[lojban-beginners] Re: Site for beginners.

["A. PIEKARSKI" <totus@rogers.com>]

I guess we've both said all we can say
.  Time to end this:)

totus


----- Original Message ----
> From: Colin Wright <colin.wright@denbridgemarine.com>
> To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org
> Sent: Wed, December 23, 2009 1:13:32 PM
> Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Site for beginners.
> 
> 
> > With respect, Colin, you are missing the point. We are no longer talking
> > about vlatai, but about how we communicate to non-techie beginners.  They
> > will be challenged enough with lojban.  They should not have to resort to
> > dictionaries and Google to figure out what is supposedly being communicated
> > in English.  The onus to achieve effective communications is ALWAYS on the
> > communicator, and not on the intended recipient.
> 
> Perhaps I didn't make myself sufficiently clear.  I am agreeing with you, 
> pretty much entirely.  I am trying to point out the difference between people 
> like my parents and people like those who produce the software.  You are 
> absolutely right that the software and terminology creates a barrier.  You 
> are absolutely right that the barrier needs to be removed before lojban can 
> hit the mainstream.  As I said:
> 
> cdw> Without people like you this project will forever remain an
> cdw> obscure, cultish, techie-only backwater..  You're absolutely
> cdw> right that for lojban eventually to expand and become more
> cdw> mainstream, it's people like you we need to cater for.
> 
> And even though I said that, you appear to have missed my point.  You are 
> asking that we understand how non-techies think, and what non-techies need, 
> and in return I'm trying to help you understand how techies think.  
> Communication needs to be two way.
> 
> > I have heard similar arguments to yours from physicians
> > and lawyers (not to mention my IT clients).
> 
> I have made no arguments - what position do you think I hold?  I assure you 
> that I am in complete agreement that access to lojban needs to be more 
> "user-friendly" and accessible to non-technies.
> 
> > Yet I have a family doctor who always manages to talk intelligibly
> > with his patients, no matter how technical the issue or how low
> > their level of education. I also have a lawyer who never seems to
> > have a problem of being understood by his clients even in the most
> > complicated cases.
> 
> And these are people who are paid to work on these things full-time.  Further, 
> I have met and dealt with many people who do *not* understand what their 
> doctors and lawyers are telling them, even if they think they do.  But let's 
> leave that to one side and be less cynical and more optimistic.
> 
> I have no doubt that a sufficiently gifted and talented programmer can make 
> all of the lojban tools sufficiently robust and accessible for non-techies to 
> have no trouble using them.  I'm trying to tell you that the time required is 
> almost certainly much, much more than you expect.
> 
> In my line of work we take the time taken to produce a workable demonstration 
> and then multiply by ten in order to get an estimate for when something will 
> be ready for market.  If you want someone not to have to follow instructions, 
> not to have to look things up, not to have to ask questions, then the time 
> taken will be even longer.
> 
> I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm saying it can be done and should be done.
> 
> > It can be done and, in Lojbanistan, it should be done now.
> > "Eventually" is not good enough. Eventually, lojban may end
> > up in the graveyard of so many other constructed langauges. 
> 
> I agree.  Now, here's the point.  I was looking at the suggestions being made 
> and I thought "Cool, I'd like to use that."  So I started estimates for how 
> long it would take me, personally, working full time to produce it.  My 
> estimate is about a month for me working full time.  That means it would be 
> ready for prime-time usage in about a year.
> 
> Not going to happen.
> 
> There are people *much* more talented than I.  Assume one of them could knock 
> it up in a week.  That means it's ready for prime-time in 3 months, assuming 
> they are willing to put in the nitpicking, uninteresting, tedious and 
> apparently never-ending work to make it sufficiently bulletproof.
> 
> Not going to happen.
> 
> Maybe my estimates are way off.  Maybe something can be made to work in two or 
> three weekends of hacking.  I'd love to see it.
> 
> Any volunteers?
> 
> 
> Sorry, but I've just myself really, really depressed.  Maybe someone can 
> produce a more optimistic analysis.
> 
> 
> mi'e kolin.
> -- 
> Dr C.D.Wright, Director of Innovation and Engineering
> Denbridge Marine Limited, Cammell Lairds Waterfront Park,
> Campbeltown Road, Birkenhead, Wirral, Merseyside, CH41 9HP.
> 
> Tel: +44 (0)151 649 4080
> Fax: +44 (0)870 051 8953
> Mob: +44 (0)7980 57 22 96
> 
> Denbridge Marine Limited may monitor email traffic data and the
> content of email for the purposes of security and staff training.
> 
> Denbridge Marine Limited.
> Registered in England and Wales, Company Number 4850477
> Registered office: DSG, 43 Castle St, Liverpool. L2 9TL.