• 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

Newer Older

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.

amy_elizabeth_west, lcfwentao, Gideon, and 1 other people added this photo to their favorites.

  1. Esthr 101 months ago | reply

    yes, and of course you already have the weighting by probability multiplied by the absolute size of the anticipated deal....

  2. Tom Lord (Berkeley) 101 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.....


  3. evissa 87 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.

  4. bailingdirt 78 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.

  5. Tolga A. 64 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!

keyboard shortcuts: previous photo next photo L view in light box F favorite < scroll film strip left > scroll film strip right ? show all shortcuts