Tag Archives: web

IdeaTorrent

Uncategorized,

IdeaTorrent, the server software which runs Ubuntu Brainstorm, may be the best user-generated approval and discussion system that I’ve seen since Digg was launched some years back. Instead of the initial post link being the only thing (besides comments) upon which users can submit single votes of approval (or, since Reddit, downvotes of disapproval), users can now submit and vote upon proposed "solutions" which are listed under an initial post, in addition to providing comments (I don’t think comments are voted upon in IdeaTorrent’s system). 

I would describe IdeaTorrent’s approach as a sort of user-driven vote-based survey forum, in which questions or concerns are voiced (once, preferably) and users submit and vote upon answers or solutions for such concerns before they offer their comments and reactions.

I think that this could be used by user-driven news-discussion/news-vetting forums which are often solicited for answers or solutions, such as Care2, GreenChange, and Reddit. It could help users focus less upon the popularity or awareness of a recent issue or information (as in how many votes have been recorded, how many comments have been submitted, how long the story stays on the front page), and more upon what solutions or responses are most ideal or popular. 

Furthermore, this may be a further elaboration upon the separation of reactions from comments which I’ve come to favor in newer user-ranking news discussion forums. IdeaTorrent’s model is, overall, a step in the right direction.

Speech and thought bubbles in the 3D Web

Uncategorized, , , , ,

 I was thinking about the difference between synchronous and asynchronous computer-mediated communication, and how synchronous communication has been successfully ported to fleshed-out, CGI-heavy "virtual worlds" like Second Life and IMVU (hence the oft-used descriptor "glorified chatroom" in regards to such virtual worlds).

Apparently, because of the enduring popularity and expanding capability of the World Wide Web, it isn’t likely that we’ll see a big move to a "3D Web" anytime soon, at least not in the way that we’ve seen such massive movements from text-driven mediums such as MU*s and (IRC, Yahoo, MSN, AIM) chat rooms to the modern-day virtual worlds. However, if synchronous text and voice chat have become mainstays of most active or ongoing MMOGs such as SL and WoW, then why is it that asynchronous communication – that which relies upon "boards" to contain persistent messages – has not been successfully reimagined in a 3D, CGI-heavy context? And what would a 3D Web look like?

I would think that the first measure to accomplish in the fleshout (or avatarization?) of asynchronous communication would be to flesh out the "pages" which are used to contain submitted information. Pages are text-centric documents, are presented as flat, 2D objects onto which information is appended, are encoded with a wide variety of strategically-placed visual cues (or "GUI elements") which allow for the web browser to perform just as wide of a variety of actions, and are accessed through devices which are best designed to interact with flat, 2D objects, i.e., keyboards and computer mice.

So a few ideas spring to mind:

  • Replace hyperlinked documents with hyperlinked speech bubbles/clouds
  • Augment text with 3D-native visual communication systems which drive any one person’s thoughts directly to the user without losing anything in translation or clarification.
  • Flesh the bubbles out into a 3D visualization
  • Design a variety of stationary or dynamic GUI elements which provide for smooth navigation between 3D speech bubbles.
  • Promote 3D-centric navigatory input devices

I think that Ted Nelson, the man behind the Xanadu project (also called "the longest running vaporware story in the history of the computer industry" by Wired magazine in 1996), might be right in his contention that Sir Tim Berners-Lee’s implementation of the WWW was a well-intentioned, much-too-document-centric oversimplification of his own ideas on hypertext. So perhaps a re-visualization of how we interact with asynchronous communication tools could lead to a translation of what we’ve placed into the 2D Web into a 3D structure that is much more fleshed-out and tangible.

I will think more about this idea for a 3D Web in the future.

More on the “online campus”

Uncategorized, , , , , ,

I wrote earlier about a future globalization of the students’ union movement that would find its relevance in the age of fledgling web-based college classes. However, what I mentioned in that post was the idea for the creation of an “online campus” as one of the demands of a future web-based student’s union.

So…what is an online campus?

Is it in the current form of online classes run by teachers from afar without any further immersion than could be offered a web-based, primarily-text interface (like Blackboard)? Nah, campi in the real world are much more encompassing than just a mere collection of classrooms: you have student centers, dormitories, libraries, study halls, lunch rooms and cafes, computer rooms, fraternity/sorority buildings, sports facilities, art collection exhibits, chemistry and science labs, airfields….you name it.

So how would an online university bring a similar experience of immersion into its repertoire?

Well, I think the slight rise in popularity of web-based videos of teacher lectures and demonstrations is a good star, at least so that a student can say that he or she can actually pin a face on whoever is giving the assignments or lectures; both text and video comments can enhance the experience for the relationship between the teacher and the online class participants.

Of course, I’m not as sure about Second Life as a medium for online classes, although my own perception of the trend is based on my experience with it (which was weak). But I also think that, if virtual worlds are to become a medium for online classes, then they would have to include an integration with the media distribution methods – such as online video – that would allow the teacher to have greater lecturing or demonstration abilities than are currently available on the web.

Plus, the problem with the web (or graphics-based virtual worlds) as a medium for online classes is that walking in-and-out of the class is rather easy, with the students getting to the assignments at any time before their due date. The web as a classroom is a wall of text that doesn’t even replicate a real-world classroom or the intricacies in navigation and organization between the classrooms. There’s simply no distinction between the online classrooms or integration of the classrooms between each other.

Also, I would like to question my own biases and say that the wiki model for education that has been pushed by Wikiversity may actually cause a further unravelling of web-based education resources – “unravelling” as in “less structure, architecture or organization”; since it is based off of Wikipedia, it may only differ from Wikipedia or other wikis in the way that it functions (less focused on user editing of resources, among other features). Whether that is a good thing for education or no is up to debate: maybe a destructructuralization of educational administration is needed, or it may lead to a lack of accountability over teaching methods, or it may only be suitable for a certain number of disciplines or types of disciplines (maybe those that need demonstration and would thus benefit from web videos).

So I’m just unsure of what the online campus would look like.

2012 and the mobile Internet

Uncategorized, , ,

A generation, according to one definition, last 18 years. The baby boomer generation, for example, has been historically applied to those who were born between 1946 and 1964 (in other interpretations, that time period combines the Baby Boomers with Generation Jones). Thus, if you follow the 18-year model, you end up with the following timeline:

  • 1946-1964 (encompassing the Baby boomers and Generation Jones)
  • 1964-1982 (encompassing Generation X)
  • 1982-2000 (encompassing Generation Y and some of the present “New Silent Generation”)
  • 2000-2018

I would like to pay particular attention to the generations 1964-1982 and 1982-2000. The former was marked by the solidification of television as a communication medium (at the expense of radio), the rise and levelling of the hippie subculture, the stagnation of the Cold War, and the rise of political terrorism. The latter, however, was marked by the introduction of computers and the Internet as a communication medium (at the expense of television), the rise and levelling of the punk and metal subcultures, the end of the Cold War, and the initial rise of religious fundamentalist terrorism.

Then I’d like to pay particular attention to what I call “pivot years”, or specific years within each of these timespans that marked the beginning of trends which continued (in much more evolved and entrenched states) into the next period. My initial placing of “pivot years” lies on each 12th year within each period. Thus:

  • 1958
  • 1976
  • 1994
  • 2012

I’m not prepared to comment on the eventual importance of 1958 to the following generation. However, I am prepared to comment on the importance of the following two dates:

  • 1976: Apple Computer was founded. (Microsoft was registered as a corporation to the state of New Mexico this same year)
  • 1994: Netscape was founded as “Mosaic Communications Corporation”. (The Yahoo! search engine was launched this same year by Jerry Yang and David Filo at Stanford University, and was incorporated as a business in 1995.)

Both companies have obviously played a preeminent role in the computing arena that continued, in an evolved form, into the following generations. While Apple was founded  during the latter age of hippies, it found its greatest exposure during the 1982-2000 generation (when computing and the Internet had first entered the home as niche consumer appliances), and it seems poised to play a lesser role in the 2000-2018 generation. Furthermore, Apple was part of the extremely competitive home computing market that surged from 1976 to 1984.

Meanwhile, while Netscape was founded during the 1982-2000 generation, its products (now under the Mozilla brand) have found an extensive and partially-commanding reach in the 2000-2018 generation (when computing and the Internet have become entrenched and ubiquitous). Furthermore, it was part of the extremely competitive free-for-alls which influenced the computing industry from 1994 to 2001, such as the Browser wars and the Dot-com bubble.

However, if 1976 and 1994 were the pivot years of their timespans, then what about 2012?

What does 2012 hold in store for computing and the Internet?

Personally, I think that it will involve the mobile smartphones and ubiquitous Internet-dependent devices which are so commonplace these days. However, like the previous pivot years, it could very likely involve the following:

  • the prior creation of a Web-dependent application that will make mobile or ubiquitous computing devices useful and stimulating to millions of people
  • establishment of a slew of companies which rely upon and monetize that medium, and the entry of older-generation companies which will cater to these companies
  • the gradual driving down of prices, rates and other financial hurdles (e.g., Internet rates) to record lows and the increasing of Internet capacity and reach to record widths and lengths due to the introduction of competitive prices and disruptive technologies.

This period of initial rat-race competition can last from 2012 to 2018, and may be dependent upon technologies and applications that will be created by as early as 2009 in their most rudimentary state.

What it will be, I have no idea. I can only hope that I will be employed by one of those companies.