Round up, Wednesday 31st March, 2010
Post categories: round up
| 18:40 UK time, Wednesday, 31 March 2010
Erik Huggers' post revealing 400 top level 91热爆 directories on Monday got reactions from and . And :
The list only seems to confirm the 91热爆 continuing to commit one of the cardinal sins of IA - having a navigation and URL structure that is all about a representation of the internal organisation structure, and nothing about ease of use and transparency for the audience.
Martin also quotes Tom Loosemore's about the number of . In comments Roo Reynolds (of 91热爆 Vision) :
it's worth looking at the trend in the past two-and-a-quarter years: 138 launches in 2008, 93 in 2009 and just 11 so far this year. Also, following the strategy of "every television programme will have its own website" and many of them being automatic, Vision's "site launches" include things like /larkrise, /desperateromantics, /silentwitness, /restaurant and /whodoyouthinkyouare, all of which are redirects to /programmes.
Following the 91热爆 Trust's decision to at 91热爆 mobile apps,
So in the near future we should be able to build web apps every bit as good as mobile apps? Yes, but I would go further: for most of the things the 91热爆 wants to do, the technology is already good enough.
is the headline in paidContent. Just in case you missed it Anthony Rose will be
According to Digital Spy the 91热爆 is, and will
Slashdot the recent 91热爆 iPlayer content protection argy bargy.
Other good comments you may have missed:
Antony Sullivan answers questions on phasing out the low graphics version of the 91热爆 News site.
Over on the 91热爆 R&D blog the Mythology Engine is going down a storm.
And finally the 91热爆 blogs home page has had a small makeover...
Nick Reynolds is Social Media Executive, 91热爆 Online
Comment number 1.
At 31st Mar 2010, Pacificnw wrote:With all this effort over new platforms for bbc.co.uk what is the plan for HTML5 and specifically the replacement of the Flash based multimedia elements with standard HTML5 tags?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 1st Apr 2010, citizenloz wrote:No comment on the latest findings on HD picture quality from Which then Nick?
You were so keen to highlight their previous report on 91热爆 HD picture quality in your blog /blogs/bbcinternet/2009/12/round_up_monday_28th_december.html and in the '91热爆 on Blogs' panel that I am surprised you haven't highlighted their latest report comparing 91热爆 HD on Freesat and Freeview.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 1st Apr 2010, TV Licence fee payer against 91热爆 censorship wrote:#1. At 11:32pm on 31 Mar 2010, Pacificnw wrote:
"With all this effort over new platforms for bbc.co.uk what is the plan for HTML5 and specifically the replacement of the Flash based multimedia elements with standard HTML5 tags? "
How many common(ly used) browsers support HTML5, compared to how many support the Flash plug-in?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 1st Apr 2010, TV Licence fee payer against 91热爆 censorship wrote:"And finally the 91热爆 blogs home page has had a small makeover..."
Indeed, and what a utterly horrid colour has been chosen for the link-text, please don't tell us that this 'style' is to become the "House Style"?...
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 1st Apr 2010, Nick Reynolds wrote:Interesting report citizenloz. It says;
"Which? found that high-definition programmes on Freeview HD were in high-definition, and the viewing experts judged it a significant improvement over standard definition TV. The images watched on 91热爆 HD were robust and 'what one would expect from a HD signal,' according to one Which? expert.
Which? did spot some differences between the Freeview HD and Freesat. According to one expert: 'The main difference was that the Freesat had a marginally better level of sharpness, which gave it better depth and sparkle over the Freeview HD signal.'
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 1st Apr 2010, Pacificnw wrote:@Boilerplated as of the next round of browsers ALL will be HTML5 compliant..actually it sounds like it will be the first round of browsers that actually go out their way to be fully compliant.
HTML5 represents a real opportunity to move away from buggy plugins that we all know regularly crash browsers.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 1st Apr 2010, TV Licence fee payer against 91热爆 censorship wrote:6. At 3:31pm on 01 Apr 2010, Pacificnw wrote:
"@Boilerplated as of the next round of browsers ALL will be HTML5 compliant..actually it sounds like it will be the first round of browsers that actually go out their way to be fully compliant."
Err, doesn't HTML5 first need to be made a standard, rather than just a set or proposed standards...
"HTML5 represents a real opportunity to move away from buggy plugins that we all know regularly crash browsers."
That is a matter for opinion and debate, I can't remember the last time I had a plug-in crash (although I must admit that I do manage what plug-ins I allow, thus probably preventing conflicts) - and from what I recall - what crashes I have had were due to not keeping the plug-in up to date.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)
Comment number 8.
At 1st Apr 2010, Ed Lyons wrote:I believe the way the HTML5 standard is being made is that it's being designed based on consensus. When two or more of the major engines implement a feature in a particular way, that's considered to be The Standard.
So, if we look at something like the <video> tag that everyone sees as a key feature of HTML5:
We can see Opera, WebKit and Firefox all have partial but incomplete support for the standard, as defined in the document. If they all deviate from the specification, then I believe it will be discussed and the specification will be changed.
I think this is due to past problems where the specification is found to be unworkable. Having the specification has documentation of the status quo - and the developer's intentions works better.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 8)
Comment number 9.
At 2nd Apr 2010, EggOnAStilt wrote:Boilerplated, are you a blog stalker.
You are everywhere.
I don't mind comments from anyone, but you don't say sorry when you're wrong.
Oh yes I can, just to pre-empt your next blog/post.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 9)
Comment number 10.
At 2nd Apr 2010, TV Licence fee payer against 91热爆 censorship wrote:9. At 00:16am on 02 Apr 2010, Egg OnAStilt Wants DOGFREE 91热爆 wrote:
"Boilerplated, are you a blog stalker."
Whilst you're a clueless pizzle, how anyone can say that towards someone who has been posting comments to these '91热爆 Internet blogs' for the last two years or so, especially when the accuser comes barging in from the message-boards!
Judging from the time-tamp, I guess that this was just another example of an intoxicated 'hit-and-run' on the (information-)highway...
Complain about this comment (Comment number 10)
Comment number 11.
At 2nd Apr 2010, Mo McRoberts wrote:鈥淓rr, doesn't HTML5 first need to be made a standard, rather than just a set or proposed standards...鈥
That鈥檚 not how the process works with the W3C. Something isn鈥檛 officially called a standard until after it鈥檚 been widely-implemented (this just reflects the reality of standards processes in the terminology, rather than being some significant shift in the way things are done).
Complain about this comment (Comment number 11)
Comment number 12.
At 2nd Apr 2010, Nick Reynolds wrote:Re: HTML5 - is this discussion actually on topic? There's no mention of HTML5 in the blog post.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 12)
Comment number 13.
At 3rd Apr 2010, TV Licence fee payer against 91热爆 censorship wrote:12. At 4:37pm on 02 Apr 2010, Nick Reynolds wrote:
"Re: HTML5 - is this discussion actually on topic? There's no mention of HTML5 in the blog post."
Yes Nick it is, in so far as it is relevant to delivery of the 91热爆 iPlayer and the issues around DRM, both of which are mentioned in the blog.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 13)
Comment number 14.
At 6th May 2010, Andrew K-Fox wrote:Dear Sir,
I would like to bring your attention to the 91热爆 World Service program on Internet Usage in Africa where a small village was given internet access through a couple of phones. The one point that I noticed was the COST PER MB for the connection.
I am currently working in Nepal using a shared satellite link to read the 91热爆 news pages. And today could not find the Low graphics version. This may not seem of importance, but just to register this comment has taken me over 20 minutes, I would like to read more, but just don't have the time.
You quote that just 2% of users use the low graphics version. I would question the reasoning of the 2%, more to the point, you are a global news supplier how many people even realise that there was a low graphics version who use the site from other countries. How many people like me struggle through the high graphics version, only reading the essentials because it just takes way to long to do anything else.
Surely before you remove the low graphics version you did a cost per page read analysis.
You have the news in lots of languages, what is the cost to read the news in each of these languages in there home countries ?
Cost per Byte in a monetary terms,
Average Front page size in Bytes
This Cost per Page must be equated back to the Average wage for the country.
Reference your program on bbc world service. I would be interested to see the cost of reading your newspaper in full on one day. I would guess to read the complete news in one day the average cost in a developing country would be in excess of $1, and then equate that back to the cost of living and you news is VERY EXPENSIVE.
Just some thoughts from an ex 10year IT Professional turned international traveller who can't believe how western orientated the IT world is.
"The internet is global as long as you have a FAST ADSL Connection and FREE unlimited bandwidth, because that's what we have , don't you ?."
Bandwidths Biggest Virus.. Automatic Updates from Anti-Virus software vendors, One small office with simple XP gets 10mb of updates for every PC, 10 computers. 100MB, now put yourself in the developing country paying for each MB. And it's just cost you your profit for the day.
Please don't become another High Bandwidth System costing too much for the poorest people in the world.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 14)
Comment number 15.
At 6th May 2010, Andrew K-Fox wrote:Sorry, Wrong Blog .. after all that didn't realise the page changed .. arrg
Complain about this comment (Comment number 15)
Comment number 16.
At 11th May 2010, U14460911 wrote:All this user's posts have been removed.Why?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 16)
Comment number 17.
At 12th May 2010, U14460911 wrote:All this user's posts have been removed.Why?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 17)
Comment number 18.
At 12th May 2010, U14460911 wrote:All this user's posts have been removed.Why?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 18)
Comment number 19.
At 19th May 2010, magic1001981 wrote:That鈥檚 not how the process works with the W3C. Something isn鈥檛 officially called a standard until after it鈥檚 been widely-implemented (this just reflects the reality of standards processes in the terminology, rather than being some significant shift in the way things are done).
Complain about this comment (Comment number 19)
Comment number 20.
At 20th May 2010, talat wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 20)
Comment number 21.
At 15th Feb 2011, Nick Reynolds wrote:This is just a test.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 21)
Comment number 22.
At 15th Feb 2011, Richard Summers wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 22)
Comment number 23.
At 15th Feb 2011, Faye Tsar wrote:Parish notice question, we were told blogs were closed after three months, and this has remained open. Strangely enough, blogs that garnered plenty of comments have been closed, some even quicker than three months.
Is the three month rule a solid rule or fluid like the house rules.
In any case who makes these rules, what is the purpose of these 'on the fly' rules? Do the 91热爆 see this control freakery as an asset to the 91热爆? If you truly cared about the 91热爆 and how it is perceived (if you care) by people outside of the 91热爆, how do you allow this state of affairs to continue?
Feel free to delete 5...4...3...2...1
Complain about this comment (Comment number 23)
Comment number 24.
At 15th Feb 2011, Nick Reynolds wrote:You are off topic Faye but let me explain.
The three month automated default closing of comments on this blog was instituted last year. Technically it only applies to those posts AFTER the closing period was put in place. So posts written a year or so ago won't close after three months, they will remain open until I close them manually (as I'm about to do with this one). Eventually all old posts will close so the three month default closing time will apply to all posts on the blog.
I decided to have three months as the default closing time because I don't want conversations to run on for ever, posts which are open for months on end attract spam and three months seemed like a reasonable time for a conversation to be resolved. Other 91热爆 blogs have shorter closing times. I still have the option of keeping a blog post open for comments for longer if I wish.
These measures are designed to make a better, more efficient service for licence fee payers.
I posted a comment on this blog this a.m. as a test as comments on another post weren't working.
Thanks
Complain about this comment (Comment number 24)