Interesting reads from 10-plus years ago at theobvious.com

http://www.theobvious.com

Open Question: What would you do with RSS
http://www.theobvious.com/archive/2002/09/20.html

Stories and Tools
http://www.theobvious.com/archive/2002/04/15.html

A MetaFilter Proposal
http://www.theobvious.com/archive/2001/10/26.html

September 11, 2001
http://www.theobvious.com/archive/2001/09/11.html

The Next Usenet
http://www.theobvious.com/archive/2001/03/02.html

The way I see it, we already have about half of the solution implemented. First, there seems to be an almost endless supply of content creators. Webloggers, personal home page publishers, professional journalists, community participants are creating millions of words of new content. Second, we have the protocol: simple HTTP, and addressable URLs. Third, we have (at least the beginnings of) a common data format in RSS.

We're missing the other half, which consists of two elements -- a common semantic space (i.e. "categories of content"), and the client- and server-side tools to easily create and distribute content. The tools will come, and will come in multiple colors and flavors. Whether it's Blogger, or Radio Userland, or Microsoft Word, or EMACS, or a server-side tool provided by Geocities, there will be tools for reading, writing, commenting on, and publishing, RSS-based content (ed. note -- there you go again).

Imagine a series of webservers that exchange RSS feeds in a similar way. Since RSS 1.0 is extensible via XML namespaces, it would be easy to add one or more categorization elements to each and every item posted, in addition to a categorization for a whole channel. Additionally, RSS could be extended to describe types of publishers, so custom syndication servers could have their own rulesets to enable them to redistribute RSS feeds matching particular channels, created by particular publishers, or classes of publishers. Thus, theobvious could become a syndicator of RSS feeds of indie tech pundit types, while Google becomes the syndicator of record for everything it could get its hands on.

Hacking the City
http://www.theobvious.com/archive/2000/11/07.html

The Beginning of Web Design
http://www.theobvious.com/archive/2000/07/24.html

Pyra's Killer App
http://www.theobvious.com/archive/2000/05/01.html

Just One Question for Dick Costolo
http://www.theobvious.com/archive/1999/12/27.html

My Ass is a Weblog
http://www.theobvious.com/archive/1999/11/22.html
A major miss-fire prediction from 1999 by Greg Knauss, but it's still an interesting read.

Say what you want about the Web, it's got its enthusiasms. Twice a year or so, like clock-work, a new technology or paradigm sweeps over the face of the Internet, promising to transform not only the medium, but the very fabric of our lives. "It's revolutionary!" proponents shout. "It's amazing! It's the next New Thing!"

Which makes the tumult that currently surrounds weblogs all that much more amusing. It's easy to be cynical, of course, but how can anyone not giggle into their sleeve when lists of links to the iBrator are described in terms that usually accompany the overthrow of a government?

Weblogs are a "revolution." They're "journalism." They're "art." They're, again and again, the next New Thing. To which the only possible response can be: come on, people.

This is not to say that weblogs aren't useful or fun. I read several every day, and have profited from the experience. I just love that Mahir guy.

But how can you not boggle at the level of self-delusion, of self-infatuation, it takes to declare that weblogs are going kill off traditional journalism? That the concept will be alive and well a decade from now? That weblog readership will increase a hundred-fold in that time? That they're an art form?

The only consolation a naysayer can find in all the current hubbub is that, inside of a year, the inevitable winnowing will be complete, and the weblog community will have matured into something efficient, useful and blessedly quiet. The remaining webloggers will go about their business, providing links and commentary, without all the noisy hoo-ha of revolution.

The Truly Personal Web
http://www.theobvious.com/archive/1999/08/03.html

A Standard for Site Organization
http://www.theobvious.com/archive/1998/11/02.html

An Open Letter to Old Media
Another humorous, major, miss-fire prediction
http://www.theobvious.com/archive/1998/10/14.html

You were always better than that, Old Media. Don't let New Media convince you otherwise. That punk is headed for a fall, anyway. Look, somebody has to be the adult here and it's sure as hell isn't going to be the Web. Why not you? You've been pretty good at it so far. Please, Old Media -- come back. We miss you.

^ Holy hell. Talk about a whiff.

Review: Unleashing the Killer App
http://www.theobvious.com/archive/1998/07/07.html

More Life Beyond the Browser
http://www.theobvious.com/archive/1997/06/02.html

The Killer of Websites
http://www.theobvious.com/archive/1997/01/27.html

Questions for Jeff Bezos
http://www.theobvious.com/archive/1996/10/14.html

Information Overload
http://www.theobvious.com/archive/1996/09/16.html

Collaboration: Working Alone Together
http://www.theobvious.com/archive/1996/09/09.html

The wonderful thing about the Eames room is that it encouraged people to work together, as a team. Where is the equivalent on the net? Why does it seem that all for all the talk of this wonderful enabling technology, we still are sitting at our individual machines, tap tap tapping away by ourselves?

I'm involved in a multitude of group projects this semester. It's exciting, but will be a logistical nightmare. Different people populate different groups. Everyone is stretched for time. Coordinating face-to-face meetings is difficult, and there is plenty of group work to be done. The obvious question: why can't we be using the net as a tool?

I would love to have a cross-platform collaboration product that combines combines the ease-of-use of email with the publishing capabilities of the web. I work with folks who live lives both on- and off-line, on PCs and Macs. The only thing we have in common is a UNIX machine hosting our web sites and running our POP server. We're not interested in building online communities, we're just interested in getting some work done. Asynchronously, easily, and cheaply. Oh, and a dose of security would be nice. Regardless of what the admissions department tells you, business school is competitive.

Everyone and their mother, it seems, is pushing an Intranet based product to help solve these issues. But nothing has gone beyond the firewall. Lotus Notes? For the individual? Ha. Netscape's LiveWire? Do you think we're actually in control of the server we use? Microsoft's NT and IIS? See above. Meanwhile, can someone remind me why Netscape bought Collabra? Did I miss something, or were we not promised browser-based collaboration for the masses?

I, of course, want the impossible. I want a set of tools which turn my machine into the equivalent of the Eames conference room. But I won't get it, because it's an impossible dream. The beauty of the Eames room is that it's a room, a physical place, for physical (not virtual) collaboration. Working face to face is, of course, better -- a machine can't replace the inimitable buzz of a group working on a caffeine induced high.

But when we're apart, and have work to do, when schedules dictate that things have to be done alone, then why can't we work alone together?

Global v. Local
http://www.theobvious.com/archive/1996/08/05.html

The Road to Xanadu
http://www.theobvious.com/archive/1996/07/08.html

As Gary Wolf wrote in his Wired history of the project, "Xanadu was meant to be a universal library, a worldwide hypertext publishing tool, a system to resolve copyright disputes, and a meritocratic forum for discussion and debate.... And, on the very hackerish assumption that global catastrophes are caused by ignorance, stupidity, and communication failures, Xanadu was supposed to save the world."

Simplify My Life
http://www.theobvious.com/archive/1996/07/01.html

Furthermore, will somone please explain to me why we need Java chat rooms and Java navigation bars and Java news tickers? Aren't IRC, image maps and plain old ASCII good enough?

Dave Winer, who knows a thing or two about content heavy web-sites, recently advised DaveNet readers that "the next time someone says they have the fastest justin-time Java byte-code garbage collector, be sure to ask them what you should use Java for. I haven't heard a good answer to this question, and I've been asking." Of course, this piece came before Dave went off the deep end (as he usually does) and started screaming about how Java will connect the world and bring universal peace through Remote Procedure Calls.

The obvious advice to the browser-builders: make things easier, not harder. Simpler, not more complex. Remember that the vast majority of users are connecting at trickle speeds, and appreciate simplicity. A browser should be lean, mean and fast. It should load text before images. Static images before animated GIFs. And anything before a Java applet. It should not include an email client (takes up room), nor a news client (takes up room, and is there anyone left that actually reads Usenet?). And don't even think about a net.telephone, collaboration tools or a QuickTime plugin. That's what real phones, white boards and VCRs are for.

Netscape and Sun need to wake up to the fact that the market for web products is not going to be driven by the power user connected to the corporate T1. It's going to be driven by the masses. The masses who will buy a Sony PC or a Sega "net cartridge," connect at 28.8k if they're lucky, and drive the advertising dollars which will fund the websites which will keep this medium viable into the next decade. Pay attention to the masses, and they'll pay attention to you.

#history - #web - #programming - #rss - #forums - #design