Perspective:

pioneers are never the typical end users

70's programmers are programmers
90's communicators are communicators

what do people do?

From programmers to communicators?

Pioneers are not usually the typical end users. The Internet pioneers did the founding work on the '70s, soon almost thirty years ago. I don't know much about them even though I once had the joy to share the same dance floor with the famous Vint Cerf and have been hanging around ISOC a while. I wonder, how do they use the net? Have they ever studied it? Do they think of it?

Those creators were/are engineers and programmers. I quitted programming five years ago, mostly because of the Internet. Suddenly there were people behind the screen and the computer itself vanished, I hardly ever think of them anymore. The net was there ready for us with all these wonderful services and programs evolving.

I think of communication, or interaction in a broader sense, a lot and that's what the net most of all is about. That is also what I do for work - communication and communication systems for other people to use. Perhaps I could be called a communicator, like people sometimes are (the edge digerati).

(...)

On or for the net?

Sometimes I see a difference between people who use the net and net people who are on the net. The net is same for all of us and we use pretty much the same tools but it seems, however, that we have some differences in our perspectives. Is it again that we are another generation of net pioneers and live not only on it but also for it? Would that separate us from what the typical future user will be like?

(...)

Where's the surf, excitement?

Don't know about future but today something definitely distinguishes us. As we were grown up with the net it's ways of doing often feel more familiar than those of the outer world. For most people, I mean just normal people, this is still quite the opposite as they are often even afraid of computers and can't often really understand what's going on the net behind them.

The adventurous are encouraged to buy a computer with a modem in search for excitement. Ads and campaigns in the old media (TV, radio, paper etc) keep hyping, talk about web surf emphasizing all the dangers. The Information Revolution comes up in table discussions and the New Economy buzzes economists. Gee.

The people (I know) on/from/for the net couldn't care less. Many of them work around it and do concern it important and follow what's goign on but are fascinated about quite different things. The net was always there and doesn't really seem to change. Even the small improvements we've had during the last couple of years were known well before and the only suprise seems to be how slowly everything happens. But as the tools are pretty ok already it doesn't really matter that much 'cause we can happily use them.

Is it the dealing with the real/old world: paper, snailmail, travelling, body .. is where we find the adventures? For some of us it definitely is but not always in a positive sense. My most terrifying experiences come from paper bureauchracy and many people simply hate telephones, not to mention TV. Joy is in dance. Importance in people, togetherness. Excitement in fishing?

Some notations from different aspects:
("everybody" stands for "typical user")

Practise ie. examples of differences:

Creating and putting the work on-line:

Everybody usually puts their stuff on-line after writing, presentating or by other means finishing it. Our work seems to have a different approach: it's born on-line, in discussions, grown with comments and formed on the net. The peak of it's presense might be some publication (speak, article in a newspaper) but even though those moments and deliverings are important they are only short moments, dots in a lifeline. ... after which the creation itself continues to exist on the net (virtually) forever, accessible from anywhere.

information overload.. [the peaceful media column -stuff]
are we immune?

(...)

"Source critique" (lahdekritiikki in Finnish), lack of context

A classical example about people from the old world is the way they emphasize the importance of (something that is called "lahdekritiikki") critical way of reading everything they find on the web.

They say: "you never know who's written it, some school kid or a respected researcher".
There is nothing to signify the context.

I would believe that people who are used to it know very well the different contexts and sources of information even on unfamiliar sites. URLs and other addressing tells often quite a lot, usually also the design style of a page (which can, of course, be faked) but most importantly it is easy to get the same information from different independent sources and to learn which ones you can trust and when. These are really the basic skills that evolve. Furthermore they are assumed naturally - of course you must be aware of who you're listening to!

On the net the possibility of disinformation and numerous contradictions are so obvious that it is accepted as a part of communication. People used to the polished safe old media who want to benefit from it need to get used to it.

And, most importantly, I'd say that people grown on the net realize that the whole world is like that and don't necessarily take the stories on TV and magazines so seriously either. It is only their point of view afterall.. Of course this is quite common knowledge but in some discussions some friends have been wondering how natural it is for net people and I quite agree.