Usually I have zero interest in most of the "E-Mail 2.0" hype that springs up every couple months, but I do actually really like the idea of taking dynamic content a step or two further. I think email is fundamentally good at its intended purpose, but I could see things like revisions fitting in comfortably with the existing paradigm.
I wasn't the one who called it that. I don't know that I want "frighteningly ambitious" in my email anyway.
Anyway, I'm always more impressed by people who can do great things within the confines of established procedure. It isn't nearly as hard to differentiate when you start from scratch.
Comments
Usually I have zero interest in most of the "E-Mail 2.0" hype that springs up every couple months, but I do actually really like the idea of taking dynamic content a step or two further. I think email is fundamentally good at its intended purpose, but I could see things like revisions fitting in comfortably with the existing paradigm.
> but I could see things like revisions fitting in comfortably with the existing paradigm.
But then why call it frighteningly ambitious or ambitious at all?
I wasn't the one who called it that. I don't know that I want "frighteningly ambitious" in my email anyway.
Anyway, I'm always more impressed by people who can do great things within the confines of established procedure. It isn't nearly as hard to differentiate when you start from scratch.
My mistake, I should have worded the rhetoric better.
I implied for the title of the post (given by OP) being opposite to what impressive is within confines of established procedure. No?