Re: [backstage] Web2.0 - tennets, rules, development philosophy...I'd love you to give us some feedback
Title: Re: [backstage] Web2.0 - tennets, rules, development philosophy...I'd love you to give us some feedback Kim, I was sitting in a meeting at Microsoft a few months ago when someone from Redmond used the BBCs site to explain RSS to a bunch of other Microsoft people that page is the world standard What is RSS page, you should be proud. Theres a new platform of technologies from Microsoft which the BBC are involved with thats my idea of where things are going. Theres a Windows Media video here: http://sessions.mix06.com/view.asp?pid=KYN001 Theres also a really slick AMG demo going to come out soon which really shows the power of the system. The same could be said of some of the Flex based applications out there. I think of it like this: - I have a media centre PC here its my main TV in the home too but I still channel hop I browse, clicking around, I dont search even though I can I only search on the web because I dont have a choice at the moment. Like I hate the way if you search on news.bbc.co.uk it searches bbc.co.uk first, then you have to get it to change modes to just search the news site (never used to) search irritates me :-) Phil. On 18/7/06 11:41, Kim Plowright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Crikey! Hello Phil, and nice to see you decloak (as it is to hear from all of these new names, by the way) Those are lovely explanations, thank you. (incidentally, i'm glad people like the news description of RSS - i helped 'de jargon' it a while ago!) I'm interested in your final points though: Rich Media and Content will become the display mechanism of choice. Content (Text) will still be one of the most important aspects of the web, but it will be integrated very closely with audio and video. Interlinking of content between sites will become more important. Search is not the future ;-) S. More A/V, more tightly integrated. Can you point to any sites that are beginning to work in this new way - are you referring to the youtube type stuff, or something more CDRom1996ish, where you have a more involved interface? Also... why is search not the future? that's an interesting statement that must have some thinking behind it... k -- received to: andyb.com Message ID : occ36626196a3421f90ad05606aee22b9.pro Sender ID : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Msg Size : 5k Thisemailandanyfilestransmittedwithitareconfidentialand intendedsolelyfortheuseoftheindividualorentitytowhomtheyare addressed. Ifyouhavereceivedthisemailinerrorpleasenotifytheoriginatorof themessage.Thisfooteralsoconfirmsthatthisemailmessagehasbeen scannedforthepresenceofcomputerviruses,thoughitisnot guaranteedvirusfree. OriginalRecipient:backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk OriginalSender:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OriginalSendDate:19/07/2006-12:23:46
Re: [backstage] Web2.0 - tennets, rules, development philosophy...I'd love you to give us some feedback
Title: Re: [backstage] Web2.0 - tennets, rules, development philosophy...I'd love you to give us some feedback Hi all, This is my first post to the list but I have enjoyed this thread so wanted to contribute. Im an ASP.NET developer and Im heavily involved with the Microsoft Development community (and Im writing this on a Mac just to prove Im not some heathen ;)) I think before going any clearer its important to break down the jargon and define what each chunk of terminology means when I talk about it: - What is AJAX? This is a browser only technology, in that its only available in browsers. AJAX as a term encompasses hundreds of different AJAX frameworks that are all designed to communicate with remote servers behind the scenes using _javascript_ (hell or even _vbscript_ if youre a bit weird) and the Xml Http Request components which ship with most modern browsers. The technology which enables this is nothing new, however the mass market usage of it is Google popularized it however its been around for some time, the Microsoft Outlook Web Access application is a prime example of a complete AJAX implementation of Outlook. Third parties are starting to produce their own AJAX toolkits which can be used with their web site or services such as the Google Maps API. AJAX overcomes the following issues and problems: - Users can have real time feedback on what theyre doing they dont have to manually post data back to the server to check if its right. Users dont have to manually save items, the client side can do this for them (in a similar way to most desktop applications with a background save. Rich interactivity with access to back end data stores can be easily achieved (think Google Maps) AJAX cases some more issues and problems: - Its browser dependant there are vague standards but each browser is different. AJAX functionality 99% of the time will only work when a user is online and has a high(er) speed connection Its new and scary, users are used to the white flicker as the page posts back, and theyre used to waiting when things happen quickly some users dont believe its finished. AJAX functionality is incredibly difficult to harness on external sites without full programmatic APIs and sets of web services being exposed. Not all browsers support the functionality and those that do support it to varying levels. What are Web Services (With SOAP) A Web Service is a standard way of interfacing with something else, think about a three pin plug that we use here in the UK we know its a three pin plug not one of the scary Continental jobbys, we know we can use it to connect to our shiny Macs and PCs to the power supply. The power socket Web Service advertises what kind of interface it has by the holes on the socket and the configuration of those holes, we know if we want to plug something into it we need to find a corresponding plug. In the Web world, these services are used to expose information in a standard and repeatable format, for example, I can query the Amazon web services and (if theyre working which is a minor miracle in its self) pass it an ISBN and it will return me all the information about the book in a standard format. A BBC web service might take a program name in such as Walking with Dinosaurs and return to me a list of times and on which channels the program airs. The thing that makes web services really cool is that on demand I can lookup information about something from my own applications and then combine that information with my own. Web Services overcomes the following problems and issues: - Data is advertised in a format that can be reused by other applications meaning the data has much more reach than it ever had. Developers can combine their own data with the remote information stored in someone else's system to bring a much more meaningful set of information to users. Web Services can be continually updated added more and more methods to them so that more information can be retrieved. They bridge the gap between programming languages a Microsoft Server can talk to an IBM server quite easily. Web Services cause the following problems and issues: - You have to be a developer to use them because theyre programmatic access into remote systems. Web Services only work when the systems are online. There are different standards and implementations of portions of Web Services which can cause issues between developers at both ends. What is RSS The BBC does a great job of describing RSS already: - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/help/3223484.stm RSS Feeds are similar to web services in the problems and issues they raise, however theyre becoming more and more integrated into browsers and e-mail applications so much so that Id say the technical gap that used to exist for RSS is being bridged very quickly. RSS can be used by both Developers to consume remote data and by users to subscribe to feeds of information. Whats User
Re: [backstage] Web2.0 - tennets, rules, development philosophy... I'd love you to give us some feedback
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006, Matthew Somerville wrote: [...] Amazon launched their web services in 2002, and I remember mash-ups being created back then - e.g. Amazon Light. I was mashing up Gopher interfaces mining into our text based BLS OPAC at the University back in 92/93. Is that too old skool? :-) Jim'll - 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] Web2.0 - tennets, rules, development philosophy... I'd love you to give us some feedback
Daniel Morris wrote: Firstly, the list seems fairly comprehensive and easy to read. Secondly, apologies if there are obvious answers to this email, i'm new... How come REST API gets mentioned, but ajax doesn't? I know ajax is an overused buzzword at the moment, but it is unavoidably crucial to the web2.0 push. Specifically in closing the gap with desktop applications in terms of application richness / responsiveness. Also, although APIs and services are mentioned, perhaps this could be accented more? The move to a service-layer based world can be a substancial paradigm shift. -dan AJAX is a language/technology not an API - HTML doesn't get mentioned either, its still a safe bet that it will be of relevance to web2.0. - 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] Web2.0 - tennets, rules, development philosophy... I'd love you to give us some feedback
At 09:10 +0100 17/7/06, Daniel Morris wrote: Hi, Client Side Technologies used appropriately e.g.. Flash elements on pages, not flash pages Flash content should be sub-addressable? Also, tables for tabular data. I'll try and come up with more suggestions later :-) -dan AJAX for AJAX pages? Gordo -- Think Feynman/ http://pobox.com/~gordo/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]/// - 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] Web2.0 - tennets, rules, development philosophy... I'd love you to give us some feedback
REST is a collection of architectural principles [1] rather than a language itself, however APIs still exist for it. There are plenty of AJAX APIs out there. [2] One of the primary purposes of an API is to describe how computer applications and software developers may access a set of (usually third party) functions (for example, within a library) without requiring access to the source code of the functions or library, or requiring a detailed understanding or the functions' internal workings. [3] AJAX isn't a language, it's a technology as you've said, which can be implemented in a number of different ways. APIs can be for accessing internal libraries/functionality as well as for third-party usage. -dan [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representational_State_Transfer [2] http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ajax+api [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/API -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Luke Dicken Sent: 17 July 2006 10:57 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Web2.0 - tennets, rules, development philosophy... I'd love you to give us some feedback AJAX is a language/technology not an API - HTML doesn't get mentioned either, its still a safe bet that it will be of relevance to web2.0. - 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] Web2.0 - tennets, rules, development philosophy... I'd love you to give us some feedback
Phil Whelan wrote: Web 2.0 for me is the movement of the web from something you read to something you participate in, and the new web-communities helping to build sites with which they have an interest. This is enabled by new technologies such as blogs, readers leaving comments, voting, mash-ups of web-services, video upload, wiki's, and tagging. new technologies? Blogs (including online diaries) that you can leave comments on have been around since 1998; RSS 1999. Wikipedia launched in 2001. XMLHTTP was invented by Microsoft for Outlook Web Access 2000. eBay launched its API in November 2000, Amazon launched their web services in 2002, and I remember mash-ups being created back then - e.g. Amazon Light. So this second (perhaps more, who knows, my memory's not great either :) ) wave, or whatever you want to call it, isn't exactly new technology, it's just http://www.eod.com/devil/archive/web_20.html AJAX is a technology associated closely with Web 2.0, but is just a way to make the interaction more seamless by reloading parts of a web page instead of whole webpages. This way you get a feel you're interacting with the website, instead of manually submitting changes. Or you find that (not with all sites by any means, but a fair few) your back button stops working, or it just plain doesn't work... http://www.eod.com/devil/archive/ajax.html Anything that depends on a community for it's content and success, for me, is Web 2.0. I'll let my local orchestra know. ;-) Examples, digg.com, So why that, and not slashdot? Slashdot has user submitted stories, sophisticated comments, and so on. It even has rounded corners! -- ATB, Matthew - 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] Web2.0 - tennets, rules, development philosophy... I'd love you to give us some feedback
Listening to a podcast last week, Gillmor Daily, here the argument being advanced was that web 2.0 was a fairly misleading term and one to avoid. It was argued that the real change occured around 2001 with XML and more recently RSS. The community argument doesn't ring true for me, though I wish it was true. AJAX=more interaction=community, don't think so.For me the breakthrough sites have been ebay and amazon, less community, more consumption and exchange, little person shall talk to little person. To the friendship of the little people, rather than the english speaking people.Richard
Re: [backstage] Web2.0 - tennets, rules, development philosophy... I'd love you to give us some feedback
Kim Plowright wrote: I'd be really interested to hear what everyone here thinks. Am I missing things? It reads like a very good list, certainly... of what I'd expect *any* website to do! :-) Perhaps it's just me and the whole Web2.0 blah, but certainly anything in the Code section (apart from maybe Common Engines) and Content, Design, and Process sections, and much of User Science and Culture, should theoretically have applied to any website for quite some time now. If you just called it Rules of the Road for BBC websites, I'd actually prefer it, but I understand that the BBC needs a brand. ;) Couple of minor highlights: * URIs to ideally be under 72 characters This is *very* important; speaking as someone who's responsible for many thousands of emails to be sent out every day, it's very important that URLs try to be small enough so that some mail clients don't break them, and then you have to deal with the emails from people who don't understand what's happened. Truncating a URL takes you to a valid destination I do like this one, too. Nothing is more annoying when viewing a (iirc) Blogger blog entry, cutting off the end of the URL (very easy in Opera, with Mouse Gesture Up-Left) and getting a Not Found/Forbidden page, when from the URL it should obviously be giving me all the posts from that month. I always make sure when I write something that every upwards index does something useful. o Remember that you are not your audience; not everyone spends all day in front of the internets (!) -- ATB,| http://www.theyworkforyou.com/ http://www.dracos.co.uk/ Matthew | http://www.writetothem.com/ http://www.pledgebank.com/ - 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] Web2.0 - tennets, rules, development philosophy... I'd love you to give us some feedback
Kim Lots of good stuff in there. On 14 Jul 2006, at 17:08, Kim Plowright wrote: Common Engines APIs * REST for Quick, light and elegant 1 SOAP for the heavy corporate lifting Maybe I'm reading more into this than you meant to imply but I think it's a mistake to assume that REST can't scale and that SOAP is required for 'serious' work. Arguably REST scales _better_ than SOAP. User Science IA * Nimble Data and Information * Open Standards * Every list as RSS OK so far. 1 Every page as RDF 2 Every relationship as FOAF I'd have to disagree with the 'every' for these two. I'm sure you've already read Tom Coates' presentation 'Native to a Web of Data' [1] (given at this year's ETech, Web 2.0 Summit and XTech inter alia), but it might be worth revisiting it, especially: 'Architectural principles' [2], 'Three core types of page' [3] and 'Parallel data representations' [4]. [1] http://www.plasticbag.org/archives/2006/02/ my_future_of_web_apps_slides.shtml [2] http://www.plasticbag.org/files/native/native_files/native. 058-001.png [3] http://www.plasticbag.org/files/native/native_files/native. 050-003.png [4] http://www.plasticbag.org/files/native/native_files/native. 054-002.png -- petef - 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] Web2.0 - tennets, rules, development philosophy... I'd love you to give us some feedback
Matthew Somerville wrote: new technologies? Blogs (including online diaries) that you can leave comments on have been around since 1998; RSS 1999. Wikipedia launched in 2001. XMLHTTP was invented by Microsoft for Outlook Web Access 2000. eBay launched its API in November 2000, Amazon launched their web services in 2002, and I remember mash-ups being created back then - e.g. Amazon Light. So this second (perhaps more, who knows, my memory's not great either :) ) wave, or whatever you want to call it, isn't exactly new technology, it's just http://www.eod.com/devil/archive/web_20.html Yes, Web 2.0 is just a cheesey marketing phrase at the end of the day. And as much as I hate it, I do think it does help to mark a milestone in the way the web is being used now, how it has changed, and the direction it's heading. True, none of these's technologies are new. They did not appear on the same morning Web 2.0 was dreamt up. But I think they have definately become more main stream in recent times, and understood by a wider audience of non-techies. Or you find that (not with all sites by any means, but a fair few) your back button stops working, or it just plain doesn't work... http://www.eod.com/devil/archive/ajax.html Use of AJAX should be like any other - if it's not supported by the users browser it should fall back to a supported technology, and if it breaks things, then it should not be used. Examples, digg.com, So why that, and not slashdot? Slashdot has user submitted stories, sophisticated comments, and so on. It even has rounded corners! Sorry, I just like digg. I think it's because of their heavy use of AJAX ;) Phil - 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] Web2.0 - tennets, rules, development philosophy... I'd love you to give us some feedback
At 11:49 +0100 17/7/06, Richard Hyett wrote: Listening to a podcast last week, Gillmor Daily, here the argument being advanced was that web 2.0 was a fairly misleading term and one to avoid. It was argued that the real change occured around 2001 with XML and more recently RSS. The community argument doesn't ring true for me, though I wish it was true. AJAX=more interaction=community, don't think so. For me the breakthrough sites have been ebay and amazon, less community, more consumption and exchange, little person shall talk to little person. To the friendship of the little people, rather than the english speaking people. Richard Wikipedia (to mention one project) is very multilingual, both in the interface and the content. You can read the French Wikipedia with Japanese navigation and headings, and the Greek Wikipedia with Flemish navigation. I guess we are all content providers is very Web 2.0 (in 2006) but if like me you started in 1993 writing pages for the departmental webpages (in my case UCL CS), then the difference is rather vacuous. Ten years before that I writing for Google Groups, for example net.ai http://www.ntk.net/index.cgi?b=02002-01-11l=54#l More useful posts to gnu.gcc and comp.emacs followed.. Nation shall blog peace unto nation perhaps? Gordo -- Think Feynman/ http://pobox.com/~gordo/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]/// - 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] Web2.0 - tennets, rules, development philosophy... I'd love you to give us some feedback
OK - so, the summary API/Ajax thoughts... APIs - are good. We love APIs. - They give as much benefit within an organisation - (linking up internal systems) as they do when publically exposed (mashups) - There are different flavours of API, and the right API should be used for the job; always use the appropriate technology, (whilst ensuring you can migrate to a newer more appropriate technology further down the line??) - APIs are the foundations of the shift to a 'service layer based world' (anyone want to expand on that concept? It's a nice one...) AJAX - Is currently the best way to build responsive, in-browser application like experiences for performing actions on data* - AJAX is more than just a scripting language; it too can be the 'appropriate technology' for an API - AJAX should be used when a site needs a responsive interface whilst being mindful of graceful experience decay - It's not magic web pixie dust - you need to design your interface for your intended audience. Our current design patterns serve a niche. - Is - generally speaking - operating at a layer above the API, providing the tools for the user to manipulate the data the API offers up (this one will get me shouted at, I think?) HTML - At the root of everything, standards compliant, with presentation separate from content. *I'm thinking, something along the lines of Ajax for what ajax does well... Namely thing X, and flash for what flash does well, namely thing Y. For values of Y approaching 'nice animation, games, interactive entertainment', and X approaching 'operations on XML, dynamic sites and databasey stuff...' But I kind of hit my technical limit in describing X. Anyone? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Luke Dicken Sent: 17 July 2006 10:57 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Web2.0 - tennets, rules, development philosophy... I'd love you to give us some feedback Daniel Morris wrote: Firstly, the list seems fairly comprehensive and easy to read. Secondly, apologies if there are obvious answers to this email, i'm new... How come REST API gets mentioned, but ajax doesn't? I know ajax is an overused buzzword at the moment, but it is unavoidably crucial to the web2.0 push. Specifically in closing the gap with desktop applications in terms of application richness / responsiveness. Also, although APIs and services are mentioned, perhaps this could be accented more? The move to a service-layer based world can be a substancial paradigm shift. -dan AJAX is a language/technology not an API - HTML doesn't get mentioned either, its still a safe bet that it will be of relevance to web2.0. - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] Web2.0 - tennets, rules, development philosophy... I'd love you to give us some feedback
Maybe I'm reading more into this than you meant to imply but I think it's a mistake to assume that REST can't scale and that SOAP is required for 'serious' work. Arguably REST scales _better_ than SOAP. Apparently; querying Amazon using REST is 6 times faster than with SOAP [1] There are pros and cons against both [2]. Generally speaking however, the lighter weight REST does seems to chew less resources and have more standardized _built-in_ security [3]. -dan [1] http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/php/2003/10/30/amazon_rest.html [2][a] http://webservices.sys-con.com/read/79282_2.htm [b] http://res.sys-con.com/story/apr05/79282/table1.jpg [3] http://www.devx.com/DevX/Article/8155 - 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] Web2.0 - tennets, rules, development philosophy... I'd love you to give us some feedback
On 17 Jul 2006, at 14:40, Kim Plowright wrote: - AJAX is more than just a scripting language; it too can be the 'appropriate technology' for an API Umm, to a techie that's a bit confused: * Ajax isn't a scripting language, Javascript is (the 'j' in Ajax). * An 'Ajax' API doesn't really make sense, what you can and do have is a 'JSON API' - Javascript Object Notation is the format for exchanging messages via such an API. Your Ajax front end could be talking to an XML API (the 'x' in Ajax), a JSON API, an XMPP (Jabber) API or even a raw text custom API if you like. - AJAX should be used when a site needs a responsive interface whilst being mindful of graceful experience decay Yes, althopugh the more common phrase is 'graceful degradation' (or 'progressive enhancement', subtly different). - Is - generally speaking - operating at a layer above the API, providing the tools for the user to manipulate the data the API offers up (this one will get me shouted at, I think?) No, that's fair comment. -- petef - 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] Web2.0 - tennets, rules, development philosophy... I'd love you to give us some feedback
Way back in the mists of the late 20th century I attended a meeting with someone from Factual and Learning about the Digital Curriculum - at a time when it was still a thought. We suggested that it would be really useful if teachers could take the content that the BBC produced and re-arrange it to their requirements in their classroom. I suppose this would now be called creating a mash-up. Such ideas lead to difficult conversations about what is content, how can teachers mash-up that content, in what circumstances etc etc. As far as I can see Jam has not followed up on this. IMHO, the BBC should not try to conform to some definition of Web 2.0 (and what is a lightweight business model - one that is short?), the BBC should be creative and innovative with what it has got and the delivery mechanisms at its disposal. The list as presented here seems to be a list of technical things that can be done but without reference to what those technical things are being done to (content) and to what end (what/why/how is being viewed/used and by whom (the audience)). It seems to me the BBC have an aweful lot of content in an aweful lot of categories and also have an incredibly diverse audience using a variety of reception devices. What have the BBC got? Who can use BBC content? What do the BBC want to enable people to do with it? What can the BBC allow people to do with it? and from that: How do the BBC want them to do those things? For example, you might decide that you want to enable anyone to do what ever they like. You recently ran a competition for people to design a bbc home page, but only a mock up. A theoretical route you could go would be for bbc.co.uk to disappear and be replaced completely by 'services'. All those competition entries wouldn't have to be mock-ups, they could be real. Then www.bbc.co.uk might just be the BBCs own hack at putting a face on those services. iPlayer (or whatever it is called these days) could be just one of many apps putting a face on downloads/streams. Back to Jam, the BBC would become a provider of content components to all the VLEs out there (perhaps it already is). On the other hand, given all the rights issues etc etc etc the BBC may be forced to be a 'closed shop', no body can do much with much of your content other than look at it and write comments on it. Your list will produce an excellent, modern web site that elegantly degrades to the capabilities of the users device and that is developed in a well managed environment. This doesn't strike me as Web2.0, just web or in fact just TV, the box is a browser and that is all you can use to look at it and you can only look at it in the way it was 'broadcast'. If it seems I have missed the point, I was trying to address So, I have a kind of a list of philosophical tennets - ways that code and design and data and content and whatnot should behave when playing nice on the internet. The ways that code etc should behave will depend upon what you are going to allow; what content can be used to what end and by whom? Pete Cole --- On 7/14/06, Kim Plowright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all As threatened, here it is.I'm part of a project internally that is looking at what the BBC does on the web, and how that should change over the next 3 years. As part of this, Tom Loosemore, grand paterfamilias of this list, has asked me to come up with some 'rules of the road for web2 sites'. Nice tight brief there, you'll appreciate. So, I have a kind of a list of philosophical tennets - ways that code and design and data and content and whatnot should behave when playing nice on the internet. I'd be really interested to hear what everyone here thinks. Am I missing things? Obviously, I'm an editorial/management type, so some of this might be barmy. But.. What do you think? Have I missed anything vital about ways of making sites that play nicely on the web, and benefit the whole internet more than the organisation? That are, to nick a popular little motto, 'Not Evil'? I'd really appreciate the thinking of you lot here. List follows the sig.. Let me know if any of the buzzwords are incomprehensible; I've stolen the categories from http://alistapart.com/topics/ because they seemed to make sense. - 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] Web2.0 - tennets, rules, development philosophy... I'd love you to give us some feedback
This is a fantastic post, Pete, thankyou. I can't even begin to pick a lot of it appart right now (it's gone six, and I've had an afternoon of meetings). I think some of what you're reacting to - and quite rightly - is that you're only seeing one tiny part of a much bigger project, that is indeed adressing 'what we've got, and what we can allow people to do with it'. Yes, a lot of this is obfuscated by saying it's 'web2' - when in fact its just.. Stuff. Content. The internet. People. I've fallen into my own trap of using a catch all term to disguise a lot of gnarly underlying issues. In the way of gnarly issues, they're a way from being sorted yet. But we're working on it - and kind of from both ends. Hence the odd 'what makes a good website?' approach. k -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Pete Cole Sent: 17 July 2006 15:44 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Web2.0 - tennets, rules, development philosophy... I'd love you to give us some feedback Way back in the mists of the late 20th century I attended a meeting with someone from Factual and Learning about the Digital Curriculum - at a time when it was still a thought. We suggested that it would be really useful if teachers could take the content that the BBC produced and re-arrange it to their requirements in their classroom. I suppose this would now be called creating a mash-up. Such ideas lead to difficult conversations about what is content, how can teachers mash-up that content, in what circumstances etc etc. As far as I can see Jam has not followed up on this. IMHO, the BBC should not try to conform to some definition of Web 2.0 (and what is a lightweight business model - one that is short?), the BBC should be creative and innovative with what it has got and the delivery mechanisms at its disposal. The list as presented here seems to be a list of technical things that can be done but without reference to what those technical things are being done to (content) and to what end (what/why/how is being viewed/used and by whom (the audience)). It seems to me the BBC have an aweful lot of content in an aweful lot of categories and also have an incredibly diverse audience using a variety of reception devices. What have the BBC got? Who can use BBC content? What do the BBC want to enable people to do with it? What can the BBC allow people to do with it? and from that: How do the BBC want them to do those things? For example, you might decide that you want to enable anyone to do what ever they like. You recently ran a competition for people to design a bbc home page, but only a mock up. A theoretical route you could go would be for bbc.co.uk to disappear and be replaced completely by 'services'. All those competition entries wouldn't have to be mock-ups, they could be real. Then www.bbc.co.uk might just be the BBCs own hack at putting a face on those services. iPlayer (or whatever it is called these days) could be just one of many apps putting a face on downloads/streams. Back to Jam, the BBC would become a provider of content components to all the VLEs out there (perhaps it already is). On the other hand, given all the rights issues etc etc etc the BBC may be forced to be a 'closed shop', no body can do much with much of your content other than look at it and write comments on it. Your list will produce an excellent, modern web site that elegantly degrades to the capabilities of the users device and that is developed in a well managed environment. This doesn't strike me as Web2.0, just web or in fact just TV, the box is a browser and that is all you can use to look at it and you can only look at it in the way it was 'broadcast'. If it seems I have missed the point, I was trying to address So, I have a kind of a list of philosophical tennets - ways that code and design and data and content and whatnot should behave when playing nice on the internet. The ways that code etc should behave will depend upon what you are going to allow; what content can be used to what end and by whom? Pete Cole --- On 7/14/06, Kim Plowright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all As threatened, here it is.I'm part of a project internally that is looking at what the BBC does on the web, and how that should change over the next 3 years. As part of this, Tom Loosemore, grand paterfamilias of this list, has asked me to come up with some 'rules of the road for web2 sites'. Nice tight brief there, you'll appreciate. So, I have a kind of a list of philosophical tennets - ways that code and design and data and content and whatnot should behave when playing nice on the internet. I'd be really interested to hear what everyone here thinks. Am I missing things? Obviously, I'm an editorial/management type, so some of this might be barmy. But.. What do you think? Have I missed anything vital about ways of making sites
Re: [backstage] Web2.0 - tennets, rules, development philosophy... I'd love you to give us some feedback
Hi Kim, I have read all the replies, and I must say, as an outsider to the BBC and the Web2 concept... that the technical jargon in the list is overwhelming and therefore confusing to me. I respect the fact that my point of view is therefore pretty unenlightening, but it would seem that the principle is to look at web2 as some kind of organisation or club, great if you have the idea for membership, but as has been mentioned the tenet of all this technology is to further the interaction of myself, ie. Joe Public, within the internet. I think that it is very positive for the BBC to have a three year strategy ... but I would also hope that history would exclude the possibility of such a tight club like response to the increasingly complex set of technologies which allow content to be delivered via web pages to the user. The past is littered with examples of conceptual frameworks that have held the originators back, mostly corporate structures, whilst allowing other free thinkers to push ahead in various beneficial directions. I hope you appreciate, as I do, that this is my own opinion, but it may give you some balance from the outside world when you come to clarify the management of this new structure for those within the Beeb. Please remember that the users as well as the providers have a choice that is exercised whenever they use the web, and therefore all these structures have to be liquid in conception. Have fun:) Richard Edwards On Friday, July 14, 2006, at 06:20PM, Kim Plowright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Original Attached - 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] Web2.0 - tennets, rules, development philosophy... I'd love you to give us some feedback
HTML - At the root of everything, standards compliant, with presentation separate from content. HTML? You mean I to switch back from XHTML? Since when?!??! :-) Gordo -- Think Feynman/ http://pobox.com/~gordo/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]/// - 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] Web2.0 - tennets, rules, development philosophy... I'd love you to give us some feedback
Quoting Kim Plowright [EMAIL PROTECTED]: AJAX - Is currently the best way to build responsive, in-browser application like experiences for performing actions on data* - AJAX is more than just a scripting language; it too can be the 'appropriate technology' for an API Hmn. AJAX is a good excuse to have a decent API - it makes handling XMLHTTPRequests very easy. But it shouldn't be the only appropriate technology for an API. Plain HTTP GET/POST are perfectly acceptable interfaces to an API, too (and, obviously, should be implemented first). - AJAX should be used when a site needs a responsive interface whilst being mindful of graceful experience decay - It's not magic web pixie dust - you need to design your interface for your intended audience. Our current design patterns serve a niche. And you should design your interface *without it* first - the AJAX/JS should be a bit like pixie dust, in that you add it at the end of the process to make things better. You should never design interfaces that only work in AJAX - noscript alternatives could become a nightmare. - Is - generally speaking - operating at a layer above the API, providing the tools for the user to manipulate the data the API offers up (this one will get me shouted at, I think?) Not shouted at, no! It's just a muddling of ideals. AJAX is a presentation and UX tool: loading in new data without reloading the page. In order to do that, some form of back-end API helps/is necessary to abstract the process of writing code for AJAX. It's just plain old Javascript, only this time it's manipulating the DOM with data requested in the background. The big kicker for any organisation with AJAX - especially the BBC - will be the accessibility one, which is colossal. Degrading for people without Javascript isn't necessarily enough - screenreaders understand javascript, but don't necessarily alert users to changes further up the page, and as such make AJAX of little use to that sector. *I'm thinking, something along the lines of Ajax for what ajax does well... Namely thing X, and flash for what flash does well, namely thing Y. For values of Y approaching 'nice animation, games, interactive entertainment', and X approaching 'operations on XML, dynamic sites and databasey stuff...' But I kind of hit my technical limit in describing X. Anyone? I tend to say it allows you to update the page without it reloading, which makes the experience seamless and involving. You know how GMail feels like an application, and is quite fast? That's AJAX. It doesn't make anything easier/better; it just offers new patterns for interaction design. One thing it does do is a few things that would previously only have been possible in Flash. t. - 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] Web2.0 - tennets, rules, development philosophy... I'd love you to give us some feedback
Richard Lockwood wrote: I think you've hit the nail on the head Kim. Web 2.0 is buzzwords, buzzwords, and more buzzwords, but ultimately, means nothing. Services, not packaged software, with cost-effective scalability Control over unique, hard-to-recreate data sources that get richer as more people use them Trusting users as co-developers Harnessing collective intelligence Leveraging the long tail through customer self-service Software above the level of a single device Lightweight user interfaces, development models, AND business models See what I mean? Cheers, Rich. I think web2.0 is more of a mind-set than anything necessarily quantifiable. I mean, its like pornography - I'll know it when I see it! :) I mean, you can often look at a site and judge whether its web2.0 or not. Some of it is junk though. For example by some of the definitions of web2.0 I've seen, any site that implements a forum can be classes as web2.0. Which is obviously garbage. I don't think its fair to say that its all buzzwords, there is a serious paradigm shift going on, and this list is about the best summing up I've seen yet that gathers all the ideas together and puts them fairly formally (if buzzwordy :) ). I also think you can be web2.0 if you only have some of the features listed, its not a hard and fast checklist. Luke - 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/
