Furniture: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Created page with "{{a|design|}}{{Quote| '''Legal ops''': We must innovate! We have earmarked technology budget to innovate! <br> '''JC''': Great! How about some decent document comparis..." |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|design|}}{{Quote| | {{a|design|}}{{Quote| | ||
'''[[Legal ops]]''': We must innovate! We have earmarked technology budget to innovate! <br> | {{caps|'''[[Legal ops]]'''}}: We must innovate! We have earmarked technology budget to innovate! <br> | ||
'''[[JC]]''': Great! How about some decent document comparison software? Microsoft’s comparison engine is rubbish. <br> | {{caps|'''[[JC]]'''}}: Great! How about some decent document comparison software? Microsoft’s comparison engine is rubbish. <br> | ||
'''[[Legal ops]]''': We can’t use our fuinds on that. | {{caps|'''[[Legal ops]]'''}}: We can’t use our fuinds on that. <br> | ||
'''[[JC]]''': Why not? | {{caps|'''[[JC]]'''}}: Why not? <br> | ||
'''[[Legal ops]]''': Because it isn’t very innovative, is it? | {{caps|'''[[Legal ops]]'''}}: Because it isn’t very innovative, is it? <br> | ||
'''[[JC]]''': Would it change your mind if I told you it runs on | {{caps|'''[[JC]]'''}}: Would it change your mind if I told you it runs on [[blockchain]]? <br> | ||
'''[[Legal ops]]''': YES! Does it? | {{caps|'''[[Legal ops]]'''}}: YES! Does it? <br> | ||
'''[[JC]]''' | {{caps|'''[[JC]]'''}} (''pauses''): Um, yes. Sure it does.<br> | ||
'''Document Comparison Vendor''': | '''Document Comparison Vendor''': Wait, what? No it d —<br> | ||
'''[[JC]]''': | {{caps|'''[[JC]]'''}} (''aside''): Do you ''want'' this contract? <br> | ||
'''[[Legal ops]]''': What was that? | {{caps|'''[[Legal ops]]'''}}: What was that? <br> | ||
'''[[JC]]''' and '''Document Comparison Vendor''' ''(in unison)'': Nothing. | {{caps|'''[[JC]]'''}} and '''Document Comparison Vendor''' ''(in unison)'': Nothing. <br> | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{quote|Technology should be part of the everyday. We should see it and touch it and use it all the time.}}{{Author|Stewart Brand}} has a great expression for this kind of technology: the “invisible present”. The problem is that technology which does integrate seamlessly into our lives doesn’t look like technology for very long. Email. Web browsers. Smartphones. Wikipedia. Google | {{quote|Technology should be part of the everyday. We should see it and touch it and use it all the time.}}{{Author|Stewart Brand}} has a great expression for this kind of technology: the “invisible present”. The problem is that technology which does integrate seamlessly into our lives doesn’t look like technology for very long. Email. Web browsers. Smartphones. Wikipedia. Google | ||
Revision as of 15:03, 16 November 2022
|
The design of organisations and products
|
Legal ops: We must innovate! We have earmarked technology budget to innovate!
JC: Great! How about some decent document comparison software? Microsoft’s comparison engine is rubbish.
Legal ops: We can’t use our fuinds on that.
JC: Why not?
Legal ops: Because it isn’t very innovative, is it?
JC: Would it change your mind if I told you it runs on blockchain?
Legal ops: YES! Does it?
JC (pauses): Um, yes. Sure it does.
Document Comparison Vendor: Wait, what? No it d —
JC (aside): Do you want this contract?
Legal ops: What was that?
JC and Document Comparison Vendor (in unison): Nothing.
Technology should be part of the everyday. We should see it and touch it and use it all the time.
Stewart Brand has a great expression for this kind of technology: the “invisible present”. The problem is that technology which does integrate seamlessly into our lives doesn’t look like technology for very long. Email. Web browsers. Smartphones. Wikipedia. Google
It looks like *furniture*.
Things that persistently look like technology, we call “bad technology”. O Paradox.