atw: Re: The New World Order, take 2

  • From: Ken Fredric <KenFredric@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "'austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 08:53:26 +1000

Hear, hear!

Ken Fredric
Senior Technical Writer

From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Christine Kent
Sent: Wednesday, 18 November 2009 8:49 AM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: The New World Order, take 2

This is a re-send of my original post, with the offending words changed.

Curious how no-one addressed the perfectly obvious true intent of the mail.  
Too challenging?  Too philosophical? Too deep?

There is a process whereby everyone respectfully shares their personal 
understanding and perceptions, and together they reach a new understanding that 
each, alone could not have reached.  It is essentially different from verbal 
combat where each person tries to destroy the argument (and reputation) of the 
other by any means available.  Let's see if we can avoid combat and increase 
understanding, shall we?

Christine (the NF in an SJ world)

From: Christine Kent [mailto:cmkentau@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, 16 November 2009 7:29 PM
To: 'austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: RE: Re: Preferred font for corporate staff manuals


I know I am one of the few people on this group that has waded gung ho into the 
new Web 2.0 world.  I have a number of blogs, a facebook account, a you tube 
channel, a twitter account that I rarely use, and dozens of other logins that I 
set up but never used to all sorts of weird and wonderful things.  I belong to 
a number of social forums and conduct nearly all my business on or through the 

There is a reality "out there" that may be difficult to address because no-one 
is researching it and in fact, no-one can research it.  Whether we like it or 
not, the non-business IT world has leapt a long way ahead of (or to the side 
of) the business IT world, and it is all moving at such a speed that research 
cannot possibly keep up.

I have conjectured that youngsters are being trained how to think, how to learn 
and even how to read by the internet, which may even be exercising and training 
totally different neural pathways to mainstream academic education.  There are 
no "experts" involved in designing this process.  Web 2.0 junkies will get what 
they choose to get through blogs, facebook, social forums and the like.  If 
someone sets the websites up in Arial (as per normal) they will learn to feel 
comfortable reading Arial.  As high level reading is not a terribly necessary 
skill any more in their world (reading age 8 will probably about do it), and 
writing even less so, they don't need to be all that proficient - just good 
enough.  My observation is that they read very little and what they do read, 
they skim read, meaning they miss detail.  They get most of their education 
from one another and from YouTube.  (There is nothing you cannot learn now on 
YouTube.) There is little they want to learn that they cannot learn from 
YouTube, high academic learning aside.

If I need any instruction on common computer programs, I go to YouTube where 
some nice person will have videoed the process for me.  If I want any news, I 
get it from the web.  I set up feeds on particular topics to my Google account, 
so that it all comes to me.  Even the news process and distribution has changed 
its form courtesy of the web.  Font is one really trivial aspect of this change.

I am well aware that this is all scattered and anecdotal, but how do we get it 
from the anecdotal to the researched?  Who even knows this needs research, let 
alone has the dollars to research it.  It is still mostly out of the gambit of 
educational and even corporate organisations, who still have the internet 
locked down to workers and students, and so are still are hugely unaware of 
what is happening. It's like the "real world" has closed the shutters against 
the tornado going on outside.  There is a new world and new race of people 
living outside, but those shuttered inside are oblivious to their existence.

All this means there CAN only be anecdotal evidence and observations from 
intelligent people (of whom I am one, Peter) to watch what is happening in 
stunned amazement and conjecture where it is taking us.  Is there a point at 
which the exponential rate of change implodes?  I don't know.  It still seems 
to be accelerating at a seriously challenging rate. Dismiss it as nonsense at 
your peril.


-------------------------------Safe Stamp-----------------------------------
Your Anti-virus Service scanned this email. It is safe from known viruses.
For more information regarding this service, please contact your service 

Other related posts: