). The digital dollhouse: Context and social norms in The Sims Online. Games & Culture, 2, 314-344. Stromer-Galley, J., & Martey, R. M. (in press). Visual spaces, norm governed places: The influence of spatial context online. New Media & Society.
Regards, ~Jenny
Assistant Professor Department of Communication, SS 340 University at Albany, SUNY Albany, NY 12222 518-442-4873 jstromer@albany.edu http://www.albany.edu/~jstromer _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http:// aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
I vehemently disagree with the notion that all learning from evidence should be considered research that cannot be carried out without permission. I constantly learn from how people post things on air-l and what kind of responses they get (e.g., somebody posed something in a particular way, and got a lot of thoughtful responses, and somebody else posed something in a different way, and didn't get much response). Sometimes I even make decisions based on this (e.g., adoption of a particular rhetorical style that I have observed to be successful in generating thoughtful discussion.) Shall I be banned from doing so because that is considered a form of research? Shall I be required to submit a formal request to air-l executive committee and to my IRB to learn in this way? Mark Mark Warschauer Professor of Education and Informatics University of California, Irvine Berkeley Place 2001 (for mail); Berkeley Place 3000C (for visitors) Irvine, CA 92697-5500 tel: (949) 824-2526, fax: (949) 824-2965 markw@uci.edu; http://www.gse.uci.edu/markw jeremy hunsinger wrote:
the list is not something we should experiment with, there used to be an exec-comm statement to that effect somewhere.
it is likely in the archives. it basically said please don't use the list for experiments without permission of the list participants or something pretty similar. which basically means, don't make people research subjects without their permission, which given it is nearly impossible to ensure you have every recipients permission... it is pretty much impossible to do research. archives are a different concern of course.
if the exec comm isn't going to revert the setting, then it should change the list etiquette page and disclaimer notices. http://aoir.org/?page_id=3
On May 11, 2009, at 5:09 PM, Mark Warschauer wrote:
Thank you for putting it this way. I don't agree that the default reply option in and of itself powerfully sets a norm about communication expectations on a list, but the fact that you have put forward such an argument and a prediction that flows from it means that it can be empirically tested.
Let's see if the traffic to this list slows down over a certain period of time, and, if so, by how much. I would contend that a certain slowing down is desirable (if, for example, there previously were messages sent in error to the entire list, and now there are not). But if the reduction is traffic is dramatic, and the list becomes less useful to people because of that, then we'll find that out in due time. Mark
Mark Warschauer Professor of Education and Informatics University of California, Irvine Berkeley Place 2001 (for mail); Berkeley Place 3000C (for visitors) Irvine, CA 92697-5500 tel: (949) 824-2526, fax: (949) 824-2965 markw@uci.edu; http://www.gse.uci.edu/markw
Jennifer Stromer-Galley wrote:
There have been some requests for research that might help indicate whether the change to the email list is beneficial/problematic for the list.
The research that informs my concerns about the shift to the new default-to-individual reply focuses on norms. Norms are shaped not only by other people but by the technology that frames the interaction (Martey and Stromer-Galley, 2007; Stromer-Galley and Martey, forthcoming). If the old norm of the AoIR list was that a replied-to message went to the entire list, then the expectation for the list was that interactions on the list were, by default, public. The norm then for communication through this list was that it was public communication.
If the new norm of the list is that a replied-to message goes to the individual, then the norm for the list will shift to become the case that most interaction is private. To put it another way, the structure of the technology establishes the norm for interaction. Although I don't disagree that it takes but a moment to push the necessary buttons to make a replied-to message go to the list, there is more at play here than just pushing buttons. Individuals have to cognitively engage the question of whether the message should be public or private. The default setting suggests that the norm for interaction is that replied-to messages should be private; hence, it requires a new level of justification on the part of the sender to determine that the message is appropriate for public consumption. The net result, I predict, is that there will be significantly less traffic on the AoIR list over the following months as people adapt to the new norm that's established by the technological shift. I personally would find that disappointing, as I learn a great deal from the public conversation, and would lose their insights as the conversation shifts to private channels.
References: Martey R. M., & Stromer-Galley, J. (2007). The digital dollhouse: Context and social norms in The Sims Online. Games & Culture, 2, 314-344. Stromer-Galley, J., & Martey, R. M. (in press). Visual spaces, norm governed places: The influence of spatial context online. New Media & Society.
Regards, ~Jenny
Assistant Professor Department of Communication, SS 340 University at Albany, SUNY Albany, NY 12222 518-442-4873 jstromer@albany.edu http://www.albany.edu/~jstromer _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
I think that there is a difference between simple empiricism, learning from experience, etc. Then there is a difference between doing that and performing social science, where we vary a system to test a hypothesis. For the former, we just observe, for the latter we vary to see if something changes, manipulating the subjects in the process. Isn't there? You can watch all you want, that is the basis of experience, but when one proposes to manipulate subjects, or to use manipulation of subjects, even secondarily, as part of research, then i think there are issues and yes, there needs to be consent structures, especially if there is possibility of harm, either communal or individual. So in short, if you formalize it into a research project, and subject people on lists to intervention or manipulation either primarily or secondarily then there are issues I think, don't you? On May 11, 2009, at 6:48 PM, Mark Warschauer wrote:
I vehemently disagree with the notion that all learning from evidence should be considered research that cannot be carried out without permission. I constantly learn from how people post things on air-l and what kind of responses they get (e.g., somebody posed something in a particular way, and got a lot of thoughtful responses, and somebody else posed something in a different way, and didn't get much response). Sometimes I even make decisions based on this (e.g., adoption of a particular rhetorical style that I have observed to be successful in generating thoughtful discussion.) Shall I be banned from doing so because that is considered a form of research? Shall I be required to submit a formal request to air-l executive committee and to my IRB to learn in this way? Mark
Mark Warschauer Professor of Education and Informatics University of California, Irvine Berkeley Place 2001 (for mail); Berkeley Place 3000C (for visitors) Irvine, CA 92697-5500 tel: (949) 824-2526, fax: (949) 824-2965 markw@uci.edu; http://www.gse.uci.edu/markw
jeremy hunsinger wrote:
the list is not something we should experiment with, there used to be an exec-comm statement to that effect somewhere.
it is likely in the archives. it basically said please don't use the list for experiments without permission of the list participants or something pretty similar. which basically means, don't make people research subjects without their permission, which given it is nearly impossible to ensure you have every recipients permission... it is pretty much impossible to do research. archives are a different concern of course.
if the exec comm isn't going to revert the setting, then it should change the list etiquette page and disclaimer notices. http://aoir.org/?page_id=3
On May 11, 2009, at 5:09 PM, Mark Warschauer wrote:
Thank you for putting it this way. I don't agree that the default reply option in and of itself powerfully sets a norm about communication expectations on a list, but the fact that you have put forward such an argument and a prediction that flows from it means that it can be empirically tested.
Let's see if the traffic to this list slows down over a certain period of time, and, if so, by how much. I would contend that a certain slowing down is desirable (if, for example, there previously were messages sent in error to the entire list, and now there are not). But if the reduction is traffic is dramatic, and the list becomes less useful to people because of that, then we'll find that out in due time. Mark
Mark Warschauer Professor of Education and Informatics University of California, Irvine Berkeley Place 2001 (for mail); Berkeley Place 3000C (for visitors) Irvine, CA 92697-5500 tel: (949) 824-2526, fax: (949) 824-2965 markw@uci.edu; http://www.gse.uci.edu/markw
Jennifer Stromer-Galley wrote:
There have been some requests for research that might help indicate whether the change to the email list is beneficial/problematic for the list.
The research that informs my concerns about the shift to the new default-to-individual reply focuses on norms. Norms are shaped not only by other people but by the technology that frames the interaction (Martey and Stromer-Galley, 2007; Stromer-Galley and Martey, forthcoming). If the old norm of the AoIR list was that a replied-to message went to the entire list, then the expectation for the list was that interactions on the list were, by default, public. The norm then for communication through this list was that it was public communication.
If the new norm of the list is that a replied-to message goes to the individual, then the norm for the list will shift to become the case that most interaction is private. To put it another way, the structure of the technology establishes the norm for interaction. Although I don't disagree that it takes but a moment to push the necessary buttons to make a replied-to message go to the list, there is more at play here than just pushing buttons. Individuals have to cognitively engage the question of whether the message should be public or private. The default setting suggests that the norm for interaction is that replied-to messages should be private; hence, it requires a new level of justification on the part of the sender to determine that the message is appropriate for public consumption. The net result, I predict, is that there will be significantly less traffic on the AoIR list over the following months as people adapt to the new norm that's established by the technological shift. I personally would find that disappointing, as I learn a great deal from the public conversation, and would lose their insights as the conversation shifts to private channels.
References: Martey R. M., & Stromer-Galley, J. (2007). The digital dollhouse: Context and social norms in The Sims Online. Games & Culture, 2, 314-344. Stromer-Galley, J., & Martey, R. M. (in press). Visual spaces, norm governed places: The influence of spatial context online. New Media & Society.
Regards, ~Jenny
Assistant Professor Department of Communication, SS 340 University at Albany, SUNY Albany, NY 12222 518-442-4873 jstromer@albany.edu http://www.albany.edu/~jstromer _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
I just read over the etiquette page and disclaimer notices, and I didn't see anything that is contradicted by the change in settings. What do you see that needs to be changed? Mark Mark Warschauer Professor of Education and Informatics University of California, Irvine Berkeley Place 2001 (for mail); Berkeley Place 3000C (for visitors) Irvine, CA 92697-5500 tel: (949) 824-2526, fax: (949) 824-2965 markw@uci.edu; http://www.gse.uci.edu/markw jeremy hunsinger wrote:
if the exec comm isn't going to revert the setting, then it should change the list etiquette page and disclaimer notices. http://aoir.org/?page_id=3
the description of the way lists works and its implications are different now. On May 11, 2009, at 6:51 PM, Mark Warschauer wrote:
I just read over the etiquette page and disclaimer notices, and I didn't see anything that is contradicted by the change in settings. What do you see that needs to be changed? Mark
Mark Warschauer Professor of Education and Informatics University of California, Irvine Berkeley Place 2001 (for mail); Berkeley Place 3000C (for visitors) Irvine, CA 92697-5500 tel: (949) 824-2526, fax: (949) 824-2965 markw@uci.edu; http://www.gse.uci.edu/markw
jeremy hunsinger wrote:
if the exec comm isn't going to revert the setting, then it should change the list etiquette page and disclaimer notices. http://aoir.org/?page_id=3
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
Can you quote material specific content needs rewriting? I found nothing, but perhaps I overlooked something. Mark Mark Warschauer Professor of Education and Informatics University of California, Irvine Berkeley Place 2001 (for mail); Berkeley Place 3000C (for visitors) Irvine, CA 92697-5500 tel: (949) 824-2526, fax: (949) 824-2965 markw@uci.edu; http://www.gse.uci.edu/markw jeremy hunsinger wrote:
the description of the way lists works and its implications are different now. On May 11, 2009, at 6:51 PM, Mark Warschauer wrote:
I just read over the etiquette page and disclaimer notices, and I didn't see anything that is contradicted by the change in settings. What do you see that needs to be changed? Mark
Mark Warschauer Professor of Education and Informatics University of California, Irvine Berkeley Place 2001 (for mail); Berkeley Place 3000C (for visitors) Irvine, CA 92697-5500 tel: (949) 824-2526, fax: (949) 824-2965 markw@uci.edu; http://www.gse.uci.edu/markw
jeremy hunsinger wrote:
if the exec comm isn't going to revert the setting, then it should change the list etiquette page and disclaimer notices. http://aoir.org/?page_id=3
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
My suggestion and I am not following the debate. Hold a vote to decide. Almost every community organization I belong too has votes. Put the points for and against on the ballot give an election period and allow us all to vote on it. Peter Timusk, B.Math statistics (2002), B.A. legal studies (2006) Carleton University Systems Science Graduate student, University of Ottawa. just trying to stay linear. Read by hundreds of lurkers every week. Kiitos Paljon, Merci, and thank you.
I think the assumption that the list materials are public has changed in the justification of the transition to the new settings. Posting to the list no longer means your material will be in the archive's of course... it might be deleted. The material you post might also be considered private material by a third party, which was not the prior assumption, which was that it was considered public.
If the old norm of the AoIR list was that a replied-to message went to the entire list, then the expectation for the list was that interactions on the list were, by default, public. The norm then for communication through this list was that it was public communication.
I'm the newcomer here (and lurker for most of the time) but I can only second the opinions expressed in favor of the old arrangement. Isn't the public character of this list the very reason why we joined in a first place? Well, at least in my case, I guess. The list is for me is the ongoing source of inspiration, like many others I also learnt a lot from just reading some threads and watching people exchanging their comments. Switching to the new mode, which at the same time means major shift in the communication paradigm (I agree with this argument too), would be really disappointing. dr Anna Nacher Institute of Audiovisual Arts Jagiellonian University Krakow, Poland http://www.film.uj.edu.pl
On May 11, 2009, at 3:22 PM, Jennifer Stromer-Galley wrote:
the structure of the technology establishes the norm for interaction.
IMHO, its the other way around. The norm (common practice) of interaction--the norm of hitting "reply all" when wanting to send to a message to a number of disconnected individuals-- establishes the technology--or, more precisely the technology as it exists for us , which is as a meaningful entity. It seems to me that there are way to many recent stories of web applications getting used in ways quite different than what their inventor intended to believe in technological determinism. --Christian Nelson
Christian Nelson wrote:
On May 11, 2009, at 11:30 AM, Tuszynski, Stephanie wrote:
Is it really that onerous a task to manually include the entire list into your reply fields when you want to?
Obviously the answer is no. And it's not really necessary to cut and paste or rearrange the addresses, really, unless you have an extraordinary need to keep someone from getting more than one copy of a post. Of course, it's also not really that onerous a task to manually change the To: field if you DON'T want to send your message to the entire list either...
participants (9)
-
anna nacher -
Christian Nelson -
Dr. Rasha Abdulla -
Gilbert B. Rodman -
Jennifer Stromer-Galley -
jeremy hunsinger -
Mark Warschauer -
Peter Timusk -
Tuszynski, Stephanie