Re: [backstage] Who spilled coffee on the server?

[Jason Cartwright]

On a related note, the blog profiles never seem to work for me (not showing
any content other than the page framework)...

E.g.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/profile/?userid=11933551

J

-- 
Jason Cartwright
Web Specialist, EMEA Marketing
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+44(0)2070313161

On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 12:36 PM, Aaron Scullion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

>  Thanks for this. The DNA team are aware, and are trying to fix right now.
>
>
> We're also trying to make these error messages less verbose, for obvious
> reasons...
>
> Aaron
>
> (Product manager, BBC blogs)
>
>  --
> *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *vijay chopra
> *Sent:* 15 May 2008 12:20
> *To:* backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
> *Subject:* [backstage] Who spilled coffee on the server?
>
> On the subject of things at the Beeb, someone broke Justin Webb's blog:
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/
> There's a big red server Error message behind the blog entries, and all the
> comments have disappeared (it's been like this from at least sometime
> yesterday)
>
> If you're fast enough pressing your browsers stop button, you can see the
> full message, stack trace and all.
> Here are the full details for anyone who knows DNA well enough to fix it:
>
>
> Server Error in '/DNA/DNAPAGES' Application.
> --
>  *'<', hexadecimal value 0x3C, is an invalid attribute character. Line 1,
> position 20.* *Description: *An unhandled exception occurred during the
> execution of the current web request. Please review the stack trace for more
> information about the error and where it originated in the code.
>
> *Exception Details: *System.Xml.XmlException: '<', hexadecimal value 0x3C,
> is an invalid attribute character. Line 1, position 20.
>
> *Source Error:*
>
>   An unhandled exception was generated during the execution of the current
> web request. Information regarding the origin and location of the exception
> can be identified using the exception stack trace below.
> *Stack Trace:*
>
>   [XmlException: '<', hexadecimal value 0x3C, is an invalid attribute 
> character. Line 1, position 20.]
>System.Xml.XmlTextReaderImpl.Throw(Exception e) +87
>System.Xml.XmlTextReaderImpl.Throw(String res, String[] args) +77
>
>System.Xml.XmlTextReaderImpl.Throw(Int32 pos, String res, String[] args) 
> +18
>System.Xml.XmlTextReaderImpl.ParseAttributeValueSlow(Int32 curPos, Char 
> quoteChar, NodeData attr) +629
>System.Xml.XmlTextReaderImpl.ParseAttributes() +867
>
>System.Xml.XmlTextReaderImpl.ParseElement() +545
>System.Xml.XmlTextReaderImpl.ParseElementContent() +461
>System.Xml.XmlTextReaderImpl.Read() +26
>System.Xml.XmlLoader.LoadNode(Boolean skipOverWhitespace) +435
>
>System.Xml.XmlLoader.ParsePartialContent(XmlNode parentNode, String 
> innerxmltext, XmlNodeType nt) +200
>System.Xml.XmlElement.set_InnerXml(String value) +37
>BBC.Dna.ForumPost.AddPostXml(IDnaDataReader reader, DnaComponent 
> component, XmlNode parentNode, IInputContext context) +2375
>
>
> BBC.Dna.RecentCommentForumPostsBuilder.BuildRecentCommentsXml(IDnaDataReader 
> dataReader) +128
>BBC.Dna.RecentCommentForumPostsBuilder.TryGetRecentCommentForumPosts() +201
>BBC.Dna.BlogSummary.ProcessRequest() +178
>
>BBC.Dna.Component.WholePage.ProcessRequest() +82
>BBC.Dna.Page.DnaBasePage.DoPageLoad() +663
>BBC.Dna.Page.DnaBasePage.Page_Load(Object sender, EventArgs e) +146
>BBC.Dna.Page.DnaWebPage.Page_Load(Object sender, EventArgs e) +20
>
>System.Web.Util.CalliHelper.EventArgFunctionCaller(IntPtr fp, Object o, 
> Object t, EventArgs e) +15
>System.Web.Util.CalliEventHandlerDelegateProxy.Callback(Object sender, 
> EventArgs e) +34
>System.Web.UI.Control.OnLoad(EventArgs e) +99
>
>System.Web.UI.Control.LoadRecursive() +47
>System.Web.UI.Page.ProcessRequestMain(Boolean 
> includeStagesBeforeAsyncPoint, Boolean includeStagesAfterAsyncPoint) +1061
>
>
> --
> *Version Information:* Microsoft .NET Framework Version:2.0.50727.832;
> ASP.NET Version:2.0.50727.832
>

Re: [backstage] BBC iPlayer, loved by millions, disliked by a single US citizen

[Jason Cartwright]

On top of the 17.5% tax already on there?

J

On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 1:37 PM, Brian Butterworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> BTW, I've had a really bright idea to stop needing to 'top slice' the TV
> License Fee:
>
>
> There is a PSB funding option that no-one seems to be considering. It's a
> really, really, simple obvious one. It re-distributive, simple to implement,
> almost a no brainer, logical, doesn't hurt the BBC, no selling off of Chris
> Moyles and Terry Wogan. And here it is:
>
> *ADD A 3% TAX TO SUBSCRIPTION TELEVISION*
>
> Sky subscribers: Q4 2007, 8,297,000 Annual revenue per unit: £421
>
> Total Sky subscription revenues: £3493.037m
>
> Virgin subscribers: Q4 2007, 3,478,100 Annual revenue per unit: £507
>
> Total Sky subscription income: £1763.346m
>
> Total income from television subscriptions: £5256.383m
>
> Revenue required to support Channel 4 or PSB Publisher etc: £150m
>
> Tax on subscriptions would be: 150/5256.383 = 2.85%
>
> What do you think?
>
>
> On 01/05/2008, Martin Belam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, but it was no surprise that the first Service Licence review was
> > yet another in-depth look at online, and not BBC One, was it?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 2008/4/30 Brendan Quinn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > Hi Tom,
> > >
> > >
> > >  You wrote:
> > >  > the public value test is a one way expansion valve, only allowing
> > for
> > >  new BBC
> > >  > services, never testing existing BBC services to see if they still
> > >  make sense.
> > >
> > >  That's right, existing services aren't put through a PVT -- that's
> > what
> > >  the service licence is for, isn't it?
> > >
> > >
> > http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/framework/bbc_service_licences/bbc_co_uk_s
> > >  ervice_licence.html
> > >
> > >  The Trust are actually reviewing the online service licence right
> > now...
> > >
> > http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/framework/bbc_service_licences/bbc_co_uk.h
> > >  tml
> > >
> > >  Ready to be published in "Spring 2008", ie any day now, I suppose.
> > >
> > >  Brendan.
> > >
> > >
> > >  -Original Message-
> > >  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Loosemore
> > >  Sent: 30 April 2008 12:15
> > >  To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
> > >  Subject: Re: [backstage] BBC iPlayer, loved by millions, disliked by
> > a
> > >  single US citizen
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > New BBC services now have to go through a "market impact assessment"
> > >  > to  ensure they are not anti competitive:
> > >  >
> > >  >  http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/framework/public_value_test/#part-5
> > >
> > >  but existing BBC services (ie everything other than iPlayer and BBC
> > >  HD) have not been and will not be subject to such rigour...
> > >
> > >  the public value test is a one way expansion valve, only allowing for
> > >  new BBC services, never testing existing BBC services to see if they
> > >  still 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/
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Martin Belam - http://www.currybet.net
> > -
> > 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/
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Please email me back if you need any more help.
>
> Brian Butterworth
>
> http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover
> advice, since 2002
>



-- 
Jason Cartwright
Web Specialist, EMEA Marketing
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+44(0)2070313161

Re: [backstage] BBC iPlayer, loved by millions, disliked by a single US citizen

[Jason Cartwright]

James Murdoch was born in the UK and is a British citizen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Murdoch_(media_executive)
http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/biography/M-R/Murdoch-James-1972.html

It could be argued that they would lose more by not buying a stake in ITV.

J

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 6:01 PM, Brian Butterworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> Or, how to divert attention away from the fact you have lost hundreds of
> millions of pounds buying into ITV...
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/apr/25/digitalmedia.television
>
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/04/d301f64cfccffda6cf94d3aff9971539952c363c.html
>
>
>
>


-- 
Jason Cartwright
Web Specialist, EMEA Marketing
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+44(0)2070313161

Re: [backstage] iPlayer and the ISPs - a solution

[Jason Cartwright]

Isn't this what Akamai are doing for the iPlayer content already? Doesn't
get the content close enough to the consumer to solve the issues ISPs
apparently have.

J

On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 5:46 AM, Brian Butterworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> I have to say that I am very impressed with Ashly Highfield at the
> moment.  His defense of the public interest and also of BBC money is worthy
> of high praise.
>
> He is 100% correct when he says that the Internet Service Providers should
> provide an Internet service.  The whole way the Internet has developed (and
> I've been using ever since it could be reached in the UK) has required ISPs
> to buy bigger and bigger pipes, to support more and more users.  The
> economics (which I have gone into before) provides that the more you buy,
> the cheaper each bit becomes.
>
> The ISPs (just to recap) are complaining because they need more capacity
> because the BBC iPlayer is popular, and people are suddenly watching whole
> half-hour and hour-long programmes, streamed from the BBC's servers.
>
> I am of the mind that if you are a Internet host (like the BBC in this
> case) then you pay for your end of the connection to the cloud and the
> end-user pays for theirs via their ISP.
>
> So, Mr Highfield is correct to reject the idea that the BBC should pay for
> ISPs Internet pipes.
>
> However, I wrote a paper about this when I worked at BT Broadcast Services
> (about ten years ago, in fact) about dealing with this situation, and as I
> recall (I don't have it here with me on Crete) there are a few ways to deal
> with it:
>
> 1. ISPs by BIGGER PIPES and upgrade their network.  This is 100% the
> correct answer in the long run.  Moore's Law tends to work at a bit-delivery
> level, so the great evil here is probably the BT wholesale provision which
> seems to be behaving somewhat monopolisticly, which is a tendency that I
> know BT has.
>
> 2. Use transparent or non-transparent PROXY SERVERS.  This might work, but
> my experience of them is that transparent proxies reduce overall performance
> because they need to get in the way of each and every HTTP transaction.
> Non-transparent proxies are fine on corporate and educational networks
> because you deny access to people who do not use them, or you can do
> complicated configuration scripts.
>
> 3. Store and forward: Locate MIRROR SERVERS inside the ISP network.  This
> seems a much better idea.  Rather than the ISP being given BBC cash, which
> is an intolerable idea, the ISP provide the BBC with rack space 'inside'
> their networks for mirror servers.  These could work in one of two ways:
>
> - use DNS to redirect the requests for content (the massive files that are
> the video 'streams') to these servers.
>
> - change the main BBC iPlayer to redirect requests for the content to the
> Mirror Server located in the ISPs network.
>
> DNS is a tricy beast and almost impossible to manage in these situations,
> due to the way it is cached.  If people switch networks regularly, which
> they do, DNS trickery can turn into a nightmare.
>
> The second solution is clearly a better one.  The iPlayer already checks
> the end-users IP address to ensure that they are in the UK.
>
> It would be very simple to check to see if the users is in the range for a
> particular ISP and issue a HTTP redirect (or similar) to the ISPs server to
> get the content.
>
> The BBC would simply have to provide servers for each ISP which are fed
> with each of the iPlayer content files when they are produced, and manage
> the IP address lists for each server on a central BBC machine.
>
> This would mean transferring each file to the BBC machine inside the ISP
> network just once, and this would take seconds as it would be out there in
> the 'fat pipe' bit of the cloud.
>
> Finally, the client Flash Player software would need to know that if the
> content could not be obtained for some reason from the BBC machine inside
> the ISPs network, by calling back to the main BBC iPlayer server with an
> extra parameter.
>
> The BBC could argue that the ISP should provide these mirror servers, but
> as the hardware and storage costs of much machines is 'tiny' (and fixed) it
> would be better for these to remain under BBC control, from a management and
> responsibility point of view.
>
> Now, cut the crap and make it happen...
>
> Brian Butterworth
> http://www.ukfree.tv
>
>
>


-- 
Jason Cartwright
Web Specialist, EMEA Marketing
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+44(0)2070313161

Re: [backstage] Telegraph Developer Weekend

[Jason Cartwright]

Works for me. Perhaps the URL it redirects to will work for you...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/portal/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fportal/labs2008/labs2008.xml&_requestid=121735

J

On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 6:05 PM, Frances Berriman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> Is it just me, or does the URL to the sign-up page mentioned at the end of
> the post just 404?
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sean Dillon
> Sent: 04 April 2008 14:14
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
> Subject: [backstage] Telegraph Developer Weekend
>
> Afternoon all.
>
> We (The Telegraph) have announced a Developers Weekend 26th-27th April at
> our Victoria offices (opposite Google).
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/labs2008
> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/Default.htm/Telegraph+Developer+Weekend+2008
>
> Hope to see you there.
>
>
> Seán
>
>
> -
> 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/
>



-- 
Jason Cartwright
Web Specialist, EMEA Marketing
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+44(0)2070313161

Re: [backstage] New BBC News site

[Jason Cartwright]

#blq-mast,#blq-accesslinks {display:none}
.centerbody {padding-top:10px !important}

In FF's userContent.css works for me, then I can see all the local stuff
better.

J

On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 4:36 PM, Tom Hannen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> The question is - how best to avoid looking at the black bar?
> Adblock?  Some CSS thingy?  Greasemonkey?
>
> Tom
>
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Robin Cramp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > The header and footers are being pulled in on all new designs within
> > bbc.co.uk to keep the standard throughout the site.
> >
> > I must agree that it doesn't quite work in this instance; if all new
> pages
> > are to follow this format then it might be worth looking at how the news
> > banner is incorporated better into this design format.
> >
> >
> >
> > Robin
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >  Sent: 31 March 2008 16:00
> >
> >
> >  To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
> >  Subject: RE: [backstage] [Backstage] New BBC News site
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > The double mastheads (black then red) take up too much space and push
> the
> > main chunk of the site too far down the page. Apart from that, a very
> nice
> > design. Centred and wider…. at last. /applause/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> >  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Christopher Woods
> >  Sent: 31 March 2008 15:47
> >  To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
> >  Subject: RE: [backstage] [Backstage] New BBC News site
> >
> >
> >
> > Me too..
> >
> >
> >
> > I like the wider pages, good considering the increasing amount of
> widescreen
> > users (msyelf included).
> >
> >
> >
> > However, the black up top is too large and an unnecessary waste of
> screen
> > real estate. The BBC logo isn't even aligned with the BBC News logo, so
> it
> > all looks off-kilter. Also, a slight, subtle columnisation would work
> nicely
> > - just a slightly darker background colour for the "see also" column on
> the
> > far right of the screen would be nice. Some aspects like the darker
> bgcolor
> > for image captions is gone, which is a shame as it helped separate the
> main
> > body text from the captions.
> >
> >
> >
> > Not everything in the old design needed getting rid of...
> >
> >
> >
> > Switchable stylesheets would be the win!
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Butterworth
> >  Sent: 31 March 2008 15:19
> >  To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
> >  Subject: Re: [backstage] [Backstage] New BBC News site
> >
> > Today!
> >
> >
> >
> > http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/03/refreshing_changes.html
> >
> >  300 comments already!
> >
> >
> >
> > On 31/03/2008, Matt Barber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > When did this go live?! The black bar at the top will have to grow on
> >  me... are there any plans to do anything else with that, other than a
> >  search box?
> >
> >  ./Matt
> >  -
> >  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/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  --
> >  Please email me back if you need any more help.
> >
> >  Brian Butterworth
> >  http://www.ukfree.tv
>
> -
> 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/
>

Re: [backstage] Business Reasons To Support Gnash

[Jason Cartwright]

   - Hum... *only* sound and video? All that content is a pretty big
   deal.
   - Cross-browser client-side storage? Sure, you can do it in JS,
   sometimes, using one of many APIs, but flash's shared object could make a
   good fallback (I've not tried this though).
   - Don't most JS uploaders will use a (hidden? 1px by 1px?) flash file
   in the page to do the heavy lifting (again, I've not tried this)? Seems
   Flickr's does.
   - Pretty much all display advertising on the web is done in Flash
   (where rather a lot of money is spent, apparently)

J

On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 2:23 PM, simon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Once you remove games, I believe there are only 3 things Flash player has
> that cannot be recreated with html + css + javascript:
>
> 1. binary socket (Audio, Video)
> 2.  XML socket
> 3. no page refresh file upload with user feedback events (% loaded etc)
>
> I'm hoping someone can remove item 3 for me with a link to some fancy JS
> uploader
>
> S.
>
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 12:40 PM, Adam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > Playing whack-a-mole with corporate and device use cases that the
> > > legal or technological implications of Flash being proprietary break
> > > misses the forest for the trees. These are all just instances of the
> > > freedom of software users being compromised.
> > >
> > > That said, on other lists I've seen people argue that Gnash is
> > > counter-productive precisely because it supports something that isn't
> > > an open standard. This would be a reasonable argument if there was an
> > > open standard to support, but there really isn't (SVG+JavaScript or
> > > DHTML+AJAX are not substitutes). So I agree that if the BBC could
> > > provide such a standard that would be really positive.
> > The BBC have already announced that they are working on a standard with
> > a number of other companies.
> > http://www.p2p-next.org/
> > -
> > 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/
> >
>
>


-- 
Jason Cartwright
Web Specialist, EMEA Marketing
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+44(0)2070313161

www.jasoncartwright.com
+44(0)7976500729

Re: [backstage] HD-DVD / Blu Ray

[Jason Cartwright]

Producer, BBC Backstage
> BC5 C3, Media Village, 201 Wood Lane, London W12 7TP
> email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> work: +44 (0)2080083965
> mob: +44 (0)7711913293
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Woodhouse
> Sent: 20 February 2008 13:31
> To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
> Subject: RE: [backstage] HD-DVD / Blu Ray
>
>
> On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 15:26 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > What I /heart/ about the pre-2K bit of plastic is the way it takes
> > control over your TV/DVD and insists that you watch the copyright
> > notices
>
> Sounds like you need to get yourself a better DVD player.
>
> --
> dwmw2
>
> -
> 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/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> k/
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Please email me back if you need any more help.
>
> Brian Butterworth
> http://www.ukfree.tv
>
>
> *
> To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to
> http://www.hull.ac.uk/legal/email_disclaimer.html
>
> *
>



-- 
Jason Cartwright
Web Specialist, EMEA Marketing
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+44(0)2070313161

www.jasoncartwright.com
+44(0)7976500729

Re: [backstage] BBC TWO Programme timings

[Jason Cartwright]

My cheapo Freeview PVR has an option to record a number of minutes either
side of a programme. That works for me.

J

-- 
Jason Cartwright
Web Specialist, EMEA Marketing
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+44(0)2070313161

On Jan 22, 2008 1:59 PM, Brian Butterworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> A small question.
>
> There are a number of occasions where the schedule on channels is NEVER as
> published!
>
> A good example the 10pm-10:30pm slot on BBC TWO.  Programmes in this slot
> actually start never earlier than 10:02pm and usually end at 10:32pm, with
> Newsnight starting at 10:33pm.
>
> The schedule is shown in the newspapers, on the BBC site, and (most
> importantly) fed to EPG (ie, Sky's and the one used by Windows Media Center)
> always says 10pm-10:30pm for whatever programme is on.
>
> Obviously the late start is because people often watch the news headlines
> on BBC ONE and then turn over to 'TWO for some entertainment, thus the
> delayed start.
>
> Also, the junction between the end of the regional news on BBC ONE matches
> the start of Newsnight, which also makes sense.
>
> I can understand for humans using the EPG, 10pm-10:30pm is good enough,
> but if you PVR anything (Sky+, Freeview Playback, WMC) in this slot you get
> an overrun from the previous programme and miss the end.
>
> Can something be done with the source data to fix this?
>

Re: [backstage] BBC iplayer on exotic devices

[Jason Cartwright]

I disagree. Using gigs and gigs of bandwidth needlessly and making an app
run slower for millions of people, just so a few developers can hack around
with it?

Much better to release an API and sample source code separately. Example...

Built for users: http://maps.google.com
Built for developers: http://code.google.com/apis/maps/

J

On Jan 9, 2008 12:13 PM, Dave Crossland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On 09/01/2008, Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Production client-side code really shouldn't have documentation in.
>
> If the BBC is serious about supporting innovation around the iPlayer,
> it ought to leave it in here.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Dave
> (Personal opinion only)
> -
> 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/
>

Re: [backstage] BBC iplayer on exotic devices

[Jason Cartwright]

Production client-side code really shouldn't have documentation in. It is
usually taken out by a build script to save bandwidth - the same reason as
why the javascript is "badly formatted" and "obfuscate", it'll probably be
packed or minified.

J

On Jan 9, 2008 9:42 AM, Andy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On 06/01/2008, James Cridland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > this list (and this thread in
> > particular) is precisely because we -do- want people knowing how as much
> of
> > this works as possible:
>
> Them tell me how it works!
>
> The HTML looks like it was designed to be hard to read, was this the case?
> On many other sites all you have to do is "view source", Ctrl-F,
> ".flv" and you find the URL needed for the stream.
>
> The BBC version is split across multiple config files loaded through
> large amounts of badly formatted javascript (including one long
> section that has had all the line breaks removed!)
>
> I tried the XBox forums but it was rather confusing.
>
> Someone at the BBC wrote this webpage yes? Did they document their
> work, if not is the BBC going to have maintenance problems if the guy
> quits? If so then if the BBC really wants people to know how this
> stuff works gives us a public URL to the document.
>
> And while your at it the documents for the protocols (both the
> streaming version and download version) would be extremely helpful.
> The RTMP link provided appears to be based on reverse engineering and
> guess work.
> Documentation of the actual protocol the BBC is using would be
> preferable, so hand that over.
>
> Apart from the actual HTML itself how much documentation has the BBC
> itself released to help us?
> None as far as I can see. Why?
> Why force us to read through pages of HTML and script?
> Why not just put the URLs in an XML file and gives us the address?
> Forcing people to "screen scrape" proves the BBC does not really care
> about getting iPlayer working. Screen scraping is extremely fragile.
> Changes in the page can cause huge problems.
> The fact the HTML/Javascript code was put through obfuscation
> techniques also proves the BBC isn't trying to help. If you are
> helping why did you obfuscate code?
>
>
>
> > I admire your negativity towards everything posted here, but do cut us
> some
> > slack:
>
> I am only negative when the BBC's actions are negative.
>
> Here's a suggestion:
> Stop putting barriers in peoples way.
> Stop obfuscating code.
> Stop using protocols that are known only to one entity who says "no
> embedded use"
> Start releasing some real documentation.
>
> > we're trying to help as much as we can.
>
> I have told you some of the details that would help me, and probably
> others.
> Instead of actually helping you have decided to force people to resort
> to reverse engineering.
>
> I think the biggest thing people want is you NOT TO USE RTMP.
> It's a major pain to get working if you can't use Adobe Flash and if
> you read the EULA there are lots of cases when you can't.
>
> While your "helping" get a Linux download version released, including
> source code.
> Many of these exotic devices can have Linux run on them, so you could
> have a full iPlayer on them if the BBC DID THEIR JOB RIGHT.
>
> > If you want to bash the BBC,
>
> I will congratulate the BBC when it does something right.
> Sadly I am still waiting.
>
> If you take public money the public has the right to criticise you.
> In non-publicly funded companies if the customer is paying for
> something then you can't just tell them get lost and build something
> that's not what they want. Oddly that's what the BBC has done.
>
>
> Andy
>
> --
> Computers are like air conditioners.  Both stop working, if you open
> windows.
>-- Adam Heath
> -
> 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/
>

Re: [backstage] BBC News : site feedback.... [Fwd: RE: Feedback [NewsWatch]]

[Jason Cartwright]

This is pretty interesting. A site I run exposed a "This week in..." archive
on the homepage, linking to articles that happened that week in previous
years (you can see it at http://play.tm, click "Archive" in the middle half
way down the page). A number of spiders then went nuts (including Google's)
and indexed the archived articles assuming they were new. Despite the date
being shown prominently on the articles confusion and hilarity ensued...

http://www.gamesetwatch.com/2006/12/anatomy_of_a_goof_xbox_360_sal.php

J

-- 
Jason Cartwright
Web Specialist, EMEA Marketing
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+44(0)2070313161

On Jan 7, 2008 2:21 PM, David Greaves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I think someone missed the point here...
>
> Or am I wrong?
>
> David
>
>  Original Message 
> Subject: RE: Feedback [NewsWatch]
> Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 13:55:54 -
> From: NewsOnline <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Thanks for your comments. We do not control who decides to email our
> pieces. Sometimes when another website mentions them, they are viewed
> again. However, we need to rely on the wisdom of our viewers to check
> the date stamp. We have over 3 million stories archived and could not
> put a "mark" on all of them.
>
> Regards
> BBC News Website
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 06 January 2008 11:45
> To: NewsOnline Errors
> Subject: Feedback [NewsWatch]
>
>
> From:   David Greaves
> Email address:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Country:UK
>
> COMMENTS: Your 'most emailed' list has:
>  Self-cert mortgages could skew market
> at number 3.
>
> It's very misleading to have this 4 year old story linked to on the
> front page of the BBC news - especially since the time of year
> corresponds.
>
> Maybe you should consider a background image, like a watermark, that
> says 'old news - check the date of this story' for stories over a
> certain age (6-months or a year).
>
> David Greaves, UK
>
> URL:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3478635.stm
> -
> 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/
>

Re: [backstage] Broadcasters to launch joint VoD service

[Jason Cartwright]

I think its important to note that the article refers to "BBC Worldwide",
the commercial arm of the BBC.

J

On 27/11/2007, Andy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 27/11/2007, Richard Lockwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > No real technical details, more a re-hashed press release, but an
> > interesting idea nontheless.
>
> How can this possible go live in a few months? (2008 starts in a few
> weeks if I am not much mistaken).
>
> The trust haven't even approved it. And the BBC has refused to comply
> with it's previous ruling. Need I remind you the BBC Trust said you
> must be "Platform Neutral"?
>
> So will Kangaroo* be "Platform Neutral"? If not it looks unlikely the
> trust will sign off on it given their previous comments about the
> iPlayer (was there ever a huger waste of money? Except maybe the
> Dome).
>
> Is it going to be standards based (only way to actually be platform
> neutral as some platform consist mainly of custom designed hardware
> which need to know the precise operating details to get high
> performance.)?
>
> Are we going to be allowed to improve it, bug fix it, security scan
> it, verify it's not a trojan etc.?
>
> Nice to see a complete lack of detail though, now where did I put my
> document on making an FOI request, (technically a written request here
> would most likely count, after all it's written, has a name and has an
> address.)
>
> > (Waits for this news to descend into "DRM-Bad, Free-Good!!" ranting...)
>
> I see no mention of DRM in either article, neither do I see the term
> "Digital Rights Management".
>
> Helpfully the BBC have made sure to hide every single even slightly
> technical detail from view. What precisely are you hiding?
>
> The only vaguely technical detail appears to be that it is designed to
> work over broadband, wow I couldn't have guessed that!
>
> What platforms are we talking about? Is it going to be truly platform
> neutral or is the BBC going to have to rewrite the old iPlayer to
> comply with your regulator (or as appears to be the intended plan
> refuse to comply with the regulator)
>
> What protocols and formats will be used?
>
> Will it be as awfully as 4OD and iPlayer, using up peoples bandwidth
> with no control what-so-ever (BitTorrent clients have supported
> throttling for years)? Odd how the BBC can have such a huge
> development time, such a huge spending and still end up with a vastly
> inferior product when compared to free alternatives.
>
> Will it permit user written extensions?
>
> Will it support third party access via Open API's?
>
> Andy
>
> * Is the name Kangaroo meant to be some joke about bouncing back after
> the disaster that was the first offerings?
> --
> Computers are like air conditioners.  Both stop working, if you open
> windows.
> -- Adam Heath
> -
> 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/
>



-- 
Jason Cartwright
Web Specialist, EMEA Marketing
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+44(0)2070313161

Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage

[Jason Cartwright]

They are restrictive data silos for a reason - they contain proprietary data
and code. They contain proprietary data and code for a reason - it was
easier and cheaper to build them that way.

Given that these systems aren't going to be released in their entirety (at
least not in the near future, it would appear), then I think we're in the
pretty good situation (given the above constraints) of having a marketplace
of different APIs to play with.

J

On 26/11/2007, Noah Slater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 26/11/2007, Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I was referring to Term Extraction APIs. There are plenty, so it doesn't
> > really matter which one you use... you are free to choose.
>
> Yes, but if they are all restrictive with the data silos then all you
> have is the freedom to choose which person restricts your freedom
> which is patently absurd.
>
> --
> Noah Slater <http://www.bytesexual.org/>
>
> "Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so
> far as society is free to use the results." - R. Stallman
> -
> 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/
>

Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage

[Jason Cartwright]

I was referring to Term Extraction APIs. There are plenty, so it doesn't
really matter which one you use... you are free to choose.

J

On 26/11/2007, Noah Slater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 26/11/2007, Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > No... that isn't what I said.
>
> You said:
>
> "You have complete freedom - you can go and use someone else's API if
> their terms or tech are better."
>
> I think any reasonable person would paraphrase this as "you have
> freedom to stop using it."
>
> To which I replied:
>
> "To talk of the freedom to stop using a data source is absurd."
>
> Please tell me if I am misunderstanding something.
>
> --
> Noah Slater <http://www.bytesexual.org/>
>
> "Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so
> far as society is free to use the results." - R. Stallman
> -
> 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/
>

Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage

[Jason Cartwright]

No... that isn't what I said.

J

On 26/11/2007, Noah Slater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 26/11/2007, Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You have complete freedom - you can go and use someone else's API if
> their
> > terms or tech are better. Just change the URL and a few XPaths in a
> config
> > file.
>
> To talk of the freedom to stop using a data source is absurd.
>
> The Ordanance Survey provide very useful data with horribly onerous
> licencing conditions, are you arguing that all the campaigning to get
> that data opened up to the public is moot simple because you can
> choose not to use it?
>
> --
> Noah Slater <http://www.bytesexual.org/>
>
> "Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so
> far as society is free to use the results." - R. Stallman
> -
> 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/
>

Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage

[Jason Cartwright]

That doesn't really seem to be the way things are going...

J

On 26/11/2007, Noah Slater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 26/11/2007, Brian Butterworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Personally, I'd prefer an XML API for most things like this... no
> worrying
> > about porting it to your platform of choice, less/no hardware cost,
> probably
> > (maybe) faster, less maintenance etc.
> >
> > Me too, great for doing some AJAX.
>
> Yeah, but imagine a client library that sat on your local machine and
> didn't need a network connection. That's some major win.
>
> --
> Noah Slater 
>
> "Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so
> far as society is free to use the results." - R. Stallman
> -
> 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/
>

Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage

[Jason Cartwright]

You have complete freedom - you can go and use someone else's API if their
terms or tech are better. Just change the URL and a few XPaths in a config
file.

J

On 26/11/2007, Dave Crossland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 26/11/2007, Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Personally, I'd prefer an XML API for most things like this... no
> worrying
> > about porting it to your platform of choice, less/no hardware cost,
> probably
> > (maybe) faster, less maintenance etc.
>
> No worrying about freedom, either, though...
>
> --
> Regards,
> Dave
> -
> 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/
>

Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage

[Jason Cartwright]

Personally, I'd prefer an XML API for most things like this... no worrying
about porting it to your platform of choice, less/no hardware cost, probably
(maybe) faster, less maintenance etc.

J

-- 
Jason Cartwright
Web Specialist, EMEA Marketing
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+44(0)2070313161

On 26/11/2007, Noah Slater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 26/11/2007, Tom Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > - The BBC has at least one *excellent* term extractor in house which
> > adds extra metadata like 'this term is a person/place/topic'... would
> > be a lovely API to offer, hint hint...
>
> API?
>
> Nah, it would be a larger contribution if they released the source code.
>
> See my sig.
>
> --
> Noah Slater <http://www.bytesexual.org/>
>
> "Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so
> far as society is free to use the results." - R. Stallman
> -
> 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/
>

Re: [backstage] BBC Podcasts Including Music

[Jason Cartwright]

Well, this is "a discussion list for anyone keen to build interesting new
prototypes or proofs of concept with BBC content", so I assumed some
development knowledge.

I'd suggest that the MP3s would make a good enough source - most of the
content is speech-based, and designed to be consumed with earphones on
crummy portable players, so its not like the Radio 3 audiophile crowd are
going to be on your back. Anyhow - you don't have an option.

The production of these other formats of the same content probably (in the
view of the BBC) wouldn't be worth the disk space it would take up on
downloads.bbc.co.uk. >100m iPods sold... vs <4% UK Linux population, who can
play MP3s anyhow.

J

On 20/11/2007, Dave Crossland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 20/11/2007, Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Hum... why not
>
> You appear to have mistaken me for a software developer :-)
>
> But I totally agree its a good idea - although transcoding from
> another compressed format isn't good enough, we'd need access to the
> originals, as Brian suggested.
>
> > Of course, this won't happen (it be being popular, IMHO), because nobody
> > cares what format they consume their content in - they just care that it
>
> > works (which MP3 does). As proved by the BBC OGG trial years and years
> ago.
>
> MP3 doesn't work out out of the box on major GNU/Linux distributions,
> and if this service was running, I'd expect someone to cook up some
> Rhythmbox/Banshee/Amarorak plugins that let you access the store iTMS
> style direct form the music player. If we got them into the 3 major
> distros, on by default, I think we'd see some popularity.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Dave
> -
> 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/
>

Re: [backstage] BBC Podcasts Including Music

[Jason Cartwright]

Hum... why not setup a process to automatically parse the XML, download the
MP3s, re-encode them as whatever format you want, then republish them with
new XML. Sure its a bit naughty (OK, very naughty), but if it's popular you
can post the log file analytics here and get some publicity for the 'cause'.
You know, as opposed to just appearing to grouse on about the same subject
you always do.

Of course, this won't happen (it be being popular, IMHO), because nobody
cares what format they consume their content in - they just care that it
works (which MP3 does). As proved by the BBC OGG trial years and years ago.

J

-- 
Jason Cartwright
Web Specialist, EMEA Marketing
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


On 19/11/2007, Dave Crossland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 19/11/2007, Matthew Cashmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Somebody has kindly corrected me off-list with regards to the 'trial' of
> podcasts
> >
> > "the iplayer PVT gave us regulatory permission to do non drm audio
> downloads in April"
>
> Awesome - now we just need the BBC to do non-patent encumbered audio
> (ie, Ogg Vorbis) :-)
>
> --
> Regards,
> Dave
> -
> 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/
>

Re: [backstage] RSS feed for emergency information

[Jason Cartwright]

There is none...
http://www.google.com/search?q=site:london-fire.gov.uk+rss

But there is some interesting talk of web service use...
http://www.google.com/search?q=site:london-fire.gov.uk+xml

J

On 14/11/2007, ~:'' ありがとうございました。 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> RSS feed for emergency information
>
> http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/news/latest_incidents.asp
> is a primary resource for current incidents within London.
>
> It seem obvious that this should be available as an RSS feed, but
> where is it?
>
> regards
>
> Jonathan Chetwynd
> Accessibility Consultant on Media Literacy and the Internet
>
>
>
> -
> 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/
>

Re: [backstage] Use of Tinyurl in Emails

[Jason Cartwright]

Sure, and where there is ambiguity there should be a disambiguity page to
sort that out.

J

On 06/11/2007, Andrew Bowden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Jason Cartwright
>
> > The TFL journey planner has such potential, but from what I can see it's
> not
> > terribly well built. Why does it have to ask me what type of data I'm
> > inputting? Doesn't it know that SW1W 9TQ is a postcode, White City is a
> > station, and Buckingham Palace is a place of interest?
>
> Well White City is a station.  It's also a locale and a building (and a
> demolished stadium ;).  (BBC White City, aka the evil grey fortress of doom
> ;)
>
> Now they all happen to be in the same area so that's not a huge problem,
> although there's still a five minute walk between the tube platform and the
> building (as I know you know Jason ;).
>
> However that's not always the case.  Turnham Green is actually a hell of a
> lot closer to Chiswick Park tube station, than Turnham Green tube
> station.  Then you've the case of the large number of Shepherds Bushs...
>
>
> Anyway that's just a silly point ;)  IIRC on TfL's journey planner (the
> software of which is used in various parts of the country), stations are on
> the place of interest list.
>
>

Re: [backstage] Use of Tinyurl in Emails

[Jason Cartwright]

Ah! A nice phat session ID in there, loverly. Also means I can't get to that
URL now: "Session expired".

The TFL journey planner has such potential, but from what I can see it's not
terribly well built. Why does it have to ask me what type of data I'm
inputting? Doesn't it know that SW1W 9TQ is a postcode, White City is a
station, and Buckingham Palace is a place of interest?

J

On 05/11/2007, George Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 2007-11-05 at 17:52 +, Tom Loosemore wrote:
> > Using TinyUrl is a symptom of poorly designed urls...
>
>
> It is? Lots of  sites use URLs to pass data, on top of pointing at files
> on servers.
>
> The more complex the data, the more use it might have - the longer the
> URL gets - eg:
>
>
> http://journeyplanner.tfl.gov.uk/user/XSLT_TRIP_REQUEST2?language=en&sessionID=JP26_1355129797&requestID=2&tripSelector1=1&itdLPxx_view=detail&tripSelection=on&command=nop&calculateDistance=1
>
> In case Tom's forgotten how to get to TVC from BH
>
> A shorter version of that would be very useful, and I can't work out how
> a better designed URL would  make it significantly shorter (apart from
> losing the /user/ and XSLT_TRIP_REQUEST2 bit)
>
> George
>
> -
> 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/
>

Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield on iPlayer - 26min Interview

[Jason Cartwright]

You have misunderstood my point. In summary - I highly doubt DRM affects the
situation as much as you are making out.

I don't share files directly with my friends (DRMed or otherwise) I doubt
many other people do either. There are many reasons for this...

* Poor upload speeds on broadband (particularly for big files we're probably
talking about)
* People don't take their laptops/memory sticks/devices/whatever to social
occasions
* Ad-hoc networking isn't as straight-forward to non-techies as OS vendors
would like to make out
* Its too easy to get files from elsewhere (example: torrents)

So, we're left with me recommending things to my friends (and vice-versa)
then obtaining the 'things' from the path of least resistance - this may be
iPlayer or it may be torrents, but certainly not me giving them the
'things'.

J

On 01/11/2007, Dave Crossland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 01/11/2007, Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Is this not what would happen with iPlayer? "Hello Jim, I enjoyed Spooks
> on
> > iPlayer last night", "Really Jason? I'll go and watch that on my
> iPlayer,
> > cable catchup, or whatever without the hassle of cracking the DRM out of
> the
> > WMV file and working out how to get it off your computer via a slow ADSL
> > upload speed or taking our laptops to the pub".
>
> That is the nasty situation that the DRM in the iPlayer tries to set up,
> yes.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Dave
> -
> 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/
>

Re: [backstage] Lifehacker's Top Ten free video rippers encoders and converters

[Jason Cartwright]

HeyWatch solves several problems that we (play.tm, as content publishers)
have encountered.

Multiplatform - doesn't matter what platform you're on (Windows, OSX etc)
Bandwidth - upload speeds on various connections (often ADSL, cable, or at
conferences where every sucker is draining the Wifi) is rubbish. HeyWatch
lets us give it a URL of the video (including over FTP), and it ingests it
and spits the outputs out at upto 20mbit/sec (they seem to limit it).
Cost - zero fixed cost, no cost per desk, fits our business model of more
content more revenue.

J

On 01/11/2007, Andrew Bowden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>  It's a shame that there's so little emphasis on converting *to* flv
> format - everything I see is about converting from or playing them (I'm
> involved with a website which currently embeds video in Real,  Windows Media
> or occassionally QuickTime and MPEGs due to historical reasons, and I'm
> wondering about a Flash video trial using the FLV player)
>
> HeyWatch looks interesting, but I'd rather have something on my desktop!
>
>  --
> *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Jason Cartwright
> *Sent:* 01 November 2007 09:14
> *To:* backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
> *Subject:* Re: [backstage] Lifehacker's Top Ten free video rippers
> encoders and converters
>
> Well, the system doing the calls to HeyWatch is proprietary, and
> firewalled (written in ASP.net, with a MySQL backend). But the output is
> listed here...
> http://play.tm/storytype/videos
>
> Using the JW FLV player...
> http://www.jeroenwijering.com/?item=JW_FLV_Player
>
> Which is also used for YouTube-style embedding...
> http://jasoncartwright.com/blog/entry/2007/6/flash_video_embedding
>
> Looking forward to H.264 in the mainstream flash player - then it'll be
> hello HD (depending on bandwidth and HD source material, both of which are
> plentiful).
>
> J
>
> On 01/11/2007, Simon Cobb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >  oo-er have we strayed onto the wrong list here? this conversation seems
> > drm free, heh
> >
> > I'd like to ask for the link (if you can supply it) to see what you've
> > developed using this HeyWatch ingest/output please
> >
> >
> >
> >  --
> > *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Jason Cartwright
> > *Sent:* 01 November 2007 08:38
> > *To:* backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
> > *Subject:* Re: [backstage] Lifehacker's Top Ten free video rippers
> > encoders and converters
> >
> >  I can highly recommend HeyWatch (from that list). An outstanding
> > service, with an excellent API. I've got it hooked up with a CMS encoding
> > hundreds of videos a month.
> >
> > J
> >
> > On 01/11/2007, Simon Cobb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >  there's a couple I hadn't heard of on here
> > >
> > > http://lifehacker.com/software/lifehacker-top-10/top-10-free-video-rippers-encoders-and-converters-316478.php
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > **
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jason Cartwright
> > Web Specialist, EMEA Marketing
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > +44(0)2070313161
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Jason Cartwright
> Web Specialist, EMEA Marketing
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> +44(0)2070313161
>
>


-- 
Jason Cartwright
Web Specialist, EMEA Marketing
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+44(0)2070313161

Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield on iPlayer - 26min Interview

[Jason Cartwright]

I don't know about anyone else's friendships, but I certainly don't share
files with friends. Sure, I recommend or having something recommended to me,
but they (and I) know how to get hold of the media itself without having
files transferred to them by me.

Is this not what would happen with iPlayer? "Hello Jim, I enjoyed Spooks on
iPlayer last night", "Really Jason? I'll go and watch that on my iPlayer,
cable catchup, or whatever without the hassle of cracking the DRM out of the
WMV file and working out how to get it off your computer via a slow ADSL
upload speed or taking our laptops to the pub".

(Conversation in theory anyhow - I can't use iPlayer on my Macs, nor can
many of my friends who have Macs).

J

> > Sharing artistic works between friends is one of the central tenets of
> > > friendship. Ask anyone under 20 if they've got a laptop, and if they
> > > do, if they have copies of music from their friends. Its almost
> > > certain that they will.
> >
> > No - it isn't!
>
> Ask 'em. Seriously. On the way to work or something. Please?
>

Re: [backstage] Lifehacker's Top Ten free video rippers encoders and converters

[Jason Cartwright]

Well, the system doing the calls to HeyWatch is proprietary, and firewalled
(written in ASP.net, with a MySQL backend). But the output is listed here...
http://play.tm/storytype/videos

Using the JW FLV player...
http://www.jeroenwijering.com/?item=JW_FLV_Player

Which is also used for YouTube-style embedding...
http://jasoncartwright.com/blog/entry/2007/6/flash_video_embedding

Looking forward to H.264 in the mainstream flash player - then it'll be
hello HD (depending on bandwidth and HD source material, both of which are
plentiful).

J

On 01/11/2007, Simon Cobb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>  oo-er have we strayed onto the wrong list here? this conversation seems
> drm free, heh
>
> I'd like to ask for the link (if you can supply it) to see what you've
> developed using this HeyWatch ingest/output please
>
>
>
>  --
> *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Jason Cartwright
> *Sent:* 01 November 2007 08:38
> *To:* backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
> *Subject:* Re: [backstage] Lifehacker's Top Ten free video rippers
> encoders and converters
>
> I can highly recommend HeyWatch (from that list). An outstanding service,
> with an excellent API. I've got it hooked up with a CMS encoding hundreds of
> videos a month.
>
> J
>
> On 01/11/2007, Simon Cobb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >  there's a couple I hadn't heard of on here
> >
> > http://lifehacker.com/software/lifehacker-top-10/top-10-free-video-rippers-encoders-and-converters-316478.php
> >
> >
> >
> > **
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Jason Cartwright
> Web Specialist, EMEA Marketing
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> +44(0)2070313161
>



-- 
Jason Cartwright
Web Specialist, EMEA Marketing
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+44(0)2070313161

Re: [backstage] Lifehacker's Top Ten free video rippers encoders and converters

[Jason Cartwright]

I can highly recommend HeyWatch (from that list). An outstanding service,
with an excellent API. I've got it hooked up with a CMS encoding hundreds of
videos a month.

J

On 01/11/2007, Simon Cobb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>  there's a couple I hadn't heard of on here
>
>
> http://lifehacker.com/software/lifehacker-top-10/top-10-free-video-rippers-encoders-and-converters-316478.php
>
>
> **
>



-- 
Jason Cartwright
Web Specialist, EMEA Marketing
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+44(0)2070313161

Re: [backstage] flash accessibility

[Jason Cartwright]

 > 2007? Certainly, cbeebies client statistics agree, showing almost 100%
> > using a windows based browser. Further, I've also found through my
> > research on Flash accessibility that almost all users with accessibility
> > requirements would also usually use a windows-based machine.
> >
> > As for the INTG freeze on IE/ Mac, if you want my best guess, I'd say
> > that IE/ Mac is unable to allow Flash to perform the operating system
> > check at the start of the INTG application.
> >
> > If so, it's ironic because this os check was especially put in for Mac
> > users.
> >
> > Some Macs have a built-in webcam that users might not be aware is on and
> >
> > thus be baffled when the webcam parts of the game show unexepected
> > views.
> >
> > In order that the application's functionality was most accessible to all
> > Mac users, this check makes sure the user can nominate the webcam to
> > use.
> >
> > Lastly, for what it's worth, Cbeebies client stats show that almost 100%
> > of visitors use windows-based machines.
> >
> > "space and return don't work in any browser"
> >
> > Got to refute that  - I just used it in Safari and it worked just fine.
> > Works in ubuntu linux (my daughter loves this game), works on a windows
> > machine. I'd say that just about covers it for access unless through
> > choice you have made flash unavailable.
> >
> > S.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of "~:''
> > "
> > Sent: 13 October 2007 06:30
> > To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
> > Subject: [backstage] flash accessibility
> >
> > Some BBC staff have been known to trumpet the accessibility features of
> > flash.
> > the BBC is also known to have tied itself into this commercial vendor.
> >
> > Can someone explain why on my OS X machine at least the supposedly
> > switch accessible:
> > http://www.bbc.co.uk/cbeebies/inthenightgarden/flash/index.shtml
> > space and return don't work in any browser and IE crashes
> >
> > cheers
> >
> > Jonathan Chetwynd
> > Accessibility Consultant on Media Literacy and the Internet
> >
> >
> >
> > -
> > 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/
> >
> > -
> > 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/
> >
> > -
> > 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/
> >
>
>


-- 
Jason Cartwright
Web Specialist, EMEA Marketing
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+44(0)2070313161

Re: [backstage] An interview with Mark Taylor, Pres. of UK Open Source Consortium

[Jason Cartwright]

http://code.google.com/oss.html
http://infolab.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.html

Not all of it, of course.

J

On 27/10/2007, Gordon Joly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> At 09:27 +0100 25/10/07, Frank Wales wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >How about Google?  It's not directly open-source, but it's
> >  built on top of Linux, which is.
>
>
> Frank,
>
>
> I can't see Google releasing their source code, or their search
> algorithms...
>
> Gordo
>
> --
> "Think Feynman"/
> http://pobox.com/~gordo/
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]///
> -
> 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/
>



-- 
Jason Cartwright
Web Specialist, EMEA Marketing
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+44(0)2070313161

Re: [backstage] iPhone Apple opens up iPhone to app developers

[Jason Cartwright]

Yeah, because perfect code is possible - and there is never a version 2.0 of
any product.

J

On 18/10/2007, Brian Butterworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 18/10/2007, Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Not really. Few internal trusted developers vs hoards of untrusted
> > nefarious hackers - you're going to need different tools.
>
>
> I thought that Apple's OS was supposed to be invunerable and
> incorruptible...?
>
>
> J
> >
> > On 18/10/2007, Brian Butterworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
> > >
> > > On 18/10/2007, Steve Jolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Brian Butterworth wrote:
> > > > > Why does it take four months to publish a SDK?   Surely Apple must
> > > > be
> > > > > using the SDK already to create their own applications?
> > > >
> > > > Steve Jobs gives a reasonable explanation in his announcement - that
> > > > they want to implement a robust security model for third-party apps,
> > > > something they don't need for internal development.
> > >
> > >
> > > Which suggests that the OS is rubbish, doesn't it?
> > >
> > >
> > >  http://www.apple.com/startpage/
> > > >
> > > > S
> > > > -
> > > > 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/
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Please email me back if you need any more help.
> > >
> > > Brian Butterworth
> > > www.ukfree.tv
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jason Cartwright
> > Web Specialist, EMEA Marketing
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > +44(0)2070313161
>
>
>
>
> --
> Please email me back if you need any more help.
>
> Brian Butterworth
> www.ukfree.tv
>



-- 
Jason Cartwright
Web Specialist, EMEA Marketing
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+44(0)2070313161

Re: [backstage] iPhone Apple opens up iPhone to app developers

[Jason Cartwright]

Not really. Few internal trusted developers vs hoards of untrusted nefarious
hackers - you're going to need different tools.

J

On 18/10/2007, Brian Butterworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 18/10/2007, Steve Jolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Brian Butterworth wrote:
> > > Why does it take four months to publish a SDK?   Surely Apple must be
> > > using the SDK already to create their own applications?
> >
> > Steve Jobs gives a reasonable explanation in his announcement - that
> > they want to implement a robust security model for third-party apps,
> > something they don't need for internal development.
>
>
> Which suggests that the OS is rubbish, doesn't it?
>
>
> http://www.apple.com/startpage/
> >
> > S
> > -
> > 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/
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Please email me back if you need any more help.
>
> Brian Butterworth
> www.ukfree.tv
>



-- 
Jason Cartwright
Web Specialist, EMEA Marketing
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+44(0)2070313161

Re: [backstage] Interesting iPlayer news

[Jason Cartwright]

So, who is going to pay for all the server juice and bandwidth used by
international users?

As I understand it bbc.com is to bbc.co.uk what BBC World is to BBC News 24.
BBC World has adverts (geotargetted quite nicely - even crazy text ads in
places I've watched it), so I don't see why the fact that it's on the
internet means that it shouldn't have ads.

GeoIP has been in use at the BBC for a while - its pretty accurate.

J

On 17/10/2007, Brian Butterworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 17/10/2007, Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Abroad a lot BBC content (including the news) already has adverts next
> > to it, so why not online?
>
>
> Because a) it damages the brand; and b) UK licence fee payers should not
> have to see adverts for content they have paid for just because they are (or
> their PC thinks they are) outside the UK.
>
>
>  J
> >
> > On 17/10/2007, Brian Butterworth < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
> > >
> > > I get the feeling that today is the end-of-the-BBC day: BBC.com users
> > > "unequivocally" believed advertising would reduce their trust in the BBC
> > > brand, so we now hear that..
> > >
> > >
> > > Ads set for BBC.com website
> > >
> > >
> > > http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,,2193103,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=4
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > *Mark Sweney and Tara Conlan Wednesday October 17, 2007
> > > MediaGuardian.co.uk <http://www.mediaguardian.co.uk/>*
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > BBC News and BBC Worldwide have agreed a deal that paves the way for
> > > advertising on the corporation's international website, BBC.com.
> > >
> > > The BBC Trust is discussing today giving the green light to plans to
> > > allow adverts on BBC.com.
> > >
> > > But MediaGuardian.co.uk <http://mediaguardian.co.uk/> has learnt that
> > > last week BBC News and BBC Worldwide, the corporation's commercial arm 
> > > that
> > > oversees BBC.com, came to an arrangement that is being put to the
> > > trust this afternoon.
> > >
> > > According to sources, Worldwide has agreed to pay a minimum guaranteed
> > > income to the public service broadcasting part of the BBC.
> > >
> > > In return Worldwide gets the rights to use BBC news content for
> > > commercial gain and a licence to exploit the BBC brand commercially.
> > >
> > > Worldwide will also cover the loss of around £4m a year the BBC's
> > > international news website gets from the Foreign Office in grant-in-aid.
> > >
> > > On top of that, Worldwide has guaranteed a percentage of revenue
> > > raised from BBC.com advertising will go back to BBC news. It is not
> > > known what the percentage is.
> > >
> > > Last year the National Union of Journalists was told that the figure
> > > would be around 20% but it is thought the actual percentage is less than
> > > that.
> > >
> > > Opponents of the move to allow advertising on a BBC website have sent
> > > a round robin message to staff and a message to the BBC Trust, claiming 
> > > that
> > > deal does not benefit BBC news as much as first thought.
> > >
> > > They claimed that while BBC.com ad revenue would be in dollars, costs
> > > to BBC news would be in pounds, leaving the financial benefit to the
> > > corporation's public service broadcasting arm open to exchange rate
> > > fluctuations.
> > >
> > > However, other sources denied BBC news is unhappy with the agreement
> > > as "all the major advertising firms work in dollars" and all major 
> > > companies
> > > have to "hedge against market fluctuations".
> > >
> > > BBC executives are keen for advertising on BBC.com to go ahead to help
> > > fill the gap left by a lower-than-expected licence fee.
> > >
> > > Although the terms of the deal have been hammered out, BBC Worldwide
> > > cannot proceed with the proposals without the approval of the BBC Trust,
> > > which has already deferred the decision once.
> > >
> > > The trust asked senior management for more information on editorial
> > > safeguards, how revenues would be fed back to the BBC and how the site 
> > > fits
> > > with Worldwide's wider strategy.
> > >
> > > But it is understood that BBC Trust chairman Sir Michael Lyons is keen
> >

Re: [backstage] Interesting iPlayer news

[Jason Cartwright]

> Implementing DRM at the OS (here I really mean lower level OS, i.e.
> > > the kernel, or wherever else you put the proper access control stuff)
> > > layer on an untrusted machine is pointless, the user has hardware
> > > access and can drop down to that level. If you are going to allow them
> > > to go under your DRM "protection", why not place it at the application
> > >
> > > layer? (most if not all DRM schemes do this, note that simply being
> > > shipped with the OS doesn't place an application in the OS layer
> > > security wise).
> > >
> > > So OS layer DRM is absolutely useless, now you have a 3 choices (4 if
> > > you count no DRM):
> > > 1. Implement DRM at the Hardware Layer, using tamper-proof hardware
> > > (has it's own problem hinged on key distribution, or getting trusted
> > > data to the hardware).
> > > 2. Accept it's going to be insecure and implement at the Application
> > > layer.
> > > 3. define an open standard (based on otgher standards, HTTP, XML
> > > TV-Anytime etc.) and let implementers worry about it.
> > >
> > > Selecting option one means the BBC will have to have a conversation
> > > with the likes of Intel, AMD and hardware manufactures, who will no
> > > doubt laugh them out of the office. It would them have to wait years
> > > for the old hardware to be replaced (or you could produce an external
> > > add on, but production of these would be tricky, who gets to produce
> > > it, without interfering in the market. If anyone can produce it have
> > > you compromised security be releasing decoding keys, etc.)
> > >
> > > Option 2 can (and does) "work" irrespective of Operating System. (by
> > > work I mean is implementable, it may also may attacks harder but in no
> > >
> > > way offers what a security expert would consider secure).
> > >
> > > Option 3 certainly works, it's worked for HTTP, Email and numerous
> > > other technologies (too many to mention)
> > >
> > > The BBC have never answered why they simple did not use a standard
> > > that would reach all platforms. It can be done. Why does the BBC pay
> > > OUR money to join standards committees (W3C, ETSI) if they are not
> > > going to use the standards produced?
> > > (Easier, Faster, Cheaper, Compliant with regulators, I see no
> > > downside, unless you work for Microsoft (or know someone who works
> > > there))
> > >
> > > > This is not a technology problem
> > >
> > > Cross Platform development was a technology problem, it's been fixed
> > > in many different ways. Unfortunately the BBC is either too
> > > incompetent or too corrupt to use any of the fixes developed by the
> > > likes of the IETF, IEEE, ISO etc.
> > >
> > > Andy
> > >
> > > --
> > > Computers are like air conditioners.  Both stop working, if you open
> > > windows.
> > >-- Adam Heath
> > > -
> > > 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/
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Please email me back if you need any more help.
> >
> > Brian Butterworth
> > www.ukfree.tv
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Please email me back if you need any more help.
>
> Brian Butterworth
> www.ukfree.tv
>



-- 
Jason Cartwright
Web Specialist, EMEA Marketing
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+44(0)2070313161

Re: [backstage] Wii News Channel

[Jason Cartwright]

Random, but reminds me of...
http://www.pronetadvertising.com/articles/bbcs-north-american-billboards-engage-their-viewers34357.html

J

On 16/10/2007, Mr I Forrester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Talking of developing for the Wii, I was playing with the everyone votes
> channel and I was thinking this would be cool for bbc news votes. Some
> of votes are already quite political in nature and with a worldwide base
> of 5million Wii's online?  This could be pretty cool as an experiment.
>
> Shall I see if I can squeeze Opera into giving us credits for the Wii
> browser, for development purposes too?
>
> Cheers
>
> Ian
>
> Barry Carlyon wrote:
> >
> > I had heard that one of the student radio stations was building a
> > flash player for their radio stream for the wii…..
> >
> >
> >
> > I don't think nintendo had opened it up (yet) otherwise a lot more
> > would have been heard about it
> >
> >
> >
> > I believe that the wii channels run off parsing of rss feeds, since it
> > would be small enough to be parsed effectively for use…
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Barry Carlyon
> >
> > Webmaster LSRfm.com/LSweb.org.uk/leedsaction.co.uk/luubackstage.com
> >
> >
> >
> > mobile: 07729048443
> >
> > skype: barrycarlyon
> >
> > * From: * owner- backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-
> > backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk ] *On Behalf Of *Matthew Cashmore
> > *Sent:* 16 October 2007 10:58
> > *To:* backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
> > *Subject:* [backstage] Wii News Channel
> >
> >
> >
> > So, um, was messing with my new Wii last night and was having a play
> > with the News Channel – but it's a bit naff – I was wondering if
> > anyone knew anything about how to build channels for the Wii – or even
> > if Nintendo have opened it up at all?
> >
> > m
> >
>
> -
> 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/
>



-- 
Jason Cartwright
Web Specialist, EMEA Marketing
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+44(0)2070313161

Re: [backstage] flash accessibility

[Jason Cartwright]

You're testing on a nightly build and wondering why everything doesn't work
perfectly?

J

On 15/10/2007, "~:'' ありがとうございました。" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Simon & Jason,
>
> maybe you are considering the webcam question doesn't need to be
> switch accessible?
> of course that makes the user dependent on others and is
> 'frustrating' to say the least...
> Camino 2007101201 2.0a1pre, the smaller window pops open, but seems
> to close immediately
>
> regards
>
> Jonathan Chetwynd
> Accessibility Consultant on Media Literacy and the Internet
>
>
>
> On 15 Oct 2007, at 08:45, Simon Cobb wrote:
>
>
> Ah... Apple, the champions of open technology and freedom of the user to
> choose. Your choice of computer kind of invalidates your righteous anger
> at commerical vendors, no?
>
> Of course, I'm just being mischevious :)
>
> Because Flash is my business, I had to go and check your claims on the
> Mac on our testbench.
>
> I'll give you that INTG doesn't work in IE on the Mac. But really, who
> is using IE/ Mac? Is it realistic for anyone to have to support it in
> 2007? Certainly, cbeebies client statistics agree, showing almost 100%
> using a windows based browser. Further, I've also found through my
> research on Flash accessibility that almost all users with accessibility
> requirements would also usually use a windows-based machine.
>
> As for the INTG freeze on IE/ Mac, if you want my best guess, I'd say
> that IE/ Mac is unable to allow Flash to perform the operating system
> check at the start of the INTG application.
>
> If so, it's ironic because this os check was especially put in for Mac
> users.
>
> Some Macs have a built-in webcam that users might not be aware is on and
> thus be baffled when the webcam parts of the game show unexepected
> views.
>
> In order that the application's functionality was most accessible to all
> Mac users, this check makes sure the user can nominate the webcam to
> use.
>
> Lastly, for what it's worth, Cbeebies client stats show that almost 100%
> of visitors use windows-based machines.
>
> "space and return don't work in any browser"
>
> Got to refute that  - I just used it in Safari and it worked just fine.
> Works in ubuntu linux (my daughter loves this game), works on a windows
> machine. I'd say that just about covers it for access unless through
> choice you have made flash unavailable.
>
> S.
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of "~:''
> "
> Sent: 13 October 2007 06:30
> To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
> Subject: [backstage] flash accessibility
>
> Some BBC staff have been known to trumpet the accessibility features of
> flash.
> the BBC is also known to have tied itself into this commercial vendor.
>
> Can someone explain why on my OS X machine at least the supposedly
> switch accessible:
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/cbeebies/inthenightgarden/flash/index.shtml
> space and return don't work in any browser and IE crashes
>
> cheers
>
> Jonathan Chetwynd
> Accessibility Consultant on Media Literacy and the Internet
>
>
>
> -
> 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/
>
> -
> 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/
>



-- 
Jason Cartwright
Web Specialist, EMEA Marketing
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+44(0)2070313161

Re: [backstage] flash accessibility

[Jason Cartwright]

Works fine for me... Camino on OSX.

J

On 13/10/2007, "~:'' ありがとうございました。" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Some BBC staff have been known to trumpet the accessibility features
> of flash.
> the BBC is also known to have tied itself into this commercial vendor.
>
> Can someone explain why on my OS X machine at least the supposedly
> switch accessible:
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/cbeebies/inthenightgarden/flash/index.shtml
> space and return don't work in any browser and IE crashes
>
> cheers
>
> Jonathan Chetwynd
> Accessibility Consultant on Media Literacy and the Internet
>
>
>
> -
> 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/
>



-- 
Jason Cartwright
Web Specialist, EMEA Marketing
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+44(0)2070313161

Re: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee

[Jason Cartwright]

Well, like it or not big corps are often the gatekeepers sat between the
audience masses and content owners. That doesn't seem to be changing
(*cough* Google).

J

On 11/10/2007, Gordon Joly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> At 10:25 +0100 11/10/07, Jason Cartwright wrote:
> >  >And what bugs me is when companies Microsoft (and the rest) deal with
> >the BBC (e.g. when the BBC included a BBC "channel" in the release of
> >IE4) and not the commercial arm (BBC Worldwide).
> >
> >How is that deal any different than using Sky as a route to market
> >for free-at-point-of-consumption public service content?
> >
> >J
>
>
> Both are just as bad?
>
> Gordo
> --
> "Think Feynman"/
> http://pobox.com/~gordo/
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]///
>



-- 
Jason Cartwright
Web Specialist, EMEA Marketing
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+44(0)2070313161

Re: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee

[Jason Cartwright]

>And what bugs me is when companies Microsoft (and the rest) deal with
the BBC (e.g. when the BBC included a BBC "channel" in the release of
IE4) and not the commercial arm (BBC Worldwide).

How is that deal any different than using Sky as a route to market for
free-at-point-of-consumption public service content?

J

On 11/10/2007, Gordon Joly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Yes, this is true. And a charity can have wholly owned subsidiary
> >that makes profits, in much the same way.
> >
> >BBC - not for profit corporation.
> >
> >BBC Worldwide - a global company that makes a profit.
> >
> >Gordo
>
>
>
> At 14:09 +0100 9/10/07, Mr I Forrester wrote:
>
> >[...]
> Our partnerships with other large companies like Yahoo and Google has
> been important for us and them.
>   [...]
>
>
> And what bugs me is when companies Microsoft (and the rest) deal with
> the BBC (e.g. when the BBC included a BBC "channel" in the release of
> IE4) and not the commercial arm (BBC Worldwide).
>
> And somebody paid for the server farm in New York for BBC News
> Online, and I don't think it was the licence fee, since that could
> not be justified, could it?
>
> Gordo
>
>
> -
> 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/
>



-- 
Jason Cartwright
Web Specialist, EMEA Marketing
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+44(0)2070313161

Re: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee

[Jason Cartwright]

Thanks for posting this here Ian, I was too chicken. My blog is going nuts
with hits from the BBC proxies :-)

J

On 10/3/07, Mr I Forrester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> In a similar vein to Tom Coates post a long time ago. Someone who loves
> the BBC but also hates some of the decisions it makes. Had me up most of
> the night.
>
>
> http://www.jasoncartwright.com/blog/entry/2007/9/bbc.co.uk_2.0_why_it_isnt_happening
> -
> 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/
>

Re: [backstage] the economics of BBC content

[Jason Cartwright]

Seems like a good time to re-mention (doesn't seem to be working as well as
I remember it, though)...

http://amiabstractornot.highlyillogical.org/

J

On 9/21/07, James Ockenden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hello
> This has bothered me for some time but the picture and caption on this
> page were the final straw
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7005206.stm
>
> How much should the BBC be paying for that page, aside from the
> journalism and broadcast? It really shouldn't need to pay for such a
> pointless picture, there must be thousands of beautiful lightbulb
> pictures available for free (although the beeb was accused of nicking
> them off Flickr a whiles back, perhaps it's all stricter now...)
>
> But with some clever feeds, the pictures could be free, just as
> pretty, just as relevant, and the corporation saved enough to buy a
> researcher to oomph up the story.
>
> cheers!
> James in HK
> -
> 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/
>



-- 
Jason Cartwright
Web Specialist, EMEA Marketing
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+44(0)2070313161

Re: [backstage] built with

[Jason Cartwright]

You're returning...

X-Powered-By: ASP.NET

...in the HTTP headers of that page. I guess you're running ASP.NET on other
sites inside IIS.

J

On 9/19/07, Richard Lockwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Sort of.  It's very keen to tell you a site's ASP.NET when it isn't,
> and doesn't seem to crawl a site - rather, it just looks at the one
> page you tell it.  Try looking at my band's site:
> www.scopies.co.uk
>
> It makes no mention of Flash (which is there at www.scopies.co.uk/jb)
> and is quite convinced it's .NET - it isn't, it's "classic" ASP.
>
> (Oh - and I know it looks terrible in Firefox, before anyone else points
> it out)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Rich.
>
>
> On 9/19/07, Simon Cobb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I'm liking this site: http://builtwith.com/
> >
> > Shows you what a site is, er, built with
> >
> > example:
> > http://builtwith.com/default.aspx?backstage.bbc.co.uk
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> SilverDisc Ltd is registered in England no. 2798073
>
> Registered address:
> 4 Swallow Court, Kettering, Northamptonshire, NN15 6XX
> -
> 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/
>



-- 
Jason Cartwright
Web Specialist, EMEA Marketing
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+44(0)2070313161

Re: [backstage] Mobile Developer Un/Conference/Camp

[Jason Cartwright]

The mobile industry frequently simplifies these bandwidth caps to
layman-friendly numbers (such as an approximate number of pages), because
the average consumer doesn't understand what "xGb" means. This "1,400 pages"
number was said in a press conference with mainstream media - pretty
understandable to simplify the jargon down.

I'm sure the actual cap numbers will come out sometime soon.

J

On 9/18/07, Frank Wales <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Jakob Fix wrote:
> > Matthew: "18 months contract. There is a limit: 1,400 internet pages
> > per day would break the deal as part of fair usage agreement." Wait,
> what?
>
> Which internet page do they have in mind, I wonder?  I bet it's more like
> google.com than amazon.com.  I also wonder about the exchange rate between
> internet pages, AJAX requests, MP3 files and e-mail messages; a limit
> based on requests rather than total bytes transferred would be highly
> comical.
>
> And is the limit a cap, or merely the threshold to the land of severely
> enlarged bills?
> --
> Frank Wales [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -
> 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/
>



-- 
Jason Cartwright
Web Specialist, EMEA Marketing
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+44(0)2070313161

Re: [backstage] Mobile Developer Un/Conference/Camp

[Jason Cartwright]

Sure is, which is why the iPhone packages are all 'unlimited' data - Apple
apparently insist on it. They said at the launch today this was "so
customers won't need to worry". Good marketing.

This is probably one of the reasons why there is resistance to the iPhone
from operators in countries where unlimited deals don't already exist.

J

On 9/18/07, Ian Forrester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>  Yep I wonder if that's also a problem for developers. The price of mobile
> data?
>
> I was stung for over 100 pounds of data charges when I used google maps in
> New York. (never google and roam at the same time)
>
> Orange, Tmobile and Vodafone seem to have finally added unlimited data
> (1gig) but is that enough?
>
> Ian Forrester
>
> This e-mail is: [ x ] private; [  ] ask first; [  ] bloggable
>
> Senior Producer, BBC Backstage
> BC5 C3, Media Village, 201 Wood Lane, London W12 7TP
> e: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> p: +44 (0)2080083965
>
>
>  --
> *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Brian Butterworth
> *Sent:* 18 September 2007 15:41
> *To:* backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
> *Subject:* Re: [backstage] Mobile Developer Un/Conference/Camp
>
> There are some great apps for Windows Mobile: Google Maps for my Windows
> Smartphone is excellent.  But only when connected to my PC, because Virgin
> Media charge more than a paper A to Z to use it for ten minutes.
>
> On 18/09/2007, Mark Piggott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I have been developing software for Windows Mobile devices for about
> > five years now. The processing power and memory of a smartphone is the
> > same as a desktop PC was a few years ago so you can develop very
> > powerful applications. I think once mobile data calls are really cheap,
> > things will really take off in this area.
> >
> > Mark Piggott
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ian Forrester
> > Sent: 17 September 2007 18:23
> > To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
> > Subject: [backstage] Mobile Developer Un/Conference/Camp
> >
> >
> > So with all this hype and attention around mobile phones. What do you
> > guys think about developing for mobile devices?
> >
> > How many of you guys already do? Or what's stopping you? Also is events
> > like "mobilecamp London" (http://www.barcamp.org/mobileCampLondon ) and
> > the "Future of Mobile" (http://www.future-of-mobile.com/ addressing your
> > needs as a developer community?
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Ian Forrester
> >
> > This e-mail is: [x] private; [] ask first; [] bloggable
> >
> > Senior Producer, BBC Backstage
> > BC5 C3, Media Village, 201 Wood Lane, London W12 7TP
> > email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > work: +44 (0)2080083965
> > mob: +44 (0)7711913293
> >
> > -
> > 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/
> >
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.21/1012 - Release Date:
> > 16/09/2007 18:32
> >
> >
> > No virus found in this outgoing message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.22 /1013 - Release Date:
> > 17/09/2007 13:29
> >
> >
> > -
> > 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/
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Please email me back if you need any more help.
>
> Brian Butterworth
> www.ukfree.tv
>
>


-- 
Jason Cartwright
Web Specialist, EMEA Marketing
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+44(0)2070313161

Re: [backstage] Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 13:46:04 +0100

[Jason Cartwright]

Looks like O2 have it...

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/telecoms/article2441745.ece

J

On 9/13/07, Ian Forrester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> http://feeds.gawker.com/~r/gizmodo/full/~3/155905316/-299418.php
>
> Apple UK is holding a press event next Tuesday at their Regent St.
> headquarters. "Mum is no longer the word" they say in the invite, so I guess
> now we can talk about O2's iPhone deal in the open.
>
> Found via Particls (www.particls.com)
> ---
>
> So I got a feeling Vodafone might have stole the deal from O2. What do
> others think?
>
>
>
> Ian Forrester
>
> This e-mail is: [ ] private; [  ] ask first; [ x ] bloggable
>
> Senior Producer, BBC Backstage
> BC5 C3, Media Village, 201 Wood Lane, London W12 7TP
> e: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> p: +44 (0)2080083965
>
> -
> 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/
>



-- 
Jason Cartwright
Web Specialist, EMEA Marketing
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+44(0)2070313161

Re: [backstage] Rugby Score Feeds

[Jason Cartwright]

That is cool.

Cricket scores are a little different though and far more suited to
syndication like this. Most sports games take place over 1-2hrs, whereas
cricket can go on for days!

J

On 9/7/07, Allan Jardine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > All this stuff is copyrighted, I'd imagine. Sports feeds of any
> > kind are usually pretty expensive.
>
> With the exception of the ECB.
>
> feed://www.ecb.co.uk/live-scores.xml
>
> I really wish that footballs and rugby associations did the same
> thing. It would be really interesting to see what people could do
> with live data such as that.
>
> Allan
> -
> 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/
>

Re: [backstage] Amazon EC2

[Jason Cartwright]

I've not used it, but I read an interesting article comparing it with a
product called Flexiscale (http://www.flexiscale.com/) over here...

http://uk.blognation.com/2007/09/11/fowa-expo-exhibitors-announced/

J

On 9/11/07, Sean Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Afternoon.
>
> Anyone here using this at the moment? I've only started to venture into
> it after having been mightily pleased with their S3 stroage system.
>
>
> Seán
>
> -
> 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/
>

Re: [backstage] Rugby Score Feeds

[Jason Cartwright]

http://www.rugbyworldcup.com claims to be XHTML 1.0 Strict, so stuff could
probably be parsed from there. I've not seen a page with the scores on yet
because there haven't been any, I guess.

All this stuff is copyrighted, I'd imagine. Sports feeds of any kind are
usually pretty expensive.

J
jasoncartwright.com

On 9/7/07, Eamonn Neylon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>  Does anyone know if the BBC (or anyone else) has a consumable source of
> real-time rugby world cup data (particularly scores)? I should have asked
> earlier, but it only just occurred.
>
>
>
> Eamonn
>
>
>
> 
>
> Visit the BSI website at www.bsi-global.com
>
> This email may contain confidential information and/or copyright
> material.  This email is intended for the use of the addressee only.
> Any unauthorised use may be unlawful.  If you receive this email
> by mistake, please advise the sender immediately by using the
> reply facility in your email software.
>
> Thank you for your cooperation.
>
> 
> This e-mail has been scanned for all known viruses.
>
>

Re: [backstage] BBC Radio Player iGoogle Gadget

[Jason Cartwright]

Thanks for all the bug reports already. Looks like its broken in IE. You
should all be using Firefox anyhow ;-)

Cheers,
J


On 28/8/07 09:17, "Jason Cartwright" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hello all,
> 
> Hope everybody had an excellent weekend. Back to the mashup talk methinks.
> 
> I've been getting into Google Gadgets recently (for reasons obvious to
> some), and was surprised to fine very few radio gadgets (other than Mr
> Cridland's) and seemingly no proper BBC one.
> 
> So, I sorted that out with a Google Gadget that mimics the BBC Radio Player.
> The URL to add to your iGoogle page is...
> http://jasoncartwright.com/igoogle/bbcradioplayer.xml
> 
> Highly untested but feedback welcome.
> 
> I'm working on adding...
> 
> * Browse by genre
> * Browse by station & genre
> * More info on the 'show' page, like the image and links
> * Live stream listening (with WMP support)
> * Better Realplayer embedding
> 
> All completely not-BBC-supported and not-BBC-sanctioned, so don't bother
> them with support questions and whatnot :-)
> 
> Cheers!
> Jason
> 
> -
> 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/

Re: [backstage] Tags du jour

[Jason Cartwright]

You could use a web based RSS reader (such as Google Reader, or Bloglines ­
they have a pretty beta out btw) to get around this. Unless of course they
are savvy to that, and the reader is blocked as a Œproxy¹ site.

(If you get sacked, is not my fault :-) )

J


On 25/8/07 10:08, "vijay chopra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> James, you may be interested to know that that link (presumably your blog) is
> blocked by Websense (yes, I work Saturdays); apparently:
> 
> "The Websense category "Social Networking and Personal Sites" is filtered."
> What exactly do you have on there. I'm intrigued... I'm certainly going to
> check it out at home now.
> 
> Vijay.
> 
> On 24/08/07, James Cridland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 8/24/07, Andrew Bowden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I saw http://www.shareicons.com/    for the
>>> first time as well (I'm probably very out of touch!)
>> 
>> Me too! The Wordpress plugin is now added to http://james.cridland.net/blog/
>> - and it's clear, to me, that this is a better solution.
>> 
>> //j
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 

[backstage] BBC Radio Player iGoogle Gadget

[Jason Cartwright]

Hello all,

Hope everybody had an excellent weekend. Back to the mashup talk methinks.

I've been getting into Google Gadgets recently (for reasons obvious to
some), and was surprised to fine very few radio gadgets (other than Mr
Cridland's) and seemingly no proper BBC one.

So, I sorted that out with a Google Gadget that mimics the BBC Radio Player.
The URL to add to your iGoogle page is...
http://jasoncartwright.com/igoogle/bbcradioplayer.xml

Highly untested but feedback welcome.

I'm working on adding...

* Browse by genre
* Browse by station & genre
* More info on the 'show' page, like the image and links
* Live stream listening (with WMP support)
* Better Realplayer embedding

All completely not-BBC-supported and not-BBC-sanctioned, so don't bother
them with support questions and whatnot :-)

Cheers!
Jason

-
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/

Re: [backstage] Tags du jour

[Jason Cartwright]

Most (all?) of these sites have bookmarklet functionality. Pretty harsh to
ban that.

I bet these buttons aren't used by 99% or more of the people that visit the
pages. I don¹t think the average visitor cares. You only have to look at the
del.ico.us homepage to see that the most bookmarked stuff is all about web
dev URLs.

J


On 23/8/07 17:21, "Brian Butterworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Many corporates and public places (cybercafe's) ban toolbars so it can be
> handy to have them on the page?
> 
> On 23/08/07, Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I've never really understood these.
>> 
>> Surely anyone with any interest in these services has a toolbar button or
>> other browser function to carry out this task? How else would you add URLs
>> that don't have these buttons?
>> 
>> Waste of space.
>> 
>> J
>> 
>> 
>> On 20/8/07 22:50, "Gordon Joly" < [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote:
>> 
>>> >
>>> > This is a story about the BBC News Online website.
>>> >
>>> > I read this story:
>>> >
>>> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6954728.stm
>>> >
>>> > I saw that I had been invited to Digg it (and Facebook it etc)
>>> >
>>> > Bookmark with:
>>> >
>>> >  * Delicious
>>> >  * Digg 
>>> >  * reddit
>>> >  * Facebook
>>> >  * StumbleUpon
>>> >
>>> > So, I did. Well, as least as far as http://del.icio.us/gordo
>>> >
>>> > And I thought the tags were very precise:
>>> >
>>> > #
>>> > recommended tags
>>> > BBC news
>>> > # » sort: alphabetically | by frequency
>>> > your tags
>>> > #
>>> > your network
>>> > #
>>> > popular tags
>>> > Camel australia camels animals sex
>>> >
>>> > YMMV,
>>> >
>>> > Gordo
>>> >
>> 
>> 
>> -
>> Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk <http://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/
> 
> 

Re: [backstage] Tags du jour

[Jason Cartwright]

I've never really understood these.

Surely anyone with any interest in these services has a toolbar button or
other browser function to carry out this task? How else would you add URLs
that don't have these buttons?

Waste of space.

J 


On 20/8/07 22:50, "Gordon Joly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 
> This is a story about the BBC News Online website.
> 
> I read this story:
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6954728.stm
> 
> I saw that I had been invited to Digg it (and Facebook it etc)
> 
> Bookmark with:
> 
>  * Delicious
>  * Digg
>  * reddit
>  * Facebook
>  * StumbleUpon
> 
> So, I did. Well, as least as far as http://del.icio.us/gordo
> 
> And I thought the tags were very precise:
> 
> #
> recommended tags
> BBC news
> # » sort: alphabetically | by frequency
> your tags
> #
> your network
> #
> popular tags
> Camel australia camels animals sex
> 
> YMMV,
> 
> Gordo
> 


-
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/

Re: [backstage] RSS feeds query

[Jason Cartwright]

There are some screenscraping websites that will log changes to links in
pages. These could be modified to disregard links that are part of the BBC
page furniture, I suppose. Betsie does this, kind of, to a degree...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/betsie/ (Warning: very, very old page)

Of course, getting the content in state whereby it could be outputted to
different formats is the place to start. This is happening, slowly.

J 


On 20/8/07 15:52, "Ian Forrester" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> If I understand you Brian, you want a rss feed of every page published on the
> bbc domain?
>  
> That would be useful if you wanted a log of when a page has changed and when
> for example (meta about the page I guess) But for holding data I think the
> idea of using xhtml with lots of Microformats or rdf/a makes better sense.
>  
> Others may disagree, but I'm interested in why
> Ian Forrester
> 
> This e-mail is: [ x ] private; [  ] ask first; [  ] bloggable
> 
> Senior Producer, BBC Backstage
> BC5 C3, Media Village, 201 Wood Lane, London W12 7TP
> e: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> p: +44 (0)2080083965
>  
> 
>>  
>>  
>> 
>>  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian  Butterworth
>> Sent: 20 August 2007 15:31
>> To:  backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
>> Subject: Re: [backstage] RSS feeds  query
>> 
>>  
>> How about a generic RSS feed for every BBC page that is  published?
>> 
>>  
>> On 20/08/07, Carlos  Roman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  wrote:
>>>  
>>>  
>>> There is always the Heroes  Radio Show podcast
>>>  
>>> http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/bbc7/heroes/rss.xml
>>> 
>>>  
>>> Not much info about each  episode in the feed though.
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>> -C.
>>> 
>>>  
  
  
 
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]  ]
 On Behalf Of Ian  Forrester
 Sent: 20 August 2007 14:16
 To:  backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
 Subject: RE:  [backstage] RSS feeds query
 
  
  
  
  
 I'm  not sure but I'll pass it on.
  
  
  
 What kind of information  were you hoping for?
  
 
 Ian Forrester
 
 This e-mail is: [ x ] private;  [  ] ask first; [  ] bloggable
 
 Senior Producer, BBC  Backstage
 BC5 C3, Media Village, 201 Wood Lane, London W12 7TP
 e: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 p: +44  (0)2080083965
  
  
 
  
>  
>  
> 
>  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]  ]
> On Behalf Of Iain  Emsley
> Sent: 20 August 2007 09:44
> To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
> Subject:  [backstage] RSS feeds query
> 
>  
>  
>  
>  
> A quick query. Will the BBC be producing any feeds for the Heroes  website
> at all or BBC Three? Since the demise of the cult site, I'm  trying to get
> the various bits of information together in RSS form as a  bit of an
> experiment. 
> 
> Thanks, 
> 
> Iain
> 
> www.yatterings.com 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  Yahoo! Answers - Get better answers from someone who knows. Try it  now
>  jA21haWwEc2xrA3RhZ2xpbmU> .
>> 
>> 

Re: [backstage] RSS feeds query

[Jason Cartwright]

Hahahaha.

You do know that a very large proportion of pages from bbc.co.uk (rather
than news.bbc.co.uk) are published by hand, right?

J


On 20/8/07 15:30, "Brian Butterworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> How about a generic RSS feed for every BBC page that is published?
> 
> On 20/08/07, Carlos Roman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> There is always the Heroes Radio Show podcast
>> http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/bbc7/heroes/rss.xml
>> 
>> Not much info about each episode in the feed though.
>>  
>> -C.
>> 
>>> 
>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]  ]
>>> On Behalf Of Ian Forrester
>>> Sent: 20 August 2007 14:16
>>> To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
>>> Subject: RE: [backstage] RSS feeds query
>>> 
>>>  
>>> I'm not sure but I'll pass it on.
>>>  
>>> What kind of information were you hoping for?
>>> Ian Forrester
>>> 
>>> This e-mail is: [ x ] private; [  ] ask first; [  ] bloggable
>>> 
>>> Senior Producer, BBC Backstage
>>> BC5 C3, Media Village, 201 Wood Lane, London W12 7TP
>>> e: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> p: +44 (0)2080083965
>>>  
>>> 
 
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]  ]
 On Behalf Of Iain Emsley
 Sent: 20 August 2007 09:44
 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
 Subject: [backstage] RSS feeds query
 
  
 A quick query. Will the BBC be producing any feeds for the Heroes website
 at all or BBC Three? Since the demise of the cult site, I'm trying to get
 the various bits of information together in RSS form as a bit of an
 experiment. 
 
 Thanks, 
 
 Iain
 
 www.yatterings.com 
  
 
 
 Yahoo! Answers - Get better answers from someone who knows. Try it now
  .
> 
> 

[backstage] PVR Fragmentation

[Jason Cartwright]

Hello all,

There seem to be a lot of set top box geeks around here, so perhaps someone
can answer a question I have.

With all the recording, deleting, pause functionality today¹s PVRs have, and
the large volume of data I¹d imagine its shifting around, doesn¹t the hard
disk get really fragmented? Does the software deal with this, or does it not
bother because streaming the content off the disk even when its fragmented
not a very intensive task?

Cheers!
Jason

Re: [backstage] BBC iPlayer Protest tommorow, Tuesday 14th, 10:30AM, White City

[Jason Cartwright]

> That will be the fact that less than 1% of the planet's population lives in
the UK?

YouTube has almost as much UK traffic as bbc.co.uk [1]. bbc.co.uk content is
used/marketed/referred to overseas by BBC Worldwide and the World Service
[2].

My point was that iPlayer¹s impact on media delivery system market shares is
probably quite small when compared to the plethora on video sites out there
(of which YouTube is the biggest).

J


[1] 
http://weblogs.hitwise.com/heather-hopkins/2007/06/youtube_to_overtake_bbc_i
n_uk_1.html
[2] Example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/arabic/news/, or go to the homepage
and click Œ International version¹.

On 16/8/07 10:34, "Brian Butterworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 
> 
> On 16/08/07, Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Does iPlayer contain Silverlight? I've not seen anything to suggest it does.
>> 
>> What the hell does all this matter anyhow, there is no lock in. The tech is
>> just being used to deliver the content as per spec, which it seems to be
>> doing. Nothing is stopping the BBC ditching MS products for iPlayer at any
>> time with a simple (automatically installed?) patch, right?
>> 
>> Seems the anti-DRM protests are misdirected. Why is the yellow jump-suit
>> brigade talking to the people who actually have the power to change it? The
>> rights holders. We've seen rights-cleared videos being released without DRM
>> on bbc.co.uk <http://bbc.co.uk>  for years. I don't see anyone hassling Apple
>> - but plenty of
>> people are hassling record labels, and they have gone on to do something
>> about it.
>  
> Good point. They should talk to http://www.pact.co.uk/ but I guess it's the
> old "everyone has to pay the licence fee" issue and all the touchy-freely
> stuff from the BBC management and BBC Trust (in the vein of "it's your BBC")
> which confuses people.  There is clearly a problem now as the Trust supports
> the management, not the licence-fee payers!
>  
> I guess people read things like this
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2006/09_september/28/mi
> crosoft.shtml  
> <http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2006/09_september/28/m
> icrosoft.shtml>  and put 10 and 10 together and get 101 (binary joke!).
>  
>  
>  
> 
>> iPlayer installation numbers will be tiny compared to Flash installations -
>> you know YouTube gets many, many more visitors that bbc.co.uk
>> <http://bbc.co.uk> ?
>  
>  
> That will be the fact that less than 1% of the planet's population lives in
> the UK?
>  
> 
>> J
>> 
>> 
>> On 15/8/07 20:15, "Dave Crossland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]  <mailto:[EMAIL 
>> PROTECTED]> >
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> > On 14/08/07, Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> >> The irony is that it probably doesn't matter now. They could now
>>>> download it 
>>>> >> using their Windows XP machine in DRMed Windows Media Format.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> All thanks to our new overlord Bill, and his maniacal scheme to take
>>>> over
>>>> >> the BBC from the inside.
>>> >
>>> > Adobe currently has web video locked down; Apple, Real, Java, Xiph,
>>> > and of course Microsoft are all in very niche use compared to Adobe
>>> > Flash. Adobe Apollo is a direct competitor to Microsoft Silverlight,
>>> > and with the inertia of Flash video and a large group of web designers
>>> > already familiar with Flash, plus cheaper a licensing model than
>>> > Microsoft, it looks like its in with a chance. The typical Microsoft
>>> > response to fair competition is to compete unfairly.
>>> >
>>> > iPlayer, and a number of other high profile 2007 BBC projects, are
>>> > based on Silverlight technology. Highfield's reponse on the Backstage
>>> > blog points at the other proprietary technologies the BBC foists on
>>> > the public, but these are based on previous technology decisions; the
>>> > new stuff is all Silverlight based.
>>> >
>>> > 100,000 iPlayer sign-ups in a week, Martin? That's 100,000 more
>>> > Silverlight installations. Given Microsoft's other major play to
>>> > deploy Silverlight is Vista, and we all know how well that's working
>>> > out for them this year, its outrageous to me that the BBC has paid
>>> > Microsoft _anything_ for forcing license fee payers to install this
>>> > key piece of strateg

Re: [backstage] BBC iPlayer Protest tommorow, Tuesday 14th, 10:30AM, White City

[Jason Cartwright]

I can't imagine it would be difficult to get hold of a list of suppliers of
BBC programming (in the annual report? FOI act request? Phone the
commissioning dept?), then you could just ask the companies themselves (or
their PR?) what their opinion on iPlayer and DRM is.

FOI act won't help you here though, there is stuff in it to stop details of
business relationships getting out.

J


On 16/8/07 09:36, "Dave Crossland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On 16/08/07, Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 
>> Seems the anti-DRM protests are misdirected. Why is the yellow jump-suit
>> brigade talking to the people who actually have the power to change it? The
>> rights holders.
> 
> The BBC is being very sneaky about responsibility for the DRM:
> It doesn't name the companies which it asks us to blame, so it is
> hiding behind them while protecting them too.

-
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/

Re: [backstage] BBC iPlayer Protest tommorow, Tuesday 14th, 10:30AM, White City

[Jason Cartwright]

Does iPlayer contain Silverlight? I've not seen anything to suggest it does.

What the hell does all this matter anyhow, there is no lock in. The tech is
just being used to deliver the content as per spec, which it seems to be
doing. Nothing is stopping the BBC ditching MS products for iPlayer at any
time with a simple (automatically installed?) patch, right?

Seems the anti-DRM protests are misdirected. Why is the yellow jump-suit
brigade talking to the people who actually have the power to change it? The
rights holders. We've seen rights-cleared videos being released without DRM
on bbc.co.uk for years. I don't see anyone hassling Apple - but plenty of
people are hassling record labels, and they have gone on to do something
about it.

iPlayer installation numbers will be tiny compared to Flash installations -
you know YouTube gets many, many more visitors that bbc.co.uk?

J


On 15/8/07 20:15, "Dave Crossland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On 14/08/07, Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The irony is that it probably doesn't matter now. They could now download it
>> using their Windows XP machine in DRMed Windows Media Format.
>> 
>> All thanks to our new overlord Bill, and his maniacal scheme to take over
>> the BBC from the inside.
> 
> Adobe currently has web video locked down; Apple, Real, Java, Xiph,
> and of course Microsoft are all in very niche use compared to Adobe
> Flash. Adobe Apollo is a direct competitor to Microsoft Silverlight,
> and with the inertia of Flash video and a large group of web designers
> already familiar with Flash, plus cheaper a licensing model than
> Microsoft, it looks like its in with a chance. The typical Microsoft
> response to fair competition is to compete unfairly.
> 
> iPlayer, and a number of other high profile 2007 BBC projects, are
> based on Silverlight technology. Highfield's reponse on the Backstage
> blog points at the other proprietary technologies the BBC foists on
> the public, but these are based on previous technology decisions; the
> new stuff is all Silverlight based.
> 
> 100,000 iPlayer sign-ups in a week, Martin? That's 100,000 more
> Silverlight installations. Given Microsoft's other major play to
> deploy Silverlight is Vista, and we all know how well that's working
> out for them this year, its outrageous to me that the BBC has paid
> Microsoft _anything_ for forcing license fee payers to install this
> key piece of strategic technology for them. Then UK is, afterall, one
> of the most broadband-saturated and media-consuming audiences, leading
> the way for other nations - Is the BBC likely to open up a
> non-zero-price iPlayer to international viewers at somepoint? So this
> is a big win for Microsoft's bid to control the next stage of web
> development with Silverlight.
> 
> The BBC is committed to shipping a cross-platform iPlayer, and its a
> shame that this becomes the sole focus of the reporting on this issue.
> An iPlayer for 3 or 4 platforms is 3 or 4 times as worse as an XP-only
> iPlayer, because it is imposing DRM on even more people, and implying
> that DRM is acceptable.
> 
> When it does ship a cross-platform iPlayer, I expect it will be based
> on Novell's Mono Moonlight for GNU/Linux, probably doing the media
> codec stuff with the GStreamer framework given that Fluendo, its
> sponsor, sells Windows Media Codecs already -
> https://shop.fluendo.com/product_info.php?products_id=45 - and the Mac
> OS X one might be Mono or Microsoft based.
> 
> That's going to really help the widespread adoption of Silverlight as
> the Rich Internet Application platform of choice.
> 
> In 2007, Google has maintained the dominant position for monetising
> search and advertising - of the text web. Their purchase of YouTube
> suggested they were serious about monetising the emerging video web,
> but the DRM aspects of Silverlight video delivery mean that their
> ability to provide search and advertising for web video is going to be
> undermined.
> 
> So the BBC hasn't just helped Microsoft pull a Adobe-killer, it's also
> helping Microsoft pull a Google-killer.

-
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/

Re: [backstage] more data visualisation links

[Jason Cartwright]

Wouldn¹t the world be a boring place if everything was reduced to a result
of some user testing?

At some design conference I went to I saw (can¹t remember which one) a
designery chap described the joy he had going to a book shop and buying a
book that was wrapped in brown paper and string. The fun and satisfaction he
had unwrapping this parcel was far greater than the ripping open of some
bland and highly practical Amazon container.

Jacob has his place (and I¹ll probably always read his stuff), but lets not
devalue any artistry used here. A
design/visualisation/dataset/webapp/whatever could be the most usable in the
world, but I know I won¹t be interested in playing with it (and perhaps
giving them money) if its not fun.

Boiling this down to a practical example ­ Flickr is the best thing I can
think of. Adding tags and categorising my photos isn¹t the most enthralling
task in the world, but Flickr makes it light-hearted (e.g. ³Now you know how
to greet people in Arabic!²) and entertaining. They make more money by doing
this.

J


On 15/8/07 10:09, "Brian Butterworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On 15/08/07, Simon Cobb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Kim said: "Useful or Playful? Is the question to ask."
>>  
>> I'd argue that useful and playful can be part of the same thing. Certainly
>> nothing ever stuck with me that I didn't enjoy using/ thinking about.
>> Likewise many of the children I used to teach. The trick is to combine the 2.
>> I think there's ways from that set of visualisations to encourage people to
>> make playful and useful interfaces to bbc data/ apps if the API's were
>> available. 
>  
>  
> As I was trying to say, a system that allows the end-user to construct live
> visualizations of data is a commendable idea, but (almost) by definition this
> will be impossible for others to use.  For example, many people will use red
> to indicate an error state and green to indicate a OK condition.  But you
> can't use that for everyone as 10% of men are red-green colourblind.
>  
> If you do some research you will also find out that some people are
> visually-orientated and respond well to these kinds of representations.  But
> others prefer speech over visual explanations and this kind of thing will
> exclude those people.
> 
>>  
>> Brian said: "I presume you have some substantive evidence that no testing is
>> require then?"
>>  
>> That's not what I said, it's just that I'm not personally convinced that his
>> views are as up-to-date as they should be and so cannot perpetuate his status
>> as an untouchable usability expert. But that's best discussed over a pint at
>> some unspecified future backstage event rather than this list.
>  
> That's a total cop-out, either you can explain why no usability testing is
> required or not.  Personally I don't drink so I can't see why I would never
> discover the great truth that has been revealed to your good self.  Simply
> being rude about someone is a failure to explain - just an insult rather than
> a debunking. 
>  
> 
>> 
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Butterworth
>> Sent: 14 August 2007 18:12
>> To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
>> Subject: Re: [backstage] more data visualisation links
>> 
>>  
>> I guess this brings us right back to Richard MacDuff's "Anthem" programme
>> which attempted much the same but with music in the first Dirk Gently book
>> (coming soon to Radio 4)...
>> 
>> On 14/08/07, Kim Plowright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>  > wrote:
>>> I think the point here is 'does the visualisation of the data adds
>>> meaning, or is just pretty to look at?'.
>>> 
>>> Does your visualisation tell people more about the data set than the
>>> raw numbers? Is it 'legible'? Does it expose trends and meaning that
>>> would otherwise be hidden to all but the most numerate? Does it let
>>> someone reach sound conclusions faster, or navigate quicker, or become
>>> more accurate?
>>> 
>>> Which is Tufte territory,  not Nielsen.
>>> http://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/
>>> 
>>> Not that there's anything wrong with pretty, but good datavis is about
>>> adding layers of meaning, as well as the layers of aesthetics.
>>> 
>>> Its possible to remove the 'data' during the visualisation process and
>>> turn it in to a purely aesthetic entertainment experience, too. Some
>>> of the Jonathan Harris stuff does this - it's information as
>>> spectacle. Fun to look at, not 'wrong' per se, but a terrible way of
>>> actually turning data -> information -> knowledge.
>>> 
>>> Useful or Playful? Is the question to ask.
>>> 
 > Some of these seem to be of dubious real use.  Has anyone put any of them
 > though Jakob Nielsen-style user testing?
>>> -
>>> Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk   discussion
>>> group.  To unsubscribe, please visit
>>> http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html
>>>  .
>>> U

Re: [backstage] BBC iPlayer Protest tommorow, Tuesday 14th, 10:30AM, White City

[Jason Cartwright]

The irony is that it probably doesn't matter now. They could now download it
using their Windows XP machine in DRMed Windows Media Format.

All thanks to our new overlord Bill, and his maniacal scheme to take over
the BBC from the inside.

J


On 14/8/07 14:21, "Deirdre Harvey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 
> 
> 
>> An aside
>> 
>> My favourite BBC protest ever: Archers fans complaining about
>> changing the time of the show. Marched up Regent Street with
>> placards, stopped traffic, whilst chanting "What do we want?
>> the Archers! When do we want it? Now! What do we say? Please!'
> 
> :)
> 
> Were they marching at the exact time the show normally went out and that
> they wanted it restored to?
> 
> I really hope so.
> 
> 
>> 
>>> What do we want?
>>> Umberellas!
>>> When do we want them?
>>> Now!
>> -
>> 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/

-
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/

Re: [backstage] Plain text or easy-to-parse news articles

[Jason Cartwright]

I'd imagine stats on which story is clicked is quite valuable, particularly
when moreover are ranking the stories.

I understand that the BBC tracks external links in order to provide stats to
respond to the Graf report's requirement for the BBC to link externally more
often, and "become part of the web". This is probably a goal of the Web 2.0
stuff going on around the BBC as well.

J


On 27/7/07 10:19, "Sean Dillon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/americas/6918490.stm
> 
> I know this is totally off topic but I notice that the links to external
> stories are actually being redirected through moreover.com rather than
> link directly to the site in question (even if it does go through the
> internal Beeb redirect tracker)
> 
> Is anyone aware of any reason why they do not link directly to the story
> on the relevant site instead?
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Seán
> 
> -
> 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/

Re: [backstage] Web Service For Terror Alert Level?

[Jason Cartwright]

The relevant Home Office page is valid XHTML, so it shouldn't be that
difficult to parse it out from there...

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/security/current-threat-level/

J


On 4/7/07 08:47, "Davy Mitchell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Is there an official Web Service for the Terror Alert Level?
> 
> Be nice if the BBC supplied it :-)
> 
> Thanks,
> Davy

-
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/

[backstage] BT 21C SDK

[Jason Cartwright]

http://sdk.bt.com/

This has just gone live (it was beta, or something, before). Very
interesting.

J

-
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/

Re: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised

[Jason Cartwright]

>> the intention isn't to stop you creating your own
>> original content it's to guarantee a revenue stream for the creative types
>> who originate stuff in the first place.
> 
> The intention is to block the use of non-MS products, presumably
> somebody at the BBC holds shares in this company and would like to
> increase there wealth. Any chance of the BBC stating whether their
> employees are MS shareholders or not?

We've been rumbled!

After all that tireless work getting around the pesky internal conflict of
interest paperwork, UK law, and EU law surrounding purchasing using public
money all it took was an uninformed poster to an external mailing list to
subvert the BBC/Microsoft conspiracy!

The master plan, involving thousands of brainwashed employees and
regulators, to slay all alternative operating systems and make some real
money has been thwarted!

(In case you haven't guessed, this is a **joke**, and is all my personal,
satirical, opinion. I'm writing this on a Mac, anyhow)

J

-
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/

RE: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

[Jason Cartwright]

I really don't want to get back into this :-). This is all my personal
point of view.

DRM is wrong. Pretty much anything that stops the free flow of
information and ideas that educate, inform and entertain is wrong. I
don't think anyone is arguing with that.

However, in this instance, and in this context DRM allows this content
to be distributed to a greater extent than if the BBC didn't use DRM.

People are making out that the BBC is selling its soul to Microsoft. It
isn't. The BBC is using the best tool for the job, in the constraints
given. Just like we use Apache on the webheads, designers use Macs, and
the buildings are made out of concrete and metal etc etc.

Lets remember this is the first stab at IP distribution of programmes
shall we? Its not like the BBC is tied to Microsoft. Who knows what
iPlayer v2,v3 or v27 will look like.

Someone previously said...
"someone at the BBC has shares in Microsoft!"

I do hope this is a joke, because it appears that you have no idea the
number of hoops people around here have to jump through to buy something
with public money. To say nothing of all the personal information you
have to disclose on intrusive conflict of interest forms everyone who
works here has to fill out. Pretty insulting, and not very funny
statement to make.

J

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Crossland
Sent: 15 June 2007 12:09
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

On 13/06/07, Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 13/06/07, Christopher Woods <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > entirely). And that's why DRM discussion will just go round in 
> > > circles until someone comes along which exhibits a demonstrable 
> > > downside, which is both immediately explainable and fully obvious 
> > > to the general tech-using population. Something like Sky requiring

> > > HDCP-compliant HDTVs for their SkyHD receives,
> >
> > I'd say "You can download BBC shows from the internet to watch them 
> > later. But after 7 days, BBC will force your computer to delete your

> > shows. Is that good or bad?" was pretty clear :-)
>
> It's a good thing for me, its better than what I and many people have 
> currently.

If you don't value a free society, then you might think its a good
thing. If you do value your freedom, like most people, then its a bad
thing.

Freedom to decide how much later you want to watch something is a pretty
basic freedom, that a lot of people value. Many people may not
appreciate this freedom, because they haven't experienced it before, and
won't know what they are missing.

But taking advantage of them is nasty. Its shameful that the BBC is
doing that.

You seem like the kind of person who stands for free speech, free
elections and a free and democratic society. I'd be very surprised if
you were in favor of restricting the free speech of BBC journalists
because companies they were reporting about would lose potential
revenue.

Freedom for everyone is more important than profit for a few people. I
think that's where these allegations that the BBC is corrupt come from
- a common reason that our freedom is trampled is because it has been
sold for profit.

--
Regards,
Dave
-
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/

RE: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

[Jason Cartwright]

It's a good thing for me, its better than what I and many people have
currently.

J

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Crossland
Sent: 13 June 2007 01:32
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info

On 13/06/07, Christopher Woods <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> entirely). And that's why DRM discussion will just go round in circles

> until someone comes along which exhibits a demonstrable downside, 
> which is both immediately explainable and fully obvious to the general

> tech-using population. Something like Sky requiring HDCP-compliant 
> HDTVs for their SkyHD receives,

I'd say "You can download BBC shows from the internet to watch them
later. But after 7 days, BBC will force your computer to delete your
shows. Is that good or bad?" was pretty clear :-)

--
Regards,
Dave
-
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/

RE: [backstage] openID on the BBC

[Jason Cartwright]

OpenID is an excellent thing, but it still seems too complicated to
explain to a consumer. Getting the BBC involved in sorting that problem
out can only be a good thing.
 
Lots of cool openid stuff from Simon Willison over here:
http://simonwillison.net/tags/openid/
 
J



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Simon Cobb
Sent: 05 June 2007 07:30
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: [backstage] openID on the BBC




Did anyone else see this article on openID?
http://www.nik.com.au/archives/2007/03/12/openid-too-many-providers-not-
enough-consumers/

(Suddenly I've got the fear that this HAS already been done here- too
many lists to remember! - anyway I shall plough on as if it hadn't)

The article's basic thrust, as I understand it, is that whilst openID is
A Good Thing, there aren't enough sites offering to be merely
'consumers' of openID. Most don't want users signing in with details
that are locked to an alternative service, they wish to control users'
personal data.

But it struck me that the BBC is positioned to take advantage of openID
since it doesn't have any commercial motivation to lock "customers" in.
And further, it allows uers to choose which authentication provider they
want, promoting user choice and lastly, it means the amount of personal
data the BBC gathers is reduced.

In return this could drive uptake of openID as other sites see a major
broadcaster using it.

Of course, for those folks who don't have an account with any other
openID provider, they can use a proprietary BBC authentication system
(lets call it "SSO", heh).

I can only see advantages to deploying openID on the BBC - have I missed
something?

RE: [backstage] Facebook Apps

[Jason Cartwright]

I've not made an app yet, but I've become a pretty avid user of Facebook
recently and have tried out a few apps.
 
The problem at the moment seems to be that some of the popular apps (the
Flickr one for instance) are developed by part timers and run off cheap
shared hosting accounts. Not usually a problem for a mashup, but with
the ridicious popularity of Facebook these limitations seem to be the
cause errors and malfunctioning all over the show. Not very good.
 
Seems they need to get with thier developer relations. Last.fm were a
bit hacked (pun intended) off at not being in the early dev program...
http://blog.last.fm/2007/05/31/lastfm-on-facebook
 
J



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Barry Carlyon
(Webmaster LSRfm.com/LSweb.org.uk)
Sent: 04 June 2007 10:30
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: [backstage] Facebook Apps



Hey everyone

 

I'm surprised no one has commented on this yet but I imagine I'm one of
the younger members of this list, hence Facebook

 

Anywho I was wondering what everyone thought about the sudden explosion
of facebook applications, and whether anyone had written one, who is a
member of this list.

In light of the face we have just been talking about Google developer
day, which I could not attend...

 

Yours,

 

---

Barry Carlyon

Student Radio Association Regional Rep. North East/Yorkshire

LUU Media Rep

Webmaster LSRfm.com, Leeds Student, LUUBackstage, Action, BurnFM

 

http://www.barrycarlyon.co.uk  

http://www.lsrfm.com  

http://www.lsweb.org.uk  

http://www.wbmfproductions.co.uk

http://www.airebornetheatre.co.uk

 

mobile: 07729048443

skype: barrycarlyon

email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

live help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 



 

This Message Has Been Scanned by Norton

And Contains the Views of Barry Carlyon ONLY

 

RE: [backstage] bbc iplayer

[Jason Cartwright]

http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Abbc.co.uk+iplayer+accessiblity

Some interesting articles on there from the Access 2.0 blog, detailing
some of testing and also naming the testing firm.

J 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of "~:''
"
Sent: 01 June 2007 08:23
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: [backstage] bbc iplayer

anyone working on or reviewing bbc iplayer Accessibility?

cheers

Jonathan Chetwynd



-
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/

RE: [backstage] BBC "Radio" 7

[Jason Cartwright]

I thought it was "BBC 7" because "Radio 7" sounds like "Radio Severn", a
couple of commercial stations.

J

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andrew Bowden
Sent: 29 May 2007 16:43
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: RE: [backstage] BBC "Radio" 7

> I was just thinking about this yesterday! It occurred to me that 6 
> Music and BBC 7 probably have/had a larger non-radio (i.e. 
> non-wireless) audience in their first few years so using the word 
> "radio" in the station name could be misleading.
> Could it be that DAB listenership is now higher than Internet 
> listenership?

Many years ago, the reasons for not calling them BBC Radio 6 and BBC
Radio 7 was posted on one of the BBC mnessage boards.  And the reason
that was given was that online and TV listening, isn't "radio" - so
pretty much like you say.

Of course radio as a term has been appropiated for the concept of
listening to programmed content - not listening to a particular device,
via a specific transmission method.  People listen to the "radio" via
their TV, via their phone, via the internet.  

-
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/

RE: [backstage] A decent editorially-ordered BBC News feed?

[Jason Cartwright]

That's not what I'm seeing. All three of those URLs are exactly the same
content in the same order for me (different formats though, obviously).
 
Perhaps something is caching, or taking longer to update, hence the
disparity? Someone from News will chime in no doubt.
 
J



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James Cridland
Sent: 21 May 2007 13:26
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] A decent editorially-ordered BBC News feed?


It's not ordered editorially; it's ordered by time of last update of
that story.

So, right now:

http://newsrss.bbc.co.uk/rss/newsonline_uk_edition/front_page/rss.xml
- Blaze ravages historic Cutty Sark
- Terror charge man freed on bail
- High marks for six forms

But http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolpda/ukfs_news/hi/default.stm
- Blaze ravages historic Cutty Sark 
- Lebanon clashes 'kill civilians'
- No 10 defends Hodge housing call
... and these are the top three stories, too, on http://news.bbc.co.uk/

Latest news != most important news. 




On 5/21/07, Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 


http://newsrss.bbc.co.uk/rss/newsonline_uk_edition/front_page/rss.xml
 
This is ordered editorially. Is the widget messing with it? Am I
missing something?
 
J



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James Cridland
Sent: 21 May 2007 12:47
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: [backstage] A decent editorially-ordered BBC News feed?



Since I'm at home tending a cold, I thought I'd do some
reconfiguring of my "iGoogle" page (that's what they insist on calling
the Google personalised homepage these days - Steve Jobs has a lot to
answer for). 

I thought I might look at the current BBC News gadgets, and
write a nicer one (which gives the text as well as just the headline).

But - am I alone in finding the BBC News RSS feeds slightly
wanting?

The three big items on the BBC News (UK) front page right now
are:
- Blaze ravages Cutty Sark
- Fresh clashes in Northern Lebanon
- No 10 defends Hodge housing call

However, the top three items on the BBC News UK front page RSS
feed right now are: 
- Lebanon clashes 'kill civilians'
- Cameron attacks grammar 'fantasy'
- Jail term for Khaleda Zia adviser

Essentially, that RSS feed is useless as a feed for "the top
three stories right now". 

Is there a way I can get an RSS feed sorted in editorial order,
rather than just time-added order? The top three stories exist on
http://www.bbc.co.uk/fivelive/ and the top story lives on the Radio 4
website, so it's presumably possible. Indeed,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolpda/ukfs_news/hi/default.stm contains, with the
HRs, exactly what I'd like in my Google Gadget. So is this available for
mere mortals to use? 

-- 
http://james.cridland.net/ 




-- 
http://james.cridland.net/ 

RE: [backstage] A decent editorially-ordered BBC News feed?

[Jason Cartwright]

http://newsrss.bbc.co.uk/rss/newsonline_uk_edition/front_page/rss.xml
 
This is ordered editorially. Is the widget messing with it? Am I missing
something?
 
J



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James Cridland
Sent: 21 May 2007 12:47
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: [backstage] A decent editorially-ordered BBC News feed?


Since I'm at home tending a cold, I thought I'd do some reconfiguring of
my "iGoogle" page (that's what they insist on calling the Google
personalised homepage these days - Steve Jobs has a lot to answer for). 

I thought I might look at the current BBC News gadgets, and write a
nicer one (which gives the text as well as just the headline).

But - am I alone in finding the BBC News RSS feeds slightly wanting?

The three big items on the BBC News (UK) front page right now are:
- Blaze ravages Cutty Sark
- Fresh clashes in Northern Lebanon
- No 10 defends Hodge housing call

However, the top three items on the BBC News UK front page RSS feed
right now are: 
- Lebanon clashes 'kill civilians'
- Cameron attacks grammar 'fantasy'
- Jail term for Khaleda Zia adviser

Essentially, that RSS feed is useless as a feed for "the top three
stories right now". 

Is there a way I can get an RSS feed sorted in editorial order, rather
than just time-added order? The top three stories exist on
http://www.bbc.co.uk/fivelive/ and the top story lives on the Radio 4
website, so it's presumably possible. Indeed,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolpda/ukfs_news/hi/default.stm contains, with the
HRs, exactly what I'd like in my Google Gadget. So is this available for
mere mortals to use? 

-- 
http://james.cridland.net/ 

RE: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design'

[Jason Cartwright]

Yes, javascript is required for the full, slick experience, obviously. All 
parts of the site are still usable when JS is off (that I can see), and 
seemingly entirely accessible via the keyboard.

With JS on, the keys work in most browsers, although some require you to have 
the map in focus.

Of course Google Maps has a well documented API that could be used to create 
uber-accessible versions for different needs - http://www.google.com/apis/maps/

J

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of "~:'' 
"
Sent: 15 May 2007 21:32
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design'

Jason & Stephen,

when javascript is disabled in Opera or Camino the message is:
Your web browser is not fully supported by Google Maps

I wonder is the code IE7 specific?
none of the keys work for me on os x

unless I'm missing something this hardly qualifies as accessible...

regards

Jonathan Chetwynd



On 15 May 2007, at 16:57, Jason Cartwright wrote:

Disable javascript. Everything works fine.

J

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of "~:'' 
"
Sent: 15 May 2007 16:47
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design'

Richard,

how does one use http://maps.google.com/ via the keyboard?

cheers

Jonathan Chetwynd



On 15 May 2007, at 13:22, Richard Lockwood wrote:

This particular rant seems to be about useability rather than accessibility 
(although I appreciate the two are often closely related).  Much as I often 
loathe Nielsen's writing - Jason's right, it's often all about Nielsen more 
than it is about any actual problems
- in this case he's got a point.  "Web 2.0" sites are often completely 
unuseable - MySpace being a prime example, and Flickr (although it's been a 
while since I tried to use it to post a few pics and it may well have improved) 
another.

Google Maps however, I'd hold up as a prime example of excellent intuitive 
design and useability.

Just as the phrase "Web 2.0" means different things to all people (I avoid it 
if at all possible as I feel it just makes the user sound like a buzzword 
spouting bandwagon-jumper who hasn't a clue what he's actually saying  ;-) ), 
you can't tar all "Web 2.0" sites with the same brush.

Anyway, I've banged on far too long now, and this is what Nielsen wants - 
people to discuss HIM HIM HIM!!!  Frankly, the less I hear of and from this 
tedious old bore, the happier I am.

Cheers,

Rich.

On 5/15/07, "~:'' ありがとうございました。"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jason & Gordon
>
> any good Accessible Web 2.0 websites you'd care to plug?
> or are you in a rush?
>
> cheers
>
> Jonathan Chetwynd
>
>
>
> On 15 May 2007, at 10:18, Jason Cartwright wrote:
>
> This is all my personal opinion, and I entirely disagree.
>
> Mr Nielsen has a history of spouting contrary opinions to court 
> controversy and gain publicity for himself and his company.
>
> "Web 2.0"[1] (for me at least) incorporates best practice 
> methodologies of developing to standards (and the consequences of 
> this, such as progressive enhancement etc) and "trusting users as co- 
> developers" [2].
> These core principals of "Web 2.0" encourage good design.
>
> As with any technology, "Web 2.0" will be misused - it's not the 
> technology's fault that this happens, it's the designer/developer that 
> fouled it up's problem. That doesn't look as good when you're goading 
> mainstream journos into writing about you though, does it?
>
> J
>
> [1] I've stuck all these in quotes, as I think "Web 2.0" means 
> different things to different people.
> [2] Tim O'Reilly
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ‾:''
> 
> Sent: 15 May 2007 08:48
> To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
> Subject: [backstage] Jakob Nielsen: Web 2.0 'neglecting good design'
>
> Jakob Nielsen: Web 2.0 'neglecting good design'
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6653119.stm
>
> seems to have copied my pitch for hackday ‾:"
>
> has he been invited?
>
> was I?
>
> did anyone else have ideas or requirements for an accessible SVG front 
> end?
>
> cheers
>
> Jonathan Chetwynd
> Accessibility Consultant on Learning Disabilities and the Internet
>
> http://www.eas-i.co.uk
>
>
> -
> Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, 
> please visit 

RE: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design'

[Jason Cartwright]

Disable javascript. Everything works fine.

J 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of "~:'' 
"
Sent: 15 May 2007 16:47
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design'

Richard,

how does one use http://maps.google.com/ via the keyboard?

cheers

Jonathan Chetwynd



On 15 May 2007, at 13:22, Richard Lockwood wrote:

This particular rant seems to be about useability rather than accessibility 
(although I appreciate the two are often closely related).  Much as I often 
loathe Nielsen's writing - Jason's right, it's often all about Nielsen more 
than it is about any actual problems
- in this case he's got a point.  "Web 2.0" sites are often completely 
unuseable - MySpace being a prime example, and Flickr (although it's been a 
while since I tried to use it to post a few pics and it may well have improved) 
another.

Google Maps however, I'd hold up as a prime example of excellent intuitive 
design and useability.

Just as the phrase "Web 2.0" means different things to all people (I avoid it 
if at all possible as I feel it just makes the user sound like a buzzword 
spouting bandwagon-jumper who hasn't a clue what he's actually saying  ;-) ), 
you can't tar all "Web 2.0" sites with the same brush.

Anyway, I've banged on far too long now, and this is what Nielsen wants - 
people to discuss HIM HIM HIM!!!  Frankly, the less I hear of and from this 
tedious old bore, the happier I am.

Cheers,

Rich.

On 5/15/07, "~:'' ありがとうございました。"  
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jason & Gordon
>
> any good Accessible Web 2.0 websites you'd care to plug?
> or are you in a rush?
>
> cheers
>
> Jonathan Chetwynd
>
>
>
> On 15 May 2007, at 10:18, Jason Cartwright wrote:
>
> This is all my personal opinion, and I entirely disagree.
>
> Mr Nielsen has a history of spouting contrary opinions to court 
> controversy and gain publicity for himself and his company.
>
> "Web 2.0"[1] (for me at least) incorporates best practice 
> methodologies of developing to standards (and the consequences of 
> this, such as progressive enhancement etc) and "trusting users as co- 
> developers" [2].
> These core principals of "Web 2.0" encourage good design.
>
> As with any technology, "Web 2.0" will be misused - it's not the 
> technology's fault that this happens, it's the designer/developer that 
> fouled it up's problem. That doesn't look as good when you're goading 
> mainstream journos into writing about you though, does it?
>
> J
>
> [1] I've stuck all these in quotes, as I think "Web 2.0" means 
> different things to different people.
> [2] Tim O'Reilly
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ~:'' 
> 
> Sent: 15 May 2007 08:48
> To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
> Subject: [backstage] Jakob Nielsen: Web 2.0 'neglecting good design'
>
> Jakob Nielsen: Web 2.0 'neglecting good design'
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6653119.stm
>
> seems to have copied my pitch for hackday ~:"
>
> has he been invited?
>
> was I?
>
> did anyone else have ideas or requirements for an accessible SVG front 
> end?
>
> cheers
>
> Jonathan Chetwynd
> Accessibility Consultant on Learning Disabilities and the Internet
>
> http://www.eas-i.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/
>
> -
> 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/
>


--
SilverDisc Ltd is registered in England no. 2798073

Registered address:
4 Swallow Court, Kettering, Northamptonshire, NN15 6XX
-
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/
-
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/

RE: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design'

[Jason Cartwright]

I forgot to mention.

A "web 2.0" site is also more likely to have an API, allowing
programmatic to the content and the ability to create a fully accessible
interfaces to various disadvantaged user's needs.

J

-Original Message-----
From: Jason Cartwright 
Sent: 15 May 2007 13:40
To: 'backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk'
Subject: RE: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design'

You & Jacob talk as if the two (good design/accessiblity & "web 2.0")
are mutually exclusive. There is nothing stopping a "Web 2.0" site being
well designed or accessible, as I showed before they are actually *more*
likely to be.

I notice that you've added the word "accessible". Jacob doesn't mention
it.

Flickr and Twitter are well built (and argueably accessible), and there
is always the mobile versions to get to the content...

http://m.flickr.com
http://m.twitter.com

Most of these sites (if well built) will work perfectly/almost perfectly
with javascript and/or CSS turned off as well, which solves the live
region, notification, and some navigation issues.

J

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of "~:''
"
Sent: 15 May 2007 12:52
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design'

Jason & Gordon

any good Accessible Web 2.0 websites you'd care to plug?
or are you in a rush?

cheers

Jonathan Chetwynd



On 15 May 2007, at 10:18, Jason Cartwright wrote:

This is all my personal opinion, and I entirely disagree.

Mr Nielsen has a history of spouting contrary opinions to court
controversy and gain publicity for himself and his company.

"Web 2.0"[1] (for me at least) incorporates best practice methodologies
of developing to standards (and the consequences of this, such as
progressive enhancement etc) and "trusting users as co-developers" [2].
These core principals of "Web 2.0" encourage good design.

As with any technology, "Web 2.0" will be misused - it's not the
technology's fault that this happens, it's the designer/developer that
fouled it up's problem. That doesn't look as good when you're goading
mainstream journos into writing about you though, does it?

J

[1] I've stuck all these in quotes, as I think "Web 2.0" means different
things to different people.
[2] Tim O'Reilly

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ~:'' 
Sent: 15 May 2007 08:48
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: [backstage] Jakob Nielsen: Web 2.0 'neglecting good design'

Jakob Nielsen: Web 2.0 'neglecting good design'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6653119.stm

seems to have copied my pitch for hackday ~:"

has he been invited?

was I?

did anyone else have ideas or requirements for an accessible SVG front
end?

cheers

Jonathan Chetwynd
Accessibility Consultant on Learning Disabilities and the Internet

http://www.eas-i.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/

-
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/

-
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/

RE: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design'

[Jason Cartwright]

You & Jacob talk as if the two (good design/accessiblity & "web 2.0")
are mutually exclusive. There is nothing stopping a "Web 2.0" site being
well designed or accessible, as I showed before they are actually *more*
likely to be.

I notice that you've added the word "accessible". Jacob doesn't mention
it.

Flickr and Twitter are well built (and argueably accessible), and there
is always the mobile versions to get to the content...

http://m.flickr.com
http://m.twitter.com

Most of these sites (if well built) will work perfectly/almost perfectly
with javascript and/or CSS turned off as well, which solves the live
region, notification, and some navigation issues.

J

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of "~:''
"
Sent: 15 May 2007 12:52
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design'

Jason & Gordon

any good Accessible Web 2.0 websites you'd care to plug?
or are you in a rush?

cheers

Jonathan Chetwynd



On 15 May 2007, at 10:18, Jason Cartwright wrote:

This is all my personal opinion, and I entirely disagree.

Mr Nielsen has a history of spouting contrary opinions to court
controversy and gain publicity for himself and his company.

"Web 2.0"[1] (for me at least) incorporates best practice methodologies
of developing to standards (and the consequences of this, such as
progressive enhancement etc) and "trusting users as co-developers" [2].
These core principals of "Web 2.0" encourage good design.

As with any technology, "Web 2.0" will be misused - it's not the
technology's fault that this happens, it's the designer/developer that
fouled it up's problem. That doesn't look as good when you're goading
mainstream journos into writing about you though, does it?

J

[1] I've stuck all these in quotes, as I think "Web 2.0" means different
things to different people.
[2] Tim O'Reilly

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ~:'' 
Sent: 15 May 2007 08:48
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: [backstage] Jakob Nielsen: Web 2.0 'neglecting good design'

Jakob Nielsen: Web 2.0 'neglecting good design'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6653119.stm

seems to have copied my pitch for hackday ~:"

has he been invited?

was I?

did anyone else have ideas or requirements for an accessible SVG front
end?

cheers

Jonathan Chetwynd
Accessibility Consultant on Learning Disabilities and the Internet

http://www.eas-i.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/

-
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/

-
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/

RE: [backstage] Jakob Nielsen: Web 2.0 'neglecting good design'

[Jason Cartwright]

This is all my personal opinion, and I entirely disagree. 

Mr Nielsen has a history of spouting contrary opinions to court
controversy and gain publicity for himself and his company.

"Web 2.0"[1] (for me at least) incorporates best practice methodologies
of developing to standards (and the consequences of this, such as
progressive enhancement etc) and "trusting users as co-developers" [2].
These core principals of "Web 2.0" encourage good design.

As with any technology, "Web 2.0" will be misused - it's not the
technology's fault that this happens, it's the designer/developer that
fouled it up's problem. That doesn't look as good when you're goading
mainstream journos into writing about you though, does it?

J

[1] I've stuck all these in quotes, as I think "Web 2.0" means different
things to different people.
[2] Tim O'Reilly

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ~:'' 
Sent: 15 May 2007 08:48
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: [backstage] Jakob Nielsen: Web 2.0 'neglecting good design'

Jakob Nielsen: Web 2.0 'neglecting good design'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6653119.stm

seems to have copied my pitch for hackday ~:"

has he been invited?

was I?

did anyone else have ideas or requirements for an accessible SVG front
end?

cheers

Jonathan Chetwynd
Accessibility Consultant on Learning Disabilities and the Internet

http://www.eas-i.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/

-
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/

RE: [backstage] DO NOT USE THIS COMPANY

[Jason Cartwright]

Apparently TFL are trialling mobiles on the tube next year...

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/modalpages/4577.aspx

They are also talking about repeating DAB down the tunnels as well, which is 
interesting.

J

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James Ockenden
Sent: 02 May 2007 18:04
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] DO NOT USE THIS COMPANY

i see your problems and raise you life in hong kong, where i picked up a phone 
for HK$300 in the 3-shop, no contract, and after two months of local and 
international calls had a gentle SMS reminder I should pop into the shop and 
pay my bill of HK$29.50.
that's about £2.
AND the phones work on the MTR/underground.
funny though there's no public toilets on the MTR here, and the corp is saying 
it's technically impossible blah blah blah just like London says its impossible 
to put in aircon and phone signals blah blah.. maybe a technology swap 
is in order. London gives us its toilet technology and we give London aircon 
and mobile phones on the tube!




On 03/05/07, Christopher Woods <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> These horror stories remind me of the companies who either accost you 
> in the street or cold-call your mobile promising cut-price tariffs, 
> but who don't actually work for the companies they sell contracts for 
> - it all seems very shady stuff to me, even if they are legit. Those 
> "6 month free" deals where you send in your previous bills to get 
> credit are all very dodgy too, even if people (including some of my 
> coursemates) do it - I don't like the idea of handing over bills 
> containing personal details to some random company I don't even know much 
> about. What protection do you have?
>
> Why even bother with third party mobile companies when you can get 
> pretty good deals through their retail outlets? I got a brand new 
> smartphone for not a lot (less than I'd paid the previous year for an 
> older smartphone with O2), and a great deal on a contract with 
> unlimited data, and that was with T-Mobile retail (and I've not seen a 
> better deal online yet)... I know these emails are a bit OT, but does 
> anybody have a recommendation or list of reputable third-party mobile 
> companies through which you can buy contracts which are cheaper than 
> going direct to retail? Reply off-list if you have info but don't want 
> to add another message to the thread (though I don't think many people would 
> mind personally).
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: 02 May 2007 16:34
> > To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
> > Subject: Re: [backstage] DO NOT USE THIS COMPANY
> >
> > Quoting Timothy-john Bishop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > I just been ripped off!  Tried to get a new mobile and used this 
> > > company - they charged a non-refundable £199.00 to my credit card 
> > > - even though their webiste says its 1.99 - after a week of
> > phoning them
> > > they are refusing to give it back!
> > >
> > > they are called mobilerainbow.co.uk DO NOT USE THEM!
> >
> > I would suggest calling your credit card company and initiating a 
> > charge-back for a dispute. Give them all the details, and in my 
> > experience they side with you and give the money back. I'm not sure 
> > of the equivilent for a debut card transaction.
> >
> > I see your mobilerainbow.co.uk, and raise you; 
> > http://www.themobileoutlet.co.uk
> >
> > I spoke to them over a week ago, and ordered a phone. They said its 
> > in stock, and can be delivered in 2-3 days.
> >
> > Now they are saying that they are waiting for a delivery and have no 
> > idea when I can get it. Also they want to charge £20 to cancel the 
> > order, and they are not answering the customer services numbers, nor 
> > answwering  emails. When I finally get through, they said they would 
> > ring back, and then they would email. But nothing.
> >
> > Tom
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> > This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
> >
> >
> > -
> > 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/
>

-
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_

RE: [backstage] Hack day in London

[Jason Cartwright]

Absolutely. There are 4 jobs on the BBC Jobs site right now that mention
XSLT.
 
J



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Squiggle .
Sent: 20 April 2007 16:46
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Hack day in London


There's such a thing as an XSL developer?
I've been scouring the Internet trying to find a job that would let me
do that, but it seems nobody wants to give me money just on the basis
that I adore Apache Cocoon.


On 4/19/07, Ian Forrester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 

I think there will be a small but deadly group of XSL developers
working together on some killer web applications. 
Ian Forrester
Senior Producer, BBC Backstage
BC4 B4, Media Village, 201 Wood Lane, London W12 7RJ

email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
phone: 02080083965 

 




From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James Cox
Sent: 19 April 2007 16:23 

To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Hack day in London



I'd love to see some cool stuff hacked with
as/apollo/flex/etc. 

a sneaking suspicion tells me that we have all the
components to step away from the constrictions of the browser
(specifically, dealing with IE) and instead run platforms which are just
that little bit easier

i was initially thinking a flickr app which used voice
activated commands to browse tags etc... you'd have a big screen which
you spoke to, and from v.a. > an apollo app > flickr api interaction


shame i can't find good quality voice activation. :)

 - james

On 19 Apr 2007, at 16:02, cisnky wrote:


Actionscript ?


On 4/19/07, Ben Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote: 

Sounds like a great event.  Can any
language/technology be used? RoR, Java, C#?

Is all the hacking done on the weekend?
Or do people do prep before hand?

When do we find out if we have been
accept/invited?

Ben

On 19/04/07, James Cox
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kim -
>
> sure thing! the beauty of hack days is
to make stuff - linking tech with
> electronics and you know, sewing. :) 
>
> besides, i've got a stack of
shirts. ;p
>
> - james
>
>
> On 19 Apr 2007, at 15:13, Kim
Plowright wrote:
>
> Well - I ruled myself out of the
running for this as frankly, I'm great at 
> drawing, cooking, sewing and making
stuff (among other ladylike pursuits),
> but rubbish at coding and
electrickery.
>
> Tom C left a comment suggesting I find
a group of people to team up with. 
>
> So if anyone wants a
hack-team-mother-figure, let me know!
> 
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim
> Cowlishaw
> Sent: 19 April 2007 13:22
> To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk 
> Subject: Re: [backstage] Hack day in
London
>
> On 4/19/07, oliver wood
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I've signed up, but know whos - am I
l33t geek enough :) ? 
>
>
> ha! my thoughts exactly are
design-y CSS / HTML -type people welcome at
> these sort of events? If not, I'll
have to finish working my way through
> 'Thinking in Java' by June... or just
learn RoR. ;-) 
>
>
> Cheers,
>
 

[backstage] OS choice (was: Multicast Trial)

[Jason Cartwright]

I've recently 'switched' [1] (damn you Apple marketing dept!) from an XP
desktop to a Macbook as my main computer. Its been almost flawless
(unlike all the Vista problems we keep hearing about), and a bit of
revelation after being a complete Windowsite since 3.0.

I've met 3 people that have bought Macbooks recently, and know of a few
others that have a Apple computer purchase planned. Anecdotal evidence,
I know, but it seems to be reflected in the numbers...

http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2007/03/20/strong-mac-sales-ex
pected-this-quarter

J

[1]
http://www.jasoncartwright.com/blog/entry/2007/2/so_i_bought_a_macbook

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 10 April 2007 12:10
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: RE: [backstage] Multicast Trial

Multicast with Zen.co.uk worked sporadically. When it worked, it worked
well. When it didn't, it didn't show anything other than a blank video
screen.

Just curious and apologies for being off topic, but have noticed, post
Vista launch, that quite a lot of people seem to be switching from
Windows to Max OSX and Linux. Just wondered if this is true here in this
tech forum.
Wondered what most people are running and if they see themselves moving
OS in the future.


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jason Cartwright
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 10:13 AM
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: RE: [backstage] Multicast Trial

I used the multicast streams when Easynet were on an old trial. Worked a
treat.

Also, I believe the multicast streams were opened up to all ISPs for a
few days when the BBC was experiencing high traffic after the 7/7 London
bombings, which was useful.

J

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andrew Bowden
Sent: 10 April 2007 09:22
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: RE: [backstage] Multicast Trial

> As far as I understand it, it was more a case of the BBC (and
> ITV) trialing broadcasting via the multicast infrastructure - moreso 
> than it was a trial of consumers actually watching the content. I was 
> on a ja.net provider for an entire year and not once could I actually 
> watch the multicast content - due to the University's unwillingness to

> update their own internal network to be multicast-enabled. I got 
> multicast working ONCE, on a neighbour's ISP
> - but he was paying a LOT for his access, and as a business customer 
> of their he actually worked with the isp to get multicast enabled. My 
> parents are on Zen, and even though that's one of the 
> apparently-supported multicast ISPs for the
> trial: no luck.

I'm on Plus.net at home and whilst they were supposed to be one of the
ISPs who was taking part in the trial, it never seemed to be working at
Plus.net's end when I looked.


-
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/

-
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/

RE: [backstage] Multicast Trial

[Jason Cartwright]

I used the multicast streams when Easynet were on an old trial. Worked a
treat.

Also, I believe the multicast streams were opened up to all ISPs for a
few days when the BBC was experiencing high traffic after the 7/7 London
bombings, which was useful.

J 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andrew Bowden
Sent: 10 April 2007 09:22
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: RE: [backstage] Multicast Trial

> As far as I understand it, it was more a case of the BBC (and
> ITV) trialing broadcasting via the multicast infrastructure - moreso 
> than it was a trial of consumers actually watching the content. I was 
> on a ja.net provider for an entire year and not once could I actually 
> watch the multicast content - due to the University's unwillingness to

> update their own internal network to be multicast-enabled. I got 
> multicast working ONCE, on a neighbour's ISP
> - but he was paying a LOT for his access, and as a business customer 
> of their he actually worked with the isp to get multicast enabled. My 
> parents are on Zen, and even though that's one of the 
> apparently-supported multicast ISPs for the
> trial: no luck.

I'm on Plus.net at home and whilst they were supposed to be one of the
ISPs who was taking part in the trial, it never seemed to be working at
Plus.net's end when I looked.
 

-
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/

RE: [backstage] EMI 'in no DRM deal'

[Jason Cartwright]

The BBC delivers quite a bit of music as a service... bit different to
what the author meant though I'm sure.

When does radio become a "music distribution service"? People like
last.fm are riding a fine line here right?

J

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Crossland
Sent: 03 April 2007 15:33
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] EMI 'in no DRM deal'

On 03/04/07, Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Excellent article from The Register...
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/03/emi_apple_drm_analysis/

Concluding line: "Do we cease to pay artists completely, or do we move
to a model where music is a service? Thanks to EMI and Apple, that
choice is a lot clearer today."

But subscription based music distribution services appear not to be as
popular as download based ones.

Also, I think its worth comparing subscription services to license-fee
services, like Sky vs BBC.. ;-)

--
Regards,
Dave
-
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/

RE: [backstage] EMI 'in no DRM deal'

[Jason Cartwright]

Excellent article from The Register...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/03/emi_apple_drm_analysis/

J 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kim Plowright
Sent: 03 April 2007 14:16
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: RE: [backstage] EMI 'in no DRM deal'


> > You'd pay $30 and up for an album on CD? Are you mad?
> > 
> > I suppose you do get a convenient hard copy backup too...
> 
> Apple won't be changing the album price.

Not the point I was making. Ian was saying he'd pay $3 for an un DRMed
high quality track; which is a *silly price* when you compare it to the
cost of buying a physical instantiation of the same music. 

If people *do* start paying silly money for what can be marketed as a
'luxury' version of the product, then... Well. You'll end up with a DRM
underclass of people who can't afford free data. Pyhrric victory, innit?

Dave lab66 - I'm sure you make similar good points in your email but it
has come through with little whitespace and is near illegible. Might be
a problem with your client?

Kim

-
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/

RE: [backstage] EMI 'in no DRM deal'

[Jason Cartwright]

Yes, of course. However, I said "more people put the unDRMed file on the
torrents". The file without DRM will be easier to distribute, therefore
perhaps more people will.

J

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Crossland
Sent: 02 April 2007 19:34
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] EMI 'in no DRM deal'

On 02/04/07, Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd imagine at the quantities that Apple buy bandwidth, the extra cost

> of delivering the larger file will be negligibly more. Therefore what 
> is this price increase paying for? Potential lost revenue when more 
> people put the unDRMed file on the torrents perhaps?

DRMed files are put on torrents anyway.

--
Regards,
Dave
-
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/

RE: [backstage] EMI 'in no DRM deal'

[Jason Cartwright]

I'd imagine at the quantities that Apple buy bandwidth, the extra cost
of delivering the larger file will be negligibly more. Therefore what is
this price increase paying for? Potential lost revenue when more people
put the unDRMed file on the torrents perhaps?

J 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeremy Stone
Sent: 02 April 2007 14:36
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: RE: [backstage] EMI 'in no DRM deal'

The DRM free songs are going to be more expensive I notice
$1.29 a song as opposed to 99c.
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/04/02itunes.html
 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andy
Sent: 02 April 2007 14:27
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] EMI 'in no DRM deal'

On 02/04/07, Brian Butterworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just to keep Auntie on her toes, another company that is a TLA has 
> decided to not bother with wasteful DRM:
>
> http://media.guardian.co.uk/newmedia/story/0,,2048195,00.html?gusrc=rs
> s&feed
> =4

Or the BBC article on the matter (which doesn't require registration):


And I nearly forgot what TLA meant! How stupid of me.

Not sure I trust Steve Jobs when he said:
> "The right thing to do is to tear down walls that precluded 
> interoperability by going DRM-free and that starts here today."
(from the BBC article linked above)

Was he not the guy who put up the walls to start with?

Nice to see some record companies considering this kind of thing.
I hope it will be available without iTunes.

Apparently the files will be "higher quality", doubt it will be lossless
though.
Pity really, but then it would cost them more to shift the files,
bandwidth ain't free (unless you use P2P then it's someone else's
bandwidth being used).

Can't remember who's on EMI though. Hopefully this could be a snowball
effect?
Maybe EMI might be realizing that one all powerful content distributer
isn't good for them either?

Oh well enough of my idle speculation.

Official press release:


Andy

--
First they ignore you
then they laugh at you
then they fight you
then you win.
- Mohandas Gandhi
-
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/

-
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/

RE: [backstage] Browser Stats

[Jason Cartwright]

> > > bbc.co.uk uses ActiveX
> > Where?
> Hm, my mistake it was on a BBC site but not under the bbc.co.uk
domain, I could look for other examples on bbc.co.uk but for now this
will suffice.
http://www.bbcworld.com/content/clickonline_archive_PC.asp?pageid=666&co
_pageid=1
This site now appears to be dead.

bbcworld.com is run by BBC Worldwide, a commerical organisation with
entirely different aims to the public service publishers of bbc.co.uk.

J

-
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/

RE: [backstage] Newcastle Speakers Club - Wall of Video

[Jason Cartwright]

Some video search stuff was announced the other day. Apparently its
going to be used on CBBC & CBeebies to start with...
 
http://www.google.com/search?q=ibm+video+search+cbeebies
 
J



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Hyett
Sent: 28 March 2007 13:42
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: [backstage] Newcastle Speakers Club - Wall of Video


Two points I want to make

1) Still impossible to find video content that the BBC produces, there
have been lots irrespective of copyright.
How to find this
http://www.bbc.co.uk/kent/videonation/videos/public_speaking.shtml

So I can add it to this
http://tapnortheast.typepad.com/speakers_club/2007/03/some_public_spe.ht
ml 

2) How about a blinkx type widget from the BBC

If there is one or there are better ones than this please let me know

Richard

RE: [backstage] Browser Stats

[Jason Cartwright]

They are working on it...
http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/07/29/445242.aspx (last 3 paras).
 
Molly (a visitor around here every so often [1]) is on the case from the
inside...
http://weblogs.asp.net/molly/
 
J
 
[1] http://www.flickr.com/photos/jasoncartwright/tags/molly/
<http://www.flickr.com/photos/jasoncartwright/377686574/> 



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of vijay chopra
Sent: 28 March 2007 12:35
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Browser Stats




On 28/03/07, Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 


I suspect you already know this, and perhaps your question is
rhetorical. I'll answer it anyhow :-). Some browsers had
different 
interpretations of the standards and render pages radically
differently
from each other. Testing to the standards is pointless, and will
result
in thousands of emails asking why IE, and it's box model, has
messed up 
the pretty design.

J

 
Actually as far as I can tell, everyone execpt MSIE is aiming to meet
the ACID 2 test: http://www.webstandards.org/action/acid2/ Admittedly
firefox isn't there yet, but has it as a milestone; but IIRC Opera,
Safri and Konquer all meet the test. So it's no "some browsers" it's "a
browser". Unfortunately, that browser just happens to be the most widely
used one, so it has to be "supported". 

 

RE: [backstage] Browser Stats

[Jason Cartwright]

I'll ignore your rant about the stats - but add that these numbers are
probably generated by some pretty sophisticated 3rd part software that
the BBC employs. I highly doubt they just look for "Linux" in the UA
string. I'm sure Jem will be replying.

> the site is target at Windows users
Completely incorrect. We target certain browsers when testing, sure, but
why would we ever target the OS?

> bbc.co.uk uses ActiveX
Where?

> On the subject of whether to support IE 5, is it supported by
Microsoft or has it been end of lifed? If it's been end of lifed then
maybe you don't need to support it.

I'd argue that it doesn't matter if MS support it or not. Choices of
browser support should be based on if the users are using it.

> Why do you need to 'support' specific browsers anyway? This is what
standards are ofr, I don't need to check the compatibility with every
piece of software on every switch between here and my destination node,
they are using a standard I just make sure I follow that standard. Why
should the HTML content be any different?

I suspect you already know this, and perhaps your question is
rhetorical. I'll answer it anyhow :-). Some browsers had different
interpretations of the standards and render pages radically differently
from each other. Testing to the standards is pointless, and will result
in thousands of emails asking why IE, and it's box model, has messed up
the pretty design.

J

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andy
Sent: 27 March 2007 17:19
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Browser Stats

On 26/03/07, Jeremy Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 0.4% of users at the time used a Linux operating system  ;)

That's not entirely true is it?
Please do not try to mislead people.

What is more likely is:
0.4% of users WHERE DETECTED AS using a Linux operating system AT THE
TIME THEY VISITED THE BBC SITE.

This number can be wrong for a multitude of reasons.

1) the BBC stats are biased, the site is target at Windows users and on
certain pages blocks users of other OSes (bbc.co.uk uses ActiveX for
instance)

2) Detection software may not have been as tuned to recognize a Linux
OS, after all many distros don't call them selves 'Linux', it may not be
in the user agent string. (simply looking for the word Linux is not good
enough).

3) A Linux user may have been misreporting the Operating System
(commonly used to cater for sites that do user agent sniffing badly,
also used to blend in with the crowd for anonymity).

4) Someone may have a dual boot (or triple or more), and may only be
using Windows to view bbc.co.ku, possibly due to being locked out by
previously mentioned technological practices of the BBC.

5) Some 'users' may not be real people, they may be robots spoofing
there user agent. 90% of email is spam. How have you accounted for web
robots browsing your site looking for email addresses or trying to post
spam comments (they would not hit robots.txt or say robot in the user
agent, that would give them away)? I am thinking most spam bots would
impersonate IE on Windows as it probably has the highest market share so
much harder o filter. (by how high we are unsure).

Additionally you could argue you would get the less knowledgable users
in this sampling, I rarely hit the BBC home page, why bother? I know
where I want to go and I get the news feeds in a handy RSS so I probably
don't hit news.bbc.co.uk's homepage either.
I have the pages I need on bookmarks, (Favourites for you IE users).

This is the great thing about statistics people like you claim they show
something and try to cover up the failings of how the sampling was done.

It shows only as much as it records. The number of recognized User Agent
strings for hits on the BBC website.

(Quick question, is this per IP or per page hit? page hit would be bad
as it would allow robots to skew the results badly as they would hit far
more pages).

I really do dislike statistics, especially when people try to claim that
they prove something without accounting for the method of gathering.

And now a quote:
> There are three kinds of commonly recognised untruths:
>
>  Lies, damn lies and statistics.
>  - Mark Twain
>
> This quote from Mark Twain is accurate; statistics are often used to 
> lie to the public because most people do not understand how statistics
work.

And this quote is from where you ask? Why it is from the BBC of course!
(well I had to use the BBC quote didn't I? especially it is the first
result on Google for: lies damn lies statistics)

Maybe you should improve your stats?
1.Group each unique header together and have a Skilled Human with
knowledge of all operating system classify them according to OS.
2. Make each visitor pass a Turing Test prior to using there User Agent.
3. Verify details of OS using other methods, i.e. Javascript could
check, or use OS fingerprinting (hopefully it wouldn't hit NAT routers,
otherwise you'd probably get th

RE: [backstage] BBC site statistics

[Jason Cartwright]

I believe these guys do most/all of it...
http://www.redbeemedia.com/access/subtitling.shtml

I remember watching an excellent video that showed the typing re-reading
methods of subtitling. Can't find it right now, sorry.

Bonus link: whilst googling around I found this little gem (if you're a
font geek)...
http://screenfont.ca/fonts/today/TKST/

J

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christopher Woods
Sent: 26 March 2007 17:53
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: RE: [backstage] BBC site statistics

Here's a thought regarding subtitling - I know that manual subtitling or
on-the-fly subtitling of live programmes has come along leaps and
bounds, with voice recognition technology (which sometimes kicks up
amusing misunderstandings, but seems to work very well) - how long do
you think it'll be before it's all fully automatic, with the software
performing voice recognition on the actual soundtrack in realtime? After
seeing the lip reading segment on the last Click, it got me thinking...
Who does the Beeb's subs now?

> -----Original Message-
> From: Jason Cartwright [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 26 March 2007 17:41
> To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
> Subject: RE: [backstage] BBC site statistics
> 
> The annual report designers like big numbers too..
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/review_report_r
> esearch/bb
> cannualreport.pdf
> 
> Lots of boxes saying interesting things like:
> 
> "56% of children in Great Britain aged 7-15 accessed bbc.co.uk/CBBC in

> December 2005"
> "91.6% of programming on BBC One was subtitled in 2005/2006" etc etc
> 
> J
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christopher 
> Woods
> Sent: 26 March 2007 17:26
> To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
> Subject: RE: [backstage] BBC site statistics
> 
> Something I noticed earlier today - the BBC News pages show how many 
> pages have been served in the past minute, and that cycles round with 
> other facts about the site... When I was looking earlier this morning 
> (around middayish) it showed over 73,000 pages served THAT MINUTE - 
> that's insane! Right now it's saying "82,357 people are reading 
> stories on the site right now."
> 
> !
> 
> Sometimes I forget just how massive the audience is for the beebnews 
> pages...
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Richard Lockwood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: 26 March 2007 11:22
> > To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
> > Subject: Re: [backstage] BBC site statistics
> > 
> > I've always found that the more "technical" or "geeky" a
> site is, the
> > higher %age of non-IE users you'll find.  For a consumer
> website - IE
> > all the way.  Which goes to prove my point that real people use IE, 
> > geeks use Firefox.  :-)
> > 
> > Yesterday's stats from a (very much consumer-orientated) site that I
> > manage:
> > 
> > IE (total) 87.3%
> > made up of:
> > IE 5.5 - 0.1%
> > IE 6 - 40.1%
> > IE 7 - 47.1%
> > Safari - 0.8%
> > Opera - 0.6%
> > FF (all flavours) - 11.3%
> > 
> > Not a single hit from anything else.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > 
> > R.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On 3/26/07, Brian Butterworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Just for the record, I have a UK-focused site, so I have
> > these figures
> > > for March 2007:
> > >
> > > www.ukfree.tv
> > > Internet explorer is 66% of all traffic.
> > > of which 7.0  52% (34.63% of total); 6.0 47% (31.4% of
> total), 5.0
> > > (0.8% of
> > > total)
> > > (Firefox is 28.78% of total, Opera 1% of total)
> > >
> > > On the OS front, I get Windows NT/XP/Vista: 88%, Mac 4.8%,
> > Windows 98
> > > 2.85 and XWindows 1.26%
> > >
> > > Hope this is useful too.
> > >
> > > Brian Butterworth
> > > www.ukfree.tv
> > >
> > >
> > > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > >
> > > 
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> James Cridland
> > > Sent: 25 March 2007 16:57
> > > To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
> > > Subject: Re: [backstage] BBC site statistics
> > >
> > >
> > > On 3/23/07, Allan Jardine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > I'm wondering if anyone knows any of the site statistics
> 

RE: [backstage] BBC site statistics

[Jason Cartwright]

The annual report designers like big numbers too..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/review_report_research/bb
cannualreport.pdf

Lots of boxes saying interesting things like:

"56% of children in Great Britain aged 7-15 accessed bbc.co.uk/CBBC in
December 2005"
"91.6% of programming on BBC One was subtitled in 2005/2006" etc etc

J 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christopher Woods
Sent: 26 March 2007 17:26
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: RE: [backstage] BBC site statistics

Something I noticed earlier today - the BBC News pages show how many
pages have been served in the past minute, and that cycles round with
other facts about the site... When I was looking earlier this morning
(around middayish) it showed over 73,000 pages served THAT MINUTE -
that's insane! Right now it's saying "82,357 people are reading stories
on the site right now."

!

Sometimes I forget just how massive the audience is for the beebnews
pages...

> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Lockwood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 26 March 2007 11:22
> To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
> Subject: Re: [backstage] BBC site statistics
> 
> I've always found that the more "technical" or "geeky" a site is, the 
> higher %age of non-IE users you'll find.  For a consumer website - IE 
> all the way.  Which goes to prove my point that real people use IE, 
> geeks use Firefox.  :-)
> 
> Yesterday's stats from a (very much consumer-orientated) site that I 
> manage:
> 
> IE (total) 87.3%
> made up of:
> IE 5.5 - 0.1%
> IE 6 - 40.1%
> IE 7 - 47.1%
> Safari - 0.8%
> Opera - 0.6%
> FF (all flavours) - 11.3%
> 
> Not a single hit from anything else.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> R.
> 
> 
> 
> On 3/26/07, Brian Butterworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Just for the record, I have a UK-focused site, so I have
> these figures
> > for March 2007:
> >
> > www.ukfree.tv
> > Internet explorer is 66% of all traffic.
> > of which 7.0  52% (34.63% of total); 6.0 47% (31.4% of total), 5.0 
> > (0.8% of
> > total)
> > (Firefox is 28.78% of total, Opera 1% of total)
> >
> > On the OS front, I get Windows NT/XP/Vista: 88%, Mac 4.8%,
> Windows 98
> > 2.85 and XWindows 1.26%
> >
> > Hope this is useful too.
> >
> > Brian Butterworth
> > www.ukfree.tv
> >
> >
> > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
> > 
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James Cridland
> > Sent: 25 March 2007 16:57
> > To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
> > Subject: Re: [backstage] BBC site statistics
> >
> >
> > On 3/23/07, Allan Jardine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I'm wondering if anyone knows any of the site statistics
> for the BBC
> > > web-sites. In particular what the browser market share
> is, as I am
> > > wondering how much longer to support IE5 and 5.5 for
> certain sites -
> > > depending on their application and target market. I thing the BBC 
> > > site user agent stats would be really interesting in this
> area, and
> > > possibly one of the least skewed se of statistics on the net for 
> > > typical user agents.
> >
> > Not particularly helpful, but
> > 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/newmedia/technical/browser_support.sht
> > ml#support_table is a useful guide to what the BBC supports
> and what
> > it doesn't.
> >
> > From the sites I can pull stats from, these are the stats
> for the last
> > seven days...
> >
> > www.mediauk.com
> > Internet Explorer: 85% of all traffic of which: 6.0: 59.09%; 7.0: 
> > 39.9%; rest: 1.01%
> >
> > james.cridland.net
> > Internet Explorer: 44% of all traffic of which: 6.0: 60.91%; 7.0: 
> > 38.42%; rest: 0.67%
> >
> > www.virginradio.co.uk
> > Internet Explorer: 85% of all traffic of which: 6.0: 62.28% ; 7.0: 
> > 37.14%; rest 0.58%
> >
> > Particularly based on the Media UK and Virgin Radio stats, my own 
> > thoughts would therefore be to drop any support for MSIE5
> and MSIE5.5.
> >
> > Hope that's useful.
> >
> > --
> > http://james.cridland.net/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.17/731 - Release Date: 
> > 23/03/2007
> > 15:27
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > No virus found in this outgoing message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.18/733 - Release Date: 
> > 25/03/2007
> > 11:07
> >
> -
> 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/

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/

RE: [backstage] BBC parliment

[Jason Cartwright]

Not sure if this has been mentioned yet...
 
http://www.parliamentlive.tv
 
J



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of vijay chopra
Sent: 09 March 2007 11:46
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] BBC parliment


Thanks for that, an interesting in the introduction to the first
document:

"We also examined developments in webcasting.11 A trial of webcasting
has recently been
completed and we look forward to this service being established on a
permanent basis. We
feel that webcasting has an important part to play in an integrated,
interactive set of 
information services providing access to the general public."

This appears to be being carried out on the BBC Parliament website:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/bbc_parliament/default.stm , but I
notice the distinct lack of downloadable video content. Is there any
possibility of a Video version of the "Today in Parliament" podcast? The
rights negotiations should be minimal to zero, and unlike not being able
to watch the latest Dr Who (or whatever) on iPlayer, what goes on in
Westminster is actually life changing and important, so there is a real
public service aspect to being able to keep a copy on my hard drive and
point to it when a politician backtracks and tries to pretends\he didn't
say something. 

Vijay.



On 08/03/07, Matthew Somerville < [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 > wrote: 

vijay chopra wrote:
> As can be seen at big set piece events such as PMQs Sky, ITV
and BBC etc
> all seem to use the same camera, so it seems as if that the
Beeb
> licences the footage. Anyone here know who from,  I suspect it
is crown 
> copyright like our statutes  and Hansard.

No, the recordings (and Hansard) are Parliamentary Copyright. As
I
understand it (hard to gather information, some of this is based
upon the
Broadcasting Select Committees First Report from June 2000 [1]),
all the 
major broadcasting companies own a company called the
Parliamentary
Broadcasting Unit Ltd, which funds the cameras, control rooms,
and staffing
costs, and employs CCT Productions Limited to operate the
cameras. So they 
all get the same footage.

The copyright rests with Parliament, presumably the
Parliamentary Recording
Unit, from whom you can purchase archive footage. As long as you
stick to
the rules about what you can do with the material even then: 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmbroad/786/7
86.pdf 

[1]

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmbroad/642/6
4202.htm

--
ATB, |   http://www.theyworkforyou.com/
 
Matthew  |   http://www.dracos.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/

[backstage] Freebase

[Jason Cartwright]

No, nothing to do alkaloids. Looks like Google Base, but more open...
 
http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/03/09/this-is-cool-unless-it-achieves-con
sciousness-and-kills-us-all/
 
http://www.freebase.com/
 
J
 

Jason Cartwright
Client Side Developer - CBBC Interactive
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

 
Desk: (0208 22) 59487
Mobile: 07976500729
 
"I hate people with quotes in their email signatures" - DH
 

RE: [backstage] Angus McBean

[Jason Cartwright]

http://www.google.com/search?q=Angus+McBean+site%3Abbc.co.uk
 
Google some better results than our internal engine, and holds some info
in its cache.
 
J



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
hayfielddigitalparish
Sent: 09 March 2007 11:02
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: [backstage] Angus McBean



Hi guys would appreciate help


How do I find details of a programme  on Angus McBean broadcast on BBC 2
at 7 or 7:30pm on the 5th March 07 possibly only shown in Wales ? the
BBC site gives 0 finds!

Phil 

RE: [backstage] Flash required?

[Jason Cartwright]

> Are you joking? People can create a huge amount of revenue by doing
just that. Do youever get a spam email? The majority of that comes from
boxes that have been taken over by someone other than the legitimate
owner.

You are suggesting that Adobe may knowingly put code in their apps to
send spam? Or are you suggesting that Adobe may knowingly put code in
their apps to let other people do that? Both are ridiculous.

> If they don't get caught it is in their interest.

They are people too you know, not evil money-making robots hell-bent
screwing you over.

> Do you trust Sony? Google: Sony Rootkit
> A big company but seriously malicious code on consumers PCs. Now why
should I trust Adobe? 

Life is full of risks. Perhaps we could all enjoy it more by taking a
few and not worrying that the world is out to get us :-)

J


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andy
Sent: 06 March 2007 11:08
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Flash required?

On 06/03/07, Andrew Bowden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you're worried about threats to your computer, don't turn it on.

So you are saying that if I use my PC, I should not bother securing it
at all?

> And hey, one was even found in the email service you're using...
> http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=gmail+security+risk&start=0&ie=utf-8&;
> oe
> =utf-8

AFAIK that attack could only have comprimised this email account, not my
entire system like you are asking me to do.


> As does using a PC in the first place.  After all, you tend to have to

> buy them, "hire" one at a library etc...

But I can choose who I buy from. My point is the BBC is forcing you to
enter into contracts with a specific entity (in this case Real
Networks). It would be like the BBC saying that everyone must by a Dell
PC, with an AMD CPU, and ATI graphics.
And anyone who dared to buy a PC from a different company would be
banned from sections of the BBC website.

> And that's before you've got an operating system installed - even 
> Linux isn't without its legalities (GPL etal)

GPL only applies if I copy the software. It is not a EULA, it is not a
contract it merely waives certain copyrights. (IANAL)

And how do you know I haven't written my own operating system?
Again the BBC is preventing people from taking that action as Real
Player won't run on it. If it was an open standard I could write my own
media player, or port one from another platform.

I asked whether you could provide a guarantee that Real Player contained
no back doors. Can that guarantee be provided? Has the BBC it self
actually seen the source to the whole of Real Player, how can it be so
sure it's safe?

Now onto George's email.

I read the links. I don't understand the point about not having the
resources. Can you tell me how much Johnathon Ross gets payed? And you
are saying you would notice the cost of equipment for Ogg encoding
compared with that?

This is an old PC, it is more than capable of real time ogg encoding,
and its running things like gnome at the same time.

Maybe you need two in case one fails, but it still won't cost a lot.

So we know it's not a cost issue.

Availability of software, the BBC uses Unix (or a Unix like operating
system) am I correct? (either that or your web server is sending
incorrect headers out).

oggenc can encode an OGG file, it's basic but what more do you need?

Personnel time:
Once it's setup it _should_ be fully automated, maybe you need someone
to read the logs, but if you filter out anything that's not an error it
should be pretty much empty.

Skills:
I am sure you have staff capable of this, you did it once before didn't
you?
If not why not ask for help!
Give the public the right to re-encode it for you. That way if we
succeed the BBC can say, "look we have an ogg stream". If we fail the
BBC can say, "well we let them make an ogg stream but they couldn't
manage it, not our fault". Win - Win.

Can you actually provide a reason why it's not possible to provide a
stream in a free format?

Of course I use Ogg here as an example, any other free and open format
is fine by me. As long as it is also sent via a standardised protocol.

So far it looks to me like the BBC is intentionally trying to influence
the software market to the detriment of the public. I hope I am wrong.
So if you could explain _why_ the BBC is incapable of providing a stream
in a free format it would be a start.

You seem to be much more helpful than the person who told me I should
install ActiveX from microsoft.com on my Linux machine.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> A bit of trust is needed don't you think? Is it really in Adobe's 
> interest to put "malicious code" in the flash plug-in?

Are you joking? People can create a huge amount of revenue by doing just
that. Do youever get a spam email? The majority of that comes from boxes
that have been taken over by someone other than the legitimate owner.

If they don't get caught it is in their interest.

D

RE: [backstage] Flash required?

[Jason Cartwright]

> sites which make flash _mandatory_, with no alternative, are generally
a bad idea (and of dubious legality in some cases, given disability
legislation).

As you can see from the guideline I sent around yesterday that should
never happen on a BBC site...

"If a user does not have the correct plug-in to access the enhanced
content, or cannot easily access the content because they are using
assistive technologies (such as screen readers) or Betsie to view the
site, this should not detract from the user accessing the core content
of the website."

In the example that was sent that started this thread, there is a "Low
graphics/accessible version" right there on the page.

J

-
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/

RE: [backstage] Flash required?

[Jason Cartwright]

This is all my personal opinion.

> Or has the BBC examined it's source code and is it willing to
guarantee that this software is free from any malicious code?

For every anti-Flash zealot yelling "Flash isn't Free Software", there
are millions of people using flash without any problems at all.

Try telling the millions of children using the CBBC site that they can't
play the Shaun the Sheep game because we haven't quite finished trawling
thought the source code of all the plug-in required.

> Why does the BBC require people to compromise system security to use
their site to its full extent?

Why don't you make your website a bit more interesting by using Flash?
Wouldn't that map be better visualised in Flash? Why isn't the BBC
spending my money wisely by making my child a flash game?

A bit of trust is needed don't you think? Is it really in Adobe's
interest to put "malicious code" in the flash plug-in?

Lets extrapolate, and use the Dr Pepper question. What's the worst that
could happen? You machine gets 0wn3d and you have to reinstall the OS.
Big deal.

J

-
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/

RE: [backstage] Flash required?

[Jason Cartwright]

Hi Andy,

This is all my personal opinion.

Thank you for presenting yet another "The BBC isn't supporting my
favorite format" moan.

> Flash may be running at startup

I don't believe it does this.

> If you can't see what code is doing to your machine better assume its
doing something bad to it.

Yes, if your completely paranoid.

> Javascript (needed for AJAX) is implemented differently across browser

Yes, but there are ways and means of getting the % of users who can run
it much, much higher than the Java plugin. Hence why the majority of
webpages use javascript in some way but hardly any use Java applets.

> Who is responsible for these decisions?

Ultimately it is probably the developer of the application, although
they are bound by the Standards & Guidelines [1]. In this case we are
talking about the Multimedia Plugin-in Content Standards document [2].

This standard shows that "Multimedia plug-in content SHOULD only be used
to extend the user experience of sites on bbc.co.uk, to raise their
overall appeal, or to promote the brand." and that traditional uses of
Java "can be achieved in JavaScript or Flash, and these SHOULD be used
due to their lower user system/security requirements.".

The people responsible for the standard have their names at the bottom
of the document [3].

The flash player is more prevalent than a Java plugin (98.3% vs 86.9%)
[4]. The Java plug-in (at least the one presented to me) is about 5.5x
the size of the Flash plugin (7.1mb [5] vs 1.3mb [6]).

My personal experience is that whilst they have their applications, Java
applets are slow and clunky. They suffer versioning and browser
implementation issues, plus load VERY slowly on the majority of user's
platforms as "migc63" describes.

> Are they actually qualified or did they pull somebody in off the
street

I believe the BBC's fair selection policies prevent it from doing this.
You may be interested in the "How do we recruit" document [7]. Thanks
for demeaning our jobs though.

J

[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/newmedia/
[2]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/newmedia/desed/multimedia_plugins_flash.
shtml
[3]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/newmedia/desed/multimedia_plugins_flash.
shtml#s5_about
[4] http://www.adobe.com/products/player_census/flashplayer/
[5] http://www.java.com/en/download/windows_xpi.jsp
[6]
http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=Sho
ckwaveFlash
[7] https://jobs.bbc.co.uk/fe/tpl_bbc01.asp?newms=info25


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andy
Sent: 04 March 2007 22:32
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Flash required?

On 04/03/07, Gordon Joly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Switch to Ruby on Rails and AJAX over and above Java?
Ruby is server side, unless I am mistaken. Thus would not need to be
installed locally, so a good thing there.

Javascript (needed for AJAX) is implemented differently across browser.
not even sure the XMLHTTPRequest function, or whatever it is called, is
standardised or if websites just pray all vendors implemented it the
same way.

As for Flash being faster than Java and your system freezing when
loading java. Where the systems mutli-platform or did you just try
Windows? An OS is supposed to allow multiple processes to run
concurrently, if something hangs then either part of your program was
written badly, e.g. the browser is waiting for Java to complete start up
at the expense of rendering, or the OS kernel Scheduler is not doing
it's job. While it is waiting for the disc to fetch jvm it should be
running the other programs.

Flash may be running at startup, some programs do that. It makes them
look quick but you lose out in memory. And once your machine resorts to
Virtual Memory your machine will crawl.

I suggested Java over HTML/CSS/Javascript as Java is more versatile.
Java will also run on many more platforms than Flash. You can even get
embedded versions of Java. Java is a more full featured language than
javascript, or I might just not know Javascript well enough.


And of course security wise Flash is a no go area. If you can't see what
code is doing to your machine better assume its doing something bad to
it. Of course I could run flash in a VM but the overhead just to run the
BBC webpage would be completely unacceptable, even with kernel level
acceleration (I don't have native support for VM on my CPU, unless I
upgrade).

Again the BBC is taking a one-vendor approach when there are
multi-vendor multi-platform alternatives. Who is responsible for these
decisions? Are they actually qualified or did they pull somebody in off
the street (wouldn't be the first time the BBC did that either).

Andy
-
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.