Yellow is the New Blog

Nathan posted an interesting insight into the current disparity between the targeting of end users in recent IBM product releases and the targeting of IT management in their marketing approach. In the comments, he refers to collaborative technology as "the great democratizer of the last decade", which got me thinking.

Here in the U.S., our system of government is a representative democracy. This is not a pure democracy in the etymological sense; if it were, it would collapse under its own weight... in a pure democracy, every decision must be approved by the masses and (one assumes) not much ever gets done. Rather, we are a republic: we elect a very tiny group (when one considers that the nation has several hundred million citizens) to make decisions on our behalf.

When those representatives are aware that their constituents are paying attention - most especially when it appears likely that those constituents are seriously considering replacing their representative with an alternative - it's not uncommon for their decisions to more closely reflect the "will of the people". In fact, it's extremely commonplace for an elected official's voting record to suddenly swing toward the center during an election year. That shouldn't be surprising: they're playing the odds; move toward whatever the center happens to be at the time, and you inch toward the magical 51% that lets you keep your job for a little while longer.

Trouble is, apart from the wonks, nobody knows you're moving toward the center... unless you tell them. President Obama was elected because his campaign was able to delude so many ordinary citizens into believing they could make a difference that the delusion became real. While plenty would dispute that the difference those people made was a good one, the assertion remains true: in our system of government, your voice will be heard if enough people are saying the same thing you are. That's why so-called "talking points" are so heavily used by both parties: standardize on the phrasing of the message you want heard, and the subtleties of any argument get drowned out by the bleating of so many supporters who haven't thoroughly examined the underlying implications... or, in some cases, even fact-checked the message.

What does any of that have to do with IBM? Imagine the following commercial:

(shot of smiling end-user in business casual attire)

"I love my email account at work, 'cause it's not just email."

(cut to a 25-second screencam of end-user doing end-userish things... specifically, tasks that can only be performed via the integration between email and business applications that Notes provides and that show off how pretty Notes is now)

"Our company uses Lotus Notes, so I can [description of the tasks shown in the screencam], not just send email and schedule meetings. It lets me edit documents, spreadsheets and presentations, send instant messages to colleagues and customers, and access all of the applications and websites I need to do my job. Lotus Notes really is all I need at work."

(cut back to smiling user)

"Can your email account do all that? If not, ask your boss why your company isn't using Lotus Notes..."

(user raises eyebrow meaningfully)

"... or using everything it can do."

(fade to IBM/Lotus logo, then to black)

Imagine if that commercial aired during American Idol, and the next day, every manager at some Exchange shop had 3 of his employees ask why they have to have 8 different Windows applications open just to do their job, when they could alternatively just use Notes. If that commercial kept airing (or others like it soon followed), each of those users would get increasingly annoyed each time they have to perform some occupational task requiring them to launch some application that exists solely for the purpose of performing that one tiny minute task. And maybe they'd complain to their boss again. And again. I guarantee you that, if managers really do get that kind of feedback from their staff, sooner or later IT is going to feel pressure to take a closer look at Notes, including the IT departments already running Notes but still supporting R4 'cause they haven't yet had either the courage or sufficient management backing to embrace the new millennium.

Last night I released a small but crucial update to DesignCatalog. It's hard for me to believe, but I've now been using this application (for all intents and purposes, in its current form) for nearly 6 years. And in all that time, I've never gotten burned by its reliance upon DXL. In other words, when using it to revert to a previous version of a design element, I've never ended up with a corrupted design element or even lost any code... at least, not that I noticed (i.e. nothing broke). Imagine my surprise, therefore, when I noticed that it wasn't storing the archived elements in note-format (/me looks sheepishly at the floor). I'm assuming that the reason I never got bitten by that before is that I primarily use it to archive versions of non-visual elements (specifically, agents and script libraries), and DXL is typically quite safe for those, even without using note-format. But it's a bit riskier for the other 1,500 of you who have downloaded DesignCatalog and may be using it for pages/forms/views, etc.

So version 1.2.2 is - aside from updating the About/Using docs to reflect the new release #/date - nothing more than remedying said oversight... an addition of 3 lines of code, to be precise. One of these days I'm going to update it to include some of the newer design elements (like Web Services and XPages), but in the meantime at least it'll now be round-trip safe for all the element categories it already supports.