Being in Competition with Yourself

With Coko, I am involved in producing book (Editoria) and journal platforms (xpub). As it happens, two of the main competitors for these platforms are a book platform I founded (Booktype, about 8 years ago or so) and a journal platform I designed (Aperta, about 5 years ago or so).

Booktype and aperta are good platforms. However, what I’m involved with now -Editoria and xpub – are just so much more rockn 🙂 Turns out you learn something (a lot!) each time you make a platform and the next one is always better. But competition is a great thing. It helps us all do better. It’s just …it is a little existentially weird to think I’m in competition with past versions of myself 🙂

Represent!

Recently I was in a conversation with researchers about how to design software. One of them wanted the process to ‘be empirical’. Which makes sense, coming from a researcher. However, systems design doesn’t work like this, and in particular, putting the user at the centre of the design process, as I do, is about conversation, not polling (as was suggested).

I was pondering how to convey this if it comes up in the future, and I think one clue is to talk about how, in systems design, the importance is not for all the users to have an ability to input (since the only way to get close to that is via research, polls etc). Rather, it is up for the representative users to know their user-community as best as they can, and that is how we represent other voices. This is how we work, but I’m hoping I can work this thread through a little in my head so I can segue this line of questioning into a more productive space in future.

Thoughts on Facilitation

I’ve been sitting on the beach trying to not think about work, which means of course I thought about work…. but in the way where clearing the mind brings up new insights almost ‘out of the blue’. It happens to me a lot when I get away, which is why I sometimes do my best thinking on trains, or at the beach.

I have been pondering facilitation. So here are a few thoughts. The following is very much a sort of scratch pad of ideas / stream of consciousness. I’ll put structure to it and flesh it out later.

First, I have been pondering what makes a good facilitator. How do you know when someone might be good at this. I think there are 2 personal characteristics that might seem contradictory but are essential:

  1. they are very open
  2. they are very controlling

The second one sounds bad I know. I will work out a better way to state this. But in my experience every good facilitator I know is in some way a bit of a control freak. They are also very (very) open. That might seem like a difficult mix to get right – it is! Which is why I’m kinda leaning towards this theory because I have trained several facilitators and the ones that don’t make it don’t strongly represent simultaneously in these 2 categories.

Second, pretentiousness or a ‘high minded’ attitude *does not cut it*. I say this because you can have the above two characteristics right but I’ve seen this attached to a much removed holier than thou attitude and that is the worst. No good facilitator is above the fray in this way.

Ok.. I was about to break out in a rant there… phew…

Alrighty…

Next the facilitator’s role – what is the facilitators job? I see it as this. The facilitator’s role is to maintain process and to pass decisions to the participants over substance.

Sounds simple. But in no way is this simple. To maintain process the facilitator needs to find ways for the group to invest in an artificial culture that is born on the spot. The rules of that culture are almost completely evoked and maintained by the facilitator. This small little bubble, or micro universe with its own rationale and rules, is what the facilitator instantiates and maintains. It more or less comes down to these two things:

  1. methodology (more important than you think, but also not nearly as important as you think).
  2. shaping human dynamics

In other words, your job is to manage what is done (methodology eg. the Book Sprint Methodology), and how it gets done (shaping the internal behaviors).

I think number two is the hardest to master since you can’t be good at any methodology unless you know how to shape human dynamics. And this is all about who you are and finding your own voice as a facilitator. There are so many tricks and techniques here I don’t even know where to start. Maybe a subject for other posts. But what I’d like to point out is that these two things put together equal process. Facilitators manage process so the participants can focus on the substance of what it is they are deciding/creating etc.

I say this because sitting on the beach has made me aware of one of the biggest issues with facilitation that I have experienced. When I used to facilitate Book Sprints I used to ponder why it was that Humanities academics and facilitators were the hardest people to facilitate. Also, in other Book Sprints, staff documentation writers would often prove difficult when I did Book Sprints that focused on documentation. Ponder ponder… now I think I sorta see it. It is because these groups have a strong opinion on process. Academics are experienced in writing books, so they believe they know how books are written. You come at them with something else, another way of doing it, and many of them just flatly freak out. I had one academic who literally said “you can’t just make up how you make books”. That was a pretty extreme example. I was able to bring her round but it was hard work. Facilitators also think they know facilitation process, so you involve them in something new and they almost always think they can see better ways to do it. They are almost always wrong (mainly because no path works the same for any two facilitators because of the need for each and every facilitator, in themselves, to be the instantiation for a temporary, micro, but very real culture). . Same with documentation  writers… involve them in a doc sprint and you might very well be asking for trouble.

It is the facilitator’s job to bring the process to the people. If the people are domain experts (ie. know a lot about the topic) then no sweat, they will usually get in there quickly and invest in the mini culture you lay down. But if the participants have opinions on the process you get into all sorts of trouble.

So, that means there are two categories of people that need to be kept in mind:

  1. domain experts – good to go, you should be able to get them inside of the bubble no problems
  2. process experTs – spelled with a capital T for Trouble 🙂

Ok…. so I want to say one last thing before I go practice falling off a surf board inelegantly. There is a group of people that are also difficult to keep inside this bubble. They are, for want of a better word, the ‘power retainers’. These are people that either hold sway with the group because of their massive cultural capital (eg the elder states-person in a sector, or they are the boss), or they have such big egos they think they know whats best (usually they also don’t know when to shut up).

There are three possible ways these people can go:

  1. they give the power away – they step back and let other people in, are careful not to dominate, they get in there shoulder to shoulder with others, really listen, go with the flow
  2. you coach the power away – this can be exhausting, but it works more often than not and when it does it can be dramatic. I’ve seen people swing around from being destructively blocking to being the biggest advocates of the process within a day.
  3. they don’t give it up – i have rarely seen this. Interestingly the two examples that come to mind have been Ministers (I won’t name the country or position!). The way they avoided ‘being one of the people’ was just to disappear from the process entirely. Maybe that’s their job – professional avoiders (hoho). Sigh.

I have to say, when I see people migrate from 2 -> 1 (above) they do nothing but earn my utmost respect. That is humility and human connectedness at its best right there.

But if someone is stuck on 3… that is really trouble and you might need to ask them outside for a talking to. In the past I have threatened to remove them from the process. That’s a tough tough call right there, but you have to get the rest of the group to where they need to be in the time they have. If you don’t make these tough calls you won’t make it. I have, by the way, only had to sideline people for a while. I’ve never had to remove anyone and I even had one elder statesman front up the next day and apologize to me and recognise why things had to flow the way they had to flow. That dude earned a place in my heart forever.

Anyways…back to the beach 🙂  ….

Another victory for open source and owning your tech

I wrote a few posts about why it is important to be in control of your content channels. The main argument being that you can’t trust proprietary platforms to keep your best interests at heart, plus you don’t have a say in what direction they will go. Medium is a good example of this bad idea which many publishers initially flocked to (heralding it as the ‘new way’ and chanting in unison ‘go where the people are!’) but are now being stung. For example:

http://www.poynter.org/2017/with-big-plans-to-staff-up-thinkprogress-is-leaving-medium-behind-update

Towards Web-based Word Processors p2

To get this discussion off the ground, I think it’s helpful to first think of what the standard features of a text editor are since word processors have all these features and then some. It’s the ‘and then some’ that I’m most interested in i.e. the essential features that make something a word processor.

Text Editor Features

So, here is my first stab at defining the features of a general, all-purpose, text editor. Keeping in mind that there are no strict rules to this and all category clumpings for this entire discussion are necessarily loosey goosey… text editors include the ability to:

  • open, update, and save a suitable document, format, and store (eg on the file system or online) for recording the text.
  • CRUD (to slightly abuse an acronym used in programming) text ie Create, Read, Update, and Delete text. I include here the ability to add/update/delete via normal keyboard input as well as common cut and paste tools.

That is actually it – the core feature set for a basic editor. A text editor doesn’t need to do much more than this.

Then there is another set of features that your favorite text editor may have (most text editors have some of the following) while still remaining a text editor. I want to categorise these as text editor features (most are related directly to editing text) and they include the ability to:

  • select text
  • select single and multiple block level items (eg paragraphs)
  • apply inline styles (such as italics, bold, underline, strikethrough etc)
  • apply subscript/superscript
  • spell check (to varying degrees of sophistication)
  • find and replace characters and words (to varying degrees of sophistication)
  • calculate a document-wide word count (including possibly character count, line count etc)
  • add and remove tabbed space / indents
  • create, modify and remove hyperlinks
  • add and remove images
  • apply block level (eg para/image) justification / alignment
  • undo / redo edits
  • undo formatting
  • add special characters (including diacritics)
  • apply block level formatting eg heading 1, heading 2, paragraph, block quotes etc
  • add, modify and remove colored highlighting to text elements
  • add. modify, and remove text color
  • ability to set the document language
  • support for right to left, vertical, and left to right word orientation
  • printing
  • table support (create, modify, delete)
  • show invisible characters (line breaks, para breaks etc)
  • CRUD Math and display math in correct fonts and layout
  • export to various document formats
  • the ability to change fonts per selection, style and document
  • the ability to change character size

That’s a good starting list. Undoubtedly you will be able to think of more. If you think of anything critical you think I missed, either add a comment to this post or email me (adam@coko.foundation).

Word Processor Features

So, what does a typical word processor have that a general purpose text editor doesn’t have? I think it is really, at present, a small set of features which inhabit two categories – content processing and document formatting. First, content processing:

  1. track changes. Yes the famous track changes, common to many word processors and sometimes called ‘Record Changes’ etc
  2. ability to create a document outline / ‘table of contents’
  3. insert special field / meta data (date / page number / time / author etc)
  4. annotation / commenting features
  5. bibliography control (including citation / reference placement etc)
  6. hyphenation control
  7. thesaurus control
  8. grammar check
  9. CRUD form elements
  10. create and insert charts
  11. create and insert basic shapes (with colors)
  12. ability to extend (typically via macros)
  13. footnote and end note support

…and, interestingly, the following document formatting features:

  1. ability to set style palettes
  2. ability to set page size
  3. margin control
  4. pagination support
  5. page numbering
  6. ability to create, modify, delete and use document templates
  7. header / footer control

Web Based Word Processing

So, why am I going through the rather mundane task of separating a list of features of text editors vs word processors? Well, its because when it comes to publishing we talk far too much about editors, and we don’t go far enough to define what it is we need from them. Far too often the tacit understanding is that we need good online text editors when we actually mean word processors. Hence our designs and requirements fall short of what publishing requires.

Not so? Well, take a look around. I see many projects suggesting we need to bring publishing into the web. Great, I agree completely. Implicit in that is the need to have good tools for changing text in the browser. Yet how many open source tools do we see that fill out the list of requirements for word processors that you see above. I don’t see any. I do see Google Docs, but that is closed source, suffers from insufferable UX (user experience design), and we can’t customise it, extend it, and integrate it into publishing workflows. So it is more or less useless to us. Same with what ever Microsoft is doing in this area (I would guess, I don’t know the MS Live product in any detail).

I also see attempts to make an online version of LibreOffice. But, I have to say, this so far looks horrible. Picking up a desktop app and just transferring the user interface and all the internal thinking ‘into a browser’ is not the same as making a web based word processor.

So, just so I get this all out there. Making a web based word processor that is open source, reusable, and native to the web is what the Wax editor is all about. Wax is a new product coming out of Coko and it aims to be a highly customisable, highly extendable web based word processor. It is built on top of the Substance.io libs. Wax so far supports some of the word processor features listed above, however, our aim is to componentize it so others can jump in and help us fill out the rest.

wax

But that’s not the end of the story. Bringing word processing into the web is not just about a translation of a desktop word processor to the browser. You need to embrace the web and extend the concept of word processing into a browser-based, shared document, networked environment. That means extending the concept in some areas, and potentially closing down some ‘old fashioned’ ideas. Where does that point to exactly? Well…that’s the topic of my next post in this series!

Some links

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_processor
  2. https://www.education.com/reference/article/summary-word-processing-features/
  3. http://www.cengage.com/resource_uploads/downloads/0538449071_160980.pdf