4 ms·

We're not there yet, because technology keeps advancing and some people (stereotypically older) don't keep up, but the baseline of assumed knowledge does keep r

by cbd1984 12y ago

We're not there yet, because technology keeps advancing and some people (stereotypically older) don't keep up, but the baseline of assumed knowledge does keep rising. At this point, the ideas of what a computer does and what the Internet does (not so much what they are, but the basic role they play) are assumed knowledge for everyone still active in the economy. The stereotypical image now is less "Old man picks up a computer mouse like a TV remote control and tries to change the channel on the monitor" and more "Old man has one inch of usable browser window due to the vast encrustation of spyware toolbars", which implies enough basic technical knowledge to even get those toolbars. It really wasn't too long ago when the comic stereotype of "really out-of-it old man" involved a horse and a plow and a Franklin stove, and I think that's pretty amazing.

TeMPOraL 12y ago
On the other hand: > I look forward to when this stuff is all mainstream and people can just talk about the online mail and chats they had today and nobody bats an eye. I think this time still haven't come yet. Of course almost everyone talks on-line a lot now, but adults can't admit openly they do, lest they get stigmatized as computer-addicted nerds who need to "log off to real life". Society at large still doesn't accept IMs and e-mails as a legitimate communication form. Maybe we need to wait until current teens grow up.
- dhimes 12y ago
  But people do understand that computers are a legitimate tool for everyday use (I remember when that wasn't so- even though personal computers were somewhat available, it was a little suspicious if you used one to do something that could be done otherwise). So if somebody says they found a new way- using a computer- to solve an old problem, it's not so out of the ordinary, even if nobody else in the conversation had solved that problem in that way yet. Instead of scorn you are as likely to be met with "what a good idea."
- pjc50 12y ago
  It's on the boundary now, with Twitter and to a lesser extent Facebook being mentioned casually by celebrities on TV chat shows. The BBC routinely go to Twitter for "vox pops" where previously they'd have gone into the street to ask random people.
  - bigbugbag 12y ago
    On the contrary, actually. Celebrities giving free advertising for corporate products and luring people there is not really the same as educating people about what online mail and chat are, or rather a very specific biased kind of. I mean I have family member who have been using computers online for years and still struggle to grasp basic online concept such a web browser, a search engine or email though they use it daily. Replacing random people on the street who actually are somewhat random actual people going around their day by twitter accounts who represent a small subset of online personas registered to a corporate web service which can be people or not is a frightening trend.
    - sukilot 12y ago
      If you knock on people's doors, those are people registered with some corporate mail service. Why does a corporation make a communication tool bad?
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
      - TeMPOraL 12y ago
        It's not the corporation that makes a communication tool bad, it's the selection bias introduced by some of those tools that make them bad for purpose of sampling opinions of general population. You can assume that almost every citizen has a permanent address, and thus a mailbox. Nowdays in many countries you can also assume that almost everyone has a phone. But the demographics of Twitter are much different. Your average farmer, or liberal arts major, or most of the people over 50 probably haven't even heard about it. Using tweets to approximate vox populi will make your result heavily biased towards a particular group of people.

by cbd1984 12y ago

TeMPOraL 12y ago

On the other hand: > I look forward to when this stuff is all mainstream and people can just talk about the online mail and chats they had today and nobody bats an eye. I think this time still haven't come yet. Of course almost everyone talks on-line a lot now, but adults can't admit openly they do, lest they get stigmatized as computer-addicted nerds who need to "log off to real life". Society at large still doesn't accept IMs and e-mails as a legitimate communication form. Maybe we need to wait until current teens grow up.

dhimes 12y ago
But people do understand that computers are a legitimate tool for everyday use (I remember when that wasn't so- even though personal computers were somewhat available, it was a little suspicious if you used one to do something that could be done otherwise). So if somebody says they found a new way- using a computer- to solve an old problem, it's not so out of the ordinary, even if nobody else in the conversation had solved that problem in that way yet. Instead of scorn you are as likely to be met with "what a good idea."
pjc50 12y ago
It's on the boundary now, with Twitter and to a lesser extent Facebook being mentioned casually by celebrities on TV chat shows. The BBC routinely go to Twitter for "vox pops" where previously they'd have gone into the street to ask random people.
- bigbugbag 12y ago
  On the contrary, actually. Celebrities giving free advertising for corporate products and luring people there is not really the same as educating people about what online mail and chat are, or rather a very specific biased kind of. I mean I have family member who have been using computers online for years and still struggle to grasp basic online concept such a web browser, a search engine or email though they use it daily. Replacing random people on the street who actually are somewhat random actual people going around their day by twitter accounts who represent a small subset of online personas registered to a corporate web service which can be people or not is a frightening trend.
  - sukilot 12y ago
    If you knock on people's doors, those are people registered with some corporate mail service. Why does a corporation make a communication tool bad?
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - TeMPOraL 12y ago
      It's not the corporation that makes a communication tool bad, it's the selection bias introduced by some of those tools that make them bad for purpose of sampling opinions of general population. You can assume that almost every citizen has a permanent address, and thus a mailbox. Nowdays in many countries you can also assume that almost everyone has a phone. But the demographics of Twitter are much different. Your average farmer, or liberal arts major, or most of the people over 50 probably haven't even heard about it. Using tweets to approximate vox populi will make your result heavily biased towards a particular group of people.