This is a fantastic post, Pete, thankyou. I can't even begin to pick a lot of it appart right now (it's gone six, and I've had an afternoon of meetings). I think some of what you're reacting to - and quite rightly - is that you're only seeing one tiny part of a much bigger project, that is indeed adressing 'what we've got, and what we can allow people to do with it'. Yes, a lot of this is obfuscated by saying it's 'web2' - when in fact its just.. Stuff. Content. The internet. People. I've fallen into my own trap of using a catch all term to disguise a lot of gnarly underlying issues.
In the way of gnarly issues, they're a way from being sorted yet. But we're working on it - and kind of from both ends. Hence the odd 'what makes a good website?' approach. k -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Pete Cole Sent: 17 July 2006 15:44 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Web2.0 - tennets, rules, development philosophy... I'd love you to give us some feedback Way back in the mists of the late 20th century I attended a meeting with someone from Factual and Learning about the Digital Curriculum - at a time when it was still a thought. We suggested that it would be really useful if teachers could take the "content" that the BBC produced and "re-arrange" it to their requirements in their classroom. I suppose this would now be called creating a mash-up. Such ideas lead to difficult conversations about what is "content", how can teachers "mash-up" that content, in what circumstances etc etc. As far as I can see Jam has not followed up on this. IMHO, the BBC should not try to conform to some definition of Web 2.0 (and what is a lightweight business model - one that is short?), the BBC should be creative and innovative with what it has got and the delivery mechanisms at its disposal. The list as presented here seems to be a list of technical things that can be done but without reference to what those technical things are being done to (content) and to what end (what/why/how is being viewed/used and by whom (the audience)). It seems to me the BBC have an aweful lot of content in an aweful lot of categories and also have an incredibly diverse audience using a variety of reception devices. What have the BBC got? Who can use BBC content? What do the BBC want to enable people to do with it? What can the BBC allow people to do with it? and from that: How do the BBC want them to do those things? For example, you might decide that you want to enable anyone to do what ever they like. You recently ran a competition for people to design a bbc home page, but only a mock up. A theoretical route you could go would be for bbc.co.uk to disappear and be replaced completely by 'services'. All those competition entries wouldn't have to be mock-ups, they could be real. Then www.bbc.co.uk might just be the BBCs own hack at putting a face on those services. iPlayer (or whatever it is called these days) could be just one of many apps putting a face on downloads/streams. Back to Jam, the BBC would become a provider of "content components" to all the VLEs out there (perhaps it already is). On the other hand, given all the rights issues etc etc etc the BBC may be forced to be a 'closed shop', no body can do much with much of your content other than look at it and write comments on it. Your list will produce an excellent, modern web site that elegantly degrades to the capabilities of the users device and that is developed in a well managed environment. This doesn't strike me as Web2.0, just web or in fact just "TV", the box is a browser and that is all you can use to look at it and you can only look at it in the way it was 'broadcast'. If it seems I have missed the point, I was trying to address "So, I have a kind of a list of philosophical tennets - ways that code and design and data and content and whatnot should behave when playing nice on the internet." The ways that code etc should behave will depend upon what you are going to allow; what content can be used to what end and by whom? Pete Cole ------------------------------------------------------------------------ --- On 7/14/06, Kim Plowright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi all As threatened, here it is.I'm part of a project internally that is looking at what the BBC does on the web, and how that should change over the next 3 years. As part of this, Tom Loosemore, grand paterfamilias of this list, has asked me to come up with some 'rules of the road for web2 sites'. Nice tight brief there, you'll appreciate. So, I have a kind of a list of philosophical tennets - ways that code and design and data and content and whatnot should behave when playing nice on the internet. I'd be really interested to hear what everyone here thinks. Am I missing things? Obviously, I'm an editorial/management type, so some of this might be barmy. But.. What do you think? Have I missed anything vital about ways of making sites that play nicely on the web, and benefit the whole internet more than the organisation? That are, to nick a popular little motto, 'Not Evil'? I'd really appreciate the thinking of you lot here. List follows the sig.. Let me know if any of the buzzwords are incomprehensible; I've stolen the categories from http://alistapart.com/topics/ because they seemed to make sense. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
