Free Web-Based Workshop to Help Get Your Programs Online

Why is eLearning for everyone? All of our knowledge partners and clients - from business executives to not-for profit organizations, from trainers and educators to providers of global program initiatives - want to develop cost-effective, flexible programs that allow them to collaborate, educate, communicate, facilitate business and disseminate knowledge.

Click on this link to register for a free Web-based workshop, at 11 a.m. EST (1600 GMT) on Friday, January 31st, 2003, that will be led by ULiveandLearn CEO and President Denise Easton and John Pine, our editor and chief operating officer. They will demonstrate just how easy it is for you to implement a Learning program that meets the needs of your clients, customers, students or consultants.

Using the branded Layered Learning Model, they will show you how to transform your existing programs into technology-powered online seminars. Denise and John will begin with an evaluation of what you need - and most likely already have - to get started. Then they will go through complete program development -- prototyping, creating and converting courses, using different delivery options, packaging programs for individual client needs, and evaluating what bells and whistles enhance your programs.

This workshop is designed for people with little or no technical knowledge, but can also be enjoyed by the most technically minded. It will make it simple and easy for you to understand your online potential.

Apply now to gain access to our free authoring/content tools by clicking on these links:
http://www.uliveandlearn.com/lessonapp.cfm (Lesson Creator)
http://www.uliveandlearn.com/courseapp.cfm (Course Creator)

We look forward to "seeing" you on January 31st
(Remember to register at http://www.quickslides.com/quickreg/sq.cfm?ObjectID=625).

At ULiveandLearn, we are always learning.

Hi Bernie!

First off, might I suggest that we transfer our discussion of your questions/issues with QT/QTDR to Richard Seltzer's "Business on the web" topic, which is (a) where we "met" and also (b) a "vanilla Topic" rather than a QTDR. If we conduct our "conversation" there, what we say will be easier to follow (imho) rather than built atop a single paragraph in the demo-doc QTDR. Hope this is OK by you.

I have no problems seeing your "Thought Provoking Action" doc at http://www.quicktopic.com/10/D/yykSmrnVa9Emx.html . It looks (and reads!) good. I just Subscribed to that QTDR, put in a couple of test comments, and that all works fine. I don't exactly follow the sequence of events you described ("after the upload, I had exited,") but I don't think it's a cause for concern. Storage costs on the QT server are covered by QT's author, Steve Yost. Yes, there might be an "orphaned version" of your uploaded doc up there somewheres, but it's virtually impossible that it would be found randomly. And any successful upload has always resulted in a useable URL, so if you don't see one, it probably means that there's only one working QTDR up there, which is the one I commented on.

Say Bernie, there's a guy you should meet (and maybe invite into your "Thought Provoking Actions" QTDR). His name's Seth Itzkan. He and I worked for BBN (Bolt Beranek & Newman Inc., the birthplace of the internet) though at different times. We both belong to the 'xbbn' distro list. He's also a self-styled futurist and I enjoy his writings (which he regularly flags to the xbbn email-list). He recently distributed a pointer to his latest imho excellent and moving essay, "Visionary Vermont," which also deals with post-Sept-11^th issues. I won't redistribute the pointer; that's his to do of course. But his email is sitzkan@planet-tech.com .

If there's anything more I can do by way of coaching in the whys and wherefores of QT/QTDR, I will be happy to do so (modulo available time; gimme a day or so:-) -- and I hope to see ya over in Richard Seltzer's "Business on the web" topic!

(I'll repost this same text there, for continuity's sake)

Edited by author 10-21-2001 09:36 AM
Well Dan, I have started a Topic - Thought Provoking Action - at http://www.quicktopic.com/10/D/yykSmrnVa9Emx.html

Originally, I had thought that my QT url would have been http://www.quicktopic.com/10/H/UNChq28SrC9Kw but when I tried reloading the Review Document (or whatever it was) I ended up with a new QT address.

I drafted the article in Word 97, saved in HTML but edited the coding, and uploaded it. But after the upload, I had exited, and whenever I return to the article, all I see is that initializing screen that says:
[Only you, the topic creator, will see this intro message.]
Here's your new discussion page. Click "Post a new message" to replace these quick instructions with your own topic introduction. ... etc.

As a result of playing around, it would seem that I succeeded at starting a second topic, with the exact wording and now should technically have two identical topics, yet only one with the article ... somewhere. :\

Thanks for your interest Dan.

I have been experimenting with Javascript driven pages, actually. (Can't afford any programs, else DreamWeaver would be my first pick - then I'd enhance the code.) My most recent http://www.mergetel.com/dreamteams/smartquotes.html finally seems to be working for both IE & Netscape.

However, my Catalyst 4 Change articles at http://www.newciv.org/c4c are all hardcoded for Cascading Style Sheets. Guess I've just gotten into the habit of hard coding.

At 02:19 PM 10/18/2001, you wrote:
>My newly reinstalled version of office 97 includes the HTML
>conversion, although I may still just hard code it, as I do with
>all my HTML.

Though it'd be interesting to see how Office97's HTML mixes with QTDR, I (for one) am more interested in seeing how your own plain HTML code does, if that's your style. FWIW I often use XMetaL (from SoftQuad) to write for the web off-the-top-of-the-head. I'll go for a power-tool over hand-coding anytime. XMetaL has a super WYSIWYG mode, you can look at the raw code, there's an intermediate tagged view. The code automagically prettyprints -- which is way cool and makes me look more organized than I really am. :-) The code's always valid WRT whatever DTD you choose, and I usually go with the "HTML-loose" one. Works a treat. Not cheap (couple hundred bucks as I recall) but it's worked for me for at least 3 years now, no worries. FWIW.

FYI - once I have a reasonable faximilie (spell???) of an article, I will sign on and ...

My newly reinstalled version of office 97 includes the HTML conversion, although I may still just hard code it, as I do with all my HTML. Just give me some time to flesh out more of the article currently underway.

Edited by author 10-16-2001 07:27 AM
Thanks Dan for the warm welcome.

I wish I had known of QT when I started my http://www.newciv.org/c4c articles. However, it is never too late, and since I hard code these articles directly into HTML, I'm sure there is a work-around. I would be interested in planning on using QT for my next article - if I ever do get down to writing it ;)

Either way, I am currently making plans with a local Community developer/techie for initiating an online, grassroots undertaking and I see a role for integrating the QT model. Since she already does have the server hardware and software resources for collaborative projects, I am interested in knowing costs if we wanted to use QT directly from her servers.

Currently, I am considering the feasibilty of my articles being stepoffs to voicing public opinions, but since we are looking at surveys/polls as being an important part of our plans, would it be possible to add icons for those purposes?

Tnx Steve! :)

Edited by author 10-15-2001 03:57 PM
Word 97 allows saving as HTML, but the HTML in Word 2000 is much better-formed. But please don't wait for a Word upgrade to give it a try -- it does work. QT doesn't care where the HTML came from.

Hi Bernie -- welcome aboard! :-) AFAIK, MSWord2000's the first Word from Redmond that allows saving in .HTM format. I surmise (haven't asked Steve) that any word processor (maybe even WordPerfect) that can save a document into HTML would be a candidate for having its output disseminated in and reviewed in QTDR. (It only "eats" HTML)

Any experiments would be welcome of course! :-)

So I need Word 2000 and not '97 to work with QT on my computer? Dang :|

I'm taking interest in this, and will explore further. Thanks :)

Bernie Slepkov
mailto:bernies@mergetel.com

P.S. Sorry I missed the onlinefaciliation demo chat. Bad timing in meeting a dear, old school chum - huh.

I am adding a general comment.

... or return in a new browser window to http://www.samizdat.com/chat.html and open Richard's chat area _de novo_ ...?

Bernie -- in the chat room, in your browser, please hit Reload.

Bernie, can you click RELOAD in the chat window? perhaps that will help?

Yeah, lynn, my fingrs (and my brain) are getting majorly tired too!!! :-)

Ok, so how many windows can I read/write in at once? This is definitely a stretch for me!

I came, I saw, I wrote.

I'm also the third person to write.

Now I have commented on it

I'm the second person to write...

I'm the first person to write anything about item #5.

Here's a general comment on the Ms as a whole

Testing a comment

A specific comment on Item #8 of the document...

This is a General Comment on the Ms done before the synchronous demo.

Yes Steve, that's one of the most appealing features of QTDR. There's lots of power and selectivity placed in the user's hands -- but it's still preposterously easy. :-)

Edited by author 10-10-2001 10:17 PM
Steve Yost's #18:

>Dan, re #16:
>> QTDR may be inappropriate for Mss where the writer wants
>> the reviewers' comments to be independent from one
>> another.

>The Enterprise Edition (that's what I'm calling an upcoming fee-based version) can be configured so each reviewer is working in isolation.

SuperNifty!

>Another way we've used QTDR is to keep track of calls made to a long list of contacts. We uploaded a document containing names and numbers and have a comment link on each. Now we can keep track of calls to each as well as overall progress.

I wouldn't classify QTDR (as I understand it now) as a full contact-management system allowing, e.g., sorting by deal size, negotiation stage, last-contacted-date, quarterly rollup... though. But to a first approx., a good tool.

>Another usage: your group has a recurring discussion that always has a given structure, for example a questionnaire. For each new discussion, you re-upload the template document that forms the discussion structure.

Yes. I've been thinking about doing the same thing for party-planning. Some generic things need to be discussed/decided: Time, place, drinks, snax, main courses, desserts, ... ... so if there's a template one can upload it and then successively refine it as comments/committments are made. Same thing.

Dan, re #16:
> QTDR may be inappropriate for Mss where the writer wants
> the reviewers' comments to be independent from one
> another.

The Enterprise Edition (that's what I'm calling an upcoming fee-based version) can be configured so each reviewer is working in isolation.

Another way we've used QTDR is to keep track of calls made to a long list of contacts. We uploaded a document containing names and numbers and have a comment link on each. Now we can keep track of calls to each as well as overall progress.

Another usage: your group has a recurring discussion that always has a given structure, for example a questionnaire. For each new discussion, you re-upload the template document that forms the discussion structure.

Does anyone know what relationship the Federalist Papers had with the Bill of Rights (if any)?

(In response to David Weinberger's General Comment #13:) Here's a couple of tentative ideas (please consider these as discussion-starters rather than fully-formed opinions:

• QTDR might be premature for Mss in the very early stages of writing, where reviewers' comments might have to be too extensive...
• QTDR may be inappropriate for Mss where the writer wants the reviewers' comments to be independent from one another. QTDR fosters a communal response to the Ms as a whole, rather than an individual one; so one influential and/or vocal reviewer's comments might swamp or sway others'...
• QTDR is probably "overkill" when a very small number of reviewers (or co-authors) work on a document and can be physically (one room) or temporally (conference-call) together...
• QTDR may be less effective for Mss whose paragraphs are very large (NB: at present, the finest-grain that a Comment Icon (aka "comment-munchie") can be assigned to in running text is the Paragraph or List Item. But Real Soon Now, yet finer granularity will be possible... perhaps we'll cover this in the Chat!)
• I somehow see QTDR being more "attuned by design" to technical or "matter-of-fact" Mss rather than to "creative writings," whatever those are...
  
  OTOH:
  
• QTDR is perfect when a Ms is somewhere past the first-draft stage, where comments on individual text components can be profitably given...
• QTDR is ideal when a Ms needs to gain the consensus of a committee that is temporally or physically distributed and difficult to gather synchronously in either space or time. Examples of this include standards documents and technical specifications or reports.

And in another example of "Hey, this tool might solve this new problem that it probably wasn't originaly designed for," I've also used QTDR in planning a potluck dinner for about 35 people who are mostly non-techie, but moderately experienced QT users.

I put up a first-draft Doc containing a rough description of the place, the time, the food and drink categories, and then opened up the doc to the group via QTDR, asking them to comment on each of the "munchies" (-: pun intentional :-). In effect, then, we were treating each of the text objects as a thread. Folks would comment in the "Desserts" munchie, seeing what was committed already and signing up to bring more dishes. Periodically, I'd close the currently-being-discussed Doc for new comments, run a "Document Review" and create a new rev of the "Party-Planning Doc" incorporating all new info thus far. Then I'd put a pointer to the new Doc in the last comment of the old one, and the cycle would begin anew. QTDR was absolutely an ideal tool for a multi-topic discussion in one place.

Anyone else's thoughts?

I see three major challenges in trying to write an effective constitution:
1) establishing priorities and general rules that intelligent people can rightly interpret long into the future, covering matters that cannot be foreseen in detail -- for instance, that powers and rights not specifically reserved for the federal government belong to the states, and those not reserved by the states belong to individual citizens.
2) establishing independent judiciary, legislative, and executive branches, with each with sufficient powers to balance the powers of the others.
3) providing sufficient detail to be clear, but otherwise keeping the framework reasonably loose, allowing for changing interpretations as conditions change over time, and providing broad enough scope to cover unforeseen circumstances.

A constitution is not a detailed step-by-step manual about how to run a government. Rather it is a set of guidelines intended to help reasonable people make good and consistent decisions, and to work together toward common goals. What matters is actual practice over time, not high-sounding words and phrases. The actual content of the constitution is the decisions that are made on the basis of it -- how people in positions of authority use it to guide their conduct. A constitution will only last and be useful if the people elected under it and empowered to enforce it treat it with respect and act reasonably in the best interests of the people as a whole.

Dang! You remind me of something I forgot to do while creating this demo doc -- I had intended to make an "dis-editing pass" thru it, inserting various errors of several sorts. Kind of like "salting the mine." So yes, I guess I am flattering you! :-) But hey, don't let that stop you (or anyone else) from waltzing thru the various "munchies" and making believe there's further polishing from which ol' Alex would profit...

Dan, how about some thoughts about where QT Doc Review is useful and where it isn't as useful?

Dan, are you suggesting that the Hamilton writing you've posted is a rough draft that would benefit from our comments? You flatter us! :)

When you first upload a doc to QT, you get comment links on just paragraphs and list items. You can add comment links to other HTML tag types like headings, table cells, divs, and blockquotes right after you upload the doc. Then you get the chance to remove comment links from individual items in your document.

That fellow Hamilton could certainly write... and without benefit of anything more advanced than a quill pen, I'm betting.

Edited by author 10-04-2001 05:42 PM
C'mon in... the water's fine! :-))

Q.E.D. :-)

Uh-oh, I believe I've heard this one... Nothing good can come of any limerick that starts this way!!

You might try comparing what the original doc looks like, versus the one you see in the QTDR window. Clicking on the above URL will open up the original in a separate window.

See how QTDR gives you the ability to tell the author what you think of every text object with a "munchie."

I "turned off" the Comment Dots (well OK, I like to call 'em "munchies") for all but this and one other List Item in this UL environment.

Notice how I can use selected HTML tags in my comments.

All this blue-fonted stuff is within a BLOCKQUOTE. There's more of them below.

This is Dan K again, this time commenting specifically on Item #1. Because that Item had the orange-and-blue "eyeglasses" icon in front of its "comment munchie," you could tell there was at least one person who had something to say about it. There may be more later but this comment's the first on this Item.

That "hairy concept" referred to in this paragraph of the doc is easier to grok if you compare this view of the document with the one in the separate window you'll see if you click the URL that points to my website.

It gets much easier to grok if you try your own hand at a QTDR. But read on a bit more before you give it a whirl!

Welcome to the Comment Forum for this demo of Steve Yost's QTDR! This hunk of text is what's called a "General Comment" -- it is about the doc as a whole, rather than about any specific item.

If you're reading this, you've asked to see the Comment Forum, either by following its URL posted elsewhere, or perhaps by clicking on an "eyeglasses" icon symbolizing that there is at least one General Comment on this manuscript (Ms).

Please consider Subscribing to this Comment Forum, so that you'll get email updates whenever any other reviewer posts a comment.

This discussion space is for comments on the document "Demo doc for R. Seltzer's Oct 11 '01 chat".