In a democracy, if a significant minority, not even a majority of the population does something, then it is immoral to legislate against it. If that something is theft, then perhaps instead of legislating a significant minority into felons, a better system should be implemented.

The internet is interesting due in no small part to the international communications it enables. For example, I know that I have readers from all over the world (including places that if you had asked me, I would have said they didn’t even have electricity let alone internet access). I and many others like me believe that this cross-cultural discussion battles ignorance and xenophobia.

If during discussions (active or otherwise), a television show or music artist is mentioned or recommended, I want to experience what is being spoken of. While the United States is probably the single biggest producer of media content, we are far from the only producer of such content. In fact, an unfortunate side effect of our massive production is that there is a great degree of inertia regarding other counry’s content, an issue most apparent in television.

It is through the internet that I discovered a number of clever foreign television programs: The I.T. Crowd from the UK and ReGenesis from Canada. Out of desire to view these wonderful programs, I was forced into using a now siezed bittorrent tracker site, known as ThePirateBay. I tried to find other avenues in both cases, but there weren’t even DVDs sold in the native countries (although I would be breaking other laws by viewing those DVDs).

It’s not that I want to deprive the actors, producers, and crews of these television shows. It is that I wanted to experience exactly what they had to offer and bask in the experience. I enjoy movies, TV, and music. I spend a great deal of money on all three (about half of my income). It is not that I begrudge them really anything, except that I do find myself thinking about the repercussions of my purchases more and more. Can I ethically support and finance organizations that work to remove
and hamper my cross-cultural experiences.

I have purchased all of the software I use (that can be purchased). I have spent (as of this publishing) over $40 on media this week. And, yes, I am a pirate. But, to be fair, I was forced into the position.

First, there was the browser, and it was good. Then the browser got old, and something more was needed. People came up with a way to create easily, and it was good. Now, many create, yet not many navigate. Web 2.0 has difficulties scaling.

The concept of a portal page is very Web 1.0. A portal points (for the most part) to content that someone else has deemed important. At best, you have given the portal a list of things you like and dislike, and the portal tailors the options based on that. It’s not enough.

The portal personalization solution currently used focuses on metadata. It simplifies what you, the reader, wants down to a simple list. A list that you (generally) actively create. This same option is used in more Web 2.0 applications as well. When you read this, you will notice that I have placed this article in a collection of categories (or tags). I have assigned metadata to this entry for the simple fact that this metadata enables others to more easily reach my data.

I could wax on about metadata for quite some time, but the point has been made. People use it constantly, but they have to make it. Why? If I am writing a blog entry, why should I need to provide an “abstract” of what content exists in the entry? Because, the ways that people find my site are directly based upon that metadata. We live in a metadata age.

Metadata isn’t going anywhere for quite some time. I’m going to be so bold as to say that until metadata isn’t the primary way that people find and use content on the internet, it will still be the age of Web 2.0, regardless of what the actual label used is.

Web 3.0 is going to be immersive, not immersive like a 3-D environment is (that would be, at least at this point, unusable), but like a good conversation witha friend is. Web 3.0 will have the conversations of Web 2.0, but it will approach these conversations differently. Web 3.0 will be focused on data.

The actual content of this entry is important, otherwise I would simply have an entry that said, “I am currently thinking about Web 3.0, data, and metadata.” The comments would be metadata too. So, instead of “You are an idiot,” we would get “personal_comment.” What I am describing is unfair; labeling systems have been around almost as long as the written word. They aren’t going anywhere.

What I am saying is that the metadata should be almost invisible. An outside source should look at this entry (and not realize that it is barely coherent drivel) and determine what the article is about. It should see a reader that spends an inordinate amount of time looking at “big picture” discussions of metadata and data and recommend that the reader look at this entry. The reader shouldn’t have to say tthat he or she has an interest in metadata vs. data.

I suspect that something along the lines of what I am suggesting would not be a web application itself, but a modification of the browser. The browser should “learn” what a user likes (although it must have an “ignore this site” option somewhere) and present other sites that the user would find interesting without any intervention.

One web site ha sthe groundwork fairly done for the true “data” system, Google. If they were ever to come out with a Google Browse (and if they use that name, I want money or a job), I would expect it to work much like I’ve described.

The fourth part in a series that should be closing in on at least some sort of a milestone, I think that I’m pretty close to a final design here. Earlier today, I discussed what I’m looking to do with this site, and I feel that this third version serves those purposes quite well. For this discussion, I will speak on what the visual layout doesn’t show.

This design refers back to the second comp I made in that much of the color scheme and content remains unchanged. Of note, the greater emphasis on the news, this is simply the default in this design and the user can set his or her preference.

In order to access the preferences of the page, the user must click on the link at the top of the page (in this instance, it would be “Hello Bill”). That link will put the user at a preferences panel that will enable him to define almost all of the page below the Today label.

Also added was the suggested links element within the “My Places” element. At this stage, I can only suggest that these links be suggested based on other bookmark lists with similiar choices, although the algorithm can be modified, obviously.

Another important feature in this design (as well as the earlier ones) is the prominent featuring of feeds. While they do not act in the direction of enticing people to set bbc.co.uk as the homepage, they do assist a “power user” without harming a user that has absolutely no idea what an RSS feed is.

Within the “My BBC” section, this design allows for the user to modify and order the news categories. As I mentioned earlier, any of these categories can supercede the news that is found outside of the “My BBC” block.

Also, in remembering the “glass” roots, section headings that are clicked more get slightly larger, giving an interesting perspective of a reverse-breadcrumb type of navigation. This preference could be expanded into overall visits by everyone, bringing in the “wisdom of crowds.”

On a more personal note, this design really takes what I liked about the second design and pushed it in better directions. I think the site becomes more useful with addition of the news section breaking out. A little more spit and polish and I think I have an actual entry that I can be proud of.

With regards to my as-of-yet unentered reboot:bbc entry, I want to discuss where I’m coming from on a design. My whole design can be viewed as a response to the change in focus brought up by the Beeb themselves.

The overall stated goal is to incorporate personalization and wisdom of crowds to the current BBC homepage. Unfortunately, the homepage can really only scratch the surface of this sort of change. What I am trying to do is bring in the content that they want while maintaining what it means to be the BBC homepage.

My first comp threw everything out. Really none of the standard design elements persisted in the design, which is good for a first comp, but usually not as good for a final product. A final product has users that have used the product it is replacing for (in this case) years. A site of the magnitude of the BBC is not meant to have major changes in its workflow. In the end, any true redesign will be more focused on upgrading technology and incorporating content as opposed to “going back to the drawing board” as they have suggested.

That said, the contest itself has told us to throw out the baby, bath, and bathwater. And we must respond in kind.

I focused (in both comps so far) as much on user-created as BBC-created content. My design should not represent an end-point of the incorporation of technology but a front face. I must admit to a degree of confusion with regards to some of the BBC’s stated goals. For example, by enabling content creation, does the BBC expect to begin hosting blogs, social bookmarks, pictures, movies, and possibly even email? The resources to handle all of that is not easy to come by. But, hey, if they do want to move in that direction, please allow me to volunteer for a position supporting that infrastructure. I’ve always wanted to move to the UK.

Snarking aside, my design does not pull in the large amount of video content that the BBC already has, nevermind the video content they are looking to add. There is one simple reason for this: this sort of material does not belong on the front page. The front page is what people set as their homepage in the browsers, both at home and work. The last thing an employee will want is some video blaring through his speakers when he shows up in the morning. I know I didn’t when Apple put the new ads on their homepage.

Also, a nice feature that I haven’t included (at least not yet), would be some sort of suggestion engine. I would like the homepage to present me with links throughout the day that it would expect me to find interesting. This adaptive capability would probably link in with the social bookmarking feature I have shown, just taking it a little further.

As a purely visual critique on the current homepage, I don’t like all of the blue. This preference drove my decision to step away from it with the second comp. Knowing my own tastes, I will probably continue that spiral away, but it shouldn’t take away from the other goals in the design. Those are most important.

And now for the second part in our series “Doesn’t Bill Have Anything Better To Do?”

Without further ado, I present to you comp #2:

With this style, I moved away from the wonderful rounded corners that have given me such warm and fuzzy feelings with the first comp. Of note, I did decide on keeping the “From Us / From You” labeling. The more I searched my soul, the more I realized it was appropriate for the goal.

This design also takes the “Where I Live” from the current site and turns it into “My BBC.” Also in this area is a social bookmarking system.

By reincorporating the advert, more flexibility is given to the design. I chose to elevate the TV and Radio fields due simply to their relation to the banner. This design would change those items depending on what is in the banner space.

By moving the sidebar into the middle (sort of negates the label, huh?), I am using it as a definitive design element. It manages to serve multiple services while maintaining my goal resolution of 800×600.

I like this design worlds better than my first comp, thus making the baseline from now on. In fact, the next may be the final comp, just a slightly tweak version of this.

Let me know what you think.

On a few of the more recent sites I am currently working on, I have come across both PHP includes and iframes as methods to simplify changes on a web site. Both systems do have their benefits, although I personally feel that one is generally better than the other. Here, I’m going to discuss the benefits of either option without regard for security (in which the iframe comes under attack)
PHP Includes

PHP includes a function that allows you to use multiple files on one page. The files are patched together at run-time and presented as just one file. This allows for some static piece in a series of pages to be written once, but used in all pages. The user has to download all of the content stored in the include each time he or she visits a new page, so there is a greater bandwidth consumption. As the include provides all of the details on one hyperlink, a user is able to jump to any given file on a web page. Google will be able to index all of the data on the site. Aside from bandwidth concerns, the biggest drawback to the PHP include method is that it requires the use of the PHP engine. At this point, most web hosts offer PHP support, negating this complaint, but if you don’t have PHP support, you are out of luck.

IFrames

IFrames act like an intermediary step away from the old framesets we web designers from back in the 90s remember. These pages are standard HTML pages with a tag linking the changing content to the main page. The primary benefit of this is that the page is standard HTML; there is no requirement for PHP support. Changing the content is just as easy now as it was with framesets in the past. The primary downside is that it is almost impossible to deep link to a page and that Google will probably not be able to index things after your main page that appear within the iframe.

IFrames were once an interesting way to assure a standard presentation of information that now has passed. AJAX based technologies have really superceded the functionality of the iframe and PHP includes have enabled a greater degree of usability. As is usually the case with web technologies, I have no doubt that iframes will be seen on a variety of (unfortunately) new web sites. But the technology itself is rapidly joining its father (the frameset) in relative obscurity.

The Pondering Pundit asks:

In my opinion Microsoft’s announcement of Photo2Search, will send ripples through the mobile world. It will also be the tipping point for mobile marketing, mobile search and physical world connection adoption.
The camera on your mobile phone is your “mouse” and every physical object has, or will become, a physical world hyperlink, Phase 2 of the Internet begins.

Phase 2 of the Internet?  Are you serious?  Nevermind the lack of computer vision technology, or the lack
mobile storage and processing power to even attempt computer vision.  Let’s just deal with the term.

I hate the term Web 2.0.  I absolutely hate it but use it for reasons of common understanding.  I have always preferred the term “social software.” But that is all a non sequiter.  Web 2.0 is inherently false.  An organic system doesn’t have version numbers, and any complex enough computer network behaves like an organic system (as per Linked).  When I graduated from elementary school I didn’t become Bill 2.0, I remained simply Bill.  There is no point where the web became 2.0.

Having the audacity to call a doomed to failure technological implementation “Phase 2 of the Internet” is mind boggling.  First off, the web is around Phase 7 anyway.  Phase 2 was when someone figured out how to send email automatically through multiple computers.  What TPP is referring to isn’t truly a piece of the Internet any more than this site is a phase of the Internet.  So a machine translate a picture into a collection of objects, then referrences those objects online, providing the user with such information.  That’s called machine-assisted research with the queries being performed by computer vision.  It’s not as important or world shattering as TPP realizes, and when it is actually implemented (15 years later, at least), it will be considered a basic service.  It won’t be the “killer app” of computer vision.