The best of the blogs this week…

NYU students raise more than $100k to create Anti-Facebook: Social networking experiment Diaspora will give users complete control over their data.  http://mashable.com/2010/05/12/diaspora

Visa to bring secure online payments to the iPhone: New casing offers contactless payments anywhere Visa’s payWave is available.  http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/18/in2pay-is-the-name-of-visa-and-devicefidelitys-money-grubbing-i/

Creator of Heroes Tim Kring creates new internet conspiracy for good: Tim Kring releases new social networking game where we can all be heroes – in a way.  http://ethrill.net/2010/05/10/tim-kring-what-is-the-conspiracy-for-good-and-i-am-not-a-member-about/

Mass Facebook exodus planned for 31^st May: Following anger over privacy issues, campaigners planning official revolt day.  http://mashable.com/2010/05/14/quit-facebook/

Game Changers: Competition for children to design a new level for puzzling platform video game Little Big Planet.  http://www.dmlcompetition.net/kidscomp/lbp

blogs, ecommerce, facebook, Gaming, social networking

The second instalment…

• Is a new form of digital divide emerging?: What is the relationship between technology use and educational performance in science?
• http://andysblackhole.blogspot.com/2010/04/interested-in-biggger-picture-take-look.html

• Be the search engine: Geocaching adds an additional physical element to location-based social networking sites like Foursquare and Gowalla. 
• http://jwtto.wordpress.com/2010/04/22/be-the-search-engine/

• ePublish yourself: Not-for-profit website ePad Bud – the YouTube of children’s ebooks – is hugely motivating in the classroom.
• http://ilearntechnology.com/?p=2319

• Spotify takes aim at iTunes, befriends Facebook: Spotify upgraded its service by integrating social features to let users connect with friends and share music.
• http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/04/spotify-takes-aim-at-itunes-befriends-facebook/

• 100-year-old with impaired vision discovers the iPad: The intuitive way in which the iPad works seems to open doors to the elderly.
• http://edu.blogs.com/edublogs/2010/04/100-year-old-with-impaired-vision-discovers-the-ipad.html

accessibility, blogs, Education, epad, foursquare, ipad, location, spotify, Usability

Even the most casual visitor to the blogosphere will by now have read about Chatroulette, the website which indiscriminately matches strangers with each other and allows them to conduct webcam-assisted conversations. Disconcertingly for anyone writing about Chatroulette, there is no consensus on its relationship with capitalisation and spacing (Chat Roulette? ChatRoulette? Chatroulette? I’ve gone with the latter (obviously)). Created and run by Andrey Ternovskiy, a 17-year-old Russian student from Moscow, the site was estimated to have had 30 million unique users worldwide in February.

Most of the media coverage of Chatroulette – and there has been a lot of media coverage – seems to have focused on what one blogger calls “the masturbatory aspect of Internet expressiveness”. And, sure enough, a cursory visit to the site can be an unsettling experience for those among us whose idea of entertainment is anything other than watching the graphic onanism of a faceless 19-year-old from Wisconsin.

But others have been using the site more creatively. A number of Chatroulette-based games have become popular – while Merton the improv pianist has become, in his own slightly arrogant words, “a cultural phenomenon”. Meanwhile the imaginatively-named Cat Man has used augmented reality to good effect (as one chat partner says, “IT’S VERY NICE”), and one mischievous user has been taking her partner’s video stream, mirroring it back to them and then recording their reaction. Head bopping is the most common response, apparently. Make of that what you will.

The word “random” is bandied around these days with a regularity that if not alarming is certainly irritating, but Chatroulette is a rare worthy recipient of the adjective. And this randomness is the site’s greatest asset and its greatest flaw. The ease with which users can switch from partner to partner and instantly connect to people on the other side of the world is what makes the site appealing. But it also makes it unsafe for children and faintly pointless for adults.

As Larry Magid has pointed out, Chatroulette – or the idea behind it – has great educational potential. Children can speak to people in Afghanistan about their experiences of the War on Terror – or to women in Iran about life there. Israelis can speak to Palestinians. Creatives experimenting with QR codes or iPad software can learn from people in Japan or the US about these technologies. All these things were possible on the web already, of course, but the introduction of a video element brings people closer together – and this is a powerful thing. The draconian authorities in China have yet to ban Chatroulette, so it is providing a rare opportunity for the inhabitants of the world’s most populous nation to speak openly with Westerners directly and in confidence from the comfort of their homes. But as long as the user has no control over their chat partner, such edifying Chatroulette encounters are the exception rather than the rule.

And this leads to the other significant characteristic of Chatroulette conversation: anonymity. If randomness is one pillar of the site, anonymity is the other. There are no logins, no registration process, no name display – and people love it. Nick Bilton believed the success of the site “signals a nascent desire for anonymity online”. I’m not sure Bilton is right to describe this desire for anonymity as nascent – the anonymity provided by online chat rooms has been attracting many users since their 1990s heyday. In this sense, Chatroulette is not the future of the internet, but its past.

Either way, as with its randomness, Chatroulette’s anonymity is a blessing and a curse. The site is unsafe for children and its anonymity means that users tend to behave in ways they might otherwise not – hence the unsavoury scenes from Wisconsin. As Sarita Yardi, a doctoral candidate at the Georgia Institute of Technology who studies the role of technology in teenagers’ lives, puts it, “Right now it’s kind of like an online Lord of the Flies.”

Magid suggests the introduction of channels so users can filter chat partners by things like subject matter, language and region. If these changes were implemented, it would no longer be Chatroulette, of course. If each participant in a game of Russian roulette knew which chamber contained the bullet, and chose whether to load that one or not, it would slightly defy the point. And in some ways, allowing users control over their partners would defy the point of Chatroulette. But the idea and the technology could certainly be used for educational purposes. With logins, channels, moderation and supervision, a video chat site could be a great resource to afford people an insight into the lives of others whom they would never encounter otherwise.

Some safeguards have already been put in place by Chatroulette spin-offs like Chatroulette Map, which ties users to their location. RandomDorm is Chatroulette for US college students, and requires them to log in using a verified college email address. But neither harnesses the educational potential of the medium. Until a site can get the security right and the user numbers up, Chatroulette and its various spin-offs will be like so many things on the web: nothing more than a fun way of wasting time. In the words of Cat Man’s chat buddy, it’s very nice – but that’s about it.

Courtesy of blogefl on flickr.com

boredom, Chatroulette, Culture, Debate, Education, online chat, social media, video

2009 has been a truly dark year for the public image of piracy.

And I’m not talking about Somalian pirates, but the issue of digital rights, specifically in entertainment. It’s estimated that piracy and illegal filesharing costs the television, music and film industries £500m a year in lost revenues.

The issue has of course been around since at least 2000 when Metallica took on Napster in one of the more bizarre judicial confrontations in media history.

But whereas that story and the more recent imprisonment of Pirate Bay’s founders were knee-jerk events that had us all wildly jabbering / twittering, I feel that we’re now in the midst of a more subtle undercurrent of significant change in the distribution of online music and television, sustained by almost daily reports of possible mergers and deals, new technologies and services, alleged crackdowns and constant shifts of responsibility for monitoring and controlling internet usage.

In 2000 the issue of digital rights was the almost exclusive concern of emancipated geeks interacting and sharing in a space seemingly designed both by and for them; apoplectic heavy metal fans; and a not insignificant number of terribly confused people sat awkwardly in between.

Jump to 2009, and the internet has become for many the first port of call when looking for entertainment. Mobile devices such as the iPhone plug directly into online music stores, and almost everyone has an iPod or other portable media device. Similarly, network improvements and the penetration of broadband has helped BBC’s iPlayer and its competitors to become almost as popular as “traditional” TV.

In other words, the developments in online media distribution have become mainstream concerns.

However, there remains a fundamental conflict between monetising these distribution services and a historic perception of the internet as user controlled, open-source, a community network without restriction. People don’t like paying for stuff online. Although digital platforms account for about 20 per cent of recorded music sales, 95% of all file downloads are estimated to be illegal. If we want to hear a song once, we might YouTube it or call it up on Last FM or Spotify – if we want it on our iPods, the stats say we are most likely to download it illegally.

Similar issues exist for television and film, where downloads and particularly streaming have been giving producers headaches. The most recent example would be the furore over online leaked scenes from X-Men Origins: Wolverine, which appeared several weeks before release.

(Why anyone would want to see this, for free or otherwise, is beyond me, but apparently it was an issue…) The problem is worsened by advertising – films and shows are heavily advertised on the web (i.e. globally) but release dates are staggered around the world and vary hugely. Inevitably fans are going to get impatient, and at present it’s just too easy to access content illegally.

However, things are changing. Responses to infringements are getting ever more serious and, as we have seen this year, it’s no longer empty rhetoric. The French are being typically Gallic about filesharing, just two weeks ago approving the “three strikes” bill.

The controversial bill proposes the creation of a new government agency, which translates rather grandly as “the High Authority of Diffusion of the Art Works and Protection of Rights on the Internet”, which could have the power to disconnect copyright offenders without legal recourse.

In the UK, creative industry groups such as the BPI, the Publisher’s Association and Equity and broadcasters Channel 4, BSkyB and Virgin Media, are all lobbying the government to force Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to police their users. Of course, this is the last thing the ISPs want to hear, and so they in turn are saying it’s the job of the content providers, leading to what John Woodward of the UK Film Council has reportedly described as a damaging “Mexican stand-off”.

To some extent this apparent impasse has already been breached by evolving the distribution channels and therefore providing more choice. Last year a raft of music subscription services, social networking partnerships like MySpace Music and new licensing channels emerged. Each day sees new reports of mergers, integration and innovation – so watch this space.

When it comes to TV, we’re also getting used to on demand programming. At the moment, broadcasters are giving us content for free, over the internet, and it’s brilliant. The BBC are the front-runners, though 4OD also provides a free catch up service on most of its programmes, (and recently, thankfully, opened its doors for Mac users). And if you’re the kind of person that enjoys pouring absinthe in your eyes, there’s the unforgivably awful ITV Player. But here, too, there are revenue-generating changes afoot. Both 4OD and ITV Player have “forced” adverts, and if the troubled broadband platform Project Kangaroo ever gets a buyer (Orange dropped out of talks just yesterday), on demand TV will almost certainly be delivered on a subscription basis.

The BBC are now behind Project Canvas, which plans to allow viewers to watch on demand services and other internet content via traditional TV – i.e. bring on demand away from the PC in the bedroom and back into the living room (although there must be more to it than that, as cable services such as Virgin Media are already offering on demand services including the iPlayer?)

These suspiciously named “projects” are controversial, in a way partly because of their ambition; the aim seems to be to partner with other broadcasters, channels and media companies to develop an apparently essential media platform, which is an inevitably fiddly business. BSkyB have already thrown an anti-competiveness strop over Kangaroo (which has all but killed it), and last week they accused the BBC Trust of “deficient” consultation over its more recent plans for Canvas.

There’s a more obvious complication for the BBC to grapple with: just where the licence fee fits into the various projects, (iPlayer / Kangaroo / Canvas) is, frankly, anyone’s business.

At this point, It wouldn’t be right to ignore what Bob Geldof thinks about digital TV, so here is what Bob Geldof thinks about digital TV:

“In the age of the internet, the notion of television itself is as archaic as the word wireless – even if that has been reinvented for the digital age.” (Bob Geldof)

To conclude a somewhat wayward post: it seems to me inevitable that our perception of the internet as a distribution channel is set to change over the next couple of years. There will always be infringers pushing their luck, and there will also always be a lot of good stuff available for free.

But we will, I think, also have to get used to the idea of paying money, or suffering adverts, to enjoy premium content on the internet.

No tags

‘Hi John, what did you do this weekend?’

‘Not much – Friday night I stayed in, but on Saturday a friend was having a youtube party, so I had quite a late one.’

Not true.  No-one I know had a youtube party on Saturday, and the notion of a youtube party is not something you are expected to know about, but are actually not aware of because you can’t keep up with the edgy new media vanguard.  However, it’s a sentence which I think is closer to being a standard piece of conversation than you might think, and here is why.

A funny thing happened to me the other night.  I was having a drink at a friend’s flat when someone mentioned a clip on youtube that they thought was funny .  Without a moment’s hesitation a laptop was produced and we all sat down to watch it, oh how we laughed.  Nothing particularly out of the ordinary, you might say.  However, what (quite naturally) happened next was that someone else stifled their chuckles enough to suggest another video, which we all watched and laughed heartily (again).  This went on for a good half hour, until we all got a little embarrassed and decided to stop being so damned geeky. 

Half an hour.  Isn’t that quite a lot?

I don’t expect this kind of an encounter is a rare occurrence.  It’s certainly happened to me a good couple of times and I imagine 80% of the student population do it all the time.  But if you think about it, prolonged, communal youtubery is quite an interesting phenomenon, for 2 reasons:  1, it brings an element of  face to face social interaction to the medium which I’m not sure the people who hailed the revolution of web 2.0 ever really meant.  2, this face to face interaction brings with it a whole set of intriguing social rules and dynamics.

Let me elaborate point 1.  Web 2.0 was (is?)  all about (among other things) people easily creating and sharing content with one another, with the web providing a means by which to do so.  People thought it was great that a guy from Uruguay could make a video about knitting which could be viewed, responded to and commented on by my grandma in Poland, or a janitor in Delaware, or the Queen.  It introduced openness of communication.  But what it also did was introduce content that could be discussed and shared in a personal context, not just by people firing off links at each other down the information superhighway, but shown to one another after dinner, whilst you’re getting ready for a night out, pointed at whilst crowding around a monitor in the office.  It provided content people could physically take someone by the hand and show to them, which is an altogether different thing.

Which leads to point 2.  For years marketing gurus have been mindful of the fact that you are much more likely to buy something if it’s recommended by a friend.  In focus groups we’ve run here at Online, we’ve heard that it’s important to someone sharing a link to something on the internet that they preserve some kind of  reputation.  If you post lots of trash on your friends’ walls you exhibit a certain lack of credibility that is not insignificant.  This kind of thing manifests itself wonderfully if you bring it into a face to face group dynamic.  Picture the scene: my friends and I have worked ourselves into a cheerful youtube frenzy via a string of  Japanese TV shows, childhood nostalgia,  dramatic rodents, and Hungarian rappers.  Then someone enthusiastically types in a link to this.  The group tries to get into it, but it’s a slow starter, and they fall into an awkward silence.  Energy drops.  Suggestor tries to pick it back up with this one, but it’s worse.  Mumbles excuses.  Gets coat.

Similarly you musn’t over share.  You’ve got to let everyone in the audience have their say, otherwise they feel left out.  You can get the youtube samaritans, who in the face of their friend’s poorly chosen pat them on the shoulder and reassure them that it was funny, really.  Picking a youtube video to share with people in this context requires a judgement of mood and possession / lack of sense of humour.  You need to deal with those maladroit ‘Hang on, we need to wait for it to load’ moments. You need to be sensitive to what certain people might find impressive, and what leaves them utterly nonplussed.  You need to be consider whether they’ve just had their lunch.

I’ll be the first to admit that it’s possible to over-analyse this.  But in thinking about how these technologies are changing communication we mustn’t neglect the possibility that it opens up new ways to interact with the person next to you, not just the Delaware janitor thousands of miles away.  Of course all of these communal internet encounters (’social surf sessions‘, if you will) occur as afterthoughts to what you or I might call ‘normal’ social situations – people just fall into them.  But 5 years ago no-one could possibly have imagined the way in which youtube wanders into our everyday exchanges now.  5 years hence?  Get your party invitations ready.

technology, web_2.0, youtube

Fun end to the week at the Game Based Learning conference in the City of London. Highlights include a cabinet minister who actually gets technology and seems to want to support the industry (Tom Watson), the ever inspiring Derek Robertson from LT Scotland and Atari Founder Nolan Bushnell’s vision for the future of education. The latter caused quite a stir (shaking heads in the audience, grumblings on the twitter feed) as it appeared to envisage children in webcam-equipped cubicles and plugged into heart rate monitors to assess fitness levels. Refreshingly controversial! To say that some delegates had reservations would be somewhat of an understatement.

Derek Robertson and Ian Livingstone presented strong evidence that mainstream games (not ‘edutainment’ or ‘chocolate-covered broccoli’, as someone else called it) are having a fantastic impact on motivation and learning in schools where they are allowed/that are lucky enough to be able to afford them.

Gaming in general is changing, not just by making an appearance in classrooms. We are currently seeing a return of computer games into the mainstream. Nolan Bushnell and Ian Livingstone both made the point that 30 or so years ago computer games reached a mass audience.

Then, gradually, games became more complicated and generally more violent, causing the market to shrink dramatically. Game developers and publishers didn’t mind so much because the hard core gamers spent significant amounts of money and kept the industry going. Many casual gamers were alienated along the way, however. Now, of course, Nintendo is beginning to change all that with the Wii and DS platforms. You only need to look at their sales figures to realise that casual gamers hadn’t disappeared, they just hadn’t seen anything they liked for a few decades.

Related Blogs

• Related Blogs on atari
• Atari Chip Ring Too Cool To Be Called Geeky! | Trends Updates
• “Chronicles of Riddick: Assault on Dark Athena (ATARI) | Console …
• In Case of Rapid Atari 2600 Disassembly, Consult This T-Shirt [T …

• Related Blogs on DS
• GoNintendo » Blog Archive » This is how not to advertise to DS …
• GoNintendo » Blog Archive » Hoshizawa Yukiko DS – screens- What …
• GoNintendo » Blog Archive » Simple DS Series Vol. 48: A Simple …
• GoNintendo » Blog Archive » Moto Racer DS – review- What are you …
• GoNintendo » Blog Archive » Avirex Eagle DS case- What are you …

• Related Blogs on Education
• Education Flattens the World | Trends Updates
• Blog: Higher Education, David Jones – elearnspace
• ResourceShelf » Blog Archive » YouTube Launches Education Site
• Debunking CIMA and British Education

• Related Blogs on games
• 6 Twitter Games To Make Tweeting Fun
• GoNintendo » Blog Archive » Next Level Games ran out of space to …

• Related Blogs on Gaming
• Gaming the Legacy Loan Auctions « The Baseline Scenario
• The Passion of the Developer | Gaming Horror – it's a Game Dev's Life

• Related Blogs on learning
• Flux » Articles | Great week for Mobile Learning
• U Tech Tips » I don’t like Learning Alone!
• Is Student Feedback Effective in Distance Learning? | Trends Updates
• Implementing an institution-wide learning and teaching strategy …
• Expanding Life Through Learning (Www.OSIR.org.in) – Learning …

• Related Blogs on Wii
• GoNintendo » Blog Archive » Best Buy gets Wii, Wii Fit restock …
• GoNintendo » Blog Archive » Homebrew Wii USB Loader – footage …
• GoNintendo » Blog Archive » Amazon Gold Box – Wii hints- What are …
• initial wii review « wonkablog
• GoNintendo » Blog Archive » Essential Wii RPGs: Super Paper Mario …

atari, DS, Education, games, Gaming, learning, Wii

The release of any new publically funded website inevitably provokes a tide of articles across the technology pages of the national press. The Queen’s new website, The Official Website of the British Monarchy, is the latest to face public scrutiny.

The Telegraph offers not one, but three articles providing detailed analysis of Her Majesty’s latest venture. In one of them, Julian Sambles reviews the site for its Search Engine Optimization and concludes that, scandalously, there are a number of areas in which it falls short:

• There are 2.6 error pages to every 1 genuine, working page
• Missing pages have no 404 page (‘This is a basic requirement for any website, let alone the Queen’s’)
• The homepage is duplicated and confusingly labelled
• There are inconsistencies in the title tags and the URL structure
• No h1 or h2 tags are present
• [etc.]

His conclusion is pretty damning:

It is disappointing that as our head of state, Her Majesty has allowed the creation of a website which should have been designed to engage with her subjects as much as possible but has overlooked the basics of good Search Engine Optimisation.

Dear, oh dear. Queen Elizabeth really shouldn’t have signed off on her own site without checking its SEO.

Aashish Chandarana raises the important issues of accessibility and usability throughout the site, in a second article by the trusty Telegraph, citing the inconsistent use of Alt tags and the same colour applied to both links and standard text. Fair enough – these are pretty basic errors that can make some users’ experiences incredibly frustrating.

I have some more general criticisms of the site. As with the new No. 10 site discussed in an earlier post, why can’t I leave comments on any of the videos? Why can’t I add my own obsessively catalogued pictures of the Royal Family to the paltry selection on some of the galleries? Why doesn’t the LightBox functionality work properly? Why, in the ‘Contact the Queen’ section of this ostensibly Web 2.0 site, can’t I just send her an email? What kind of an egomaniac only accepts communication stamped with her own face?

Why are there only 4 videos of the Duke of Edinburgh? And why does only one of them feature the good Duke? (The National Playing Fields Association 1951 advert is well worth a look incidentally, as he explains to a bunch of urchin-like children how to go about getting a playing field in their community – an issue that only surfaces when one of their number is brutally run down by a car whilst playing football in the street.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMsnix1GPI4&eurl=http://www.royal.gov.uk/ThecurrentRoyalFamily/TheDukeofEdinburgh/TheDukeofEdinburghvideogallery.aspx&feature=player_embedded

The list goes on, but I won’t. I actually rather like the site – there’s a wealth of archive material and the articles I’ve read were informal, well-written and pretty interesting.

Now, whilst Sambles does sound at times as though he thinks Queen Elizabeth has been personally responsible for designing and coding the site –

– these sort of articles do of course raise some very real issues. It is right that publically funded sites in particular should be rigorously scrutinised, and it is absolutely right that the web should be accessible to all.

The articles highlight a numbers of issues surrounding the pursuit of best practice in our industry, which we should all aim to meet. If our monarch’s site doesn’t follow the basics, where does that leave the rest of us? In an industry so fast-paced, with attitudes and technologies changing faster than Prince Philip can say “Aren’t most of you descended from pirates?” to an islander in the Caymans, it’s difficult to stay on top of best practice methodologies.

This struck us recently when we developed a Flash game for BBC Ouch, a site ‘aimed at those with a stakehold in disability’. We do a lot of work in Flash, but it’s notoriously difficult to make Flash content accessible. However, the project gave us an excellent opportunity to learn about and improve in this area. Needless to say, developing for screen readers was a steep learning curve for all of us – and we’d be the first to admit that we’ve still got a lot to learn.

In fact there’s little doubt that there’s much more we – those of us in digital media – need to do to stay on top of usability and accessibility best practice values, however much of an uphill struggle that can be.

“Everybody was saying we must have more leisure. Now they are complaining they are unemployed.” (Duke of Edinburgh, during the 1981 recession).

accessibility, royalty, state_media