I was looking at my subscriptions in Google Reader and spotted this from Line25: 40 Amazing Female Role Models for Web Designers. I thought it was pretty cool so I'm sharing. Line25 also posts, among other things, 'Sites of the Week' if you just want to look at pretty designs.
Network Neutrality
I'm sure by now most people have heard that the FCC is drafting rules on network neutrality. (What's up with all the links to Word docs? Not everyone owns a copy of Microsoft Word. PDFs people! Adobe Acrobat Reader is free!)
The list of what the current proposal would require of Internet Service Providers seems reasonable, to me anyway. As long as everything is legal an ISP can't prevent anyone from sending or receiving data, using services or applications, or connecting to other networks. Nor treat it said items in a discriminatory manner. They can't block anyone from the competition and they'd have to make some of the information regarding their network management public.
I know companies like to keep how they do things secret but that's what they get for having invisible bandwidth caps.
The current Wikipedia article on network neutrality is written as a debate instead of an encyclopedic article. Bad for Wikipedia and not exactly neutral either but still interesting reading. I looked at a couple of the web sites cited by the article and was struck by this:
That scenario [a bifurcated world in which the wealthy enjoy first-class Internet access, while everyone else is left with slow connections and degraded content], however, is a false paradigm. Such an all-or-nothing world doesn't exist today, nor will it exist in the future. Without additional regulation, service providers are likely to continue doing what they are doing. They will continue to offer a variety of broadband service plans at a variety of price points to suit every type of consumer.
This is laughable at best and at worst an incredible insult to the intelligence of anyone reading it. I'm supposed to believe that an ISP would never charge users more for accessing sites like Google and Hulu or degrade services like Skype that compete directly with their own offerings just because it hasn't happened yet? ISPs already want companies like Google to pay them to keep access to their site fast. Why should I believe that they won't also charge customers more for other people's content or that only the sites that can pay the most will be easy for me to get to?
I think the problem is that all the major ISPs are either cable or satellite providers or telecommunications companies. Comcast, Charter, AT&T, Verizon, etc. are all used to getting paid at both ends. Both parties have to pay for phone service to make or receive calls. The customer pays for cable or satellite TV and the networks pay money to have their channels carried by the providers.
OK, I've strayed away from 'something I've learned' to 'here's some opinions I already had'. But I did find out from the Wikipedia article that it isn't just ISPs who are against the legislation. While Tim Berners Lee supports network neutrality Robert Kahn does not. That surprised me. People like Bob Kahn believe that they should be able to develop and use technology that does treat different types of data differently and that it will be necessary to improving the Internet. There's a link to an article and a link to a video as sources for that. The article from the Register, unfortunately, doesn't say much about why network neutrality is bad just that it is.
Saying this will prove my professor right in having us do these blog posts, but why doesn't Robert Kahn have a blog?
If anyone knows of any sites with detailed arguments from Robert Kahn or any engineer about why net neutrality is bad feel free to put them in the comments.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Week 9: Video - Now featuring audio*
So you want to make a video that's going to be viewed on or downloaded from a web site. What's the best way to go about that? Before you blurt out, "YouTube", here are some things to consider first.
Streaming vs Downloading
This will depend on how you want users to view your video and your budget.
The easiest, cheapest thing to do is to have visitors download the file from your web site. It works but it requires your visitors to get the entire file onto their computer before they can watch it.
Streaming video is the more expensive option. A streaming video allows the user to view the video as it's being delivered to them instead of waiting for the entire file first. It costs more because it requires the server to be running an application specifically for streaming video. However, in addition to users being able to view the video faster, a streaming video can detect a user's connection speed, broadcast live events, and handle larger traffic loads.
There is an option in between the two called progressive downloading. It mimics streaming in that it allows users to start viewing the video as soon as the beginning of the file has been downloaded but it lacks the additional benefits of streaming video. It's cheaper than streaming since it doesn't require the additional software on the server.
Which to pick? If you want visitors to be able to keep the file you can allow them to download it. If you want users to start viewing the video as soon as possible but don't have a big budget or do anything else special with it use progressive streaming. Sites with large amounts of traffic and want to do live events, like Hulu, need to use streaming.
Format
There are a few formats available: Windows Media, Quicktime, MPEG-4, Flash, and, more recently, Silverlight.
If you are a business, use Flash or Silverlight. You want as many people as possible to be able to view your video so you should use a format that works across multiple platforms and browsers. Flash edges out Silverlight in that regard since Silverlight does not work in Opera on Macs yet and Microsoft does not plan to update IE6 so that Silverlight will work in that browser.
This article comparing different aspects of Flash and Silverlight is useful for considerations beyond compatibility such as the ease of creating animation, sound quality, and accessibility.
You'd want this on your personal web site as well but since Flash video is expensive. In this case a MPEG-4 format that works in multiple players may be the way to go. However, if you do plan to have your videos on a site like YouTube or Vimeo they will convert your file to flash for you.
The Video Itself
This is information I learned years ago in a New Media class so it is not universally applicable. If you want people who are on slower connections to be able to see your video clearly you should consider this during video production if you intend to stream your video.
No rapid movements: Avoid having a lot of unneccessary movement in the video and nothing fast. The video will become pixelated and blurry on a slower connection.
Close up shots: Do not use wide shots for videos intended to be viewed on slower connections. The less color information the better. Like fast motion, a wide shot will be blurry when streaming on a slow connection.
The Pew Research Center has a survey of dial-up vs broadband use but note that they do not ask about how fast anyone's broadband was and the survey is only relevant to the United States.
Copyright Law: Using Other People's Stuff
The Center for Social Media has a video and article for their Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Online Video. Generally, if your video has copyrighted material in it then it should fall under at least one of the scenarios that constitutes fair use:
*That's not mine, I'm quoting the home page of Adult Swim
Streaming vs Downloading
This will depend on how you want users to view your video and your budget.
The easiest, cheapest thing to do is to have visitors download the file from your web site. It works but it requires your visitors to get the entire file onto their computer before they can watch it.
Streaming video is the more expensive option. A streaming video allows the user to view the video as it's being delivered to them instead of waiting for the entire file first. It costs more because it requires the server to be running an application specifically for streaming video. However, in addition to users being able to view the video faster, a streaming video can detect a user's connection speed, broadcast live events, and handle larger traffic loads.
There is an option in between the two called progressive downloading. It mimics streaming in that it allows users to start viewing the video as soon as the beginning of the file has been downloaded but it lacks the additional benefits of streaming video. It's cheaper than streaming since it doesn't require the additional software on the server.
Which to pick? If you want visitors to be able to keep the file you can allow them to download it. If you want users to start viewing the video as soon as possible but don't have a big budget or do anything else special with it use progressive streaming. Sites with large amounts of traffic and want to do live events, like Hulu, need to use streaming.
Format
There are a few formats available: Windows Media, Quicktime, MPEG-4, Flash, and, more recently, Silverlight.
If you are a business, use Flash or Silverlight. You want as many people as possible to be able to view your video so you should use a format that works across multiple platforms and browsers. Flash edges out Silverlight in that regard since Silverlight does not work in Opera on Macs yet and Microsoft does not plan to update IE6 so that Silverlight will work in that browser.
This article comparing different aspects of Flash and Silverlight is useful for considerations beyond compatibility such as the ease of creating animation, sound quality, and accessibility.
You'd want this on your personal web site as well but since Flash video is expensive. In this case a MPEG-4 format that works in multiple players may be the way to go. However, if you do plan to have your videos on a site like YouTube or Vimeo they will convert your file to flash for you.
The Video Itself
This is information I learned years ago in a New Media class so it is not universally applicable. If you want people who are on slower connections to be able to see your video clearly you should consider this during video production if you intend to stream your video.
No rapid movements: Avoid having a lot of unneccessary movement in the video and nothing fast. The video will become pixelated and blurry on a slower connection.
Close up shots: Do not use wide shots for videos intended to be viewed on slower connections. The less color information the better. Like fast motion, a wide shot will be blurry when streaming on a slow connection.
The Pew Research Center has a survey of dial-up vs broadband use but note that they do not ask about how fast anyone's broadband was and the survey is only relevant to the United States.
Copyright Law: Using Other People's Stuff
The Center for Social Media has a video and article for their Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Online Video. Generally, if your video has copyrighted material in it then it should fall under at least one of the scenarios that constitutes fair use:
- Commenting ON OR CRITIQUING OF COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL
- USING COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL FOR ILLUSTRATION OR EXAMPLE
- CAPTURING COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL INCIDENTALLY OR ACCIDENTALLY
- REPRODUCING, REPOSTING, OR QUOTING IN ORDER TO MEMORIALIZE, PRESERVE, OR RESCUE AN EXPERIENCE, AN EVENT, OR A CULTURAL PHENOMENON
- COPYING, REPOSTING, AND RECIRCULATING A WORK OR PART OF A WORK FOR PURPOSES OF LAUNCHING A DISCUSSION
- QUOTING IN ORDER TO RECOMBINE ELEMENTS TO MAKE A NEW WORK THAT DEPENDS FOR ITS MEANING ON RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE ELEMENTS
*That's not mine, I'm quoting the home page of Adult Swim
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
