Design

The Writer’s Web

Dave Winer asks: “What does the writer’s web mean to you?” He’s been working on tools for writing on the web for, oh maybe twenty years, and recently gained some speed and released WordLand, his conception, in early stages, of a writer’s tool.

Well, to begin to answer Dave’s question, I’ll start by saying I’m by no means a voluble person on the web. Elsewhere, yes, I can bloviate with the best of us. And I regularly need to write for my paid employment and volunteer work, and I do quite a lot of editing for other people.

But being voluble’s not a requirement for any writing, or blogging. I have no problem with my sporadic output, though I occasionally want to set some minor production goals, usually to no effect. It’s more natural for me to enjoy the writing as I do it, and having past writing available to read later, sometimes much later. A craft, an intellectual exercise, easily available and easy to pick up.

So, a writer’s web is a larger idea than just my own experience. I’m all for it. More speech is better than less, and we’re at a point of increasing attacks on speech, in the US at least or most notably. We need more writers. As a few of my recent posts show, I’ve been working on providing basic WordPress hosting for an inner circle of friends, so I’m able to directly support a writer’s web.

A big part of that is the writing interface. I’m OK with vanilla Gutenberg in WordPress, with the useful addition of GenerateBlocks from Tom Usborne’s crew. But I’m not sure how good it will be for others. I have a long experience writing with computers and have developed some skills and also some preferences over the years.

Hell, I can write just fine in a desktop publishing program, though I’d rather not. I can write just fine in a text editor, using HTML code. Did it for years. I’ve been interested in Markdown for a long time, but haven’t really put it to use. I see the usefulness of a “no distraction” writing tool. I do a lot of editing of my own work, so the editing part is important – making changes, trying new phrasing or word use.

I can see the usefulness of examining the writing interface, so more later.

One thing I don’t care for is Dave’s tying his tool to WordPress.com. I’ve been avoiding BigCorp, and weaning myself a bit from social media, pivoting to my own website, so I don’t want to use wp.com or Automattic. But I suspect Dave will open it up properly, in keeping with IndieWeb principles, so I’m keeping an open mind and will likely give his latest work a fair shot. I’ve had a wp.com account for years, though I don’t use it.

More later . . .

Low Traffic Neighborhoods

George Monbiot on traffic calming and control, in The Guardian

Summary: Direct, physical changes to neighborhood streets that reduce the volume and speed of traffic increase personal safety and community quality of life. Some drivers get very angry when they feel their need to move swiftly through city neighborhoods is impeded.

My take: We’re getting a little of this with the speed humps the City’s putting in. It’s just a beginning. GoBike’s bike lane tests are showing us another part of the way forward. Monbiot makes a good point about how the effects of reducing traffic volume and speed are different for bigger and smaller streets. Also, efforts to calm bigger streets can push traffic through neighborhoods, to bad effect. Neighborhood streets are full of those pesky pedestrians, cyclists, old and disabled folks and little kids, often because they’re avoiding the local stroad.

“There could scarcely be a more reasonable policy. Low traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) seek to stop residential streets being used as escape valves for overloaded arterial roads. They replace a privilege exercised by a few – rat-running through local streets – with rights enjoyed by the many: cleaner air, less noise, safe passage for children, cyclists, users of wheelchairs and mobility scooters, stronger communities.”

“The angry drivers insist that LTNs have been imposed on them. Well, whether they agree or not, there are consultations. But no one was consulted about their streets being used as short cuts. No one was consulted about facing a higher risk of asthma and dementia as a result of air pollution, or seeing their communities split by walls of traffic. No one was consulted about losing the places where neighbours could talk and children could play.”