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
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
6th Week of Class: Paper will become obsolete...any minute now
I've blogged about a few social and/or entertaining things the Internet has to offer: Twitter, Hulu, & Wikipedia. But what about work? Not business but the regular 9 to 5 stuff.
Companies have begun offering online versions of desktop software, also known as Software as a Service. Google and Zoho currently have several things available while Microsoft will have a product online next year.
Google
My group decided to use Google Docs to edit the PowerPoint for our presentation. Google doesn't call it PowerPoint but it did start off as a PowerPoint file. That users will be able to import and export these files in MS Office formats will hurt Microsoft's chances at dominating the market when it launches the online version of Office.
You can create text documents, spreadsheets, presentations, and forms with the free version. While you can't do as much as you could in the desktop version of Office (no WordArt for the PowerPoint for example) I was surprised to see how much you could do.
Google does have a business, standard, and academic versions that you can pay for but they practically hid this. There's no option to 'upgrade' while you're logged into your Google account. When you're not logged in you have to click on 'New Features' before you see a link for 'For Work or School'. They explain the business benefits of Google Docs but don't do a free vs paid comparison. Frankly, I find this baffling.
Zoho
I hadn't heard of Zoho before but I was impressed by how much they make available. Right on their home page you can see a list of Productivity/Collaboration Apps and Business Apps. In addition to the types of applications you can get with Google Docs for free you can get CRM and create database apps. (Some of the things Zoho has Google also offers, just not as part of Google Docs.) There's also a marketplace where you can buy apps or post what kind of app you need created.
Zoho doesn't hide that there is a version that you pay for (most of the business apps list the limit on the number of free users it can have) but they do hide the demo. I didn't see it mentioned until I was reading the Privacy Policy and there's no link to it there.
Microsoft
I didn't find anything about Microsoft Office 2010 being online directly from Microsoft but there are articles and opinions on it. Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and OneNote will the programs that will be available online.
Companies have begun offering online versions of desktop software, also known as Software as a Service. Google and Zoho currently have several things available while Microsoft will have a product online next year.
My group decided to use Google Docs to edit the PowerPoint for our presentation. Google doesn't call it PowerPoint but it did start off as a PowerPoint file. That users will be able to import and export these files in MS Office formats will hurt Microsoft's chances at dominating the market when it launches the online version of Office.
You can create text documents, spreadsheets, presentations, and forms with the free version. While you can't do as much as you could in the desktop version of Office (no WordArt for the PowerPoint for example) I was surprised to see how much you could do.
Google does have a business, standard, and academic versions that you can pay for but they practically hid this. There's no option to 'upgrade' while you're logged into your Google account. When you're not logged in you have to click on 'New Features' before you see a link for 'For Work or School'. They explain the business benefits of Google Docs but don't do a free vs paid comparison. Frankly, I find this baffling.
Zoho
I hadn't heard of Zoho before but I was impressed by how much they make available. Right on their home page you can see a list of Productivity/Collaboration Apps and Business Apps. In addition to the types of applications you can get with Google Docs for free you can get CRM and create database apps. (Some of the things Zoho has Google also offers, just not as part of Google Docs.) There's also a marketplace where you can buy apps or post what kind of app you need created.
Zoho doesn't hide that there is a version that you pay for (most of the business apps list the limit on the number of free users it can have) but they do hide the demo. I didn't see it mentioned until I was reading the Privacy Policy and there's no link to it there.
Microsoft
I didn't find anything about Microsoft Office 2010 being online directly from Microsoft but there are articles and opinions on it. Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and OneNote will the programs that will be available online.
6th Week of Class: The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
I'm watching Dr. Horrible's Sing-a-long blog and the first notable thing occurs before the show even starts. I'm given a choice of which show to see an advertisement for: Ugly Betty, Castle, and Life on Mars. I like Castle so I clicked on that.
While I've only gotten a choice of what kind of ad to view on Hulu (sometimes you can get the rest of the show ad free if you watch a long ad at the beginning, sometimes you can choose between two different ads for the same product) ABC's player does sometimes have interactive ads at their commercial breaks. I've seen a car ad that is completely silent and lets the user click around to see the vehicles features. I've seen another ad that actually contains a game.
One of the trends with video on the Internet is that advertisers are going to take advantage of the medium and allow users to interact with the ads. It's one I personally hope continues, if only so I can 'dislike' all the ads I hate and never see them again. So far I've only seen the option to dislike or like an ad on Hulu.
But one of the things all the video sites for major networks have done is to make the content free for the end user. They're all ad supported and while they do tend to include the same number of commercial breaks that you'd get on television they all only show one ad per break on the Internet. The other trend I haven't found an exception for (at least for sites owned by networks) is the choice of Flash video. Although some sites players that require you to install an additional plugin to use their player the video itself is still Flash.
Everything else seems to vary: the quality of the video, whether the video will have the option of HD, whether the player works in multiple browsers, DRM (I assume that's what the plugin is really for but it was really explicit when trying to view videos on TNT's site, at least at first), even whether the video can fill the screen. (Lifetime's videos for Project Runway do not fill the entire screen even on the full screen setting. It's not letterboxed either; there's black around the whole picture.)
There's a lot that must go into this: loads of storage for the video for one thing. Then there's the database for the shows, their episodes, reviews, discussions, user accounts, etc. They must have a way of automating the commercial breaks: there's too much content to have someone going into the Flash and hard coding it for each video. Not to mention the fact that the videos will have a different number of commercial breaks and at different points in the video, even for videos of the same length.
While I've only gotten a choice of what kind of ad to view on Hulu (sometimes you can get the rest of the show ad free if you watch a long ad at the beginning, sometimes you can choose between two different ads for the same product) ABC's player does sometimes have interactive ads at their commercial breaks. I've seen a car ad that is completely silent and lets the user click around to see the vehicles features. I've seen another ad that actually contains a game.
One of the trends with video on the Internet is that advertisers are going to take advantage of the medium and allow users to interact with the ads. It's one I personally hope continues, if only so I can 'dislike' all the ads I hate and never see them again. So far I've only seen the option to dislike or like an ad on Hulu.
But one of the things all the video sites for major networks have done is to make the content free for the end user. They're all ad supported and while they do tend to include the same number of commercial breaks that you'd get on television they all only show one ad per break on the Internet. The other trend I haven't found an exception for (at least for sites owned by networks) is the choice of Flash video. Although some sites players that require you to install an additional plugin to use their player the video itself is still Flash.
Everything else seems to vary: the quality of the video, whether the video will have the option of HD, whether the player works in multiple browsers, DRM (I assume that's what the plugin is really for but it was really explicit when trying to view videos on TNT's site, at least at first), even whether the video can fill the screen. (Lifetime's videos for Project Runway do not fill the entire screen even on the full screen setting. It's not letterboxed either; there's black around the whole picture.)
There's a lot that must go into this: loads of storage for the video for one thing. Then there's the database for the shows, their episodes, reviews, discussions, user accounts, etc. They must have a way of automating the commercial breaks: there's too much content to have someone going into the Flash and hard coding it for each video. Not to mention the fact that the videos will have a different number of commercial breaks and at different points in the video, even for videos of the same length.
6th Week of Class: It's 10PM. Do you know where your data is?
We're all doing group presentations in Database Management. The group I was in did a presentation on Multi-factor Authentication.
Since we had to touch on various technologies that can be used to implement this I had to leave a couple of things out of the presentation to stay within the time limit.
A couple recently sued their bank for not having Multi-factor Authentication. They even cited the FFIEC in the lawsuit. We mentioned in our presentation that money was a barrier for some companies when it comes for MFA because the technologies to implement it can be expensive. However, if there are more lawsuits like this, it might become too expensive not to have it.
I mentioned skimmers but didn't have time to do much more than mention a couple of sites where you could learn more. Here's a video from a British show, The Real Hustle, showing how the crooks use skimmers:
Commonwealth Bank has a pdf showing how to spot a skimmer and the Consumerist has several articles about skimmers.
What will be interesting to see is what kind of backlash there will be if and when businesses start to require their end users to use a 'something you have' factor for authentication. If/when a company many people use like Bank of America requires this people will freak. They will not care if it's free and they will not care if it keeps their information insecure. To them it will an inconvenience. I could tell you stories, but they're work related. Instead, I'll use Internet Explorer as an example. IE6 is less secure than IE7 and 8, Internet Explorer is free to upgrade, but many people in the US still use IE6.
Some people will be happy to see it happen. Anyone who's had their account compromised for instance. Maybe I'll be wrong and most people will just be upset it wasn't done sooner.
Since we had to touch on various technologies that can be used to implement this I had to leave a couple of things out of the presentation to stay within the time limit.
A couple recently sued their bank for not having Multi-factor Authentication. They even cited the FFIEC in the lawsuit. We mentioned in our presentation that money was a barrier for some companies when it comes for MFA because the technologies to implement it can be expensive. However, if there are more lawsuits like this, it might become too expensive not to have it.
I mentioned skimmers but didn't have time to do much more than mention a couple of sites where you could learn more. Here's a video from a British show, The Real Hustle, showing how the crooks use skimmers:
Commonwealth Bank has a pdf showing how to spot a skimmer and the Consumerist has several articles about skimmers.
What will be interesting to see is what kind of backlash there will be if and when businesses start to require their end users to use a 'something you have' factor for authentication. If/when a company many people use like Bank of America requires this people will freak. They will not care if it's free and they will not care if it keeps their information insecure. To them it will an inconvenience. I could tell you stories, but they're work related. Instead, I'll use Internet Explorer as an example. IE6 is less secure than IE7 and 8, Internet Explorer is free to upgrade, but many people in the US still use IE6.
Some people will be happy to see it happen. Anyone who's had their account compromised for instance. Maybe I'll be wrong and most people will just be upset it wasn't done sooner.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
5th Week of Class: Tricking out Twitter
So there are a lot of Twitter Apps out there. Some are meant to let you use Twitter along with something else and other are meant to enhance Twitter itself. Ones that caught my eye:
TwitterAnalyzer: the description for the app says that it is sometimes called "Google Analytics for Twitter users". With over 50+ statistics measures I can see many organizations wanting to use this. In addition to some demographic info they're always looking for they can also see how often they're mentioned on Twitter and who's talking about them. A business like Pizza Hut could direct message someone a coupon because they've tweeted about having pizza delivered for the 50th time.
FitClick Diet Tweets: You send it a tweet of the food you ate and it will track the food and the calories in it. It can also track protein, fat, carbohydrates, etc. but it looks like only the calorie counter and food diary are free. It seems like an easier way of tracking that than carrying around a journal or waiting until you get home to enter it into a Word or Excel file. Frankly, I'm curious about how much food they can actually do calorie counts for. It takes 5 minutes though, so you can get instant gratification for curiousity's sake.
JustBought.it: Share photos and tweets about your purchases. While I'm not dying to go out and announce where I live and shop with everyone on the planet I can see this being used to help people find out which bookstore still has a certain textbook or other hard to find items. I can also see people on Ravlery using this to talk about yarn purchases. Many of us already photograph all the yarn we buy anyway.
Tweet what you Spend: Like FitClick the appeal is the ability to track the details of a certain event away from home without using pen and paper. In this case the event is spending cash. There is also an app to help you sort and categorize your cash spending. If I were to use this (see above description on why I might not be keen on that) I'd use it to make a separate tool I use to track spending more accurate.
Weatherizer: Changes the background of your Twitter home page based on your local weather. While it doesn't have many different possibilities for what it could be used for I think this is nifty. Windows ME had desktops that were essentially HTML pages. The default had a background that changed depending on the time of day you turned your computer on. If they expanded the app to change based on different events that would be really cool. Maybe even change based on events in Twitter. You could have your background change when you got your 100th follower or something.
TwitterAnalyzer: the description for the app says that it is sometimes called "Google Analytics for Twitter users". With over 50+ statistics measures I can see many organizations wanting to use this. In addition to some demographic info they're always looking for they can also see how often they're mentioned on Twitter and who's talking about them. A business like Pizza Hut could direct message someone a coupon because they've tweeted about having pizza delivered for the 50th time.
FitClick Diet Tweets: You send it a tweet of the food you ate and it will track the food and the calories in it. It can also track protein, fat, carbohydrates, etc. but it looks like only the calorie counter and food diary are free. It seems like an easier way of tracking that than carrying around a journal or waiting until you get home to enter it into a Word or Excel file. Frankly, I'm curious about how much food they can actually do calorie counts for. It takes 5 minutes though, so you can get instant gratification for curiousity's sake.
JustBought.it: Share photos and tweets about your purchases. While I'm not dying to go out and announce where I live and shop with everyone on the planet I can see this being used to help people find out which bookstore still has a certain textbook or other hard to find items. I can also see people on Ravlery using this to talk about yarn purchases. Many of us already photograph all the yarn we buy anyway.
Tweet what you Spend: Like FitClick the appeal is the ability to track the details of a certain event away from home without using pen and paper. In this case the event is spending cash. There is also an app to help you sort and categorize your cash spending. If I were to use this (see above description on why I might not be keen on that) I'd use it to make a separate tool I use to track spending more accurate.
Weatherizer: Changes the background of your Twitter home page based on your local weather. While it doesn't have many different possibilities for what it could be used for I think this is nifty. Windows ME had desktops that were essentially HTML pages. The default had a background that changed depending on the time of day you turned your computer on. If they expanded the app to change based on different events that would be really cool. Maybe even change based on events in Twitter. You could have your background change when you got your 100th follower or something.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
