April 18, 2008

How about checking with the target before posting that blog post?

In the latest reminder that in the "rush to publish", blog writers need to remember some of the basic rules of journalism, last Friday Duncan Riley over at TechCrunch came out with "Twitter Testing Advertising in Twitter Streams". Given Twitter's current prominence in the social media playground, this naturally set off a blogstorm of commentary around the potential of ads in Twitter.

And then Vasanth Sridharan over at Silicon Alley Insider did what should have been done at the beginning... he checked with the folks at Twitter! Their answer... no ads in Twitter.

Now, sure, Duncan Riley and the TechCrunch crowd are in the business of breaking news and in an era when gaining the credibility as a place to get breaking news means being only minutes (or even seconds) ahead of your competitors, I can understand why he ran with it. But it does seem odd given that it's Twitter and all of us on the service are so interconnected, that a quick fact check with the folks at Twitter couldn't have been done. (I also agree with I know that most all of us in the blogging world weren't schooled in the traditional ethics of journalism... nor do we necessarily claim to be journalists... but on a certain level, it seems to me to just be plain old common senses:

If you are going to write about someone, why not check with them about the accuracy of your story first?

Kudos to the Silicon Alley Insider folks for doing the right thing. P.S. On a similar vein, "Veracity: The Future of New Journalism" (although I agree with Mathew Ingram that spelling is also important!)

Technorati Tags: , , ,

April 01, 2008

Is cursive handwriting a dying art?

cursivewriting1.jpgWhen is the last time that you wrote in "cursive" handwriting? (a.k.a. "longhand")

Was it recently? Did you scribble a note to yourself or to a friend? Did you write something down in a notebook you carry? Did you need to write notes (or a prescription) as part of your work? Did you... (gasp!)... actually write a letter to someone?

I thought of all this last night as I was working through one of my various "boxes" in preparation for our impending move. Perhaps you are more or less "clutter-free" like my wife, but I'm not... and I have several boxes of various accumulated things that I'm committed to work through before we make the move, saving critical things and recycling the rest. Anyway, last night's box was full of... letters. Letters from friends... letters from my parents... letters from grandparents... from friends of the family... a few from old girlfriends... a few from acquaintances I now only vaguely remember... and a huge number of letters and cards from my wife.

It was fun... fascinating... sometimes incredibly emotional (like when I found the letters from my now-deceased grandparents on my mother's side)... humorous... inspiring (a friend writing from his Peace Corps work in Central America)... touching... romantic (my wife and I began our relationship before the era of heavy email usage ;-)... and many more emotions.

The various writing styles were intriguing as well. Some were in small, tight compact script. Others were larger and looser. Some were in block print. Most were in cursive. Some were a mixture. Some were obviously written quickly while others at least appeared to have been written with more care. (Or the writers just have great penmanship.) Some were extremely legible and easy to read while others were... um... "challenging". All of them showed the unique, individual style of the writer. As I worked through the box, it was incredibly easy to say "Oh, here's another one from _______". The writer's style... their identity... was easy to see.

Not for the first time I found myself wondering...

have we lost something fine as we have moved to electronic text?

Oh, certainly we can send email messages or IMs that are as equally fun, touching, humorous, inspiring, romantic, etc. In the 23-ish years that I've been using email (starting around 1985), I've certainly sent and received all sorts of email comparable to letters. And certainly there is a "writing style" that comes through in email/IM messages that is distinctive to individuals. (Although one wonders how much distinction there will continue to be as we move to ever-shorter messages.)

But what is missing is the physical uniqueness of handwriting. Sure, you can use different fonts in email to make your message "different" from others, but: a) half the time those fonts don't make it through to the recipient; and b) you are still choosing from among a certain set of fonts included in your system, i.e. the font is not unique to you.

With handwriting, everyone has their own unique font/typeface.

No one else in the world has handwriting exactly like mine. There are two many variables involved in the creation of the individual letters. The way you hold the pen. The pressure you exert against the paper. The way you connect the letters together (or not). The style of your descenders. The shape of your loops. The way you make punctuation. There is a unique identity associated with... you. Hence why we have used handwritten signatures to assert our identity in signing forms. (And hence why generations of criminals have worked at forging those signatures and handwriting.)

cursivewriting2.jpgAnd yet are we losing this uniqueness?

A few weeks back I stumbled upon some other letters that included one written by a former neighbor in Ottawa who was, I recall, in her 80's when we left there in 2005. Her handwriting was beautiful. (Snippet in the image to the left.) There was a style and a grace that I've actually seen often in writing from people of that era. To a certain degree I wanted to write back to her just to get another letter in return in that beautiful script.

Yet how often do we actually write by hand these days? As you might infer from above, I wrote tons of letters in earlier years. Today, I almost never write letters by hand. When was the last time you received a hand-written letter? My mother, bless her heart, still sends them from time to time and while I admittedly don't reply back in writing, I do value them. (Please don't stop, Mom!) A friend from long ago also sends me one very rarely with his news. But that's about it.

Outside of letters, it probably comes as no surprise that I have written in journals for decades. I have many, many journals in various forms with the pages covered in my handwriting. Yet since I started blogging in May 2000, I hardly ever write in my paper journal anymore. (I "write" in my "journal", but it's all online.) A paper journal that I might previously have filled in a few months now may last for years at my current pace of writing in it.

We have left handwriting behind.

Even more so, I have had a sense in reading some various articles (that I need to find again) that we are leaving cursive handwriting behind. That we are increasingly printing our letters and not connecting them in a cursive script. I notice this even in my own notes for work. In the notebook where I jot notes from various meetings, events, etc., a great amount of my notes are written in a "block print" style. Using upper and lower case... but not connected in a cursive style. Actually, my notes are somewhat of a mishmash that mixes cursive writing and printing... sometimes even on the same line.

(What do your work notes look like? Cursive? Printed? A mixture? Or do you not even write any notes and keep them all on your computer?)

I wonder, too, about the generation coming up through the schools now. In an era when there is so much focus on the electronic world... when kids are texting and IM'ing... when they are doing all their reports on the computer... when they are using computers in their classrooms... how much hand writing do they actually do? Do they even teach cursive handwriting like they did when I grew up?

On a certain level, is it even relevant to the digital world in which these kids are growing up?

I don't know... perhaps cursive handwriting is destined to go the way of manual typewriters, fountain pens and so many other anachronisms from another time. Perhaps it will live on only in those of a certain age and those who have an interest in preserving dying arts. I don't see any real way for it to return... as I noted earlier, even a fan of handwriting like me has moved increasingly online.

But as cursive handwriting fades, are we as a culture losing something fine with its passing?

P.S. I did save many of the letters in the box last night. :-)

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

December 13, 2007

"w00t!" is now M-W's Word of the Year? Sigh...

200712130828Okay, maybe I'm just a linguistic pedant, but I just don't find myself sharing Julia Roy's joy at the fact that Merriam-Webster has annointed "w00t" (with the zeroes) their "Word of the Year" for 2007! But then again, I didn't really like "ginormous" being added to the M-W dictionary, either. I know, I know... "languages evolve"... I should just deal with it. Sigh.

To be fair, M-W is not adding "w00t" to their "official" dictionary - at least not yet - and this "Word of the Year" was "based on votes of visitors to our Web site", which of course will skew any poll that you run. (Although it is in their online "Open Dictionary".) I did enjoy some of the runner-ups on Merriam-Webster's list. Somewhat predictable that "facebook" would be on there, but fun to see "conundrum" and "quixotic".

I think, though, the M-W folks are showing their age when they talk about "l33t" being "an esoteric computer hacker language". They obviously have not spent any time with teenagers who are madly texting each other. (Although I suppose those who wish to get pedantic about Leet might say that texting and true "leetspeak" are different, but I'd argue there's a good bit of crossover.) It does, however, warm this linguist's heart to see someone actually using "esoteric". Nice word.

Ah, the joy of language! w00t!

Technorati Tags: , , ,

November 27, 2007

The curious case of the lowercase "g"... and my, how resources available to parents have changed...

200711270803A conversation at 5:30am this morning:

"Daddy, what is this letter?" (holding up a puzzle piece with a letter on it)
"It's a letter 'g'".
"No, it's not."
"Yes, it is. It's just a lowercase letter. A small one."
"But where is the squiggle at the bottom?"

It turns out that she was talking about the loop at the bottom of the lowercase letter "g" that appeared in one of the books she has been learning words from. Looking up the letter G in Wikipedia did in fact bring up this interesting (to me) little bit of typography. If you look through the various letters, the lowercase "g" is really the only case I know of where we have common usage of a very different letter from a typographic point-of-view. (Well, another case might be the uppercase W.) Many if not most letters have common variations with and without a serif (the line on the top or bottom of a "stem" or main "stroke" of the letter, for those not accustomed to typographic terms). But I can't really think of another letter that varies as much as the lowercase 'g'. A quick survey of some of my daughter's books shows that the g does have a "squiggle" or loop at the bottom of it in some common fonts.

From the Wikipedia article:

The modern minuscule (lower-case) G has two basic shapes: the "opentail G" and the "looptail G" . The opentail version derives from the majuscule (capital) form by raising the serif that distinguishes it from a C to the top of the loop, thereby closing the loop, and extending the vertical stroke downward and to the left. The looptail form developed similarly, except that some ornate forms then extended the tail back to the right, and to the left again, forming a loop. The initial extension to the left was absorbed into the upper loop. The looptail version became popular when printing switched to "Roman type" because the tail was effectively shorter, making it possible to put more lines on a page. In the looptail version, there is a tiny flick at the upper right which in typography is called its "ear".

As I looked through our daughter's books and also looked online, it seems that all the more recent books seem to use the "opentail G" without the loop/squiggle. The particular book where she pointed this out was an older Richard Scarry book ("Best Little Word Book Ever") and the same font seems to be used throughout the "Golden Books" series of "classic" children's books. It was also present, though, in other books.

On one level, it was an interesting discussion to have with my daughter (although we could have had it a bit later in the day, really) and an interesting pointer to me to notice the typography in books she is looking at... because she will notice it.

It was also interesting to think about how resources available to parents have changed as well. When confronted with the inevitable "I don't know why it's different", I simply jumped online, went to a site (Wikipedia, in this case) and looked up the info. Fascinating world we live... and that's the world my daughter and her peers will be growing up in!

Technorati Tags:

August 28, 2007

So you want to be a blogger? Do you LOVE to write? Do you wake up each morning with your head exploding with stories to be told?

An occupational hazard of being a blogger, it seems, that when you are in certain situations and let it be known that you blog, the inevitable question comes up: "So I've been thinking about starting a blog, where do you suggest I begin?"  It's kind of the 2007 equivalent of several years back when, as soon as someone found out that you knew something about computers, the question was "So, I'm thinking about buying a computer, what kind should I consider?" (Or it is presumably like doctors who are asked things like "I've had this pain in my side...")

When next I am asked this question, I'd like to imagine the dialog might play out like this:

Them: So I'm thinking about starting a blog, where should I begin?
Me: For starters, do you LOVE to write?
Them: (a bit hesitant) Sure, I like to write.
Me: No, do you LOVE to write?
Them: (a pause) I'm not entirely sure I follow...
Me: Do you LOVE to write?  Do you wake up each morning with your head exploding with stories that are just there waiting to be told?  If so, blogging may be extremely easy for you.  If not, you can still do it... but you just have to be aware that it will take some work.

Let's face it... starting a blog is trivial.  Keeping a blog going takes a good bit of work.  It helps tremendously if you have this compulsion to tell stories... if you are driven to communicate... if you love to write.

My brain first started going down this track back in July when I read Chris Brogan's "An Autobiography of Sorts".  Chris, one of the more prolific bloggers I follow, writes very well and his posts are generally a pleasure to read.  In his piece, he included this text (my emphasis added):

My first websites dealt with writing fiction. I wrote voraciously through childhood and was really proud and passionate about my writing. I got lots of early readership through my site, and built a little online community of writers.

A commonality with Chris clicked.  Like Chris, I've been writing (at times you could even say "voraciously") since I was very young.  Before I moved into blogging in May 2000 (over on Advogato), I had filled countless notebooks and journals with writing.  I have boxes of them floating around.  All shapes and sizes... carried with me wherever I was.  Traveling around the US.  Living in New England.  On the ice sheet in Greenland. Going to the Univ of New Hampshire in the mid-1980s.  Backpacking.  Canoeing. Wherever. Whenever. I was writing.  Stories. Fiction. Poetry. Commentary on politics.  Comments on life around me.  Sometimes in German (in my more fluent days). Usually late at night or early in the morning.  Much of it, if I were to go back and re-read it, would undoubtedly be pretty mundane and banal.  I'm sure some of my scribblings at UNH would rival the drivel posted in Facebook by some of today's students (except that my drivel isn't posted out there for everyone to see and for search engines to cache).  I have written multiple technical books , numerous pieces of courseware, and far, far, far too many articles for me to even begin counting (I used to try to keep up).  The reality is that I simply love to write.  I always have.  I expect I always will.

So the transition for me to blogging back in 2000 was trivial.  It was simple and easy.  I just wrote with a keyboard instead of a pen.  Only now I was writing for a potentially global audience so I had to apply a bit of a filter (i.e. "Never put online anything you wouldn't feel comfortable seeing on the front page of the NY Times."), but across Advogato, then LiveJournal (and also my American-in-Canada site) and now this network of blogs (plus now Twitter, Facebook, etc.) , I've continued to post.  Not as prolifically as Chris, nor even remotely on the same scale as Jeremiah Owyang:

I enjoy writing, and have published 1,327 posts in the last 15 months (about 3 a day, including weekends).

but I've kept at it all these years.  In large part because I really can't NOT post!   I do indeed wake up most mornings with my head exploding with stories to be told.  For years I've carried around with me a Moleskine notebook[1] whose main purpose continues to be a place for me to jot down notes about things I want to blog about!  I still do. And you know what... I don't even blog about probably 90% of the ideas I write down!  I just don't have the time in the day.  Now if blogging were all I did, perhaps I could - but it's not what I get paid for and is something I just fit into the small random interstices of the day.  Similarly, I tag many web pages I see in del.icio.us, with the idea that I'll go back and blog about them... and again probably 90% I don't.  I keep all sorts of drafts of articles floating around in Windows Live Writer.  Some eventually become blog posts. Some never do and eventually I delete them.

The key is that I love to write.  I have a compulsion to communicate... to explain... to teach... to demystify things... to tell stories about things and people and technologies.  It is just part and parcel of who I am and what I do.

If you have that compulsion, odds are that you'll do just fine keeping up with blogging.  If not, you still can certainly maintain a blog... you just may have to work at it a bit more to keep those entries flowing...

[1] Since before Moleskines were popular with the GTD set and they were quite difficult to find - in fact, there was only one store in all of Ottawa where I could get them. Today, they are of course everywhere.

Technorati tags: ,

July 16, 2007

Does Merriam-Webster adding "ginormous" to their dictionary bother anyone else?

image Is anyone else bothered by "ginormous" being added to the Merriam-Webster dictionary?  Last week, the pedantic linguist (or is it "linguistic pedant"?) in me cringed when I heard the news that "ginormous" was among the 100 new words added to the M-W collegiate dictionary.

I mean... are they serious?

Obviously they are and had this to say:

“There will be linguistic conservatives who will turn their nose up at a word like `ginormous,”' said John Morse, Merriam-Webster's president. “But it's become a part of our language. It's used by professional writers in mainstream publications. It clearly has staying power.”

Okay, perhaps I'm a "linguistic conservative" but I think my major issue is that "ginormous" just sounds stupid!  The article goes on:

Visitors to the Springfield-based dictionary publisher's Web site picked “ginormous” as their favorite word that's not in the dictionary in 2005, and Merriam-Webster editors have spotted it in countless newspaper and magazine articles since 2000. 

That's essentially the criteria for making it into the collegiate dictionary — if a word shows up often enough in mainstream writing, the editors consider defining it.

Intellectually, I understand.  Languages are living things that evolve over time.  A good dictionary will attempt to keep pace with the times.  So I understand it at that level, but still....  ginormous?

But as editor Jim Lowe puts it: “Nobody has to use `ginormous' if they don't want to.”

Yes, you can count me as one of those, too.  I have an extremely hard time ever imagining a circumstance in which "ginormous" would leave my lips or be something I wrote.

How about you?

Subscribe

  • Add to Google
    Subscribe in Bloglines

    Or enter your email address:

Full Disclosure

  • Dan York, CISSP, is Director of Emerging Communication Technology at Voxeo Corporation. He is also the Best Practices Chair of the VOIP Security Alliance (VOIPSA).

    Note that neither Voxeo nor VOIPSA have any connection to this weblog and any opinions stated here are entirely Dan's.

Contact Info

  • Search:

Other Places I Write

Blog.DanYork.com

Disruptive Telephony

Blue Box: The VoIP Security Podcast

Voice of VOIPSA