Furniture: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{a|design|}}{{Quote|
{{a|design|}}{{Quote|
{{caps|'''[[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>
{{caps|'''[[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 sucks. <br>
{{caps|'''[[Legal ops]]'''}}: We can’t use our fuinds on that. <br>
{{caps|'''[[Legal ops]]'''}}: We can’t use our funds on that. <br>
{{caps|'''[[JC]]'''}}: Why not? <br>
{{caps|'''[[JC]]'''}}: Why not? <br>
{{caps|'''[[Legal ops]]'''}}: Because it isn’t very innovative, is it? <br>
{{caps|'''[[Legal ops]]'''}}: Because it isn’t very innovative? <br>
{{caps|'''[[JC]]'''}}: Would it change your mind if I told you it runs on [[blockchain]]? <br>
{{caps|'''[[JC]]'''}}: Would it change your mind if I told you it runs on [[blockchain]]? <br>
{{caps|'''[[Legal ops]]'''}}: YES! Does it? <br>
{{caps|'''[[Legal ops]]'''}}: YES! Does it? <br>
Line 13: Line 13:
{{caps|'''[[JC]]'''}} and {{caps|'''Sofware Vendor'''}} ''(in unison)'': Nothing. <br>
{{caps|'''[[JC]]'''}} and {{caps|'''Sofware 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
{{Author|Stewart Brand}} has a great expression for the kind of technology that is so good, so effective, that you don’t really think of it as technology: the “invisible present”.  


It looks like *furniture*.
Technology which does integrate seamlessly into our lives doesn’t ''look'' like technology for very long: ''email''. The Internet. Smartphones. Wikipedia. Google. We have moved on. We are looking at [[Neural network|neural networks]], [[AI]], [[distributed ledger]]s, permissionless, decentralised currency exchanges.


Things that persistently look like technology, we call “bad technology”. O Paradox.
It looks like ''furniture''.
 
Things that persistently ''look'' like technology, we call “bad technology”.  
 
O Paradox.
{{sa}}
*[[Why is legaltech so disappointing]]

Revision as of 15:29, 16 November 2022

The design of organisations and products


Making legal contracts a better experience
Index — Click ᐅ to expand:

Comments? Questions? Suggestions? Requests? Insults? We’d love to 📧 hear from you.
Sign up for our newsletter.

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 sucks.
Legal ops: We can’t use our funds on that.
JC: Why not?
Legal ops: Because it isn’t very innovative?
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.
Sofware Vendor: Wait, what? No, it d —
JC (to SV, sotto voce): Do you want this contract?
Legal ops: What was that?
JC and Sofware Vendor (in unison): Nothing.

Stewart Brand has a great expression for the kind of technology that is so good, so effective, that you don’t really think of it as technology: the “invisible present”.

Technology which does integrate seamlessly into our lives doesn’t look like technology for very long: email. The Internet. Smartphones. Wikipedia. Google. We have moved on. We are looking at neural networks, AI, distributed ledgers, permissionless, decentralised currency exchanges.

It looks like furniture.

Things that persistently look like technology, we call “bad technology”.

O Paradox.

See also