Join 3,495 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


May 1st Skiboot
April 25, 2001 7:53 AM   Subscribe

May 1st Skiboot - Reinvigoration of the Ski Footwear.
posted by riffola (29 comments total)

 
It's pretty funny that the site refers to the March 22 MeFi thread, but when you actually read the thread, the comments are quite negative towards the project.
posted by Wizzle at 9:17 AM on April 25, 2001


I thought about participating, but going without my boots for a week just wasn't feasible for me at this time. I really respect the commitment made by those who did participate, though. You guys rock! Can't wait to see the new boots!
posted by gimli at 9:22 AM on April 25, 2001


Wizzle: I think that's the idea - to point out how ridiculous the whole Reboot thing is.
posted by dithered at 9:25 AM on April 25, 2001


Why is Reboot ridiculous? I don't understand why everyone is so bothered about it. James and the rest of the participants are just having some fun. People around here need to relax a bit.
posted by SuperBreakout at 9:53 AM on April 25, 2001


I would have preferred that this thread be entitled New 0sil8. I am now quite tempted to change all of my footwear to ski boots at the beginning of May, just as a sign of solidarity with the design community.
posted by anildash at 10:20 AM on April 25, 2001


What's great about skiboots is that, in optimal circumstances, you shouldn't be able to walk in them. The anti-shoe, if you like. It's a moral worth carrying with us.
posted by holgate at 10:21 AM on April 25, 2001


Boot for boot's sake, usability be damned!
posted by gimli at 10:25 AM on April 25, 2001


Although I am in favor of the reboot project, I do applaud author of the skiboot website for his/her great sense of humor.
posted by treedream at 10:28 AM on April 25, 2001


This event is aimed at an almost entirely different community than the one MeFi readers occupy. As far as I can tell, that's why so many people here are so against this event, and why all the skiers I know (including myself) are totally interested to see what happens... what people come up with. There's this kind of 'celebrity' thing among skiers.. (Picabo Street, Tommy Moe, Tomba), where young skiers (and not-so-young ones) idolize the people putting together the event, and seeing everyone at one time put forth redesigns is interesting and exciting. And it IS a way for the 'community' to come together, because instead of us all redesigning at will and no one knowing about it, we can all gather new inspiration from each other, starting May 1. This vehement anti-skiboot sentiment here is quite confusing to me.
posted by MarkAnd at 10:33 AM on April 25, 2001


Anil: I think if I had mentioned 0sil8 or Jason Kottke in the topic, I am sure someone would've posted something about the "first letter of the alphabet list."
posted by riffola at 10:44 AM on April 25, 2001


wait, wait, wait.

The Reboot thing is sponsored? By a gin company? A book company? WTF?

"Wow! It's like Woodstock, only with advertisements everywhere and tons of security guards."
-- Lisa reflects on Hullabalooza, "Homerpalooza"
posted by mathowie at 10:46 AM on April 25, 2001


I'd sponsor SkiBoot just for the thrill of it, but I don't even own a pair of boots, let alone skiboots.
posted by lia at 10:56 AM on April 25, 2001


I'm bootless.
posted by Aaaugh! at 11:00 AM on April 25, 2001


May 1 sounds like a good day as any other to take off and go skiing as any other. Good idea!
posted by andrewraff at 11:19 AM on April 25, 2001


I think, mathowie, that the underlying point of the reboot project is to get drunk and read for a week.

Hrm, maybe I _CAN_ support the project!

And getting on topic...

Why is Reboot ridiculous? I don't understand why everyone is so bothered about it.

There's a few reasons.

1) I don't like the implication that's carried with messages like "if you care about the web you'll partake!" I said it much better in the previous thread, but just because I'm not concerned with the visual aspect of the network doesn't mean I'm not concerned with the network.

2) What's the best way to damage the network? Remove nodes. Every additional node is additional strength, it's alternative routes for data to travel, it's additional information, which is the heart of the network. Disconnecting from the network weakens the network.

3) On a personal note, the Internet and BBSes are directly responsible for a lot of who I am today. It's not only my technical reference, it's also my philisophical reference. I've been exposed to countless worldviews, philosophies, theories, opinions, facts and other data just by virtue of being connected. All that has been a major factor in opening my mind and in my emotional development.

I'll unplug when I die.
posted by cCranium at 11:20 AM on April 25, 2001


I’ve never understood the idea of giving up something, even for a week, for a "better cause" (um, kind of like lent, but different) Sometimes, some causes replace that "set-aside" thing for some activity or other that they deem to be of greater worth. But surely our lives aren't that full and entertaining that we can't find some time to set aside for this newer, better thing.

Or at least, mine isn't.

So, fine, re-design websites on masse by all means. It's the fact that they are being taken down for a week that I find a bit baffling. Could someone more in tune with this undertaking tell me what the underlying motivation of this seven-day hiatus is? Wouldn’t it be better to leave these websites up until the big day, so that people who haven’t seen the original site have that opportunity?
posted by lucien at 2:47 PM on April 25, 2001


I was one of the orignal 6 people who did this last year. The idea back then was that six close friends were all going to be redesigning their websites around the same time. A bunch of people were talking and we just sorta came up w/ this idea to all "reboot" at the same time, that being May 1. We didn't tell anyone about it. We just put up some splash screens a week before, and a lot of people were curious as to what was going on (since we interlinked all the sites). It was just a fun little thing.

This year it's a whole nother story. Personally I think it's been taken a little too far when you start involving corporate sponsorships. It was more fun when it was just a grass roots, community based thing. As for why there's the one week wait, well that's just left over from last year I guess. I don't think it's neccesarily bad tho, most of these sites have had "coming soon" splash screens up now for months anyway.

If it gets people to do some new and different things, then why not. It's not gonna be everyone's bag, but it's not meant to be (at least in my mind).
posted by vitaflo at 5:38 PM on April 25, 2001


The original spirit of the idea, as I understood it, was good. Take your site down as a show of solidarity with other designers and re-launch it better (or just different) than it was. The problem I (and apparently many others) had after we had registered was the sponsor links that were added to the splash page that all Rebooters had to use. I asked myself, why should I participate in an event that asked designers to stop promoting and commercializing themselves for a week and at the same time be required place an ad for a gin and a bookstore on my homepage?

My criticism found its way to the guys at Three.Oh (the sponsors) who tongue lashed me for daring to criticize their endeavor before consulting them.

Can't wait to see the May 2nd Reboot blacklist and the beginning of an era of design McCarthyism!
posted by kevind at 6:02 PM on April 25, 2001


Despite the tone of their artistic statement, this project is neither “unique” nor “of growing significance.” In fact, in the early 90's, a group of thirty women — all of whom were named Helen — gathered in a field and, in the true spirit of unity, agreed that love hurts. This was but the first of their regular community meetings, and they drew strength and inspiration from one another. At least until Helen Forneay broke ranks.

The point of this illustration is that an event is not ‘significant’ simply because the organizers of an event choose to claim so. In vehemently maintaining their implication that anyone who cares about the Web (or Web Design) will participate, they are alienating a portion of the Design community that is much larger (and perhaps much more visionary) than themselves. How will removing my site from the Internet for a week allow me to tap into a greater source of inspiration? All this will do is annoy the people who visit my site on a daily basis.

I'd wager that 90% of the participants of this farce will return with sites no more inspired or powerful than they previously had, and this ‘community’ they've supposedly forged will dissolve when they no longer share a common splash page.

On the other hand, it is a damn fine gin…
posted by Danelope at 10:20 PM on April 25, 2001


*laughing*

Hell if a bunch of people want to drop their site for a week... I say go for it.

Perhaps their regular visitors might get antsy enough to venture off and explore the web outside whats listed in their "neat-o-jet" bookmarks.
posted by dangerman at 11:06 PM on April 25, 2001


It's nice to see the members of the independent design and content community getting behind each other's work.
posted by Zeldman at 1:22 AM on April 26, 2001


Zeldman, I can't tell if you're being serious, but considering your most recent Glamorous Life, I'm going to have to assume you're trying to make a point.

If I understand what you're saying, it's that in-fighting is a waste of time because there's no gain from it.

If I'm wrong, please let me know. I'd like to discuss this (because I do disagree with the way I understand your point) but I'm reluctant to jump to conclusions. I ranted more than enough yesterday. :-)
posted by cCranium at 6:08 AM on April 26, 2001


While all those other sites are down for the week, it's business as usual here at Unpainted Arizona.
posted by catscape at 8:00 AM on April 26, 2001


Here's another parody
rejakob: A reinvigoration of usability and punditry

I personally like the concept of the design community pushing each other to come up with newer ideas, reboot as a concept is great. James and the gang are doing a good thing™. But that is not a good enough reason to not make parodies.
posted by riffola at 8:51 AM on April 26, 2001


Determinists and artists will never sit at the same table.
posted by capt.crackpipe at 9:55 AM on April 26, 2001


I really don't see this as an issue about artists or web people or anything like that.

The crazy thing is that it's sponsored and that the people who put it together are probably taking some kickback for the eyeballs they generate, and that the party that is being sponsored won't even be able to be attended by the majority of the artists taking part.

Art for art's sake. Design for design's sake. The web for the web's sake. Now maybe if they had sponsors from the advertising community who may be interested in hiring some of these designers.....
posted by rich at 12:06 PM on April 26, 2001


Here is some food for thought. Since everyone is complaining about the whole Reboot thing, how about reading about the story as told by one of the creators or Reboot first hand?

A look into the inspirational kingdom of James Widegren
posted by Nick Finck at 12:38 PM on April 26, 2001


It's not about the advertising and it's not about the week of downtime and it's not about the ridiculously overblown text on the official Reboot site, worthy though that is of ridicule.

No, the fundamental problem with the Reboot is that anyone who wants to be a L33T W3B D3516N3R can participate. This virtually guarantees that the vast majority of participants will be wannabes, which in turn assures that a large number of truly talented designers won't participate at all. After all, who wants to hang their best work in a gallery where anyone can post any old thing? You may find your masterpiece hanging next to a kindergartener's scrawled refrigerator art. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with the latter, of course, but it is definitely not the context in which most serious artists want their work to be seen.

From the ground up, then, this pseudo-event is designed to drive away the true elite. It is well-intentioned and commendably egalatarian, but unfortunately it is these very characteristics which doom it to be a textbook demonstration of Sturgeon's Law. Signal is destined to be overwhelmed by noise, most sites will receive little if any attention (after all, being one of 1500 is hardly noteworthy), and when the smoke clears, nothing else of much note will have been accomplished.

People are of course welcome to do whatever makes them feel good, but expecting us onlookers to pretend this event has any real purpose other than ego gratification for the participants is a little rich, isn't it?
posted by kindall at 12:44 PM on April 26, 2001


i have read all of your comments, given both sides serious consideration, and have finally come to the decision that i could not possibly care less. can we go home now?
posted by moth at 11:07 PM on May 1, 2001


« Older Columbine parents sue game makers...  |  Annapolis principal bans "Tag"... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments