- this must be 4 ounces..
- here's 8 ounces?
- this gives not just weights but postal rates...no inflation assumed.
Not exceeding 4 oz, 1d [1penny]
Not exceeding 6 oz, 1.5d
Not exceeding 8 oz, 2
weight 2.0
I promised Robert La Gesse of Triagility I would post this note when
I found a suitable illustration (thanks for the photo, Mia!). The
object above is a letter scale from my grandparents’ and now my aunt’s
house in Winchester, England. Note that it doesn't need to show the
letter's precise weight, but rather just which weight category (i.e.
price bracket) it fits in.
Says Robert: "…you loved the color coding of [some type of
data] in some application you used. Color coding is just one method to
display how much “weight” a user gives to an item. But the colors are
just the display mechanism. The mechanism could just as easily be a
set of numbers, or pictures.
The thought I had today was that “Weight 2.0” might be a very good seminar: How do we determine/allow/aggregate/balance how important any given item - be it a meeting request or a photograph - is to not just me and the author, but to my immediate community, and potentially the global community?"
Esthr adds: I'm not sure the idea conld sustain an entire day's workshop, but it's an important concept. Already, you can allow the users to adjust the weights of various criteria, but not the [experts' assessments or user votes for] absolute ratings they adjust, so that users can give more or less weight to certain attributes – a feature that already exists in many ranking applications, such as picking houses, investment portfolios, consumer electronics and the like.
I can also imagine using a variety of factors to weight the importance of mail in my inbox: recency, sender, topic. I wouldn’t necessarily want the most important stuff at the top, but I might like old mails to fade, important ones to show as pink…. And as a special bonus, I’d like them to be sorted not by date of receipt, but by date of action-required.
Comments and faves
Esthr (89 months ago | reply)
yes, and of course you already have the weighting by probability multiplied by the absolute size of the anticipated deal....
Tom Lord (Berkeley) (89 months ago | reply)
You guys are too far out. You are confused.
Ok, sure, the scale is beautiful and the elegance of the technology behind it is palpable.
Right! Yes, go with that.
*everything* can and should be like that. It's shocking, disappointing, and distorting that a particular example like this thing sets y'all off. That it seems so strange and beautiful in contrast to most of what you deal with and in should set off alarm bells in yr head. Pynchon taught me that culture pretty much died during WWII and things like this just reinforce that perception.
Esthr: nobody cares [or it should be so] about the UI tweaks you want at that level for yr inbox. The real failure isn't that yr inbox doesn't work that way but that you can't, yrself, make it work that way.
Bunch a mezmerized lunatics, the lot of ya.....
-t
evissa (75 months ago | reply)
Hi, I'm an admin for a group called Imperial weights and measures, and we'd love to have your photo added to the group.
bailingdirt (66 months ago | reply)
Hi, I'm an admin for a group called Measuring Devices, and we'd love to have your photo added to the group.
amy_elizabeth_west and lcfwentao added this photo to their favorites.
Tolga A. (52 months ago | reply)
Hi, I'm an admin for a group called Scales-Teraziler, and we'd love to have this added to the group!
Gideon and zeevveez added this photo to their favorites.