In-Reply-To: <199506302141.QAA16657@mixcom.mixcom.com>
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-online-news@marketplace.com
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO
X-Status: 


On Fri, 30 Jun 1995, Eric K. Meyer wrote:

> Excepts from Vin Crosbie's comment, posted at 10:09 on 30 Jun 95:
> 
> > Dynamic content is the many-to-many. Bulletin boards, chats,
> > usenets, personal websites, EMail. The consumers themselves create
> > content and alter its focus and flow. (We're using it now; the
> > online-news listserv is dynamic content).
> 
> Except the majority of people reading this list are NOT contributing to 
> it. To them, it is static content, by your definition, because they 
> are not personally involved. On the other hand, perhaps you wish to 
> redefine dynamic as meaning changing. In that case, news becomes 
> dynamic content in your system.
> 
> It's not the many-to-many feature that will drive this engine. Were 
> that true, CB radio would still dominate and Usenet, which in many 
> ways is turning people off, would be thriving.
> 
> The mass market wants a responsive medium but does not want to be 
> required to respond for it to inform. The notion of average people as 
> aggressive information seekers simply is not borne out by any 
> research or observation. We tend to be casual media users. While we 
> might appreciate the ability to at times go many-to-many or 
> receiver-to-sender, we tend to be very happy to let things unfurl 
> around us in a sender-to-receiver model.

I disagree, Eric. The many-to-many is what most users I encounter are 
after --contact. Email is the killer application of the Internet, so far, 
not the Web or its browsers. Global instantaneous electronic 
communications among members of the Global Village. It's here.

Contributing to this list or not doesn't change the *list* 
from static to dynamic. It is dynamic --many-to-many (different voices to 
different readers), whether the user actively participates or not.

I don't buy the CB radio analogy, in part because it didn't have the 
global reach of this medium.

I agree on casual information seeking behavior for the mass market, but 
business users are aggressive information seekers. Both business and 
personal use of the Net will dominate in the near-term, IMO.

Lastly, I like the static-dynamic counterpoint, but it's too rigid and 
there are shades of grey to it; still, it is an accurate continuum model.

Dynamic news --now there's a concept. Freshened often, interactive 
(reader can dig/explore issues *deeper* or for more context/content), and 
sidebars where they can communicate with other readers/viewers *and* the 
author(s) of the work. That's where it will have a real creative synergy, 
IMO. I've not seen this done yet anywhere. The Encyclopedia 
Britannica/Pathfinder model will have some of it.

Enjoying the thread and discussion,
Michael

P. Michael McCulley | mcculley@netcom.com | 619-587-8911 | FAX: 619-546-3919
 GENESIS Information Services | 6866 Weller St | San Diego, CA 92122         
     Home Page URL: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/GI/GIS/genhome.html
          Columnist, "Internet Waves" in INFORMATION TODAY
........................................................................
If you can lead it to water and force it to drink, it isn't a horse.


From rballard@cnj.digex.net Fri Feb 27 04:42:25 1996
Status: RO
X-Status: 
Path: news3.digex.net!news2.digex.net!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.ios.com!usenet