[FM Discuss] FM readers

[adam hyde]

heyhey

so, i am writing up the report about TOC and getting inspired. There is
an issue brought up a lot in TOC that I think would be good for us to
explore - the context of reading. I think we should also discuss this
more at the wintercamp, however its good to open the discussion here and
then feed it into the camp i think, that way everyone, not just those in
the room at the camp, can have input.

So, what is the role of the reader in our work. So far the reader doesnt
appear in the technical or social construct of FM. Sure, we dont draw
much of a distinction - anyone can contribute, but the fact is there are
plenty of people that dont contribute and would be defined as 'read
only'

at the moment we dont provide any good mechanisms for the reader to
feedback or participate in FLOSS Manuals. It might be that we have
successfully provided a mechanism so that anyone that wants to
contribute can, and hence those left over are truly of the read-only
species, but I doubt it.

I think there is the opportunity to develop the reading context more
than what we have, and draw more participation from those that use the
manuals but do not feel they would necessarily want to write the
manuals.

My question is how to do this? It might require the addition of a few
tools, however its not just the provision of technical functionality we
need to think about but the entire reading context. For example, part of
this strategy would suggest that we put a good comment system into the
blog. Thats not going to get feedback happening about manuals but it
sends out the signal that we are open to intervention from 'non
writers'.

Along with this I was wondering how else we improve this situation. I
feel I can only think rather simply about this subject. I can see the
need to some kind of richer comment system on a per manual or chapter or
paragraph level. However, I am wondering how we might tie this back into
the WRITE backend so conversations about the same material is not
necessarily split between 'readers' and 'writers' (as it is now).

Also, I think Bob Steins Comment Press might be an interesting
provocation, or it could be that we also consider a more live
environment. How about a psuedo live comment system? I am liking, for
example, the way the chat works in the WRITE interface, it is somewhere
between a forum and a live chat. When you visit it you see the history
of the discussion, but when you contribute it appears immediately -
comments are not 'posts' as much as they are results of a chat...the
line here is interesting I think, and I wonder if we might draw this out
a little.

then there is the question of 'citizenship'. there must be a better word
for it but this will do. writers have to register and then they are a
named part of the clan. i think we will try and improve this component
too - make better use of the 'user' (I hate that word) pages and better
mechanisms for communication between writers etc. However, are we to
treat readers as entirely transient? Do we treat them as a kind of
migrant - someone that drops in and leaves a note -  or a citizen -
someone that has a sense of belonging and might contribute more and more
over time? is there a better analogy / illustration for thinking about
the context of this reader 'citizenship'?

any thoughts?

adam




-- 
Adam Hyde
Founder FLOSS Manuals
German mobile : + 49 15 2230 54563
Email : adam at flossmanuals.net

"Free manuals for free software"
http://www.flossmanuals.net/about