consistency (or not) of process descriptions #9
Loading…
Reference in a new issue
No description provided.
Delete branch "%!s()"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
Since there are a variety of methods described, we should perhaps think about increasing consistency where it would help and decreasing where diverstiy is suggested.
colloidal and distilled for reference at https://repo.fo.am/foam/futurist-fieldguide/wikis/semiotic-shadows
probably something for an editorial meeting (cc: @maja and @alkan)
Also heading hierarchies in view of automated printing routines.
sounds like something for a "Style Guide"
Ha! Horrors, not THAT! The "Style Guide" I'm working from is an emergent property of observed tendencies formalised into ad hoc heuristics (to throw in a most fashionable term round here). Style guides are like so deontologically last year…
...hence the "scare" "quotes". We could safely assume it's not an actual "Style Guide" to which i refer, more a collation of semiotic shadows, of distended editorial hopes, of suggestions reaching towards the hermeneutic. feedstock for the automated processes in their heuristic darkness.
Beautiful eulogy to the semiotic shadowlands (and very much grist for the mill of my rapidly frankensteining essay traces)…
(Just keeping things on topic here)
i would expect no less :gentleman_octopus:
Apologies for my inconsistent writing. I keep changing my mind about how much detail should be in the process, whether we mention what we did at FoAM or not, etc. I'm also trying different things, but I'm not sure yet which 'style' works best. If either of you find a page that you think works better than others, let me know. For now, I'm happy that I have reached my week's goal: to have an active link in every (sub)section - even if a few pages only have placeholder texts for now ;). We have to move out of our Castelletto in an hour, so I'll leave the fieldguide as is until Monday. I'll keep adding pages every day next week (I hope), so the sooner I hear your preferences, the sooner I can include them in my writing...
No apologies in any way implicitly or explicitly beseeched, supplicated, or petitioned! Congratulations on the milestone. I think many entries look quite fine already. Will look through with a eye to such higher-order style questions and comment if possible. Probably it does remain to gradually smooth things out across entries, but that might also involve factoring in any third-party contributions. But for now, onwards from the Castelletto!
for now (and soonish) i've created https://repo.fo.am/foam/futurist-fieldguide/wikis/semiotic-shadows (to which i'll try to refer during any automated translitteration attempts...)
perhaps, by comparison. http://lib.fo.am/futures_thinking
this is great. we should be collating other people's method pieces somewhere on the fieldguide and the future fabulators pages...