I sat in the future of content session
It started out with some intros and went into a discussion of defining content
It quickly turned into what I felt like was a "context have" and "context have-nots" discussion.
they asked how many people did not know what de.li.ci.os was, and probably (and shockingly, to me) 50% did not know what it was.
It seemed like that other 50% were able and willing to engage in a conversation that was META (sorry meta-haters) about content. But then people the started talking about…well, how dumb clients are, and how writing is hard.
It seemed like it could’ve been split into two different panels. A what’s new in the world of content panel (delicous, tagging, content is a two way street) for those we were seeking a little "what's the cool new thing" explanation..., to a panel discussion slightly higher up the context chain that was a little more about what all that new (to some) stuff MEANS and where it's heading, and what's that coming up around the bend.
As it was, it devolved into a harmless but relatively unsophisticated discussion that was slightly all-over-the-map, but if you are already knew going in what RSS and tags were, you likely didn't learn anything.
there were a couple of comments at the beginning that made me think it was going to be what I was hoping...someone mentioned "passive benefit" which I thought was a good turn of phrase describing how some new apps or sites (or whatever de.li.ci.os is) accrue benefits for individual users by aggregate use, and how one panelist had an audience for his web site and....many people had actually not seen his website at all.....they were accessing it RSS-wise....and when he did a re-design of his site, and sent out an announcement was blown away by how many people said..."that's nice. never saw the old design though".
his comment was then...good thing he thought about content first, because a large % of his audience were interested in only that.
Comments