Sunday, January 09, 2011

More time spent on Twitter

Spent more time on twitter. Not exactly sure why. Also still not able to use lists. I can create lists, which seems to automatically add myself to the list, but cannot add anyone else to a list. I can also delete the lists. Without lists things are a bit messy, and slow, especially with the timeline and screen refresh, can loose link and have to spend time finding again. Searches are useful, but then they have to be timely.
Front page, wall or what ever it is called, has about 20 tweets displayed. So issue is do want to create a static wall or keep updating it. If choose update how, and at what rate. If daily, up date all or only part. Change topics or stick to a topic. Similarly if static wall, what topic to post on it?
The other issue when to use twitter, once start back at work? I suppose it is possible to monitor most of the day. Just take a look at random intervals. Leave interaction for the evening.
SEAint is still the best for structural discussions. LinkIN seems a bit slow, but construction industry still largely shutdown until end of January, and the activity on SEAint also indicates industry still some what dormant. So when SEAint picks up activity LinkIN may also pick up. So bit early to say if LinkIN to be of any future value for technical discussion the way that SEAint is. LinkIN does provide for some more specialised discussion. As for Facebook, that seems relatively useless, though there are industry associations, magazines, and technical societies on there, it doesn't seem very interactive. That is the organisations simply have a descriptive wall, and otherwise may invite the users to leave comments. Such comments may stimulate interaction. The interface just seems awkward.
So at present seems best options are to build my website, use twitter, and this blog. However others can do things better than I can. So no real point expending energy in developing a complex site. The real objective is to direct people to the right technical resources. If I produce realtively unique resources then direct them to my website. But otherwise direct to other websites, say a minimum of 3 to provide alternative viewpoints.
As indicated on my website I don't get asked questions people think they have all the answers. When they get in trouble because they don't know the answers then I have to resolve the problems caused. So people are not seeking the information.
So the task is to get people to seek before they get a problem. That is need to seek information when they have a proposal for a building, not after they after started to seek development approval and hit a multitude of obstacles, and certainly not after they have started fabrication or construction.
Customers normally seek. I want to buy a video recorder, seek out electronics stores which sell, and seek information about the specific products and compare. But they don't seek designers, whether they be architects or engineers, or other kinds of design-scientists. Such services are not typically known to be required until hit into regulation.
The regulation is part of the problem. People can submit D.I.Y development applications. Where as they should only be permitted to submit applications endorsed by technically competent persons: or some class of approved person (AP). The owner can produce a D.I.Y application but it has to be reviewed and endorsed by an AP, before it will be accepted for assessment. In essence the AP conducts a preliminary assessment, and ensures technical design content and evidence-of-suitability is provided with in the documentation. If it is not then the AP does not endorse, and advices the applicant to obtain the additional information. Unlike the council there is no time limit on obtaining the additional information, additionally, the AP may provide such information and complete such additional information as required.
Such AP's would eliminate owners from going direct to council, and speed up council processing of applications: for a greater proportion of them will be valid, and require a simple check and approval. For simple structures this may be considered an inefficiency, but then carports and verandahs, and houses have some of the most complex structural forms for their roof structures. So being a carport doesn't necessarily make it simple as assumed. For structues which actually are simple, there is still the issue of quality drawings which demonstrate that the building proponent actually has thought about how to construct the proposed structure. In the main most D.I.Y's and many builders do not, and as a result they hit difficulties during construction, problems that could have been and should have been sorted out on the drawing board.
One of the objectives is to get more effort put into the drafting side of things.
Need to start digging out what I have already written and start posting to this blog.
For that is the major issue, to get what I have already written sorted, organised and structured into something meaningful and useful.
To then change education of technical people, and also change a variety of regulatory processes, which interfere with an ensure improper design and implementation of such poor design. Thus change the development approval process for example. Don't really have an issue with the legislation, just its administration. There is confusion over who is and is not making an assessment, and of what assessment means. In terms of development approval if the council is making the assessment then they should request less information and get on with the assessment: either accept or reject the proposal. Rejection does not mean the building can never be built, but that the proposal fails to adequate describe a BCA compliant building. This is typical of D.I.Y proposals, therefore placing the AP between the D.I.Y applicant and the council, and the AP can put the effort into getting the proposal to be for a BCA compliant building. Actually saving everyone time, and changing perception of how time is used.

No comments: