If you can easily see everybody else's work all the time, then you'll know your work is subject to the same visibility rules. Kids learn fast. Our assumptions about what might be good for us also don't apply well here. I think that openness by default is an interesting enough idea (if only as a social experiment) that it deserves to be tested in the field at some point.
<br><br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 8/25/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Walter Bender</b> <<a href="mailto:walter.bender@gmail.com">walter.bender@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
The bottom line is we need to not just assume but to demonstrate that<br>we are providing an interface that offers real clarity to the children<br>as to what is going on. If one knows one is in the public eye, one may<br>
express oneself differently. I don't think we know enough about how<br>effectively we are communicating the various nuances of scoping to be<br>able to justify making sharing the default. When we can demonstrate<br>that kids understand what it means to be connected to other people
<br>remotely, I'll feel more comfortable. We already have an interface<br>that makes it much easier to share than any other I've ever used.<br><br>Has anyone actually seen what the folks at CC have been working on?
<br><br>-walter<br>_______________________________________________<br>Sugar mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Sugar@lists.laptop.org">Sugar@lists.laptop.org</a><br><a href="http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar">http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
</a><br></blockquote></div><br>