Re: The great Java showcase (re: 2nd historic mistake)

[hathawa2@marshall.edu (Mark S. Hathaway)]

> In article <5v0kta$jdb$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>,
> ok@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes:

>> dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:

>>An interesting case is gathering steam now, there is a question of whether
>>the new digital TV transmission capability should be used for HDTV, or
>>more conventional channels. It is beginning to look more and more as though
>>the public and the hence the networks, prefer more conventional channels.
 
> How has public opinion actually been obtained about this?
> 
> One thing sticks in my craw:  surveys in Australia, going back 100 years,
> have shown that what people _want_ in the media (the newspapers 100 years
> ago, TV nowadays) is science/medicine/technology, commerce/politics, and
> sport, IN THAT ORDER, with quite a wide gap between the >50% who want science
> stories and the <50% who want sport.  What we *get* is more and more and more
> sport.  I believe British surveys show much the same order of preference,
> with much the same total disregard of user preference in what actually gets
> shown.
>...
> So is it really *the public* who want more conventional channels, or
> is it *the advertisers*?  And if it is the public, how many of them who
> have been asked for their preference have actually _seen_ HDTV?  (For
> comparison, many of the people who ``choose'' PCs have never actually
> _seen_ a Macintosh, and certainly have never used one.  And many of the
> people who ``choose'' Windows have never seen NextStep.  And so on.)

>> For me, I would far rather rely on the consumer to make the decision
>> of what features are or are not important and thus constitute the
>> basis of answering this question!

> This is of course the point of usability engineering.  But I am not very
> happy about relying on people to make decisions about features they have
> never had a chance to evaluate.

It happens all the time. Sometimes the results are good and sometimes
a failure. We have no choice but to make decisions about the unknown.
Take for example the founding fathers of the United States of America.
They fantasized about a new form of government and then argued quite a
lot about it...then they created it. Even today we're still critiquing
some of their decisions/choices.

I agree a lot of decisions are based on incomplete information or
they're given survey questions which "lead" them to answer the way
the surveyer wants. Polling is an art which seeks to not only get
a perfect sample group, but to get the sample group which will then
answer the questions the "appropriate" way.

The fact the rich people of the world will control such things isn't
new. Get used to it.

Among the most worrisome things is topics and events which are never
discussed (meaning the media and politicians don't talk about them).
If something doesn't appear on a poll the you can't give your opinion
and the poll won't reflect any thoughts on that topic. If your
representative in the government doesn't hear from you (with your cash
donation) and doesn't actually have much in common with you (as a human)
then he/she isn't likely to be thinking about the same concerns you
have. If the system doesn't present you an option then it's not likely
you can choose it, can you?

Take for example Michael Moore's television show (TV Nation). There
were apparently several episodes he wanted to air that were stopped.
Some advertisers were offended by his "message" and, in the end, this
lead to his whole show disappearing.

The "establishment" most often shows it's stodgy side when a "movement"
tries to enforce a change which the establishment hadn't offered. The
"civil rights" movement was one such "cause". The "ending of the Vietnam
War" was another.

Could you imagine the angst the powerful people of the "Western world"
would feel if a movement to overturn our republics in favor of a true
democratic type of governing were to occur. Their power would be
threatened and they wouldn't like it.

But, these problems won't appear for us to consider. They're not
offered-up to us to choose. They don't enter the minds of many people.
A movement isn't likely to begin if the idea(s) don't enter the minds
of some people.

Whatever the movement (civil rights, equal rights, gay rights,
environmental protection, nuclear-free society, worker rights, etc.)
the establishment didn't propose it and does oppose it.

Same as it ever was...

                                     Mark S. Hathaway