>That is how I feel as well. If I create a world, I'd just as soon see it
>be the same each time I go there, unless I actively make a change to it.
>I'd accept some simplification if I actively set "low resolution" mode,
>and I'd also accept a poor substitute for my "realcoolteapot" if the
>teapot server is down, but not without some sort of notice which I
>actively acknowledge.
Well, why wouldn't that be the case? If someone decides to modify a world
that you have created, only that person that has changed it will see the
changes that they have made. Your view will look the way you want it to and
no one can change that.
>I also don't want to walk into my space and find
>that one of the objects has disappeared, since the site at which it was
>stored decided to delete the object.
Why would that happen?!?
>I would have a hard time giving up control of a space I've spent a lot of
>time one. On the other hand, I'd like to provide semi-public-controlled
>areas that can accept minor changes. It would be nice is someone can stop
>by and leave a package, or a chair or something nice to look at. Rather
>than load up my hard disk with whatever people have been leaving in my
>foyer, I'd just as soon they left a URL (URN).
Sure, everyone feels that way about something they have created, but that's
life. Since you are talking about architectural spaces, think of yourself as
an architect. Basically, there needs to be two types of spaces, dynamic and
static. You want a static space. So where is the conflict? Everyone wants
control, there is nothing new about this concept. If a person wants control,
they should create a world that people can only observe (a static world) and
not one that people can customize or otherwise interact with.
>Here's another idea: An Object Delivery Service. "Furniture of the Day".
>You designate certain objects as generic, and replace-able. Each day you
>wake up, and stroll into your space, and find a new couch and coffee
>table, with your familiar phone and teapot on it. This would be a great
>way to deliver regular updates to software (disks), newspapers, email, and
>other things. I could even train my electronic dog to go get the newspaper
>from the end of my virtual sidewalk.
The more general soloution is that you have "static" and "dynamic" objects.
If you don't want something to be changed, you designate it as a static object.
>Control vs. interaction. Authors need to enforce various levels of
>control, which gives them the ability to extract value from what they
>have produced. We also need public areas where we can rub elbows and
>enjoy the sorts of creations that other people come up with. Without the
>latter, the ideas for the former would be hard to come by.
There are many more options than that. For example, someone may be alone in
a world but may want to lay it out to their liking. This is precisely why
when people who want to exert control are in charge of building user
interfaces, the result is user interfaces that people feel restricted by.
While a UI needs a common metaphore, it also needs to be something that the
user feels he can make his own. He needs to feel at home in that workspace.
Visual people, in particular, have a hard time with giving up control, they
believe their visual representation is the best and don't want others
changing it, even if they don't have to see the changes one makes.
JMTC,
Robert