Comments on: RIP, Software — But are We Replacing it With Something ‘SaaSy’? http://www.fastforwardblog.com/2007/04/09/rip-software-but-what-are-we-replacing-it-with/ Fri, 28 Oct 2011 01:28:22 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Paula Thornton http://www.fastforwardblog.com/2007/04/09/rip-software-but-what-are-we-replacing-it-with/comment-page-1/#comment-5665 Paula Thornton Tue, 10 Apr 2007 01:45:32 +0000 http://fastforwardblog.com/2007/04/09/rip-software-but-what-are-we-replacing-it-with/#comment-5665 Start paying attention to transitions in your own work. There are several 'documents' I create that I'd rather publish using a wiki (if one were currently made available to me behind a firewall -- lots of talk, no results), primarly because they are image intensive. With a background in Technical Writing, I have continued to be an anti-document proponent. A document is simply a 'view' of relevant data. In 1995 at MCI, when intranet pages were still accessible only by IP address, we used a phenomenal object-relational database to drive dynamic pages. There was no html. Indeed there was very little code because a lot of the function was managed inside the database. The technology was bought by Informix and never leveraged for its original internet/intranet potential. From an Experience Design perspective, content is best provided 'exposed'. Word documents, PowerPoint presentations etc. all have to be opened and examined. These are barriers to inspection/consumption. Flashback to 1990 when I asked Bill Gates face to face, "When are you going to separate your applications from the data (files) they create?" His response: "I don't understand your question." He still doesn't. Two critical points in history that, had they been different, these 2.0 conversations we're having would be history by now. Start paying attention to transitions in your own work. There are several ‘documents’ I create that I’d rather publish using a wiki (if one were currently made available to me behind a firewall — lots of talk, no results), primarly because they are image intensive. With a background in Technical Writing, I have continued to be an anti-document proponent. A document is simply a ‘view’ of relevant data.

In 1995 at MCI, when intranet pages were still accessible only by IP address, we used a phenomenal object-relational database to drive dynamic pages. There was no html. Indeed there was very little code because a lot of the function was managed inside the database. The technology was bought by Informix and never leveraged for its original internet/intranet potential.

From an Experience Design perspective, content is best provided ‘exposed’. Word documents, PowerPoint presentations etc. all have to be opened and examined. These are barriers to inspection/consumption.

Flashback to 1990 when I asked Bill Gates face to face, “When are you going to separate your applications from the data (files) they create?” His response: “I don’t understand your question.” He still doesn’t.

Two critical points in history that, had they been different, these 2.0 conversations we’re having would be history by now.

]]>