Re: [DDN] Google Insights - social networking
Hi Tom, Thanks for the very interesting and insightful post. I agree with most of what you wrote and will spare everyone the bandwidth of reposting that which I agree with. However, a few questions: On Tue, 2 Sep 2008, tom abeles wrote: And, therein lies one of the problems in today's world where we expect the dark to be dispersed with the flick of a switch. [...] It is also why we default to technology. It seems to me that technology by itself does not solve these problems. In fact, perhaps it creates them by creating the expectation of instant solutions that often cannot be satisfied. Does anyone believe that it is possible to fix the digital divide, or that a particular combination of tools and technologies can do so? How is it different to the Mercedes divide or the clean water divide? I have seen families emotionally torn because they want their children to learn but if they are in school they can't work and work means food on the table for the entire family. OLPC? Some folks, putting their kids to work, are committing the ultimate sacrifice of eating their seed potatoes. It is a sacrifice, but if the family dies from hunger today then the seed potatoes will go uneaten and unplanted. Life is full of compromises. What does this have to do with technology and quick fixes? The metonymic digital divide represents that mythical armamentarium equivalent to Batman's tool belt or some pharmaceutical formulary, more a mix of paliatives and placibos to avoid having to deal with the core problems facing humans ever since Adam bit into the apple of knowledge. Sorry, I don't see how labelling part of the situation as the problem (the digital divide) equates to labelling part of a situation as a solution (Batman's tool belt) except in that both labels are useful learning tools (training wheels) for understanding the situation but fail to capture the entire reality. If that was not your point, please could you explain further? Cheers, Chris. -- Aptivate | http://www.aptivate.org | Phone: +44 1223 760887 The Humanitarian Centre, Fenner's, Gresham Road, Cambridge CB1 2ES Aptivate is a not-for-profit company registered in England and Wales with company number 04980791. ___ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list DIGITALDIVIDE@digitaldivide.net http://digitaldivide.net/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message.
Re: [DDN] Google Insights - social networking
Hi Taran, On Tue, 2 Sep 2008, Taran Rampersad wrote: I'm really feeling sorry for the dead horse I've been beating, but it seems it needs to run a few more laps. Thanks, that made me laugh a lot :-) That would be mobile phone - the future of computing is being discussed on another email list I participate on with the changed context that the mobile phone brings. In essence, the PC doesn't really know it's dead yet - partly because it isn't dead *yet* and also because no one really seems to understand how the market is changing. I don't agree that the mobile phone has killed the PC. They are used for very different things. Can you see a businessman tracking his stock or calculating optimal market strategies using databases and spreadsheets on a mobile, or a student reading or writing textbooks and essays on one? We may see convergence, we may see divergence, we will certainly see adaptation to niches, but I don't believe that the mobile phone is the answer to the world's problems any more than the PC is. The mobile phone has forever changed the landscape - even gaining special mention in the UNESCO report brought out this year. If anything, the mobile phone is accidentally closing the digital divide. After all, it's ubiquitous even in nations that are pretty good at avoiding change (i.e., the developing world). It's becoming ubiquitous in nations that are bad at paying for technology, that much I agree with. Bed netting is a fact of life that many people grow up with - the true problem is *affording* it. Irrigation is a common sense use of science which varies upon application, so it doesn't translate well to the web until you can upload topography and soil type data and assure that the results are near perfect. I think that the internet is a digital analogy to irrigation. It makes other pieces of technology (fields vs computers) more effective and useful. No, maybe simply participating in discussion is the first step. Thus, the mobile phone. It is an important step, but not the first (that is the willingness to participate in discussion) or the second (that is the ability to afford to participate in discussion), and no more than an accessory to the steps that follow (that is turning discussion into action and change). The truth is that the developing world doesn't need PCs as much as it needs better mobile phones and telecommunications regulation. True, but it does need them. Importing PCs into developing nations that have no legal or other infrastructure for disposal only pollutes developing nations that need the very fertile soil that is being polluted. No, they have a useful function when used correctly. The important thing is to import working equipment and place it in situations where it can and will be used for real benefit, and sustainably. The same applies to mobile phones as well, unfortunately. But not quite in the same way, because I don't think phones are dumped on developing countries in the way that PCs are, so there is one less hidden agenda in exporting them. What we need to do, IMHO, is stop playing with the tiger's tail if we have no plans for dealing with the teeth. Is this a warning about e-waste, PCs vs mobiles, empowerment of developing countries or general feline policy? Cheers, Chris. -- Aptivate | http://www.aptivate.org | Phone: +44 1223 760887 The Humanitarian Centre, Fenner's, Gresham Road, Cambridge CB1 2ES Aptivate is a not-for-profit company registered in England and Wales with company number 04980791. ___ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list DIGITALDIVIDE@digitaldivide.net http://digitaldivide.net/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message.
Re: [DDN] Google Insights - social networking
Hi Steve, On Wed, 3 Sep 2008, Steve Eskow wrote: The divide is part of a larger situation. If technology enthusiasts haven't the patience and the skill to study and take into account the larger situation which will surround a new technology, they can do more harm than good. What techniques and tools do you find useful in studying the situation and adapting the solution to it? Cheers, Chris. -- Aptivate | http://www.aptivate.org | Phone: +44 1223 760887 The Humanitarian Centre, Fenner's, Gresham Road, Cambridge CB1 2ES Aptivate is a not-for-profit company registered in England and Wales with company number 04980791. ___ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list DIGITALDIVIDE@digitaldivide.net http://digitaldivide.net/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message.
Re: [DDN] Google Insights - social networking
Thanks for your hospitality, Taran! On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 12:16 AM, Taran Rampersad [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree, Jacky, but the problem of broadband penetration is a matter of cost and telecommunications regulation. This has been mentioned more than once at the CARICOM Internet Governance meetings, as an example - meanwhile the mobile phone subverts this by allowing voice and text communication as well as, in some cases, internet access. At the end of the day, it isn't about gadgets. It's about policy and costs. (As a subnote - good to see someone from Haiti here!) Jacky wrote: I agree with the idea that mobile phone is the latest ICT gadget; however, there is a lot that remains to be done in terms of broadband penetration. Jacky Poteau Haiti -- Taran Rampersad [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.knowprose.com http://www.your2ndplace.com http://www.opendepth.com http://www.flickr.com/photos/knowprose/ Criticize by Creating - Michelangelo The present is theirs; the future, for which I really worked, is mine. - Nikola Tesla ___ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list DIGITALDIVIDE@digitaldivide.net http://digitaldivide.net/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message. -- Jacky Poteau, MSW, MCP President, FATEM www.fatem.org Voicemail: 1-866-98-FATEM (983-2836) Skype name: jackypoteau ___ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list DIGITALDIVIDE@digitaldivide.net http://digitaldivide.net/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message.
Re: [DDN] Fwd: Web 2.0 leaves out people with disabilities
Xavier Leonard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: many web 2.0 technologies employ xml xml evolved from sgml one Charles Goldfarb's main motivations for developing sgml was to make books more accessible to people with visual disabilities. If this information is accurate, I'd be very interested in having a quotable source for this... a little more about this (very little, unfortunately) can be found in this Goldfarb bio: http://www.sgmlsource.com/press/CGbioFull.htm Alas, this document does not contain the assertion about accessibilty work being one of the driving motivations in the development of SGML. (It only mentions making more information accessible to people with reading disabilities as an _effect_ of the widespread deployment of markup languages.) Based on the interviews on the same site, I'm coming to the conclusion that while work on an SGML-based accessibility project turned out to be from Goldfarb's personal perspective the most rewarding markup project that he had ever been involved in [1], this application area was not in fact the original motivation for the development of GML and SGML. At least, when asked about the original motivations for these developments, he didn't mention accessibility aspects: In [2]: Q: Dr. Goldfarb, you led the project at IBM that invented SGML's precursor, GML. It's said that necessity is the mother of invention. What specific problem were you trying to solve? A: We were trying to do an automated law-office application. I had been a lawyer (in fact, I still am). Lawyers must do research on existing case law, decisions of court, and so on, to find out which ones are applicable to a given situation, find out what the previous legal rulings have been, and then merge that with text that the lawyer has written himself. Eventually, if it's, say, a brief for the court, [he must] then compose it and print it. At the time, which was 1969 or 1970, there weren't any systems available that did these three things. So in order to get the systems to share the data we had to come up with a way to represent it that was independent of any of those applications. In [3]: Q: How did you get started with SGML? A: After Ed Mosher and Ray Lorie and I completed our GML project, I decided to pursue some of the ideas further. I felt that a DTD could be created in a form that computers could read, and therefore be able to validate markup without actually processing the document. I proved it in 1974, so I consider that the start of SGML. Of course, it took another decade -- and hundreds of talented people -- to develop it into an International Standard. [1] http://www.sgmlsource.com/press/Losi.htm [2] http://www.sgmlsource.com/press/Floyd1.htm [3] http://www.sgmlsource.com/press/Kennedy.htm Greetings, Norbert -- Norbert Bollow [EMAIL PROTECTED] Informatics Management and Consulting for Adaptability and Benefit/Cost Optimization in Harmony with Human Rights and Needs ___ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list DIGITALDIVIDE@digitaldivide.net http://digitaldivide.net/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message.
Re: [DDN] universal design (was: Web 2.0 leaves out people..)
Hi Norbert and All Norbert, I am no way a specialist of universal design - I don't design, let alone universally - so I hope others will answer your question as to its use for fighting the discriminations you list below. Tentatively, between your items: On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 2:09 PM, Norbert Bollow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (...) Hmmm... there are also other forms of discrimination against minorities which involve closely related economic mechanisms: - discrimination against developers and users of minority computer operating systems through use of patented or otherwise restricted proprietary data formats UD probably can counter that through being in the end more attractive/competitive than these restricted formats. See MS acknowledging that ODF has won at the Red Hat Summit in June (Red Hat Summit panel: Who 'won' OOXML battle? http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/06/19/red-hat-summit-panel-who-won-ooxml-battle). Or did I misunderstand your question. - discrimination against people who for whatever reason want or need to avoid indiscriminately leaking personal information over the internet UD probably doesn't help there, as far as I can understand: thinking of the various Google offers that could be described as fitting UD definition, but bank on folks accepting to trade in part of their privacy. - discrimination against people who for whatever reason have only slow and/or expensive access to the internet, or who are only able to conveneinetly access the internet via a device with a very small screen, such as a mobile phone. (In absolute numbers, this is probably currently actually a majority, but from the perspective of many websites, this is a very small minority of their users, therefore the same economic mechanisms apply.) UD can help there, I believe: accessible sites made according to UD principles also load faster and also work better on the devices you mention - besides, Roberto Ellero, whom I mentioned as advocate of UD in my former post, lives in a part of Italy where the only internet access on a computer so far is 56 kb/s (when the wind is blowing from the right direction, adds a friend of mine who lives in a similar area, access-wise) and is still able to manage the webmultimediale.org site under these conditions ;-) Claude, is the universal design collaboration which you describe defined so generally as to also encompass these aspects of universality of design which are not directly related to disabilities It is defined far more generally than for just access for disabled people. But - see above - it does not, as far as I know, encompass the privacy issue. If yes, I think I'll probably be looking into whether there'd be some mutually beneficial way in which I could join in into that universal design alliance... and if not, I'd be interested in discussing whether it would make sense to attempt to initiate a more broadly defined alliance. Not sure about an existing single UD alliance: for the Web, there is IWA iwanet.org, but you also have architects and engineers advocating UD: see for instance Fred Tepfer, architect and planner, who works at the University of Oregon http://www.uoregon.edu/~ftepfer/index.html, whose http://www.uoregon.edu/~ftepfer/SchlFacilities/TireSwingTable.html page with the tire swing cartoon I adapted in http://www.webmultimediale.org/almansi/2008/09/il_ponte_luovo_e_il_dondolo.html. And that was Roberto Ellero's point in his video: the coming together of UD advocates both in the real world and the online world about the obstacles of Calatrava's bridge. (BTW, just as inaccessible sites are a pain for people with slow connection or handheld devices, the bridge obstacles do not only hamper people in wheelchairs, but also parents with a pram or carting things with something that has wheels). So I don't know whether such a unique general alliance between advocates of UD in all fields will come to light, but it is a good sign that in Italy, they've started collaborating. Best Claude Almansi ___ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list DIGITALDIVIDE@digitaldivide.net http://digitaldivide.net/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message.
Re: [DDN] Google Insights - social networking
Chris Wilson wrote: That would be mobile phone - the future of computing is being discussed on another email list I participate on with the changed context that the mobile phone brings. In essence, the PC doesn't really know it's dead yet - partly because it isn't dead *yet* and also because no one really seems to understand how the market is changing. I don't agree that the mobile phone has killed the PC. They are used for very different things. Can you see a businessman tracking his stock or calculating optimal market strategies using databases and spreadsheets on a mobile, or a student reading or writing textbooks and essays on one? I'd say you'll see this within the next 5 years due to the following: (1) Improved hardware. (2) Improved software. The stepping stones are video and input. But let's take stock: no one ever thought text messages would be such a big deal despite the awkward keyboard on a mobile phone. But there it is. The video and input can be solved with output jacks for monitors and keyboards. At the end of the day, mobile phones are all over. PCs are not. Mobile phones have more computing power than the first PCs right now. PCs are heavier to ship (a large factor). We may see convergence, we may see divergence, we will certainly see adaptation to niches, but I don't believe that the mobile phone is the answer to the world's problems any more than the PC is. No, the answer to the world's problems remains geopolitical despite how flat Friedman thinks the Earth is. ;-) The mobile phone has forever changed the landscape - even gaining special mention in the UNESCO report brought out this year. If anything, the mobile phone is accidentally closing the digital divide. After all, it's ubiquitous even in nations that are pretty good at avoiding change (i.e., the developing world). It's becoming ubiquitous in nations that are bad at paying for technology, that much I agree with. I think that it would be more fair to say that some nations simply do not allow for rapid adoption by *governments*. Bed netting is a fact of life that many people grow up with - the true problem is *affording* it. Irrigation is a common sense use of science which varies upon application, so it doesn't translate well to the web until you can upload topography and soil type data and assure that the results are near perfect. I think that the internet is a digital analogy to irrigation. It makes other pieces of technology (fields vs computers) more effective and useful. I think the Internet offers the potential for making things more effective and useful. Even so, we're looking at 20% Internet penetration - which means that the number of people offline is roughly equivalent to the world population of 1995. No, maybe simply participating in discussion is the first step. Thus, the mobile phone. It is an important step, but not the first (that is the willingness to participate in discussion) or the second (that is the ability to afford to participate in discussion), and no more than an accessory to the steps that follow (that is turning discussion into action and change). I respectfully disagree. One must know that there is a discussion before one can participate, and thus one has to fall into the discussion somewhere along the line. :-) The truth is that the developing world doesn't need PCs as much as it needs better mobile phones and telecommunications regulation. True, but it does need them. That may be so, but the *how* and *why* vary according to population, socioeconomic conditions and a variety of other reasons. Sure, I'd like to see more tech in agriculture (since this is what I'm doing these days) but at the end of the day, people don't need a PC as much as they need a piece of technology that makes their jobs easier. The mobile phone is actually much more useful and versatile to farmers than a PC. Calculator, communication and even a few games to kill time. Importing PCs into developing nations that have no legal or other infrastructure for disposal only pollutes developing nations that need the very fertile soil that is being polluted. No, they have a useful function when used correctly. The important thing is to import working equipment and place it in situations where it can and will be used for real benefit, and sustainably. And I offer that this has been what many have said for decades, and yet... The same applies to mobile phones as well, unfortunately. But not quite in the same way, because I don't think phones are dumped on developing countries in the way that PCs are, so there is one less hidden agenda in exporting them. They are dumped. Where else do people throw them? What we need to do, IMHO, is stop playing with the tiger's tail if we have no plans for dealing with the teeth. Is this a warning about e-waste, PCs
[DDN] Support for deaf professionals on the job
Would anybody have some information on companies offering video-conferencing systems accessible for deaf people? Most current products do not allow for deaf people to do lip reading and/or clearly see other people signing due to the low number of frames per second those products allow. I have been told that most companies only use 25 or less frames per second. For a deaf person to do lip reading on a video it has to be something at least 30 frames per second or higher resolution. Any ideas? Thanks and regards, Estela Estela Landeros-Dugourd Assistive Technology Coordinator T/TAC George Mason University Kellar Institute for Human disAbilities Ph. 703-993-4496 Fax 703-993-4497 www.ttaconline.org http://ttac.gmu.edu ___ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list DIGITALDIVIDE@digitaldivide.net http://digitaldivide.net/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message.
Re: [DDN] Fwd: Web 2.0 leaves out people with disabilities
Those are good points. I may have made too strong of a connection between Goldfarb's intentions and the intentions of Yuri Rubinsky. The two did work closely together and you can get a sense of the ideas they shared about sgml in this tribute that Goldfarb wrote: http://xml.coverpages.org/yuriMemGoldfarb.html On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 3:01 AM, Norbert Bollow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Xavier Leonard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: many web 2.0 technologies employ xml xml evolved from sgml one Charles Goldfarb's main motivations for developing sgml was to make books more accessible to people with visual disabilities. If this information is accurate, I'd be very interested in having a quotable source for this... a little more about this (very little, unfortunately) can be found in this Goldfarb bio: http://www.sgmlsource.com/press/CGbioFull.htm Alas, this document does not contain the assertion about accessibilty work being one of the driving motivations in the development of SGML. (It only mentions making more information accessible to people with reading disabilities as an _effect_ of the widespread deployment of markup languages.) Based on the interviews on the same site, I'm coming to the conclusion that while work on an SGML-based accessibility project turned out to be from Goldfarb's personal perspective the most rewarding markup project that he had ever been involved in [1], this application area was not in fact the original motivation for the development of GML and SGML. At least, when asked about the original motivations for these developments, he didn't mention accessibility aspects: In [2]: Q: Dr. Goldfarb, you led the project at IBM that invented SGML's precursor, GML. It's said that necessity is the mother of invention. What specific problem were you trying to solve? A: We were trying to do an automated law-office application. I had been a lawyer (in fact, I still am). Lawyers must do research on existing case law, decisions of court, and so on, to find out which ones are applicable to a given situation, find out what the previous legal rulings have been, and then merge that with text that the lawyer has written himself. Eventually, if it's, say, a brief for the court, [he must] then compose it and print it. At the time, which was 1969 or 1970, there weren't any systems available that did these three things. So in order to get the systems to share the data we had to come up with a way to represent it that was independent of any of those applications. In [3]: Q: How did you get started with SGML? A: After Ed Mosher and Ray Lorie and I completed our GML project, I decided to pursue some of the ideas further. I felt that a DTD could be created in a form that computers could read, and therefore be able to validate markup without actually processing the document. I proved it in 1974, so I consider that the start of SGML. Of course, it took another decade -- and hundreds of talented people -- to develop it into an International Standard. [1] http://www.sgmlsource.com/press/Losi.htm [2] http://www.sgmlsource.com/press/Floyd1.htm [3] http://www.sgmlsource.com/press/Kennedy.htm Greetings, Norbert -- Norbert Bollow [EMAIL PROTECTED] Informatics Management and Consulting for Adaptability and Benefit/Cost Optimization in Harmony with Human Rights and Needs ___ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list DIGITALDIVIDE@digitaldivide.net http://digitaldivide.net/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message. -- Xavier Leonard Heads On Fire :: Fab Lab 4305 University Avenue, Suite 130 San Diego, CA 92105 ph.:619.964.6522 fx.:954.208.9573 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.headsonfire.org Change By Design ___ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list DIGITALDIVIDE@digitaldivide.net http://digitaldivide.net/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message.
