@AW2307
[– cc: @BLUEFROG, @chrillek] :
I am with you on the acknowledgement front as to what DT achieves technically on the video front already (as on multiple others). Something I have done btw. explicitly, also as to video and DT´s existing and new capabilities (if you follow my contributions, you will have noticed it here, or there ). Which is why I am a bit puzzled by your suggestion there is a lack of acknowledgement on my side. And I try to be as acknowledging as constructively critical all the time. (And I actually argued at different times for a more constructive and acknowledging culture in the forum discussions, that at times strike me as rather flippant.)
What I have taken up was exactly the incongruence of these technical abilities and a stance / willingness to reflect / discuss that in some reflective, generalized way (beyond ‘sporadic’ features) with the community –or myself, for that matter; and ‘take up arguments’ (instead of throwing ad-personam questions, silence or rather shady comments at people, which I actually rarely to never have seen as being called out here in the forum…
On the other side of your (perceived) argument here: My argument here is not implicit at all :-).
It is interesting being criticized for ‘implicit’ criticism in questions that pertain to general, evaluative / analytical questions and that are in fact explicitly stated arguments / criticisms, … while other lines of ‘argument’ (like ad-personam dismissals and some – in my view – more lazy culture re. open and respectful debate beyond the purely technical) are – seemingly – ok to a lot of people here. At least implicitly.
As you see: I have no issues supporting your assertion that DT made progress and makes remarkable things possible as to some (selective) aspects of dealing with video, especially as to those features you now mention again. Why, on the other hand, you chose to criticize me for holding up in such a reflective, generalized discussion (the one I am interested in) how other players / acteurs are reflecting consciously the ascend and importance of video, I do not really understand.
I assume you do not mean it like that, but without understanding the real motivation it has some soundings of 'criticism (as such) is bad’ / better not issued, when talking to developers – … which, frankly, I do not share, especially not where a community and ‘discussion’ is wanted / instated (instead of a ‘request board’, technically in the ‘Canny’-universe). With criticism, I think it is generally ‘ok’; and I prefer the one that is explicitly stated, brought forward to respectful debate and supported by arguments (and own perspective), to the one cloaked in silence, non-interest or even condescending spiky tonalities. I do not see the equation if marking / stating critical arguments (and support that with argumentation) with what you now qualify as ‘accusation’ (nor do I really understand how a single user in a forum can really ‘accuse’ a developer of a software in terms of where they chose to take a software, e.g. (actually just some lines ahead I explicitely stated, that the autonomy of developers of strategical decisions as to their software is sacrosanct). What I take issues with on the other hand is some unwillingness to be clear, somewhat consistent (within the argument; with regards to self-characterization and cultural realities; etc), transparent, and react to points on the level the argument, … or at all.
But of course that is ok, I register that you think bringing forward what I brought up in the last post might be … unfair(?), problematic(?), too insistent(?). Of course, I am interested to hear more about that – and understand what really bugs you about this particular insertion, because – as you see – I do not understand the real problem yet / quite.
For now I feel a difference we might have, could be that for me the sentence / stance to support and go by is
» Let’s put forth our arguments in favor of future developments related to individual needs or general perspectives / takes without taking on an accusatory stance (even implicitly). «.
– I am engaging in general perspective (grounded on / organically linked with my ‘individual needs’). Or, trying to. And the reason I am stressing that, is that I would refuse – especially in a ‘forum’, and one located on a subdomain ‘discourse’ – to be reduced to an individual expressing only ‘individual’ needs, wishes, plea /requests etc., and not being tolerated as someone also expressing opinions, evaluations, (founded / sourced) arguments, or positions; or even explicit ‘criticism’, as long as it is constructive, based on argumentation, and as long as it is not descending into rants, or personalized charges / abuses etc.
As to Muse: I do not really understand why such a serious enterprise born out of serious and applied research, such as Muse is dismissed on the basis of their age as developer, at least where the debate (again: at least the one I am interested in), is about a rather principal observations on media- and document culture and its trajectories (and why and im what ways DT could / should register that). One should check their Metamuse Podcast where they – laudably – engage deeply with a whole swathe of well-established developers on all kinds of interesting and relevant issues in the field. Of course I am aware that on the practical development side they follow quite a different philosophy and work towards quite a different beast (software architecture), so there – to me – is no question of DT in need to ‘copy’ / mimick anything from them on a technical basis. Then, listening and learning in general is a different thing…
You see me listening. But also not fully understanding (your motivation; or real subject of critique), or maybe you simply see me in some mild way disagreeing at this point (about what is permissable / desirable in a discoursive forum, ‘free and open’).
best to you,
oliver