Talk:R-A-E-D Iterations - Revision history

ValterAlves at 17:27, 24 May 2012

2012-05-24T17:27:01Z

ValterAlves: /* Worth considering beyond the aggregation of the involved concepts? */

2012-01-04T15:55:28Z

‎Worth considering beyond the aggregation of the involved concepts?

ValterAlves at 15:45, 26 October 2011

2011-10-26T15:45:03Z

ValterAlves at 19:49, 1 October 2011

2011-10-01T19:49:41Z

ValterAlves at 19:43, 1 October 2011

2011-10-01T19:43:29Z

ValterAlves at 15:01, 25 September 2011

2011-09-25T15:01:49Z

ValterAlves at 15:01, 25 September 2011

2011-09-25T15:01:25Z

ValterAlves at 15:28, 19 August 2011

2011-08-19T15:28:09Z

ValterAlves at 15:06, 19 August 2011

2011-08-19T15:06:32Z

ValterAlves at 15:06, 19 August 2011

2011-08-19T15:06:18Z

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 == Worth considering beyond the aggregation of the involved concepts?==
 The original motivation of this pattern was not to pack the concepts in stake ([[Relaxation]], [[Anticipation]], [[Engagement]], [[Decay]]) but to evidence the possibility of exploring them in combination, namely as a iterated sequence.<br />
-The four involved concepts make sense per se -- they can be (and sometimes are) explored in isolation -- and they have specific goals and solutions. So, we argue that it would not make sense to treat them all together in one single pattern/card.<br />
+The four involved concepts make sense per se -- they can be (and sometimes are) explored in isolation -- and they have specific goals and solutions. So, we argue that it would not make sense to treat them all together in one single pattern/card. But the iterated sequence (''...&rarr;Relaxation&rarr;Anticipation&rarr;Engagement&rarr;Decay&rarr;Relaxation&rarr;Anticipation&rarr;Engagement&rarr;Decay&rarr;Relaxation&rarr;...'' or in the simpler and most common case ''...&rarr;Relaxation&rarr;Engagement&rarr;Decay&rarr;Relaxation&rarr;Engagement&rarr;Decay&rarr;Relaxation&rarr;...'') also makes sense because it is one relevant and particular exploration of such concepts.<br />
 But the iterated sequence (''...&rarr;Relaxation&rarr;Anticipation&rarr;Engagement&rarr;Decay&rarr;Relaxation&rarr;Anticipation&rarr;Engagement&rarr;Decay&rarr;Relaxation&rarr;...'' or in the simpler and most common case ''...&rarr;Relaxation&rarr;Engagement&rarr;Decay&rarr;Relaxation&rarr;Engagement&rarr;Decay&rarr;Relaxation&rarr;...'') also makes sense because it is one relevant and particular exploration of such concepts.<br />
 Still, we recognize that the users of the deck may sense some repetition (or revisiting at least) of the concepts.
 So, the question is, considering that we have to compromise, should this pattern continue to be a card in version 2.0, or should we deprecate it as of version 1.0?<br />[[User:ValterAlves|ValterAlves]] [pre-release]

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 The original motivation of this pattern was not to pack the concepts in stake ([[Relaxation]], [[Anticipation]], [[Engagement]], [[Decay]]) but to evidence the possibility of exploring them in combination, namely as a iterated sequence.<br />
 The four involved concepts make sense per se -- they can be (and sometimes are) explored in isolation -- and they have specific goals and solutions. So, we argue that it would not make sense to treat them all together in one single pattern/card.<br />
-But the iterated sequence (''...&rarr;Relaxation&rarr;Anticipation&rarr;Engagement&rarr;Decay&rarr;Relaxation&rarr;Anticipation&rarr;Engagement&rarr;Decay&rarrRelaxation&rarr;...'' or in the simpler and most common case ''...&rarr;Relaxation&rarr;Engagement&rarr;Decay&rarr;Relaxation&rarr;Engagement&rarr;Decay&rarrRelaxation&rarr;...'') also makes sense because it is one relevant and particular exploration of such concepts.<br />
+But the iterated sequence (''...&rarr;Relaxation&rarr;Anticipation&rarr;Engagement&rarr;Decay&rarr;Relaxation&rarr;Anticipation&rarr;Engagement&rarr;Decay&rarr;Relaxation&rarr;...'' or in the simpler and most common case ''...&rarr;Relaxation&rarr;Engagement&rarr;Decay&rarr;Relaxation&rarr;Engagement&rarr;Decay&rarr;Relaxation&rarr;...'') also makes sense because it is one relevant and particular exploration of such concepts.<br />
 Still, we recognize that the users of the deck may sense some repetition (or revisiting at least) of the concepts.
 So, the question is, considering that we have to compromise, should this pattern continue to be a card in version 2.0, or should we deprecate it as of version 1.0?<br />[[User:ValterAlves|ValterAlves]] [pre-release]
 ==Is the name good?==
 <span name="aboutthename"></span>We felt the need to come up with the 'R-A-E-D' acronym to refer to the sequence of the phases and we've been sensing that once the name of the pattern becomes decoded, the acronym itself helps memorisation. Still, it is evident that the name poses a challenge to its users in the first contact, at least.
 We are still hopeful that a better name for the card may be found.<br />[[User:ValterAlves|ValterAlves]] [pre-release]
 :perhaps it would be a chance to remove the references to the names of the phases, and consequently to reduce the false sense of aggregator card that it may have now.<br />[[User:ValterAlves|ValterAlves]] [pre-release]

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:45, 26 October 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	~~{{#useliquidthreads:0}}~~
	== Worth considering beyond the aggregation of the involved concepts?==		== Worth considering beyond the aggregation of the involved concepts?==
	The original motivation of this pattern was not to pack the concepts in stake ([[Relaxation]], [[Anticipation]], [[Engagement]], [[Decay]]) but to evidence the possibility of exploring them in combination, namely as a iterated sequence.<br />		The original motivation of this pattern was not to pack the concepts in stake ([[Relaxation]], [[Anticipation]], [[Engagement]], [[Decay]]) but to evidence the possibility of exploring them in combination, namely as a iterated sequence.<br />

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{#useliquidthreads:1}}
+{{#useliquidthreads:0}}
 == Worth considering beyond the aggregation of the involved concepts?==
 The original motivation of this pattern was not to pack the concepts in stake ([[Relaxation]], [[Anticipation]], [[Engagement]], [[Decay]]) but to evidence the possibility of exploring them in combination, namely as a iterated sequence.<br />

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:43, 1 October 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	{{#useliquidthreads:1}}
	== Worth considering beyond the aggregation of the involved concepts?==		== Worth considering beyond the aggregation of the involved concepts?==
	The original motivation of this pattern was not to pack the concepts in stake ([[Relaxation]], [[Anticipation]], [[Engagement]], [[Decay]]) but to evidence the possibility of exploring them in combination, namely as a iterated sequence.<br />		The original motivation of this pattern was not to pack the concepts in stake ([[Relaxation]], [[Anticipation]], [[Engagement]], [[Decay]]) but to evidence the possibility of exploring them in combination, namely as a iterated sequence.<br />