Without the restrictions of regular media, we pajama-wearers can do whatever we want. For the most part, something is written when it’s ready to be written, and then it’s only as long as it needs to. Some people, like me, have very few things to say, so we say them infrequently.
Indeed, there’s much to be said for “the idea of posting infrequently as a deliberate editorial approach”.
"The essence of [the] argument is dead on: superior fidelity and resolution is terrific but overrated in comparison to convenience... Actually, it’s the content that really matters." Hear, hear! Fidelity is great and all, but there comes to a point when I care less about the quality and more about the content. Actually, it's more a spectrum of appreciation than any fixed point on a graph. #link
Matt Jones of BERG describes the company's work in the tangible-ness of intangible things. I particularly like the idea of raw data as a material to tell real stories that are 'human readable', for lack of a better expression. #link
"If I was standing in 1995 and looking ahead to 2009 and was told how all of those technical restrictions would be lifted, of what would be technically possible, I’d imagine 2009’s web to look a lot more exciting than it does. I’d expect it to look less like a magazine or a newspaper and to look more like what the web could be." Agreed. But I think that the fact that this question is even being asked is a sign that we might see a more exciting web in the near future. The last few years have mostly been about function, about what's under the hood. But we've got that sorted, more or less; now's the time to have some fun with the web again. #link