From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: Have you all gone crazy? Was: On being web-friendly and why info must die Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 15:25:01 +0900 Message-ID: <87lhm0i4le.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> References: <87388bnzha.fsf@newcastle.ac.uk> <87k31mdbhe.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87tx0qiv45.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87h9wqd3i5.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87fvc8kdsp.fsf@gnu.org> <6e11cd85-09a0-4b7a-baa2-0c810bdebbce@default> <871tnsg0w7.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87a92gii32.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <53e8e1b2-1e81-4c31-878b-0c39ec886ee1@default> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1419229539 23701 80.91.229.3 (22 Dec 2014 06:25:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 06:25:39 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Tom , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Drew Adams Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Dec 22 07:25:31 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Y2wQs-0006pe-QT for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2014 07:25:30 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:39232 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Y2wQr-0005od-Up for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2014 01:25:29 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48602) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Y2wQg-0005oU-Sl for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2014 01:25:26 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Y2wQZ-0004vp-Ca for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2014 01:25:18 -0500 Original-Received: from shako.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp ([130.158.97.161]:56740) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Y2wQZ-0004j8-3M for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2014 01:25:11 -0500 Original-Received: from uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp [130.158.99.156]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shako.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7EEC71C38C1; Mon, 22 Dec 2014 15:25:01 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: by uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 655141A2CFC; Mon, 22 Dec 2014 15:25:01 +0900 (JST) In-Reply-To: <53e8e1b2-1e81-4c31-878b-0c39ec886ee1@default> X-Mailer: VM undefined under 21.5 (beta34) "kale" acf1c26e3019 XEmacs Lucid (x86_64-unknown-linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-Received-From: 130.158.97.161 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:180464 Archived-At: Drew Adams writes: > Aiming *primarily* for perfectly interactive web versions > of the manuals, even if we could emulate all of the Emacs > Info features on the web, would be a mistake. Such > improvement can be a goal, but another goal should be to > make sure we point the way to the manuals in Emacs itself. I don't think anybody with real leverage on the decisions is thinking in terms of aiming at "interactive web versions". The point is to make an interactive version targeting Emacs that is more compatible with web presentation, and that gives browser-preferring Emacs users the choice of getting their docs in a browser. There is also the purported benefit of more efficient and effective authoring if a "better" source language is used. I'm not sure there really *is* a significant benefit of that kind, in fact I tend to doubt it. But I'll be happy to adopt if somebody else does the work of developing one! :-) The rest is tl;dr, but it was already written and bandwidth is cheap nowadays. :-) > > It is new. Before the internet, people relied on local expertise > > and asking face to face, and if there was none, gave up. > > StackOverflow and friends are basically the inverse of spam: > > ask the universe at no cost to yourself. > > That mischaracterizes "StackOverflow and friends", I'm afraid. Exaggeration for effect. The cost-benefit analysis for the questioners, however, stands. > It is more accurate to say that some people use StackOverflow > & friends that way. Their attempts to do so are only > moderately successful, however. They are fully successful in keeping me from using SO, Q *or* A. ;-) But then, I'm generally pretty good at asking the kind of questions that the people I want to talk to enjoy answering. Despite the deprecation by the baby boomer generation, I suppose crowd sourcing (wikis and web fora like SO) have had significant successes. Still, we should be able to do better. > It is actually a *good* sign that people, especially those > who have difficulty expressing themselves, do not hesitate > to ask when they have a question. We need a lot more of that. True, but we also need more people to jump over the desk and start answering. > (In some contexts, especially in some fairly traditional, > formal education settings, students are taught not to ask > but to shut up and respect. Tell me about. Most of the students I advise are Chinese, and the rest are Japanese.[1] But I teach them how to ask questions in a way that empowers them and pleases Those Who Have Some Answers. Not always successful, but as often as not they get it, even if two years in a master program isn't enough for them to learn to do it consistently without supervision. It doesn't give me a good reputation among my colleagues; many consider my students to be so many questioning PITAs. On average, they are (and still a slight negative at graduation). > Never has it been easier for an individual to "ask the > universe". And that's a *good* thing. I'm not sure I agree. Spam is still spam, even if it's in a good cause. Maybe *worse* when it's in a good cause. :-/ Specifically, we need to consider the effect on the answerers as well as on the questioners. In my environment, a significant increase in questioning behavior is clearly a blade that cuts both ways. (I think my colleagues by and large prefer to do bureaucratic paperwork!) Footnotes: [1] People who "get it" are everywhere, AFAICT in proportion to population. But those two educational *systems* are diametrically opposed to educing the ability to "get it" for the average student. There are lots of teachers who can't help themselves, and mentor despite the obstacles raised by the systems. But not enough. :-(