circuitous route. yep, english, teaching, web design, a kid, a non-tech dissertation, and now this place. how did it happen? i count myself lucky, though.

let’s chat over email some time.

I’ll only be in Maui for another six weeks, but that should get me through the bulk of the winter weather, thank goodness. We’re moving to Colorado in late March to live near my family.

Your research center looks so interesting. I didn’t know anyone was looking at the use of technology in the humanities, but why not? I got back into tech by a circuitous route related to technology in social science research–I started reading up on social sciences simulations while I was studying health behavior. Then I decided I really missed programming. Shortly thereafter, I started tech blogging. Don’t know how I’ll get back into paid work, but I’m excited at the possibilities.

Yes, maybe we’ll meet some day. I hope so!

actually, I am right here:
http://www.matrix.msu.edu/

maybe our paths will cross one day–hopefully *not* in michigan;)

Yes, as far as my Momorandum experiment goes, I’m playing all roles. Megite is developed by someone else, so I can only be a user and tester on that, but I have built some pieces that may become my own version some day. I agree–there is often a huge disconnect between programmers and users. I’ve seen that in all my development jobs. And we see it now in Web 2.0, where many systems are developed with geeks in mind. Megite is one good example: it only works for heavily linked domains. Momblogs don’t link much too each other, but it doesn’t mean there aren’t conversations rippling through.

Anyway, nice to meet you! I will be keeping up with your blog for sure.

I know, blogging code says: don’t ever pull a post. Whatever. I’ve got to do this in a way that works for me or I’ll have to quit.

you say: “I think that the visual and the wordy need to work hand in hand to specify what good software is and what it will do.” I could not agree more–i have never yet come across a UI mockup or technical spec that is sufficient, and, more-to-the-point, legible to the clients.

i constantly find that in the race to build a site/tool, to produce that end product, the complex ways in which a site is intended to be used by specific communities gets left out of the picture. and, more interestingly, sometimes it is impossible to predict how certain tools will be used, because users have not (cannot) articulate what it is they *actually* do.

your own work with the Megite site–you’re working as a programmer, developer, and a potential user. you are occupying all three positions (i think) and creating from this perspective. (do correct me if i am off base here!)

this ability to occupy the role of the user–to predict user-behaviors, and needs, and envision interactions–this is also one large facet i find missing; i find a consistent disconnect between the realms of users and developers/programmers, who speak in different languages. this can be a source of tremendous frustration, and also why, when usability testing comes along, the programmers I work with want to run and hide!

i would say (and so does research) that much *more* time needs to go into the wordiness and conversations that occur before a single key stroke of programming. either in the form of documents, interfaces, user-surveys, user-testing of similar tools, and f2f meetings.

sorry to drone on! must go back to “real” work now. i’ve enjoyed both your blogs, and will check in again.

Jason talks about putting little notes in the mocked-up interface where the functionality wouldn’t be entirely obvious. I suppose it’s sort of like a post-it note on the Chuck Jones wireframe saying “if Bugs just stands there eating the carrot, then…”