I have enjoyed the program and learned a great deal.
The upside: I wasn't as technologically illiterate as I thought I was.
The downside: the pace of the program didn't allow me to really absorb the material. One thing a week for 6 months might have worked out better for my particular learning style.
An important adjunct would be continuing to keep the 23-1/2 things posted somewhere, or downloadable from somewhere, for future reference. I've had occasion to refer to some of the things we worked on, but there were so many, I couldn't quite remember which site was which. I was able to reference this site to jog my memory. I would have been lost without it.
I would absolutely participate in a similar program again.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
audiobooks
I have long loved audiobooks for when I travel, and in the past couple of years, we've gotten a reasonably good collection of downloadables. The construction of the site makes it difficult to browse, which is how I would ideally find what I'd like to hear but I know that is a function of the Overdrive software and that QL has little/no control over that.
I came across a title, "The Saturdays," that was a favorite children's book when I was young. I will make it a point to listen, just to see if it's the same book.
I came across a title, "The Saturdays," that was a favorite children's book when I was young. I will make it a point to listen, just to see if it's the same book.
Podcasts
I have been familiar with podcasts, so there's nothing revolutionary here for me. There is plenty of interesting content around, you simply need the time to anticipate what you will want to hear in the future and add it to your account.
Prior to the wide availability of podcasts, I had rigged a casette recorder hooked up to a timer and radio so I could get a few favorite radio shows when I wasn't home to hear them. This is much simpler.
Prior to the wide availability of podcasts, I had rigged a casette recorder hooked up to a timer and radio so I could get a few favorite radio shows when I wasn't home to hear them. This is much simpler.
YouTube
YouTube is both a resource and the world's biggest time waster, not only in the time it takes to view the postings, but the time that people spend filming their pets snoring or their babies drooling, and then posting them to YouTube.
There is a lot of valuable content that will become more valuable as time goes on. We can now see presidential speeches and academy award presentations. The grandparents of the drooling babies are certainly delighted to be able to watch whenever they want.
A drawback to the site is that you can't really tell what's genuine and what's a parody. I watched a video of what was supposed to be a Fox newscast of a sane-looking man going on about Bill Clinton and UFOs. Either it was a parody, or Fox News should have their license revoked for airing such inanities -- but I can't really tell you which.
You can put any two unrelated words into the search engine, and get multiple hits, testifying to the unbelievable quantity of material posted. A sterling example was a video of people who were trying to whitewater raft on blow-up anatomically-correct dolls, and another of students trying an experiment by bouncing a basketball off a high place with an egg atop it (the result of the search terms "library" and "egg.")
If I were an anthropoligist in the year 3007 and I dug up YouTube, I would conclude that people in 2007 were unapologetic exhibitionists. Like bloggers :-)
There is a lot of valuable content that will become more valuable as time goes on. We can now see presidential speeches and academy award presentations. The grandparents of the drooling babies are certainly delighted to be able to watch whenever they want.
A drawback to the site is that you can't really tell what's genuine and what's a parody. I watched a video of what was supposed to be a Fox newscast of a sane-looking man going on about Bill Clinton and UFOs. Either it was a parody, or Fox News should have their license revoked for airing such inanities -- but I can't really tell you which.
You can put any two unrelated words into the search engine, and get multiple hits, testifying to the unbelievable quantity of material posted. A sterling example was a video of people who were trying to whitewater raft on blow-up anatomically-correct dolls, and another of students trying an experiment by bouncing a basketball off a high place with an egg atop it (the result of the search terms "library" and "egg.")
If I were an anthropoligist in the year 3007 and I dug up YouTube, I would conclude that people in 2007 were unapologetic exhibitionists. Like bloggers :-)
Friday, November 23, 2007
Web 2.0
I explored a few of the award winners, and some I was already familiar with, such as Craigslist. I was not clear about what makes them "web 2.0" as opposed to "more-cool-things-you-can-do-on-a-website."
The awards website had a link to follow, which I did, and found this definition: "Web 2.0 is the network as platform, spanning all connected devices; Web 2.0 applications are those that make the most of the intrinsic advantages of that platform ... 'architecture of participation,'... ". Well, that certainly obviates obfuscation, doesn't it?
More research nudged into the area of Web 2.0 sites being enriched by the users, such as the Threadless site which sells T-shirts using pictures of people who have already bought the T-shirts and sent in their photos.
It's an interesting thought. I'm not sure it works. It's based on the premise that the group as a homogenized whole is more knowledgeable/influential than individuals. This is not true, as you know from general election results, or the fact that fear of peanut allergies is now driving what's happening in most school cafeterias and airline terminals, even though for the past 50 years or more, it hasn't been an issue anyplace. Very vocal, highly politicized individuals and narrow interests effectively and frequently enslave the majority, who are too worried about being politically incorrect to speak up for themselves. But I digress...
The other issue is that if Web 2.0 content is shaped by my input and interests, how do get input about things I never knew I had an interest in? I was listening to NPR this morning (I love NPR) and I heard featurettes about things I would never have imagined existed, no less were fascinating. Web 2.0 is the anti-NPR.
Bottom line: it's irrelevant exactly what Web 2.0 is. It's new, some of it is very interesting, some of it is dumb, but it's not going away. Who cares what you call it?
The awards website had a link to follow, which I did, and found this definition: "Web 2.0 is the network as platform, spanning all connected devices; Web 2.0 applications are those that make the most of the intrinsic advantages of that platform ... 'architecture of participation,'... ". Well, that certainly obviates obfuscation, doesn't it?
More research nudged into the area of Web 2.0 sites being enriched by the users, such as the Threadless site which sells T-shirts using pictures of people who have already bought the T-shirts and sent in their photos.
It's an interesting thought. I'm not sure it works. It's based on the premise that the group as a homogenized whole is more knowledgeable/influential than individuals. This is not true, as you know from general election results, or the fact that fear of peanut allergies is now driving what's happening in most school cafeterias and airline terminals, even though for the past 50 years or more, it hasn't been an issue anyplace. Very vocal, highly politicized individuals and narrow interests effectively and frequently enslave the majority, who are too worried about being politically incorrect to speak up for themselves. But I digress...
The other issue is that if Web 2.0 content is shaped by my input and interests, how do get input about things I never knew I had an interest in? I was listening to NPR this morning (I love NPR) and I heard featurettes about things I would never have imagined existed, no less were fascinating. Web 2.0 is the anti-NPR.
Bottom line: it's irrelevant exactly what Web 2.0 is. It's new, some of it is very interesting, some of it is dumb, but it's not going away. Who cares what you call it?
Online collaborations
This is a beautiful thing. I created a test document which I was able to post to my blog, and it appears below. I summed up (in my test document) my thoughts on the technology. It has exciting possibilities.
This is a test document written by me with an online word processor. It is pretty intuitive, and works much like the standards. Why would I need to do it?
I probably wouldn't if I were working from my desktop. But it paves the way for editing documents from a handheld, or easier online collaborations. Of course, it puts all the pwoer int he hands of the teleconnectors, but that's another issue that speaks to my level of paranoia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)