« Previous | Main | Next »

Round up, Wednesday 31st March, 2010

Post categories:

Nick Reynolds Nick Reynolds | 18:40 UK time, Wednesday, 31 March 2010

Erik Huggers' post revealing 400 top level BBC directories on Monday got reactions from Media Guardian and paid Content. And Martin Belham:

The list only seems to confirm the BBC continuing to commit one of the cardinal sins of IA - having a navigation and URL structure that is all about a representation of the internal organisation structure, and nothing about ease of use and transparency for the audience.

Martin also quotes Tom Loosemore's critical tweet about the number of BBC Vision site launches. In comments Roo Reynolds (of BBC Vision) responds:

it's worth looking at the trend in the past two-and-a-quarter years: 138 launches in 2008, 93 in 2009 and just 11 so far this year. Also, following the strategy of "every television programme will have its own website" and many of them being automatic, Vision's "site launches" include things like /larkrise, /desperateromantics, /silentwitness, /restaurant and /whodoyouthinkyouare, all of which are redirects to /programmes.

Following the BBC Trust's decision to have another look at BBC mobile apps, Tom Scott thinks he's found another way.

So in the near future we should be able to build web apps every bit as good as mobile apps? Yes, but I would go further: for most of the things the BBC wants to do, the technology is already good enough.

"BBC Online Reorg: Kumar, Newman Out, Huggers' Memo" is the headline in paidContent. Just in case you missed it Anthony Rose will be moving to Project Canvas.

According to Digital Spy the BBC is "exploring an extra Freeview HD channel", and will broadcast the Grand National in HD.

blogs_user_story.jpgSlashdot chews over the recent BBC iPlayer content protection argy bargy.

Other good comments you may have missed:

Antony Sullivan answers questions on phasing out the low graphics version of the BBC News site.

Over on the BBC R&D blog the Mythology Engine is going down a storm.

And finally the BBC blogs home page has had a small makeover...

Nick Reynolds is Social Media Executive, BBC Online

Comments

  • Comment number 1.

    With all this effort over new platforms for bbc.co.uk what is the plan for HTML5 and specifically the replacement of the Flash based multimedia elements with standard HTML5 tags?

  • Comment number 2.

    No comment on the latest findings on HD picture quality from Which then Nick?

    You were so keen to highlight their previous report on BBC HD picture quality in your blog http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/12/round_up_monday_28th_december.html and in the 'BBC on Blogs' panel that I am surprised you haven't highlighted their latest report comparing BBC HD on Freesat and Freeview.
    http://www.which.co.uk/news/2010/03/freeview-hd-quality-lags-behind-freesat-207998?src=rss156452

  • Comment number 3.

    #1. At 11:32pm on 31 Mar 2010, Pacificnw wrote:

    "With all this effort over new platforms for bbc.co.uk what is the plan for HTML5 and specifically the replacement of the Flash based multimedia elements with standard HTML5 tags? "

    How many common(ly used) browsers support HTML5, compared to how many support the Flash plug-in?

  • Comment number 4.

    "And finally the BBC blogs home page has had a small makeover..."

    Indeed, and what a utterly horrid colour has been chosen for the link-text, please don't tell us that this 'style' is to become the "House Style"?...

  • Comment number 5.

    Interesting report citizenloz. It says;

    "Which? found that high-definition programmes on Freeview HD were in high-definition, and the viewing experts judged it a significant improvement over standard definition TV. The images watched on BBC HD were robust and 'what one would expect from a HD signal,' according to one Which? expert.

    Which? did spot some differences between the Freeview HD and Freesat. According to one expert: 'The main difference was that the Freesat had a marginally better level of sharpness, which gave it better depth and sparkle over the Freeview HD signal.'

  • Comment number 6.

    @Boilerplated as of the next round of browsers ALL will be HTML5 compliant..actually it sounds like it will be the first round of browsers that actually go out their way to be fully compliant.

    HTML5 represents a real opportunity to move away from buggy plugins that we all know regularly crash browsers.

  • Comment number 7.

    6. At 3:31pm on 01 Apr 2010, Pacificnw wrote:

    "@Boilerplated as of the next round of browsers ALL will be HTML5 compliant..actually it sounds like it will be the first round of browsers that actually go out their way to be fully compliant."

    Err, doesn't HTML5 first need to be made a standard, rather than just a set or proposed standards...

    "HTML5 represents a real opportunity to move away from buggy plugins that we all know regularly crash browsers."

    That is a matter for opinion and debate, I can't remember the last time I had a plug-in crash (although I must admit that I do manage what plug-ins I allow, thus probably preventing conflicts) - and from what I recall - what crashes I have had were due to not keeping the plug-in up to date.

  • Comment number 8.

    I believe the way the HTML5 standard is being made is that it's being designed based on consensus. When two or more of the major engines implement a feature in a particular way, that's considered to be The Standard.

    So, if we look at something like the <video> tag that everyone sees as a key feature of HTML5:

    http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/video.html

    We can see Opera, WebKit and Firefox all have partial but incomplete support for the standard, as defined in the document. If they all deviate from the specification, then I believe it will be discussed and the specification will be changed.

    I think this is due to past problems where the specification is found to be unworkable. Having the specification has documentation of the status quo - and the developer's intentions works better.

  • Comment number 9.

    Boilerplated, are you a blog stalker.

    You are everywhere.

    I don't mind comments from anyone, but you don't say sorry when you're wrong.

    Oh yes I can, just to pre-empt your next blog/post.

  • Comment number 10.

    9. At 00:16am on 02 Apr 2010, Egg OnAStilt Wants DOGFREE BBC wrote:

    "Boilerplated, are you a blog stalker."

    Whilst you're a clueless pizzle, how anyone can say that towards someone who has been posting comments to these 'BBC Internet blogs' for the last two years or so, especially when the accuser comes barging in from the message-boards!

    Judging from the time-tamp, I guess that this was just another example of an intoxicated 'hit-and-run' on the (information-)highway...

  • Comment number 11.

    “Err, doesn't HTML5 first need to be made a standard, rather than just a set or proposed standards...”

    That’s not how the process works with the W3C. Something isn’t officially called a standard until after it’s been widely-implemented (this just reflects the reality of standards processes in the terminology, rather than being some significant shift in the way things are done).

  • Comment number 12.

    Re: HTML5 - is this discussion actually on topic? There's no mention of HTML5 in the blog post.

  • Comment number 13.

    12. At 4:37pm on 02 Apr 2010, Nick Reynolds wrote:

    "Re: HTML5 - is this discussion actually on topic? There's no mention of HTML5 in the blog post."

    Yes Nick it is, in so far as it is relevant to delivery of the BBC iPlayer and the issues around DRM, both of which are mentioned in the blog.

  • Comment number 14.

    Dear Sir,

    I would like to bring your attention to the BBC World Service program on Internet Usage in Africa where a small village was given internet access through a couple of phones. The one point that I noticed was the COST PER MB for the connection.

    I am currently working in Nepal using a shared satellite link to read the BBC news pages. And today could not find the Low graphics version. This may not seem of importance, but just to register this comment has taken me over 20 minutes, I would like to read more, but just don't have the time.

    You quote that just 2% of users use the low graphics version. I would question the reasoning of the 2%, more to the point, you are a global news supplier how many people even realise that there was a low graphics version who use the site from other countries. How many people like me struggle through the high graphics version, only reading the essentials because it just takes way to long to do anything else.

    Surely before you remove the low graphics version you did a cost per page read analysis.

    You have the news in lots of languages, what is the cost to read the news in each of these languages in there home countries ?

    Cost per Byte in a monetary terms,
    Average Front page size in Bytes
    This Cost per Page must be equated back to the Average wage for the country.


    Reference your program on bbc world service. I would be interested to see the cost of reading your newspaper in full on one day. I would guess to read the complete news in one day the average cost in a developing country would be in excess of $1, and then equate that back to the cost of living and you news is VERY EXPENSIVE.

    Just some thoughts from an ex 10year IT Professional turned international traveller who can't believe how western orientated the IT world is.

    "The internet is global as long as you have a FAST ADSL Connection and FREE unlimited bandwidth, because that's what we have , don't you ?."

    Bandwidths Biggest Virus.. Automatic Updates from Anti-Virus software vendors, One small office with simple XP gets 10mb of updates for every PC, 10 computers. 100MB, now put yourself in the developing country paying for each MB. And it's just cost you your profit for the day.


    Please don't become another High Bandwidth System costing too much for the poorest people in the world.

  • Comment number 15.

    Sorry, Wrong Blog .. after all that didn't realise the page changed .. arrg

  • Comment number 16.

    All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

  • Comment number 17.

    All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

  • Comment number 18.

    All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

  • Comment number 19.

    That’s not how the process works with the W3C. Something isn’t officially called a standard until after it’s been widely-implemented (this just reflects the reality of standards processes in the terminology, rather than being some significant shift in the way things are done).

  • Comment number 20.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 21.

    This is just a test.

  • Comment number 22.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 23.

    Parish notice question, we were told blogs were closed after three months, and this has remained open. Strangely enough, blogs that garnered plenty of comments have been closed, some even quicker than three months.

    Is the three month rule a solid rule or fluid like the house rules.

    In any case who makes these rules, what is the purpose of these 'on the fly' rules? Do the BBC see this control freakery as an asset to the BBC? If you truly cared about the BBC and how it is perceived (if you care) by people outside of the BBC, how do you allow this state of affairs to continue?

    Feel free to delete 5...4...3...2...1

  • Comment number 24.

    You are off topic Faye but let me explain.

    The three month automated default closing of comments on this blog was instituted last year. Technically it only applies to those posts AFTER the closing period was put in place. So posts written a year or so ago won't close after three months, they will remain open until I close them manually (as I'm about to do with this one). Eventually all old posts will close so the three month default closing time will apply to all posts on the blog.

    I decided to have three months as the default closing time because I don't want conversations to run on for ever, posts which are open for months on end attract spam and three months seemed like a reasonable time for a conversation to be resolved. Other BBC blogs have shorter closing times. I still have the option of keeping a blog post open for comments for longer if I wish.

    These measures are designed to make a better, more efficient service for licence fee payers.

    I posted a comment on this blog this a.m. as a test as comments on another post weren't working.

    Thanks

 

More from this blog...

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.