Re: [backstage] Fwd: Slashdot| Apple's Trend Away From Tinkering
No, For many people it is ENTIRELY rational behaviour. Most people are not like us (who jailbreak iphone and touch and tinker with OS X). Most people want a consumer project. They want something they can switch on and use, not spend the rest of your life trying to configure and tweak. For nokia, for example, the Ovi Store is a big improvement, but STILL not as easy to grasp as using the app store or iTunes on an iPhone. That is what sells. The fashion thing is a nice adjiunct for those who care. Sometimes it is about fashion, but it's not always. When the first iPhone came out, I didn't want one because it didn't have all the features I wanted. But it didn't make me admire the package of UI and slickness any less, because it worked for those who did. But there are other products that are also well designed and have 100% functionality, they're just not as fashionable. I think it has more to do with some people wanting to be followers of fashion (and a fashion item is something that Apple products have become since SJ's return) and then finding that fashionable straight jacket is too tight. It's just not rational behaviour. Scot - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ -- Darren Stephens MBCS CITP School of Arts and New Media University of Hull Scarborough Campus Filey Road Scarborough t: +441723357360 e: darren.steph...@hull.ac.uk * To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to http://www.hull.ac.uk/legal/email_disclaimer.html * - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] iPad
Damn right! If, like me you are a tinkerer and like to create, hell I've already got a Mac. I can do that stuff. iPad is not for that. It is a consumer device. It's good at that - that market doesn't want to tinker, in the same way that any who buy a car just want to use it to drive somewhere and don't feel the need to become a mechanic to enjoy what it does. Anyone wants to tinker, go and buy a Haynes manual :) Å 29/01/2010 15:38, Mo McRoberts m...@nevali.net a écrit: There seems to be a lot of criticism, mostly in tech articles rather than individual discussions, that a device seemingly designed to cater for people who aren't particularly interested in computers appears to be a device for people who aren¹t particularly interested in computers. -- Darren Stephens MBCS CITP School of Arts and New Media University of Hull Scarborough Campus Filey Road Scarborough t: +441723357360 e: darren.steph...@hull.ac.uk * To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to http://www.hull.ac.uk/legal/email_disclaimer.html *
Re: [backstage] iPad
ideal. I may be a developer, a sysadmin and a power users, but I'm often just an ordinary end-user and want to browse the web or play some games without having to faff around, and that's with the proviso that I don't have to do much faffing as it is (it's still more than it should be). It's a device which can be left on a coffee table and be unobtrusive, until you want to see the TV schedules for the next seven days. As much as many of us currently do reach for our laptops or smartphones to do just that, you'd be hard pressed to argue that a middle-ground between the convenience of a smartphone (which you can just pick up and put down when needed) and the useful size of a laptop screen isn't something a lot of people wouldn't buy into, quite possibly in preference to either of them. I expect we'll see plenty of applications appearing as it starts to sell, too: similar things happened with the iPhone, as developers started to explore what's possible. Now, for the (again) power user group, there's lots of stuff which could be transposed onto a different device - there's nothing particularly iPad-specific about having a cool newspaper app with embedded video, for example, but the competing devices aren't here yet. I doubt it'll be long before some start to appear, though, with varying degrees of success (and there's always Microsoft's second tablet push, which may or may not be more successful than the first). M. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ -- Darren Stephens MBCS CITP School of Arts and New Media University of Hull Scarborough Campus Filey Road Scarborough t: +441723357360 e: darren.steph...@hull.ac.uk * To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to http://www.hull.ac.uk/legal/email_disclaimer.html *
RE: [backstage] Internet TV without streaming is like
Hmm. Although my mobile phone (a series 40 Nokia 6500s) does indeed support Flash Lite, I remain to be convinced that it's really an entirely appropriate platform to do heavy duty Flash development upon. And that's before we even start on the whole text/screen reader issue. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Scot McSweeney-Roberts Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 11:31 AM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Internet TV without streaming is like On 7/21/08, Oeztunali, Sebnem (CT) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag von Dave Crossland Gesendet: Freitag, 18. Juli 2008 20:20 An: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Betreff: Re: [backstage] Internet TV without streaming is like But still flash runs in every browser, hence every device capable of Internet-connectivity (has a browser) is able to receive that stream. There's a version of flash for lynx? What does it do, convert the video to ascii art? :-) Scot * To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to http://www.hull.ac.uk/legal/email_disclaimer.html *
[backstage] RE: [backstage] Re: Is it OK for BT Vision to char ge £3 per month for the iPlayer?
I would suspect so, as they would likely claim that it is like any number of satellite channels bundled on sky, provided at zero cost, but only available as part of a package which includes other chargeable services. Marketing drones, don't you just love them... From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Butterworth Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 1:09 PM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: [backstage] Re: Is it OK for BT Vision to charge £3 per month for the iPlayer? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7439652.stm 2008/6/5 Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED]: According to http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/3580-catch-up-tv-on-bt-vision-no-longer-free.html BT Vision now has a TV Replay Pack that costs £3 per month and covers the ... BBC iPlayer service. Is it OK for BT to charge for access to the free iPlayer? --- Brian Butterworth http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002 * To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to http://www.hull.ac.uk/legal/email_disclaimer.html *
[backstage] RE: [backstage] RE: [backstage] RE: [backs tage] RE: [backstage] Re: Is it OK for BT Vi sion to charge £3 per month for the iPlayer?
Apart from BT doing it under licence? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gavin Pearce Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 4:29 PM To: 'backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk' Subject: [backstage] RE: [backstage] RE: [backstage] RE: [backstage] Re: Is it OK for BT Vision to charge £3 per month for the iPlayer? The way I read it was ... They are offering it as part of another service, so they're not charging for the BBC channels, you get those free, if you buy this other service. I might be wrong?? Still plenty of loop-holes here to setup a free BBC+1 if a user subscribes to your members only website:-) Im just guessing here though lol Gavin Pearce | Junior Web Developer | TBS The Columbia Centre, Market Street, Bracknell, RG12 1JG, United Kingdom Direct: +44 (0) 1344 403488 | Office: +44 (0) 1344 306011 | Fax: +44 (0) 1344 427138 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Yahoo: pearce.gavin | Skype: tbs.gavin www.tbs.uk.com http://www.tbs.uk.com/ TBS is a trading name of Technology Services International Limited. Registered in England, company number 2079459. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 09 June 2008 15:41 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: [backstage] RE: [backstage] RE: [backstage] Re: Is it OK for BT Vision to charge £3 per month for the iPlayer? If BT can, why can't you or anyone else? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Brian Butterworth Sent: 09 June 2008 15:31 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] RE: [backstage] Re: Is it OK for BT Vision to charge £3 per month for the iPlayer? It turns out it isn't the iPlayer but the higher quality DVB-T recording that BT offer as part of their package. Although as they have no claim to copyright over them, it a bit hard to understand how they can charge extra for them, for example I couldn't record BBC one off-air, make a +1 of it and then transmit it via satellite and charge a fee for it. Could I? Or could I? 2008/6/9 Darren Stephens [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I would suspect so, as they would likely claim that it is like any number of satellite channels bundled on sky, provided at zero cost, but only available as part of a package which includes other chargeable services. Marketing drones, don't you just love them... From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Butterworth Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 1:09 PM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: [backstage] Re: Is it OK for BT Vision to charge £3 per month for the iPlayer? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7439652.stm 2008/6/5 Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED]: According to http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/3580-catch-up-tv-on-bt-vision-no-longer-free.html BT Vision now has a TV Replay Pack that costs £3 per month and covers the ... BBC iPlayer service. Is it OK for BT to charge for access to the free iPlayer? --- Brian Butterworth http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002 * To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to http://www.hull.ac.uk/legal/email_disclaimer.html * -- Brian Butterworth http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002 This message has been scanned for viruses by Viatel MailControl http://viatel.mailcontrol.com/ , a service from Viatel http://www.viatel.com/ . This message has been scanned for viruses by Viatel MailControl http://viatel.mailcontrol.com/ , a service from Viatel http://www.viatel.com/ . * To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to http://www.hull.ac.uk/legal/email_disclaimer.html *
RE: [backstage] iPlayer and the ISPs - a solution
Just a few thoughts (some of which may be emanating from my posterior, but no matter): From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Butterworth Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 5:38 PM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] iPlayer and the ISPs - a solution but my experience of them is that transparent proxies reduce overall performance because they need to get in the way of each and every HTTP transaction. Yes, I suppose in theory, but use of appropriate routing and firewalling means not in practice. Though adding this before the application layers will introduce a separate latency of its own. It would be difficult to filter such traffic on port admittedly, but not on other things, like source and dest addresses (see below). I wouldn't have thought that the small increase in latency would be noticeable for a several hundred megabyte file. I would have thought otherwise, since the latency is, almost by definition, indeterminate and could, in fact, be appreciable, especially if under high load 3. Store and forward: Locate MIRROR SERVERS inside the ISP network. This seems a much better idea. But the BBC's network does a LOT of this mirroring and load balancing stuff already, certainly if you look at some parts of their operation (like News) and especially with HTTP. It wouldn't work otherwise. And when it doesn't quite work like that, performance does suffer. It sounds a lot like some kind of Cache. And another question is *who* is going to pay for the servers that speak RTMP? This sounds like some kind of revenue driving scheme for the BBC's commercial friends. the ISP provide the BBC with rack space 'inside' their networks for mirror servers. A generic cache would be much more scalable, if the servers only mirror BBC data then this does nothing to solve problems with other sites. How does one mirror this data? Will it be available via rsync? Will it be mirrorable by *anyone* or does the BBC intend to pick and chose commercial ISPs to provide better access to. Again very shaky ground. And even though technologies like rsync are largely differential, the traffic generated from such syncing is not trivial, especially if the content is in binary formats and not textual. Because constructed deltas that are used for syncing may not be that small. And, more prosaically, once the data is inside the ISP's networks, who is responsible for it? - change the main BBC iPlayer to redirect requests for the content to the Mirror Server located in the ISPs network. Really unscalable, how is the BBC going to know which ISPs have mirrors and which do not? This would require each ISP to notify the BBC. Just seems wrong. Having every Content Provider have to speak to every ISP seems to go against the core of the Internet. If the BBC is decides to provide such a service, what is wrong with it whitelisting those who sign up to use it? Not necessarily something I agree with but not unfeasible from a technical point of view. Potentially very fiddly however and, as rightly pointed out, not hugely scalable for the long term. If a pipe on the Internet is not running at 100% it is being underused! On the other hand, a pipe running at 100% could clearly be considered borderline congested. Andy [1] http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/ukpga_19980041_en_2#pt1-ch2-pb2-l1 g18 - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth http://www.ukfree.tv * To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to http://www.hull.ac.uk/legal/email_disclaimer.html *
RE: [backstage] HD-DVD / Blu Ray
But I'm not buying them. I buy a piece of paper which entitles me to watch this stuff (and I can keep copies of the ephemeral stuff if I wish, in the formats I choose, to watch when I choose). Which admittedly looks a little like a DRM scenario but gives me rather more choice and the option to maintain a physical artefact if I so wish. I'm saying that *I* feel comfortable having a tangible object. YMMV. Perhaps the lack of tangibility is one reason why some people (not me) don't ascribe much value to what the BBC do and feel the need to snipe. Those who pay the rental for a sky box can at least see the Murdoch festering box squatting in the corner From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Butterworth Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 2:47 PM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] HD-DVD / Blu Ray On 21/02/2008, Darren Stephens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All of this is true enough, but (and there's always a but) you still have the physical artefact, don't you? Even if it's gaffer taped with a hundred others, you still have the physical object you shelled out your money for. The digital stuff is, by your own admission, descended from the objects. Brands may be virtual but I for one prefer to buy the disc. Why? Because there's something tangible to show for the transaction after completion, not something ephemeral that is rather difficult to pin down. There is something that is identifiable as being of worth. No, I gave away all 486 Star Trek and 150+ Dr Who videos. I no longer need a loft to keep them in. However I find it interesting that you link something that is identifiable with being of worth. So the three billion Auntie spends on telly, radio and downloads has no worth, by your definition. I suspet that the linkage you state is not real, and is simply a matter of faith to people who used to make money from it. It's a bit like when CDs started and people said they would never catch on because people NEEDED gatefold and poster sleve, that CD cases were too small and so on. Just the Satus Quo, the status quo becomes old hat. I love seeing all the old pre-war cars doing the London to Brighton run, but people wouldn't rush out to buy them... That's not to say I don't buy the ephemeral stuff - I have purchased stuff on my iPod - but I am certainly more cautious about buying items that way. How unusual I am I can't say. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Butterworth Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 7:08 PM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] HD-DVD / Blu Ray On 20/02/2008, Ian Forrester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't know guys, it may have been said multiple times but the only winner in this battle must be the online services. However I'm still left wondering when the general public will get their head around non-physical media. People seem to like the look and feel of physical media like CDs, Vinyl, DVDs. I was talking to Dave about this in Edinburgh. The thing is, the current evidence suggests that this might be a false assumption. From a physiological point of view, lots of marketing efforts does indeed go into selling things to people. However, the modern liberal international capitalist system puts a lot of effort into promoting brands, which a not things, but virtual. It is quite a logical step to say that brands therefore exist in cyberspace. They have value only as something that is possessed by a company that hey can use. I've got three enormous boxes that I have all my CDs in. I gaffer taped them up when I finished MP3ing them, which was years ago now. How many times have I unpacked them? None. I've got a Vista Media Center with all my music on it, and I can copy and play this (using www.orb.com http://www.orb.com/ ) anywhere. It's connected to the TV and has a remote control, and does my videos and all my thousands of photos. I can access all this lot from where ever with one remote control. I'm not alone. Everyone with an MP3 player (say an iPod) can carry around an amount of music you couldn't carry around in a transit van if it were on vinyl. Look, I'm such a nerd that I bought all of Star Trek (not Enterprise, obviously but with the Cartoons), Doctor Who and Blake's Seven on VHS and they took up the whole damn loft! Now I can have it all on a box smaller than half a VHS cassette. And if that's not enough. To quote from Down The Line, What is point DVD? The weirdest exam result (was the A) I got for an AO Level in Science in Society, so I've known about the idea of peak oil and climate change
RE: [backstage] HD-DVD / Blu Ray
All of this is true enough, but (and there's always a but) you still have the physical artefact, don't you? Even if it's gaffer taped with a hundred others, you still have the physical object you shelled out your money for. The digital stuff is, by your own admission, descended from the objects. Brands may be virtual but I for one prefer to buy the disc. Why? Because there's something tangible to show for the transaction after completion, not something ephemeral that is rather difficult to pin down. There is something that is identifiable as being of worth. That's not to say I don't buy the ephemeral stuff - I have purchased stuff on my iPod - but I am certainly more cautious about buying items that way. How unusual I am I can't say. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Butterworth Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 7:08 PM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] HD-DVD / Blu Ray On 20/02/2008, Ian Forrester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't know guys, it may have been said multiple times but the only winner in this battle must be the online services. However I'm still left wondering when the general public will get their head around non-physical media. People seem to like the look and feel of physical media like CDs, Vinyl, DVDs. I was talking to Dave about this in Edinburgh. The thing is, the current evidence suggests that this might be a false assumption. From a physiological point of view, lots of marketing efforts does indeed go into selling things to people. However, the modern liberal international capitalist system puts a lot of effort into promoting brands, which a not things, but virtual. It is quite a logical step to say that brands therefore exist in cyberspace. They have value only as something that is possessed by a company that hey can use. I've got three enormous boxes that I have all my CDs in. I gaffer taped them up when I finished MP3ing them, which was years ago now. How many times have I unpacked them? None. I've got a Vista Media Center with all my music on it, and I can copy and play this (using www.orb.com) anywhere. It's connected to the TV and has a remote control, and does my videos and all my thousands of photos. I can access all this lot from where ever with one remote control. I'm not alone. Everyone with an MP3 player (say an iPod) can carry around an amount of music you couldn't carry around in a transit van if it were on vinyl. Look, I'm such a nerd that I bought all of Star Trek (not Enterprise, obviously but with the Cartoons), Doctor Who and Blake's Seven on VHS and they took up the whole damn loft! Now I can have it all on a box smaller than half a VHS cassette. And if that's not enough. To quote from Down The Line, What is point DVD? The weirdest exam result (was the A) I got for an AO Level in Science in Society, so I've known about the idea of peak oil and climate change for ages. I recon that if we are going to run out of the oil and stop killing the planet, then the easiest thing for people to give up is buying data stamped onto heavy plastic carted around by lorry. It's just so unnecessary! If you are investing, invest in fat datapipes not past-it plastic. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/feb/19/musicnews.netmusic?gusrc= rssfeed=technology Cheers zIan Forrester This e-mail is: [x] private; [] ask first; [] bloggable Senior Producer, BBC Backstage BC5 C3, Media Village, 201 Wood Lane, London W12 7TP email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] work: +44 (0)2080083965 mob: +44 (0)7711913293 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Woodhouse Sent: 20 February 2008 13:31 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] HD-DVD / Blu Ray On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 15:26 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What I /heart/ about the pre-2K bit of plastic is the way it takes control over your TV/DVD and insists that you watch the copyright notices Sounds like you need to get yourself a better DVD player. -- dwmw2 - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] k/ -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth http://www.ukfree.tv
RE: [backstage] BBC News
Check to see what MIME types your browser is sending out in HTTP Accept when you make a request (Firebug might help). It could be that you are sending accept application/xml+html which is letting you get mobile HTML (WML 2.0 XHTML) back instead of the vanilla type. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Barber Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 1:40 PM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: [backstage] BBC News Anyone noticed the BBC News front page has gone to a PDA or similar version? ./Matt * To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to http://www.hull.ac.uk/legal/email_disclaimer.html *
RE: [backstage] New BBC customisable homepage
First impressions: Generally not bad, though I think the masthead takes up slightly too much screen real estate (and I'm viewing at 1280x1024). Also , I find the colour change on the interface when clicking the options under the lead picture incredibly jarring and I'm not sure what purpose the change is really supposed to serve. I think I know why it's supposed to be there but on the whole I find it rather distracting and unnecessary. The borders around content boxes are quite thick, so it gives the interface a slightly chunkier look than I, personally, prefer, but that's just a matter of personal preference. The effect is quite nice though. I'm not so sure about the Vista-ish modal dialog boxes though. Though they look pretty they have the potential of becoming incredibly annoying if they crop up too often. Basic degradation is pretty decent actually, after giving it a quick go in FF 3 beta 1 with everything (e.g. Java, js) switched off and I like the fact that content panes can be windowshaded and the settings remembered between visits. In response to others yes, the optionality is fairly limited but I think too much would make the interface too unwieldy and break what is currently fairly simple and clean. Better yet the first non-tech people I showed it too were taken with the look; they liked it. Overall, I'm impressed -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 11:15 AM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] New BBC customisable homepage I also like the initial effect, however... why is 50% of the space uneditable? seems contrary to sense, can't find any excuse for the obligatory large picture with 4 choices, please remove, optionally of course ~: the directory could also be editable, with a minimise and reset if desirable. why is radio not editable? the minimised buttons could be links, no... keyboard navigation isn't exactly intuitive, but does it work at all? the link order is weird in any case... with each area minimised, I tabbed to 'open' sport, hit enter, it opens, which is excellent, but then how can I tab through the links displayed? a huge congratulations on a significant benchmark. kind regards Jonathan Chetwynd Accessibility Consultant on Media Literacy and the Internet On 17 Dec 2007, at 17:37, Christopher Woods wrote: Wow, what a great job! First impressions are fantastic - clean, easy on the eye, very nice purple colour scheme and I very much like the rollover effects (the customisation aspect is nice, too). I'm glad to see that the clock has finally made a comeback - I remember a discussion about that a while ago (I think it was on here, wasn't it?) when the Flash-based BBC clocks were discussed, and someone at the beeb asked if they could use them for a forthcoming BBC project or something like that? I can't be bothered to go looking through my archives now to verify my poor memory, but nevertheless good job to all involved! The only things that need sorting are the slightly chubby 'headers' for the hideable sections, make them a little less tall, 10-15px less would do it I think. Also, no mouseover effects for the four showcase buttons underneath the main image? Ooo, love the effects when you customise stuff... All the swishing and swooping and modal dialogs when you set your location and BBC News version - I'm such a mug for a bit of web 2 goodness sometimes! I'm wondering how it degrades in older browsers though... Trying it on my WinMo 5 phone, at least it renders as a full single column by default in Pocket IE - LOADs of scrolling through images and layout stuff, but at least all the content is easily readable. None of the edit links work for customising the widgets, I'm guessing (hoping) a mobile-friendly version of the BBC homepage is coming soon - I'd be sorely tempted to change my homepage to the BBC frontpage for my phone if a 3G-, QVGA-friendly version was designed. Looking good for starters though! I don't know if there's anyone at the Beeb who is involved (or knows someone who's involved) in the frontpage redesign, but it's looking very promising and I'm quite pleased. I love the return of the clock, promise me that'll never go! :D - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ * To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to http://www.hull.ac.uk/legal/email_disclaimer.html *
RE: [backstage] New BBC customisable homepage
Yeah, I forgot the clock. Nice little retro touch that brought back some childhood memories of waiting for Dr Who on a Saturday night (and schools programmes!) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Barber Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 11:27 AM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] New BBC customisable homepage I second the clock, looks great. Nice redesign for a new era of the web. Great the way that video and rich media has presecence now as it will be used more and more in coming months I should think. Few tweaks here and there, as mentioned the accessibility issues with tabbing through content, and it should be great. ./Matt On Dec 18, 2007 11:14 AM, ~:'' ありがとうございました。 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I also like the initial effect, however... why is 50% of the space uneditable? seems contrary to sense, can't find any excuse for the obligatory large picture with 4 choices, please remove, optionally of course ~: the directory could also be editable, with a minimise and reset if desirable. why is radio not editable? the minimised buttons could be links, no... keyboard navigation isn't exactly intuitive, but does it work at all? the link order is weird in any case... with each area minimised, I tabbed to 'open' sport, hit enter, it opens, which is excellent, but then how can I tab through the links displayed? a huge congratulations on a significant benchmark. kind regards Jonathan Chetwynd Accessibility Consultant on Media Literacy and the Internet On 17 Dec 2007, at 17:37, Christopher Woods wrote: Wow, what a great job! First impressions are fantastic - clean, easy on the eye, very nice purple colour scheme and I very much like the rollover effects (the customisation aspect is nice, too). I'm glad to see that the clock has finally made a comeback - I remember a discussion about that a while ago (I think it was on here, wasn't it?) when the Flash-based BBC clocks were discussed, and someone at the beeb asked if they could use them for a forthcoming BBC project or something like that? I can't be bothered to go looking through my archives now to verify my poor memory, but nevertheless good job to all involved! The only things that need sorting are the slightly chubby 'headers' for the hideable sections, make them a little less tall, 10-15px less would do it I think. Also, no mouseover effects for the four showcase buttons underneath the main image? Ooo, love the effects when you customise stuff... All the swishing and swooping and modal dialogs when you set your location and BBC News version - I'm such a mug for a bit of web 2 goodness sometimes! I'm wondering how it degrades in older browsers though... Trying it on my WinMo 5 phone, at least it renders as a full single column by default in Pocket IE - LOADs of scrolling through images and layout stuff, but at least all the content is easily readable. None of the edit links work for customising the widgets, I'm guessing (hoping) a mobile-friendly version of the BBC homepage is coming soon - I'd be sorely tempted to change my homepage to the BBC frontpage for my phone if a 3G-, QVGA-friendly version was designed. Looking good for starters though! I don't know if there's anyone at the Beeb who is involved (or knows someone who's involved) in the frontpage redesign, but it's looking very promising and I'm quite pleased. I love the return of the clock, promise me that'll never go! :D - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ * To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to http://www.hull.ac.uk/legal/email_disclaimer.html *
RE: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage
There was a great Adam Curtis piece about this on Charlie Brooker's Screenwipe on BBC4 a couple of weeks back. And then it cropped up again during the Register's Beeb Week series of articles. Curtis's reasoning about the presents and future role of both journalists and citizen journalists (always sounds rather French Revolutionary to me, that) was a very interesting read and articulated a number of things I'd been thinking of for a while. Didn't agree with everything, but then wouldn't it be dull if you did? === From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Lockwood Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 12:12 PM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage It was only one idea, I'm sure that there are others. who knows, one of them might even including resurrecting the noble art of journalism as a public service rather than to make money. So can you give us any indication of when the technologists will have completed the prototype of the journalist that doesn't need food or shelter? Apparently it's already with us. It's called a 'blogger. Can't generally write for toffee, doesn't check facts, confuses opinion with truth, is credulous as hell, and has nothing worth saying, but hey - if you want everything for free... ;-) Cheers, Rich. * To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to http://www.hull.ac.uk/legal/email_disclaimer.html *
RE: [backstage] An interview with Mark Taylor, Pres. of UK Open Source Consortium
For a given value of popular of course. There are many open source projects which are extremely popular in their own contexts. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 8:34 AM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] An interview with Mark Taylor, Pres. of UK Open Source Consortium David, my apologies as it seems that once again my comments lack some clarity. where are the easy-to-use tools? Ubuntu and Gnome are hardly mainstream... the most significant issue is that no open source project outside possibly wikipedia is truly popular. NB wikipedia is not an application or tool. My concern is that because the process does not include users, it is difficult for their needs to be met. regards Jonathan Chetwynd Accessibility Consultant on Media Literacy and the Internet in many cases developers: have little or no understanding of a 'public' audience. actively refrain from user testing. These two points can be summarised as open-source developers don't care about usability. And this demonstrably isn't true. Different tools are designed for different audiences; emacs, for example, is intended to be usable by developers - and it is. Similarly, Ubuntu, GNOME and other systems that _are_ intended for regular end-users have clearly seen a great deal of usability testing. encourage feature creep Do you have any evidence that you can port to to demonstrate this? design to impress their peers You say this as if this is a bad thing! in some sense consumerism at least gives the end user some authority. To a degree, but it heavily depends on there being a free market with a number of competing alternatives. I'm not an economist, but it appears that, in computing, free markets generally cannot form if the interfaces used for data interchange are closed and/or proprietary; in such markets, one provider will eventually tend to dominate all of the others. For example: Operating systems: MS Windows tends to dominate (because nothing else can run Windows applications, as the ABIs/APIs are myriad and not fully documented); Office productivity suites: MS Office tends to dominate (because nothing else can read/write the proprietary file formats that Office uses.) To contrast: Web browsers: There are many web-browsers: Seamonkey, Firefox, Internet Explorer, Safari, Konqueror, Galeon, Lynx etc. (because the interfaces that such applications must support are well-documented.) Web servers: lighttpd, Apache, Nginx, IIS etc. (because the interfaces that such servers must support are well-documented.) .. and so forth. If there is a free market, then the consumer has influence. Note that in the case of the BBC iPlayer and other similar services from other broadcasters, the interfaces are not fully documented - and this is considered a feature! as you may know, the web specifications created by W3C are far more potent than the mere iplayer. I don't think I understand - how (and why?) are you comparing the W3C interface specifications and guidelines, which exist to ensure interoperability between different implementations, and the BBC's iPlayer, which is just one application? The issues are similar though there are more companies and corporations engaged in the project Than which project? The W3C? There have certainly been many more companies and corporations involved in the W3C specification development process than that of the iPlayer! Cheers, David -- David McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] Department of Computing, Imperial College, London - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ * To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to http://www.hull.ac.uk/legal/email_disclaimer.html *
RE: [backstage] iPhone SDK news
Which, oddly I find works better on Gran Paradiso alpha 4 than it does on Safari (both on Windows XP). The latter manages to mangle the text in the lists as soon as graphics get loaded. Nice app though, and nice use of canvas for something vaguely useful From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Simon Cross Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 10:54 AM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] iPhone SDK news Finally we might be able to do things propery! We've been working on a podcast browser for iPhone which is in alpha at the moment http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/podcasts/directory/iphone/ -- note: requires Safari to view, or an iphone/touch obviously! S _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin Deutsch Sent: 17 October 2007 17:36 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] iPhone SDK news I'd say that Apple have a good track record of releasing things, generally when they say they will. The only major product I can recall not seeing the light of day was Copland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copland_%2528operating_system%2529 , over 10 years ago. - martin On 10/17/07, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 17/10/2007, Adam Lindsay [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.apple.com/hotnews/ Native third party applications on the iPhone (and iPod touch) will be enabled via an SDK as of February 2008. There's a name for that .. vapourware - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/ discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html . Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv http://www.ukfree.tv/ * To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to http://www.hull.ac.uk/legal/email_disclaimer.html *
RE: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Phil Gyford Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 10:01 AM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee On 10/8/07, Gavin Montague [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: However, I'll stand by my bitch/point about the beeb at dconstruct. The general consensus amongst the people I spoke to was that the BBC wasn't relevant to them as developers. As consumers, yes, but as developers, no. Why *should* the BBC be relevant to them as developers? Were they also complaining about all the other large media organisations that weren't relevant to them as developers? Yes, I'm being a bit of a devil's advocate, but I'm also genuinely (if possibly naively) wondering about these questions. Is it just part of the way everyone in the UK feels the BBC should be more relevant to their individual needs because they pay for it directly (rather than indirectly) and developers are no different? Or is there a reason why the BBC should be providing tools for developers to do stuff more than all other UK media organisations do? Part of me wonders whether the BBC should get on with making good content, telling stories, (whether on- or offline) and stop attempting to be an internet startup. I think that's part of the answer: the content. As the national broadcaster of record, the BBC has the largest pool of content available in this country (and probably many others). In some sense this content 'belongs' to us, even if only as a component of shared culture or cultures. Part of the BBC's responsibility is to make that content available to those it belongs to. If that includes tools for developers to access and aggregate that content to be able to re-present it, then that is what they should provide. The BBC is, for better or worse, in this country subject to different rules and constraints to other broadcasters (though Channel 4 shares - or at least should share - some of the same ethos) because of its place in national culture and its public funding. * To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to http://www.hull.ac.uk/legal/email_disclaimer.html *
RE: [backstage] O2 wins Apple iPhone deal - at a hefty price
They're nuts to pay that much. Apple are nuts to try to control it. Clearly not, seeing as both they've both done it: demand for the iPhone is likely to be fairly strong and both think it may be proitable, at least in the short to medium term. It may not work as a long term model, but nuts? No. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nic Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 3:26 PM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] O2 wins Apple iPhone deal - at a hefty price Ian Forrester [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/sep/17/mobilephones.apple In the light of the amount of unlocking or hacking going on. Don't you think the rest were actually quite lucky to have not got into this deal with Apple? They're nuts to pay that much. Apple are nuts to try to control it. http://openmoko.org forever. -- Nic Ferrier http://prooveme.com - easy, simple, certificated OpenID - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ * To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to http://www.hull.ac.uk/legal/email_disclaimer.html *
RE: [backstage] Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 13:46:04 +0100
_ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ian Forrester Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 4:51 PM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 13:46:04 +0100 But let me ask a question to the list (those at barcampbrighton know what I'm going to ask) I'm not exclusively a Mac user, I have to say at this point, but I do spend a significant amount of my time on them. Q1. How many of you Mac users have Quicksilver installed? I did for a while, but not any longer. I removed it. But then, I don't use spotlight all that much either. I also have Desktop Manager installed (comes from being a Linux and X user, you see). wondered just why it took Apple so long to implement virtual desktopping Q2. How many of you Mac users have a iPod and use iTunes? Yes, but I use iTunes with Windows and my iPod too and move between them Q3. How many of you Mac users have change the dock position? Yes, my favourite position is on the left side. This may change in 10.5 though. Look out for a blog entry soon, Ian _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Simon Cobb Sent: 14 September 2007 09:45 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 13:46:04 +0100 I am that closes thumb an forefinger to indicate atomic size interested in apple products because I think they dictate how a user can use their product far too much and marrying the iphone to a single network is typical of this arrogance (yes I know it's been hacked open so hopefully the hacks will become more accessible so that everyone can benefit except the poor network) Basically I see apple as the opposite of what this list is about: use our stuff to build your stuff. The very idea. Jobs would hate that you thought apple product could be improved. Am I wrong? * To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to http://www.hull.ac.uk/legal/email_disclaimer.html *
RE: [backstage] data streaming into video
Um, We've taught SMIL in previous years and are moving a way from it for several reasons. While the language itself is actually quite nice at the abstract level, but tool support is most charitably described as patchy, more accurately as awful. The major problem we ran into was that of negotiating the minefield of file formats and media types, as well as dealing with proprietary extensions (realText anyone?) that didn't port well. What worked on RealPlayer would reguarly barf on QuickTime and vice versa. Of course, some of this was because we were doing the work offline and not in a full streaming environment (lots of reasons, mostly configuration and cost), where some of the file problems were less vexing. I still think it's a shame because it is quite a nice language and it's still useful because it is, as far as I'm still aware, still the major basis for MMS. === Darren Stephens MBCS CITP School of Arts and New Media University of Hull Scarborough Campus www : http://www.hull.ac.uk/ email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel : +44 1723 357360 === -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dogsbody Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 6:09 PM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] data streaming into video what do you think? i'm not much up on these things apart from what i read here, so if it's already done/unworkable/crazy/annoying then apologies! Check out SMIL a fantastically underused mark up language that allows you to create layers of video/images/text. And supported by most of the standard media players. Just my 0.02 GBP Dan - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ * To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to http://www.hull.ac.uk/legal/email_disclaimer.html *
RE: [backstage] From Private Eye - BBC Shock!
But as the Homeopathic League know, watering down the research just makes it even more potent ;-) * To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to http://www.hull.ac.uk/legal/email_disclaimer.html *
RE: [backstage] Links to video/audio for specific shows
OR I'd go for something much more interesting. Given that Wikipedia has pages on most of these artists and that-by its nature-it has to have a separate page for each one of them, then you can view that as a well maintained centralised controlled vocabulary. I'd probably go with using their URLs as some kind of identifier and perhaps even translating their URL conventions locally. Having said htat, they don't have any of the three artists called 'Bliss' so maybe that wouldn't work. Hmm, such a setup would very much depend upon how critical/commercially sensitive a project might be. to place it at the mercy of a fairly unregulated and somewhat haphazard classification schema might be seen as a bit risky. Let's be honest, as nice and useful as Wikipedia might be, I certainly wouldn't create an app that needed any kind of long term stability in classification with it. But maybe that's just me being a sad anal sort of chap If we're talking sematic applications, it might actually be good for an organisation like the BBC (and partner broadcasters to actually sit down and work out some standard ontologies to make it easy for heavy duty (RDF-heavy) applications talk nicely to each other. It may even have some applications in more lightweight formats as it would give developers some clues as to what particular parts of the data streams actually do. This does seem to be a big stumbling block with semantic applications: having ambiguity of terminology across applications. For example, consider a Tx time: a single ontology could specify whether this meant a first transmission or just the latest, whether a timezone is optional or required and so on. And applications could both parse and transform data knowing that this was the case, not guessing. Should this be a longer term strategic goal for the BBC: trying to work with others to try to create content that is as universally usable and transformable as possible? I've just read this back and if it sounds a bit po-faced and pompous, sorry, wasn't meant to be. === Darren Stephens MBCS CITP School of Arts and New Media University of Hull Scarborough Campus www : http://www.hull.ac.uk/ email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] ===* To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to http://www.hull.ac.uk/legal/email_disclaimer.html *
RE: [backstage] Links to video/audio for specific shows
Don't get me wrong, for the right apps wikipedia is just great and gives you a great resource to work with. And it's true that in some cases if you DON'T use Wikipedia as a Web-native classification engine in your application, then you are missing a trick. Just not always. It's just that the whole 'URI per distinct Concept?' doesn't sit well with me really. A colleague of mine has been doing some research about contextual searching of just this sort on large sets (specifically very sizeable chunks - gigabytes - of wikipedia) and he is running into issues of contextual ambiguity. Not necessarily major, but they are still there, making sure that he can't sometime tell how closely related things might be because he can't satisfactorily disambiguate them. I'm just not sure that for some things, it's quite robust enough. But that's ok. Tying wikipedia to your apps has a place. Stuff like Freebase, DBPedia and even areas such as Semantic wikpedia and Semantic Mediawiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Semantic_Wikipedia definitely have a place too. But I do still still hold that in some cases, large organisations (like Auntie) have to drive some of this forward to 'guarantee' (as far as one can) a relatively speedy critical mass to tip such things into the mass marketplace, or at least to be used by it. but if you wait around for some ontology/URI set with notionally more long term stability, I fear that you'll never ship your app?. True enough, unless of course there is a sound commerical reason for having it. And that's where having a big fish in the pond to chivvy things along can help. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Sizemore Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 2:01 PM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Cc: Matthew Wood Subject: RE: [backstage] Links to video/audio for specific shows I agree with tom coates on this one: if you DON'T use Wikipedia as a Web-native classification engine in your application, then you are missing a trick, because it proves intensely useful! one URI per distinct Concept? use those as subjects and objects in your RDF... talk about evidence for document categorisation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Training_set)... and it's available now! but if you wait around for some ontology/URI set with notionally more long term stability, I fear that you'll never ship your app? wikipedia is useful NOW, and it's the best we've got in that everybody-can-point-to-these-URIs-for-Concepts space... I suggest we use Wikipedia as our starting point, then build some standard ontologies to make it easy for heavy duty (RDF-heavy) applications talk nicely to each other on top of it... hey, wait! that sounds a lot like Freebase (http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/03/freebase_will_p_1.h tml) and dbpedia (http://dbpedia.org/docs/), both of which bootstrap raw Wikipedia content as building blocks of much more sophisticated ontological apps... oh, and you can download entire copies of Wikipedia and thus freeze them and use them forever, so I'm not sure long term stability is that much of an issue? hmmm... BBC = stable, and forever... Wikipedia = fly-by-night, temporary... guess time will tell, won't it? ;-) (my bet is on the one with the best URLs, frankly...) best-- --cs -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Darren Stephens Sent: 17 July 2007 12:01 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Links to video/audio for specific shows OR I'd go for something much more interesting. Given that Wikipedia has pages on most of these artists and that-by its nature-it has to have a separate page for each one of them, then you can view that as a well maintained centralised controlled vocabulary. I'd probably go with using their URLs as some kind of identifier and perhaps even translating their URL conventions locally. Having said htat, they don't have any of the three artists called 'Bliss' so maybe that wouldn't work. Hmm, such a setup would very much depend upon how critical/commercially sensitive a project might be. to place it at the mercy of a fairly unregulated and somewhat haphazard classification schema might be seen as a bit risky. Let's be honest, as nice and useful as Wikipedia might be, I certainly wouldn't create an app that needed any kind of long term stability in classification with it. But maybe that's just me being a sad anal sort of chap If we're talking sematic applications, it might actually be good for an organisation like the BBC (and partner broadcasters to actually sit down and work out some standard ontologies to make it easy for heavy duty (RDF-heavy) applications talk nicely to each other. It may even have some applications in more lightweight formats as it would give developers some clues as to what
RE: [backstage] Links to video/audio for specific shows
Now, I might have this wrong - but you're suggesting that there should be a standard way of... describing data suggested by the BBC, so that all systems structure their data in the same way? Not quite. There should be one or more standards for appropriate applications suggested by a wider community (broadcasters - of which the BBC is but one) so that all systems structure their data in a way that is able to be widely understood. For example, agreeing a common ontology for programme/schedule data. The partners don't even have to publish the data in the same formats, just agree the ontologies and data formats to allow apps to do transforms and comparisons more easily between sets of data. That's more what I'm getting it. Call me a dreamer... I think the BBC has given up trying to do that even internally, and instead relies on being able to map piece of data A in system X on to piece of data B in systemY, and be reasonably sure they're the same thing. Isn't that what an ontology is supposed to do? If so, why not just write it down? But yes, I understand why even the simplest thing might turn into a major nightmare. I really get the feeling that 95% accurate mappings between different ways of describing stuff is the best we can hope for. The suggestion of gentle harmonisation is preferable to 'having to do it X way always or else' in any big organisation. And, in fact, any system involving fallible meatbags doing data entry. This is coloured by having spent some time up to my elbows in SMEF and datamodelling at the BBC, and also by trying to persuade editorial teams to enter their HTML metadata vaguely consistently. http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/smef/ I agree, the problems of the real world do get in the way, and stuff needs to get done. The only thing is that, great though mashups are, they tend to be incredibly ad hoc, so when the slightest thing changes, lots of developers pipe up aying things like, oh look my feed aggregator or somesuch has just died a death because they've changed the feed format. Some things never change, do they?* To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to http://www.hull.ac.uk/legal/email_disclaimer.html *
