Got one of those tagging tasks from Facebook. This is the first one I’ve done, and I thought it was interesting; so I thought’ I’d post it here. Feel free to do one of your own and ping back here:
To do this, go to “notes” under tabs on your profile page, paste these instructions in the body of the note, type your 25 random things, tag 25 people (in the right hand corner of the app) then click publish. You can also “save drafts” so you don’t have to work on this all in one sitting25 Random Things About Me
Rules: Once you’ve been tagged, you are supposed to write a note with 25 random things, facts, habits, or goals about you. At the end, choose 25 people to be tagged. You have to tag the person who tagged you. If I tagged you, it’s because I want to know more about you (no pressure, if you want to write one, write one, don’t do it cos this thing tells you to!).
I was born in Ft. Collins, a university town in northern Colorado.
I dislike very few foods. indeed I can only think of one dish I would not eat.
I hate flying; in part because of fact 4, but for other reasons as well.
I am afraid of being in high places. Some call it an irrational fear, but I have yet to grow wings, so find it rational enough.
I was born with such light-coloured hair, it was virtually pink.
I have a tendency to over-explain, rather than letting my statements…
I am picky about the films I watch, and consequently, haven’t seen many lately.
The key I most use is the backspace key, followed by the left-arrow for correcting thoughts as I type.
I don’t really have a favourite colour.
I tend not to like yellow very much.
I prefer trains to cars, but very much enjoy driving.
I am distressed to the point of insensibility by some things; and this makes me feel older than I am. Currently, I am 56; and inexplicably of high military rank.
I am often accused of linguistic pedantry.
I tend to disagree. I think this is too easy a reaction to anyone who understands grammar.
I often misspell grammar.
I make my living by thinking about other ways of doing and saying things, then writing them down. In other words, I work with concepts, the abstract, and writing.
Inconsequential things bother and exercise me more than important things.
I very much like dogs.
I enjoy creating, both with words and with images.
I have sold a painting in a coffee house. I have, so far, a 100% success rate for my art.
I enjoy semantics. Meaning is important to me.
I love thinking about things, in abstracts. I love metaphorical explanations of the way we think.
I dislike playing most games, mostly—I think—because I don’t see the point in winning an inconsequential game. This includes winning games. I simply do not experience much joy in winning on arbitrary terms.
I don’t understand why women need to know so many details about certain topics: child birth, for example.
My middle name is only an initial. It doesn’t stand for anything at all.
The idea is that people are using the web to get things done, and don’t seem to notice that service providers want them to stick around. They even get tetchy with intrusions or ‘widgets’.
I agree, to a certain extent, with this statement—that people are impatient with adverts on sites. However, I’m not sure if I feel this article is that well informed. Yes, it is backed by Jakob Nielsen (so-called “Usability Guru”); which means it’s founded on stable research etc…
But, what’s a widget if not a short-cut to a result? An Amazon widget on a site is basically a way to buy a product without the need even to visit Amazon.co.uk. I don’t think it’s helpful to lump all widgets together on this one. Most widgets are functional—In fact, I’d go so far as to say that a non-functional widget is just a banner-ad.
It IS annoying when your browsing is interrupted with a flash game or advert placing itself over your text or form. It doesn’t help me make a decision, and actually puts me off that particular site. The Times Online had a long-running Land Rover ad which drove over the page, stopping me from reading. Since when is a Land Rover Discovery 3 an impulse buy?
What this article fails to notice is that users are doing exactly what they’re supposed to do: use. The internet is usable now. People can think to themselves: “I’d quite like to buy an iPod, right now.” Within a minute, they can have a confirmation email and estimated delivery date in their inbox. This is using the web, and I think it’s not so much a ‘ruthless’ thing or a ‘selfish’ thing. You expect to buy what you’d like in a supermarket, and no one would call you ruthless for not setting up camp there for the afternoon. I know I like to spend as little time in Tesco as possible, and I don’t think anyone who considers me selfish or ruthless does so on account of that.
This is actually an issue of usability and confidence. People are more confident in their ability to purchase, find information, and network online. The majority of my book, electronic, and increasingly household purchases are done on amazon.co.uk. I check my calendar on Google before confirming appointments, and I even check people’s statuses on Facebook to see how they are. This is confident, comfortable use. I don’t need to spend an hour on a site when I can get the info I need in my RSS reader (Vienna, it’s brilliant!), but I still want the content.
I’m also still open to relevant advertising… If I’m after an iPod, I don’t mind being shown iPod accessories, especially discounted ones. I don’t mind being recommended a new book by a previously-read author. But, I do mind being shouted at by banner-ads and I tend to ignore them.
Having worked in online marketing, I couldn’t imagine a less-useful tactic than plastering your content with splashy ads and irrelevant content. It’s not helpful or usable, and goes against the grain of how the web works. It’s an open garden, and it’s rude to litter. This does not mean we’re ruthless, we’re just getting better at keeping our spaces clear and useful.
There’s the bin, put your Flash-ads in on your way out of our park, mate.
Watching TV online is becoming a bit of a hobby of mine. I don’t have a TV anywhere in the house, and it is just so much more convenient to be able to watch what I want, when I do, without having to play around with channels or digital interfaces which seem built to be slow (i.e. digital TV). Early efforts to watch online were riddled with frustration. I trialled Joost along with however many millions of others who signed up for a Beta invite, but found the system clunky and without real appeal in the frankly poor content. Also, it was a memory hog and froze my then-ageing Dell. There was also the problem with pirates and ‘linked TV’ Not only is there the conscience to console, but one popular link site, tv-links.co.uk, actually landed its founder in prison. YouTube only provides short clips, or pirated episodes which are quickly removed by moderators.
So, where does that leave the casual TV-watcher? With all the early difficulty of installing software, finding Betas, or perusing content which either didn’t work or you didn’t want to play, it seemed that watching tv-quality content online has always been a struggle. With new improvements, though, can you actually watch TV online easily and relatively free from frustration? I think it’s getting there.
UK TV Online
First, I’d like to note that I will be avoiding Hulu and any discussion of it aside from mentioning that it doesn’t work in the UK. Both of the services reviewed below, to be fair to US readers, currently only work in the UK.
BBC: iPlayer
The British Broadcasting Corporation produces high-quality tv and radio content, and, because if its unique funding contains no advertisements. The aim of the iPlayer is to provide access to all BBC content for up to seven days following broadcast. The player itself is Flash-based and inside the browser, with full-screen capability.
The menu system is intuitive and simple. You can navigate by channel (there are several BBC channels, including dedicated children’s and world news stations), category, show title or by broadcast day–up to seven previous. The Flash interface allows a quick summary view of each show, with a still image or a show logo. Clicking on any icon will bring up a summary and a playing screen which waits for you to choose to start. (NB: I’m using the Kwout service for the clickable image on the left. For more about it see R/WW’s writeup here.)
One slightly annoying feature is a lack of ‘Back’ function. If you choose a show you decide not to watch, you either have to go back using the browser (slightly risky with Flash) or re-navigate using one of the categorisation options. The image and sound quality of the content is excellent, though, and the overall feel of the interface is brilliant.
Viewers have the option of streaming content or downloading it for later watching (though the DRM allows it to show for only up to the 7-day deadline). The download feature works exclusively with Internet Explorer, though Firefox or Opera work fine for streaming. Each episode also seems to have a permalink system, so, provided you are within the 7-day restriction, you can share content using links.
My initial impressions of the iPlayer are all positive. The content is not compromised: it shows all BBC materiel. The 7-day limit seems fair for free content, and the player works very well indeed. The quality of the interface and of the actual content is uncompromising, and you can actually sit down, choose a programme, and watch it.
Well, mostly…
Although most of the time it works that way, if you are on restricted bandwidth, you are out of luck. All that quality really costs to deliver in terms of download speeds. I am fortunate to now live in a relatively uninhabited corner of these crowded Isles, so I can watch the iPlayer at more or less any time. At my previous house in the South-East, however, my ISP could only provide me with a 1MG connection or less during high-traffic times. Even now, however, I can experience that horrible Flash loading circle, and it tends to continue circling once its’ started.
This aspect of the iPlayer has caused something of a national stir. It has been reported that ISP’s are demanding the BBC actually cover the cost of more people using more bandwidth due to watching content online. I can’t say I see the ISP’s logic in this one. After all, they are being paid to provide access to the internet, and most have limited policies or “Fair Use” declarations anyway. What it has done, however, is to highlight the lack of bandwidth for current and future-looking applications. Anyway, the iPlayer uses bandwidth, and if you haven’t got it, you will spend a lot of time watching the Flash snake chasing its own tail and not a whole lot more.
One more item I’ve come across is the Player’s annoying habit of occasionally just not working. In general, the content loads, and you can play, pause, and re-wind with impunity. Every so often, however, it will fail to load with a friendly but less-than-helpful explanation:
4OD
Channel 4, which is a traditional broadcaster alongside BBC’s terrestrial channels, has launched its own online service titled 4OD (4 On Demand). The flavour of Channel 4 has always been different from the BBC, and these differences can be seen in the service. Whereas the iPlayer is a flash-based, in-browser player, 4OD requires download and installation. It only currently works with Windows XP or Vista, and also requires Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player to be installed on the system. After install, the 4OD service adds itself to the startup, and users will see a Channel 4 tray icon after startup, and the service is launched from the system tray. Double-clicking the icon or right-clicking and selecting “Open 4OD” will result in a full-screen browser which allows you to select content to watch.
4OD allows free viewing of shows for 30 days after airing, and the ability to rent other content including full-length feature films. Prices for renting range from £.99 to £2.99. Content can be streamed live or downloaded for viewing later. The content presented, however, is slightly confusing. Although you can search by category, name, or price, you can often find content which is free to view, regardless of when it was aired. So some content, aired long before 30-days ago, can sometimes be seen and streamed. You can also feel a bit lost in the full-screen, especially when the service asks you to sign in to view a programme. This leads me conveniently on to another point, which is that viewers are required to register for 4OD’s service in order to stream or download. The browser forgets that you are signed in within the space of a half-hour show, and requires another login to watch something else– and this can grow tedious.
The actual player is Windows Media Player (Version 10+) which means that the content is streamed in a high-quality interface with familiar controls. Shows can be paused, rewound and re-played, and the sound quality seems good (as good as my stock Dell speakers can produce anyway). You also never see that annoying Flash loading circle which is often present with the iPlayer. That’s not to say it loads perfectly every time, as it can glitch and pause too, it just does it Windows-style: by freezing and becoming unresponsive. It also has its own special, unhelpful error messages:
One slightly sinister aspect of the 4OD service, is that is uses a P2P active service on your PC called KHost or Kontiki. This isn’t really obvious from the download and install information, and it can use a lot of system resources. To my mind this smacks slightly of spyware.
iPlayer and 4OD: side by side
Although fundamentally providing a similar service, 4OD and the iPlayer have a differing ethos and presentation. iPlayer is in-browser and can be accessed from multiple platforms (though its initial launch was XP-only and required a download), while 4OD is locked into a single platform and even set up (i.e. you have to use IE). 4OD allows more content to be broadcast, and even makes old content available for hire, so that you can watch virtually everything they offer. BBC iPlayer only lets you watch 7 days’ worth of footage, and is notoriously stingy with old content. Because they cannot charge for their content, the BBC is unlikely to jeopardise their TV viewings (which fund the Corporation through UK TV licenses), but rather seems aimed at offering a complimentary service.
Aesthetically, the two services are very different. The iPlayer looks sleek, simple, and high-quality. Its interface is intuitive, and works well for the limited content available. 4OD’s interface is scattered and complicated, and requires a full-screen view to show all its various content. 4OD is also slightly more difficult to navigate, and feels slightly less stable. The use of background images in the 4OD reminds me of MySpace, and the content can be visually busy. The iPlayer, likewise, could be favourably compared to the simplicity of Facebook–only black. It would interest me to see a study comparing viewer demographics of the two services, because Channel 4 has always presented a gritty, reality-driven face in its content, and is opposed to the high-brow nature or sophistocation of the BBC, and I wonder if this would compare to the demographics of Facebook vs Myspace.
Both of these services lack something fundamental, however, which mark them as being slightly too proprietary. They are offering TV online, without many benefits from the new medium. You can’t share the programmes easily, nor is there the ability to tag or comment Although the iPlayer has a form of permalink, it only lasts until that programme reaches its 7-day use by date. The DRM on the content is tight, and limits the time for watching. The BBC in particular has grasped the nettle of the web with its excellent online presence, but its iPlayer is simply TV. This is the web as a platform without what makes the web, the web. However, with that said, the exact thing which makes these services somewhat workable is that they finally work. For years, you had to put up with ridiculous loading times, pauses, glitches and second-rate content. Now, most of the time, you can choose a full-length programme and watch it in relatively high-quality video. There is still a long way to go while TV online finds its feet, but at least we can finally sit back and enjoy the wait.
When social networking is the topic, I imagine most people think of Facebook, Myspace or LinkedIn—sites fundamentally derived from self promotion and entertainment. Despite the high language used to discuss social networking and Web 2.0, most of my time spent on them is all about having fun or trying to look better to others (which is what LinkedIn is primarily for). But what about the idea that the world is now connected? Why do I spend most of my time online ‘socialising’ with people I already know, or participating in interests in which I’m already interested?
After all, the idea of a network (on online community) is to create and maintain connections between people and groups. It is only a matter of time before connections are made which open eyes.
Bloggers in Burma have been using the web to broadcast their message not to let the world close its eyes to the community disaster there. YouTube has been mentioned to contain many thousands of clips from soldiers in or from Iraq. This is a serious source of information, a broadcast network between communities. And it seems that this call for help could be so easily ignored if it weren’t for the persistence of the messages: ignorance as a refuge is shrinking daily.
But where’s the 2.0 in this Web? Where is the sharing and the interaction from these blogs and discussions? Have a look at Kiva.org, the most inspiring website I have seen in months. This is a set of actions, and a practical source of actual tools we can use to share.
This is the community beginning.
Spend some time in the ‘About’ section over at Kiva, and you will see the beginnings of a response to the cries of the poorer bits of our larger community.
I believe the Church’s response to world poverty needs to be a powerful and practical one. I believe that when it says in Acts that there were no orphans and widows among them, it wasn’t just about bragging, but was a description! When the teacher tried to catch Jesus out by asking: “Who is my neighbour?” he was just the first recorded using the excuse that we just don’t know. That isn’t good enough any more, and our Neighbourhood is getting bigger!
Describing a company or concept as "Web 2.0" is so, last half-decade. Nevermind that most people still haven’t heard the phrase. If you don’t believe me, go ahead and poll your office or family: unless you’re not allowed out of the IT dungeon or your family all work as tech-bloggers, my guess is that they haven’t heard or don’t understand the term.
This isn’t really surprising. If you hear about a "new internet phenomenon" on mainstream news, the chances are it’s either on it’s way out or is so firmly entrenched as to be unremarkable. For a perfect example of this, look up ‘Facebook’ in a national publication and note the language used to describe it’s shiny-new cover–regardless of the fact that most people reading this blog will have been on Facebook (or gone off Facebook) at least a year ago!
It even now seems that there may be a financial impact on describing your new startup as "web 2.0". According to Mashable!, several VC’s are stating quite clearly that they won’t back Web 2.0. I have also noticed talk of bubbles breaking and ‘meteoric rises’ with the implication that it won’t last very much longer. So many potential break-throughs won’t see their funding if they’re too 2.0.
This phenomenon is firmly entrenched in ‘techy’ social networks like Digg. When I dugg a news story about the semantic web, I noticed the overwhelming majority of comments were along the lines of "semantic web is so cliche", or "Watch out, here comes Semantic Web 2.0, Run!". Semantic web is a term which has only been widely used recently (relative to "Web 2.0" which was popularised by web stalwart O’Reilly Way back in 2005) and is already met with derision and sarcastic scorn.
To some extent, I think this is a good thing. If VC’s and financial backers are waking up to this, it means there might be more competition for funding and an increase in the quality of online startups. It might also mean some updates and refreshing of already-started-ups. While techy scorn is easy to find and probably doesn’t mean too much, the reality behind the bluster might just be the next set of updates to real users’ online experiences. Oh, and don’t try calling it "Web 3.0". Just don’t.
There’s no pleasing everyone, but it seems to me that Web 2.0 is a phenomenon which, if you’re not already using it on a daily basis (on Facebook, following Twitter, using Gmail), it’s probably better not to talk about it. Webby people will start to question your breeding and choice of apparel!
Describing a company or concept as "Web 2.0" is so, last half-decade. Nevermind that most people still haven’t heard the phrase. If you don’t believe me, go ahead and poll your office or family: unless you’re not allowed out of the IT dungeon or your family all work as tech-bloggers, my guess is that they haven’t heard or don’t understand the term.
This isn’t really surprising. If you hear about a "new internet phenomenoon" on mainstream news, the chances are it’s either on it’s way out or is so firmly entrenched as to be unremarkable. For a perfect example of this, look up ‘Facebook’ in a national publication and note the language used to describe it’s shiny-new cover–regardless of the fact that most people reading this blog will have been on Facebook (or gone off Facebook) at least a year ago!
It even now seems that there may be a financial impact on describing your new startup as "web 2.0". According to Mashable!, several VC’s are stating quite clearly that they won’t back Web 2.0. I have also noticed talk of bubbles breaking and ‘meteoric rises’ with the implication that it won’t last very much longer. So many potential break-throughs won’t see their funding if they’re too 2.0.
This phenomenon is firmly entrenched in ‘techy’ social networks like Digg. When I dugg a news story about the semantic web, I noticed the overwhelming majority of comments were along the lines of "semantic web is so cliche", or "Watch out, here comes Semantic Web 2.0, Run!". Semantic web is a term which has only been widely used recently (relative to "Web 2.0" which was popularised by web stalwart O’Reilly Way back in 2005) and is already met with derision and sarcastic scorn.
To some extent, I think this is a good thing. If VC’s and financial backers are waking up to this, it means there might be more competition for funding and an increase in the quality of online startups. It might also mean some updates and refreshing of already-started-ups. While techy scorn is easy to find and probably doesn’t mean too much, the reality behind the bluster might just be the next set of updates to real users’ online experiences. Oh, and don’t try calling it "Web 3.0". Just don’t.
There’s no pleasing everyone, but it seems to me that Web 2.0 is a phenomenon which, if you’re not already using it on a daily basis (on Facebook, following Twitter, using Gmail), it’s probably better not to talk about it. Webby people will start to question your breeding and choice of apparel!
RT @dfflanders: Dear JISC friends if you would be so kind as to retweet the following podcasts on the #jiscEXPO and #jiscDEPO Call: http ... [zbeauvais]
