From: uselton@wk207.nas.nasa.gov (Samuel P. Uselton)
Newsgroups: comp.graphics
Subject: Re: Message system (was Re: The Best of SIGGRAPH 1992)
Summary: L-3 ??
Date: 12 Aug 92 17:05:13 GMT
Organization: NAS, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA

In article <=13mrn=.foo@netcom.com> foo@netcom.com (Mark Hall) writes:
>In article <1992Aug11.170255.14445@nas.nasa.gov> uselton@wk207.nas.nasa.gov (Samuel P. Uselton) writes:
>)It has a LONG way to go. 
>) Not only was security totally absent (both for sending bogus
>)messages as well as reading and deleting others stuff), 
>
>    No different than paper version. Has anyone ever asked for ID 
> before you read a paper note?

Agreed.  I was extending a previous comment, but didn't number this one
because it is essentially the same as for paper (no use of *potential*
electronic benefit, which is of marginal value anyway) and not one of my 
"real" complaints.

>
>) ... But really, the paper system is superior in several
>)respects: (1) you can take the paper with you instead of transcribing
>)from the screen (and there was no paper handy to do the transcribing);
>
>   In Room L-3 there was a printer, and one of the menu choices was 'print'.
>
Little scraps of paper, like in a library, would still have been handy.

Where was L-3? (rhetorical) When I'm running from place to place and
still missing things and people because at SIGGRAPH I frequently want
to be in 2 or 3 places at once, the messages need to be accessed at
some "crossroads" through which I pass anyway, not hidden.  This
problem was exacerbated by the size of McCormick, the subject of other
complaints.

>)  Most importantly,
>)someone (everyone?) forgot the first rule of replacing an existing
>)system with an automated version....  leave the old system in place
>)'til the bugs are out of the new.
>
>   I believe there was also a traditional paper-and-pushpin board 
>in room L-3. 
>

Where was L-3?

>   Part of the crowding problem came from people abusing the telnet 
>privileges. There were some people reading News at the machines. Telnet 
>was disabled on most machines after that.  I think with the multiple 
>locations (I always used L-3, not the foyer machines) that more people 
>were probably using the system than could have stood in front of a 
>couple of bulliten boards.  How many people can crowd in front of 12 
>linear feet of bulliten board? 

I remember more like 24 or 30 feet, at least at some SIGGRAPHs.  And, if
names are written suitably large to be seen at the distance of a few feet,
more people can spot their own than they could at the monitors.

>
>   Yes, there were problems with the computerized system. You can be sure 
>the former and current implementors of the message system are reading 
>this forum.  The issue will also be addressed at SIGGRAPH committee 
>meetings.   
>
>   - mark

Another *potential* convenience, electronically supportable:
Especially in wide spread situations like McCormick, have several well
dispersed terminal sites, with access to the same message list. 
E.G.b Have a site near the paper session auditorium, one near the show
floor, one near the panels room, and one near any place busses pick
and drop.  That is the one thing I can think of that electronics can
really do *significantly better* than paper and bulletin board.

Sam Uselton		uselton@nas.nasa.gov
15 year attendee, 17 year member