The email sent earlier today on the
new tool developed yesterday
for restoring SDS
records in the Schedule (current) 00 directory that get out of
sync with the list of tasks in the Schedule itself, has about a
"million" mistakes (or a least a lot of them).
I don't think this is critical in this case,
but for publishing meeting notes, which you will be doing shortly
for the SoS meetings begun today at Boeing, accuracy is
important.
..
Creating anything of complexity, like meeting notes, will always
have many mistakes under the current rubric, popularized by the
recent Iraq excursion, that "Initial reports are always
erroneous." For initial reports on meetings, the problem is not
so much spelling, because, like email, these are caught by the
system, but for things like leaving out words, using the wrong
word, awkward construction and lack of alignment which omits
context of authority and history.
..
A core problem is that the writer reads past problems and errors,
because the mind reads what was intended. The writer can read
something several times and not recognize errors, under Jeremy
Campbell's explanation that the
human mind sees what it already
believes should be there
based on experience. Steven Pinker
later commented in his book "How the Mind Works" that overlooking
error is a
feature not a bug,
because drawing on experience to fill in
missing information avoids the delay of deliberation. For many
situations in the environment where the mind is thought to have
evolved, timeliness is more critical than accuracy, because the
context of the moment resolves ambiguities. But that does not
happen when reading because the "context" remains constant in the
writer's mind. Since literacy is inherently a deliberative
process at war with the biological drive for immediacy, on
important documents experienced writers and publishers often
assign a "second pair of eyes" to do the proof reading.
..
Experience using SDS shows (as a fortuitous by-product) that
publishing SDS records on the Internet provides a new "context."
Looking at the same material in a web browser yields up a lot of
mistakes that are otherwise overlooked in initial writings. When
a record of doing work is initially completed, for example on
creating new tools, or attending a meeting, converting the record
for publication on the Internet, and then reading the version on
the local drive in the wl directory before publication, reveals a
lot of mistakes and opportunities for improvement that are not
evident in reading the same material in the original environment,
here the SDS program. This enables effective proof reading
without the burden and expense of using another person.
..
This is another factor to consider when thinking about a HTML
editor or other arrangement that replaces the two-step process
now being used of creating the record in one environment and then
making a review in another environment that yields new insights,
which are otherwise hidden in a one-step process. Undoubtedly,
there are other considerations that may balance this benefit, but
accuracy and comprehension are two of the biggest benefits that
make transformation from information to a culture of knowledge a
worthwhile effort.
.. Thanks.