The Flicker Blog and Podcast

Watch the video
Apparently, this was produced internally at Microsoft as a tool to communicate to the Marketing and Packaging teams just how wrong they tend to get things. It’s both a funny and powerful example of why less is so often more.

Also related (being about Microsoft marketing) the current Office Poster Campaign: ‘It’s time to evolve’ strikes me as having a rather inappropriate underlying message. Given the widespread use of Office by Enterprises, isn’t the suggestion that corporate life is currently hell (unless you upgrade to the latest version of office) also saying that this is the case because the previous version of office is unusable? For instance, a human being with a dinosaur head is seen turning up at reception saying ‘I’m either here for a 12 o’clock on the 11th, or an 11 o’clock on the 12th.’ Hmmmmmmmmmmmm, is that because you’re a dinosaur, or because you use Outlook?

I attended a talk by the inventor of Hypertext and the web-browser Tim Berners-Lee (Sir) today at the Oxford Internet Institute.

Rather helpfully he put his presentation online (note the Web 2.0 and semantic web friendly URL - looks like finding all presentations by TBL should be relatively trivial!): http://www.w3.org/2006/Talks/0314-ox-tbl/

Unsurprisingly, Tim evangelised about ‘The Semantic Web’ - his vision of a web of data, rather than a web of hypertext. Whilst his ideas are inspirational, I do find the desire for most citizens of the web to play by the proposed rules and agreed ontologies rather optimistic. The success of the web could be attributed to many things, but for me, ease of use (largely) and access is core to it’s impact. Tim himself alluded to ’serendipitous re-use’ being key to the real value of the web, and what he hopes will begin to happen with data. Several in the audience argued that Web 2.0 is already doing this quite successfully - but it was clear that Tim felt that the Web as we know it is far too ‘dumb’ for him.

With legions of bloggers contributing data, and cross-referencing one another, the web has become a vital medium for the dissemination of ideas and discussion. Where the vision of the Semantic Web did not ring true for me, was the hope that a majority of the web’s citizens would start playing by new rules in order to ‘bring alive’ his vision :

“Make Useful Links” - Easy, we already do this

“Share Ontologies” - Not too difficult, I can see this working with small, focused communities.

“Agree on Ontologies” - Hmmmm. This one, I think will be difficult. Isn’t the web about de-centralisation of everything, including ideas? Can we ever expect a majority to agree on anything? He seemed to be suggesting that everything for which there is data or meaning should have a singular, definitive URI, to which all documents point when referencing. A very engaging idea, kinda reminds me (in a very trivial way) of using VoodooPad on a mac. As you type, any word for which a page exists immediately becomes a link. The problem is, as a sole user, it’s often difficult to avoid multiple pages on the same discreet object. What happens when the whole world is let loose? Who decides on the definitive URI? Who ensures that every other referencing document points to the correct place. This whole concept is very interesting, and rather too expansive to go into in a (relatively) short post.

Unlike Ian (whom we travelled with) Louise and I had to rush back to London straight after the event (a very, very sick cat worrying us to distraction).

Hanging around and networking, Ian got quoted in a New Statesman article about the event. See also, Ian’s post on the event.

I attended an interesting event last night at 01 Zero One in Soho.

Paul Tyler talked about his production for the BBC, Bamzooki.
Frank Alsema talked about The Blackbeard Connection.
Gary Pope of Kids Industries gave a very entertaining talk entitled ‘Are children over-indulgent technology eating monsters, or are they still kids?’ Ashley Cooksley, Manager, Kids, Teens and Learning, AOL UK presented the results of research conducted recently with 10 year olds across the UK and Richard Deverell, Controller, BBC Children’s talked about the future for broadcast media in the on-demand age, and the shift in power between channel and programme brands.

Paul Tyler - Bamzooki

I knew nothing about this show (if that’s an appropriate manner in which to refer to a cross-media broadcast) prior to attending, but was rather impressed with the concept - offering kids tools that they can download, from which they can build their very own ‘Zooks’ and upload them for possible inclusion in the TV broadcast. The Zooks are effectively virtual robots, designed by the kids, and suitable for certain tasks or environments. Kids are encouraged to share experience and learning, collaborating to for me teams for the tv programme, where the ‘Zooks’ are pitted against one another in competitions. An understanding of mechanics, physics and an observation of what works in nature yields better results. So, the interactions encourage learning on several levels.

Paul was one of two speakers talking of the ‘Interaction Pyramid’ - the easily grasped concept of a diminishing number of participants as more interaction or engagement is required. He admitted that the bar was set quite high for this show and that a very small percentage of the kits downloaded actually resulted in uploaded ‘Zooks.’ He was relatively unconcerned about this but I feel that the comments by another speaker, Gary Pope of Kids Industries about ‘Proximal Development (that we learn most and are most attentive when we’re just between the ‘can do’ and ‘can’t do’ spaces in any task were particularly relevant here. It appears to me, that too many of the kids are firmly in the ‘can’t do’ camp and as a result, get less from the experience. I’m also slightly cynical about the attitude that passive consumer (or lurkers) forming the majority of the audience is both acceptable, and even desirable. My suspicion is that this is driven by the needs of the dominant medium (TV in this case) and not by any higher ideology. If all the million kids who downloaded the kit uploaded ‘Zooks’ how would they be judged fairly, and how would you make a compelling TV show using the existing format (several teams competing against one another)?

Frank Alsema - The Blackbeard Connection

Hmmm. Not entirely convinced about this one. A ‘true cross media’ game. Again, the ‘interactive pyramid’ was mentioned; and again, this seemed to be the limitations of the games engine or medium driving the need for a high rate of player attrition. Not that I’m saying games shouldn’t be competitive, but I wonder how engaging the format is for the non-participant? A feature length movie, broken up into 3 minute chunks, broadcast daily with clues for players wouldn’t, I suspect, hold much interest for a non-player or one who has dropped the ball and is out of play. Then again, the idea of watching a bunch of wannabees do mind-numbing and demeaning activities whilst captive in a house on live on TV seems utterly ridiculous to me too.

Ultimately, I felt that pursuit of the ‘Convergence’ holy grail drove the game model. Rather than the value of each device/platform being used for it’s unique merits, I felt that they had a shopping list of devices and platforms they wished to include, then dreamt up rather clunky means by which to link them in a game. Still, it’s early days and there was a lot to admire in the aspirations of the project, if not in the execution and design.