And the theme is back online too 
-
02Mar
-
09Oct
Electronic distribution is a new concept for publishers and institutions that hold historical collections. It is problematic because of evolving standards and a lack of specific conventions with regard to layout and design. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein poses interesting questions as it is still read today by a wide range of demographics and several different versions of the book exist: the original publication from 1818, an 1823 reprint which had format changes and the heavily revised third edition printed in 1831. Not only do these different versions exist, the original publication is still in print as is the revised third edition. I will be evaluating and comparing how three publishers cope with these issues for a text that has historic and popular value.
The following criteria will be applied: looking at the context of the site, search abilities and what options it gives users accessing Frankenstein with occasional comment from a small focus group I setup. I chose three specific sites, namely Archive.org, Gutenberg and Literature.org because they are modern and people are more likely to use them rather than older sites .
As a group they can be slightly overwhelming to use at first as they have different philosophical approaches and their ease of use varies.
www.archive.org Fig 1 Archive.org’s information and colours
Archive.org wishes to preserve knowledge. Its contrarian approach to a user interface and colours put it ahead of the other sites. The search engine’s precision and recall settings may be altered on a level that suits both novice and advanced users. Archive.org is rich in information aside from the standard index data because it gives users areas to post information. Also information about usage rights and legalities is offered providing reference for more than just reading.
http://www.gutenberg.org Fig 2, a typical entry
Gutenberg only offers plain text and the occasional audio recording. Visually Gutenberg has chosen to present itself like a candlelit book. Because of this self imposed standard Gutenberg has limited itself and other behaviour like this is symptomatic of Gutenberg’s virtually dogmatic approach to e-books. The search functions are dependent on users knowing what they are looking for, only supporting author/title/e-book number. The text search function is still in development which is odd for a site based on plain text. Item entries are standardised and often show prohibitively long lists.
http://www.literature.org Fig 3 Standardised page layout
Literature.org is specialised and its enthusiasts have so far only published documents in HTML format. The search is Google based and combined with the HTML grants a user unfettered access the archived works. However, it lacks several items of data that are standard in the other two example sites. Generally it is over specialised.
Design is an important aspect of all the sites and colour is a major part of this. Sites that use colour in an effort to minimise confusion worked best for users (Nielsen, Loranger, 2006). Gutenberg tries to be warm, Archive.org tries to guide and literature.org tries to be simple. Archive.org uses colours to differentiate sections, for example links are in the standard blue and sections are separated by a red boundary which contains a title (see Fig 1, 4). Sites that use colours in a manner focused on achieving goals other than user satisfaction often create obstacles for users. Nielsen and Loranger in Prioritising Web Usability (2006) state, with reference to colour:
“…we’ve seen decisions based solely on branding…at the expense of the user’s needs”
Gutenberg attempts to emulate pages of a book using warm beige/orange colours and is reminiscent of how books are portrayed in computer games . However, this is visually deceptive to a user, who expects the same high standard in the end product, but only black and white plain text is present for Frankenstein.
It is clear that one must use colour correctly and not just for decoration. Using colour Archive.org constructs an easy learning curve whereas Gutenberg uses colour to emulate an old medium. Arguably Literature.org, though primitive may potentially have the best scheme.
Literature.org has used a minimalist approach using few colours and related shades (see Fig 1). This visual appearance assists the visually impaired as it is simple and the colours are few and markedly different. The colours have a lot more potential beyond making parts of the page distinctive because colour can naturally act as a pathway for a user (Nielsen, Loranger, 2006, p214). The colours Archive.org uses and how it uses them are an improvement on the others because of their near intuitive nature but in using many colours it has become more complex.
Navigation is based not only on colour but also retrieving the correct information using a search utility. Searching for information is a key tool with digital publishers. Liteature.org uses Google as it is a strong text searcher and is a known quantity for users, Archive.org and Gutenberg use different techniques. Some are more customisable than others. Users may only remember a phrase in the text or have a vague idea of a title. In the case of Frankenstein they may be after a specific edition. Different types of searches use precision and recall in varying amounts. This enables a wide range of results at one end of the spectrum and very precise ones at the opposite.
The overall level of searchable detail is what differed. Because Literature.org is an HTML archive users may search the actual text itself of any of the site’s books whereas Gutenberg only offers an experimental feature in this regard which is odd as the entire site is text based. Archive.org featured the best search engine because of its wide reach and customisable options.
Gutenberg’s title/author search is slightly more informative than the others for example, the displayed birth and death dates help a user mentally narrow down the results. By searching for an author direct matches can result and so can near matches. Archive.org’s search results present a unique page for each medium unlike the other two sites. Archive.org also offered a search that reached many different resources, Gutenberg, for example may be searched as well as Canadian libraries, American libraries and so on. This enables a broad search and a focused search as the user may select any of the searchable databases on an individual basis. By being able to focus the search engine erroneous results are often filtered out even for low skill level users not used to Boolean searches and the like. Because of the better search utility it is a mystery why a user would travel to Gutenberg when it can be searched from Archive.org.
After a user has experienced the main site and has successfully found an item they must view the information in the item’s entry. Literature.org is limited and only displays chapter headings. Gutenberg, despite having so many years of experience, displays only two large bodies of text without chapter headings. Archive.org shows dense but pertinent information, for example, showing all the text based media in one entry (scan, PDF, plain text) and clearly realises that knowledge changes. By putting user comments in between the two sets of standard data users will almost certainly see them (see appendix Fig 4). User comments improve the already comprehensive index as a prior user is able to inform new comers of problems such as an improperly scanned page or convey information that is not covered in the Archive.org fields, such as which edition the book is. Archive.org acts as more than just a repository as opposed to Gutenberg or Literature.org because it gives background and information to a user about a book, not just basic data.
Displaying an entry is valuable to a user because instead of taking them straight to a file different file formats are displayed together with other data about the work. Frankenstein at Gutenberg is available in Plucker, HTML and plain text, however some works have audio books. The entries are not based on a Wiki, only the front end of the main site. This means there is no user comment area or utility to alter the “Bibliographic Record” to correct errors. Gutenberg puts too a great stress on standardisation when one compares it to Archive.org which differs in that there is a report errors link and a user comment area (see Fig 1 photo).
For Archive.org there is no one standard entry template as is the case for Gutenberg or Literature.org. Each format, be it text or audio has its own type of entry. This more flexible approach will suit new formats and indeed new mediums when they become available in the near future, such as Braille (which is currently not a home technology) and allows medium specific data to be imparted to a user in context. As with Gutenberg the search result acts like an index card but because more information is given than just file formats and the book’s index data the site is more personable to a user.
When the entry layouts are examined closely it is apparent the sites have tried to remain appealing to users for a long time to come. Gutenberg has tried to give itself room to manoeuvre by allowing plenty of space in its entries, it has repeated fields such as “Subject” in an attempt to deal with any eventuality. Literature.org is using only chapter headings for simplicity and Archive.org has tried to offer everything a user will need. But a user needs more than results. An item’s entry must be displayed in a way that means a user does not need to travel to another site for clarification or have problems viewing the entry.
An example of viewing problems may be found in the Guttenberg Frankenstein audio entries where a user must view a long list of unnamed files while Archive.org is able to show the same result more clearly. For example if a user wishes to listen to Frankenstein at Gutenberg there are two unremarkable choices. A user is not able to listen to just a sample so that they may choose which to listen to and the speaker is not credited. When the focus group was asked about these entries some tried both but could not track which file came from which section as the entries were not specific enough. This contrasts with Archive.org in that the speaker is credited and different qualities of audio are offered as well as a streaming version which makes for an efficient sampler . The actual entry itself is made for audio and does not use the same rigid layout style as Gutenberg. In relation to this Archive.org was the only site that previewed its documents (see Fig 1 for the page scan thumbnail). While this is unimportant for a low bandwidth format like text it is useful for choosing which audio or scan is best. This is a clear example of Gutenberg limiting itself in its rigid standard index layouts.
The formats present in each entry had commonalities. All three had text, two had audio but only one, Archive.org, displayed a scan of the 1831 work. This is as valid a format as any other and arguably the most important as it provides context to the book. No other electronic publisher provided a photograph or other provenance. Viewing the physical version gives insight as to production, illustration and a host of other details an historian may be interested in, such as typeface or how books change with age. Viewing the novel itself anchors it in reality and is the only method really able to convey age. The basic text of Frankenstein is available on each site but only Archive.org can provide a user with those organic physical qualifiers such as age. This is important as basic text gives none of this information. School children, researchers and even experts can learn something about Frankenstein like this even if they know all the statistics. Knowing an artefact is from 1831 and seeing the artefact itself and then realising how much time has passed are very different experiences that digital text cannot convey.
Literature.org is incomplete in this area and because only text is published those who are blind cannot use the materials properly without an external apparatus. Overall, Literature.org gives no assistance to a normal user or a researcher making it a write off for not one but two key demographics. This is particularly vexing as putting old media into a new medium and using none of the advantages that the new medium offers means it is misused (Curtis 2007, 211).Gutenberg’s great weakness when it came to Frankenstein is that there is no Edition field. In fact, Gutenberg considers this obsolete information for e-texts, at least. Their opinion on the original physical publishing date appears to be the same. On the other hand Archive.org lists a publication date but no edition number is listed and literature.org is missing the information. However Archive.org’s User Comments section holds this data. Gutenberg’s mission is to “distribute and to archive” . Literature.org is run by enthusiasts. These sites should have more than one edition or at the very least make clear which version they have as so much changed throughout Shelley’s work on the novel.
No users in the focus group (or myself) were able to find an original edition or more than one version of the book on any of the sites analysed. It seems clear that while electronic publishers want to preserve text they have not yet developed the tenacity required to generate a complete and thorough picture of a medium that is full of subtleties and nuances.
Appendix A: Fig. 4. A snapshot of all the data and information provided by Archive.org
Appendix B
Common searches that bring up Archive.org, Project Gutenberg, literature.org“Frankenstein e-book”
“Frankenstein literature”
“Frankenstein scan”Bibliography
Articles
Rosenfeld, L. (2002) ‘3 Reasons Why Data and Document Retrieval are not the same’. Dr. Dobbs’ PortalBooks
Nielsen, J and Loranger, H. (April 20, 2006) Prioritizing Web Usability. New Riders PressCurtis, Drew. (May 31, 2007) It’s Not News, It’s Fark: How Mass Media Tries to Pass Off Crap As News. Gotham. DIAF edition
Christensen, Clayton M. (July 25, 2006). The Innovator’s Dilemma. Collins
Papers
Willman et al, 2002, The Darknet and the Future of Content Distribution. ACM Workshop on Digital Rights Management. http://www.bearcave.com/misl/misl_tech/msdrm/darknet.htmWebsites
www.archive.orghttp://www.archive.org/details/ghostseer01schiuoft
www.gutenberg.org
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/84
http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Gutenberg:About
http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Gutenberg:Help_on_Bibliographic_Record_Page#Edition
http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Gutenberg:General_FAQ#G.1._What_is_Project_Gutenberg.3F
www.literature.org
http://www.literature.org/authors/shelley-mary/frankenstein/
http://www.literature.org/faq.html
A Chronology of the Life of Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley
http://www.rc.umd.edu/reference/chronologies/mschronology/chrono.html
Tags: colours, digital text, electronic publishing, text layout, web, web colour
-
05Oct
Picked this up from Dvorak’s twitter:
http://www.komonews.com/news/business/30470939.html
IOWA CITY, Iowa (AP) – As Agriprocessors Inc. was getting stung by criticism after a federal immigration raid snared hundreds of its workers, “a blog by people who live and work in Postville” appeared in its defense in May.The blog defended the hiring practices of the plant in the small Iowa community, rebutting allegations in a federal affidavit and railing against the media, government and a labor union.
Certainly interesting seeing such an unusual defense strategy. Usually major organisations that weren’t born in the net use press releases, press conferences or issue statements etc. The blog isn’t even officially supported by the firm. The story continues:The pro-Agriprocessors site was formed by 24-year-old Getzel Rubashkin and two friends not connected to the company. His father, Sholom Rubashkin, was until this summer the plant’s CEO, and his grandfather, Aaron Rubashkin, owns the New York-based company.The blog drew the suspicion of area residents, including a radio host. Getzel Rubashkin said in an interview with the host that he provided some technical assistance for the site, then acknowledged in an interview last month with The Associated Press that he and his friends created it.
So somebody with some know how made a blog defending the family firm. What I am more puzzled about is what effect the blog is supposed to have. There is an obvious conflict of interest. While blogs are often a series of opinionated people blogging about things that matter to them for whatever reason it is rare for a person to come to the defense of a firm like this. Even the Transportation “Safety” Administration has a blog and it has to be the biggest load of crock I have ever read, not just because they fail at their job on a regular basis but because they aren’t using the medium to properly talk, discuss and consult those that are forced to go through the TSA ordeal. They are more like announcements and just interested in telling people their convoluted pointless rules.Rubashkin said that, in hindsight, he should have attached his name to the site, but that he wanted the claims to stand on their own merits.”I do see now in retrospect that it could look deceptive,” Rubashkin said. “That was not the intent.”He said he had been discouraged by management from maintaining the Web site and expressing views there.
Now of course he sees why an annoymous voice in the net might look suspect. Worse, management has told him to get stuffed, so he cannot even improve. While he is obviously biased he does have an insight of the firm that few others have, however naive that may be. But it might be something worth skimming if there were some more ethical considerations made. What exposure like this highlights is that while firms generally have disdain for untraditional communication methods, they will use them, sneakily for information manipulation. Remember, Wikiscandal? http://tinyurl.com/2eoqf5 The web gives every person a voice but those voices might be employed by subversive elements and those which wield it improperly. Perspective must be kept by the writer and the user. There are often more reputable sources of information online than in old print media and in such sources of information, because of the focus on such minutaie, it is more difficult to be deceptive. More mainstream common interest news still needs to be kept an eye on while the free exchange of minority interest ideas should be concentrated upon and filtered on a personal basis.
-
05Sep
Nationstates http://www.nationstates.net
Nationstates is an interesting nation simulator, which unlike Cybernations, makes for an easy, customisable and fun governing sim. You can setup your own flag, own region, vote in the United Nations and decide the course of events as the head of state. Recently I had the experience of power being thrust upon me and being made regional ruler during a time of war. I had looked away for three days, concentrating on writing the thesis and work. Upon my return, I was notified of my new delegate status and that an invasion was underway. It was only due to the timely intervention of a friendly power that a hostile takeover avoided. Goodness only knows what the prior delegate had been doing. One wonders. However, upon my return I was able to cast out the enemy and restore peace. You easily get caught up in this if you been there awhile. It’s still an imaginary place though.
This demonstrates the power of an interactive simulation, something that isn’t real, even on a level so abstract as government, players still feel like they have an investment. Typically this has been seen in first person and interactive based games such as Civilisation or Doom, to name the ancestors. Now we are seeing it on a new level because of the net. Multiple players, operating in tandem, theming their worlds and deciding the course of action in new ways that decide the story and their nation’s history. This is a far cry from firing a rocket or reaching a power up. This shows sustained interest in a property that allows them to choose their own adventure, to draw a parallel to the classic adventure books.
Nationstates is moving to Nationstates 2 now. Who knows what will become of the original but as one of the chosen beta testers of the new system it seems more complex but also a more secure place for players. Different worlds, private worlds and a sytem that allows for more meaningful cross nation cooperation and diplomacy. Of course the choice always exists that players can remain in the original incarnation.
Tags: digital war, nation, nationstates
-
27Aug
I was just watching Martin Sargent’s Internet Superstar and simultaneously got an e-mail from him. Surreal.
-
27Aug
Abstract
The thesis examines what new media is and what its relationship is to the news and information genres of old media. The first chapter has an analysis of successful pod and video casting programmes and evaluates some of the major players. In chapter two there is a close analysis of the reaction of old media and what new media means for its continued existence. The thesis argues that new media will soon be a legitimate threat to general broadcast medium productions and the technologies that allow for many to many communication will permanently secure this competitive edge.List of Contents
Introduction New media and its meaning to old media
Chapter 1 New media
Chapter 2 Old media mindsets
List of Figures
Appendix
Bibliography
New Media and its meaning to Old Media
New media is a place where exciting changes are happening due to the
cossover of low cost technology and a media-aware society. For the purposes of this thesis new media will refer to podcasts and related items including a podcast’s official message boards, blogs and other genres of new media which are similar in function and nature to old media: radio, television and newspapers but are available online.The reason for looking at these items which share a sort of symmetry with old media is to enable comparisons to be drawn and observe how a new environment is promoting the evolution of classic old media techniques. The current premiere new media talent are mostly old media veterans trained by old media who have decided to use the Internet instead of standard broadcasting methods. This cultural change is what separates these people and programmes from old media. Learning about creators and the causes of their modus operandi is the key to understanding what this transition means. They sidestep the huge cost and technology infrastructures required in an offline old media environment and this has given rise to variety, freedom from conventions and a lack of government censorship.
Because people have grown up with television, films and now the Internet they have learned the visual language of these media and have become media aware. This is only the first stage. As hardware becomes cheaper and more prevalent among a wider group of people, i.e. camera phones and other cheap recording methods, technical knowledge will increase and modes of expression will change, no longer taking cues from old media. This is a point of crossover where old expertise and new technologies are interacting and learning about the relationship will be of interest. However, soon new technology and new techniques will takeover permanently as people learn about media language primarily from the web and new media streams with old media being a tertiary influence. This is part of why this period of change is worth investigating.
While new media’s distribution methods and subculture has received some attention new media is not yet understood on the same level as television or film. Jennings’s work focuses on ‘information scent’ (2007), discovery and making clear how there is ‘no longer a monopoly on taste’ (2007). Jenkins[1] has written about fan culture with reference to new media and the ownership, corporations such as Warner Bros, try to exert over amateur works. There will be input from the most relevant literature on new media.
The primary investigatory element of the thesis will be an attempt to understand why old media is so passive and uncaring about this new platform. This is a part of the Innovator’s Dilemma[2]. Old media has been reluctant to engage users online aside from promotional campaigns. Christenson has argued that a firm will often fail due to delaying “making a strategic commitment to enter”[3]. This fear seems to stem from misdirecting an audience to the proportionally low income Internet advertising away from the high income television advertising.
There will be two core approaches. One section will analyse emerging online media by looking at the new conventions, modifications and just how experimental it is. There will also be an analysis of network structures and what the different distributions methods mean. This will be a part of learning about if and how online media takes a traditional idea like advertising and alters it to keep the idea relevant in an online context. For example, the area of commerce in new media is often overlooked but there are new modes of interaction with sponsors[4] and new delivery systems that are customisable to the nth degree. Also, the weaknesses of new media will be examined, for example, new media does not have many traditional methods of production that are known techniques nor the large budgets or longstanding culture of television, print and radio.
The other approach will look at how/if old media is operating in reaction to these new modes of publication in order to ascertain what effect new media is having. “Firsts” and “bests” and listing places, dates etc will be avoided[5] as points of comparison or achievement as the issues are inherently more complex. Television’s first years were experimental and the development of new media is following a similar trajectory but going into a new realm of possibilities that are not limited like prior media forms. One of the points of comparison will be internal to Old Media itself and how some organisations have made better choices than others
Chapter 1 New media
New media uses some old media ideas in its construction but distributes and operates in new ways and is a disruptive technology[6]. The product itself, for example a WebbAlert news brief[7], is not fundamentally different in what it sets out to do from a television news brief, that is to inform. However it is able to do so in a way that is less restricted by time, sponsors and FCC rules. But the technical quality is not always high or reliable. Christenson states:
When they first appear, they almost always lower performance in terms of the attributes that mainstream customers care about….But disruptive technologies have other attributes that a few fringe customers value. They are typically cheaper, smaller, simpler and frequently more convenient to use. Thus they open new markets. [8]
New media is disruptive to old media because of a number of factors:
1. Convenience
Podcasts live forever, they can be downloaded when new or years later unlike one-time radio or television broadcasts.2. New attributes
They are not dependent on a single platform. Podcasts and other new media can be copied, transferred and listened to on almost any device.3. Opening new markets
The content is niche and able to exploit that niche in ways the classic lowest common denominator approach is unable to.4. Cheaper
No television, radio or costly subscription package is needed.5. Worldwide distribution
Content is accessible via the Internet which is becoming increasingly ubiquitous.6. Fringe customers
New modes of interactivity between author and audience.These are just the core aspects. To understand how these aspects of new media represent a disruptive technology two video podcasts will be examined in a textual analysis with their supporting functions, i.e. websites and associated technologies. These will then be compared to analogous old media genres to identify how these technologies, though still emerging, represent a significant challenge to the authority and level of influence old media possesses.
The objects to be examined are: WebbAlert (2007, Morgan Webb), Sessler’s Soapbox (2007, Adam Sessler).
Jenkins implies that new media (at the time of his writing) was used more recreationally than as a serious professional medium[9]. This is changing now that podcasting is becoming easier and there is a knowledge base available to newcomers as well as quantifiable business benefits[10] . It is possible to form entire networks ranging from thousands of audio podcasts to serious IPTV now that programming is beginning to take shape that appeals to several different audiences.
The clearest example of how this is done well is Revision 3. Revision 3’s history dates back to an old American cable television network called Ziff Davis Television or ZDTV. Martin Sargent, head of Revision 3’s comedy programming spoke about the network:
I was working for a magazine called PC Computing that was owned by ZD and they decided to start up this 24 hour cable station about computers and the Internet called ZDTV so they tapped their writers and editors from their magazines and various holdings to come on as guests and pundits and experts and so on.
It was a wild place to work and for most of us it was our first experience with being on television so I think for the viewers there was a very obvious sense of wonder and a real level of authenticity that you didn’t see on the other television stations.[11]
Much of the staff of Revision 3 are former ZDTV employees. The original network, as noted, had authenticity[12] and this has carried over into the current incarnation of Revision 3’s technology programming. This attitude and expertise lends itself well to online broadcasting because unlike other pundits or hosts they are clearly just as interested and sometimes even more knowledgeable on a given subject than viewers and are more than just “talking heads”. They are involved in every aspect of production and work hard on their individual shows sourcing material and writing copy.
Unlike most other online programmes all of Revision 3’s podcasts are on one site. This is strikingly similar to the website of a television network in having a number of programmes unified under a brand.
Because they are hosted in one place visitors will be exposed to other programmes hosted on the same site. It is a weakness of other podcasts that users have to search and find an isolated podcast and often they accidentally find something they did not even know they wanted. Even when a podcast is in a directory like iTunes it is difficult to be noticed. Comparatively Revision 3’s site shows photographs larger than a stamp, rotates shows on the homepage and has direct video links.
This adoption of the old media network model is unusual because of the niche nature of the Internet. Most podcasters make a programme that pertains to their interests such as sport or comedy and stay within that. It is not typical for a wide variety of material to be made by a single producer or under one brand. This prevents a lot of open competition with old media which has a variety of shows for different demographics running continuously. Television also gives its programmes as much exposure as possible, cross promoting them in print, on websites and at the end of other programmes. Promoting at the end of a programme is different to a podcast plugging another podcast or on a blog because the television viewer does not need to intervene to find or download it, they just stay on the same channel. Because of this divided stance podcasts generally have fewer viewers as their independence makes them more difficult to be discovered and marketed.
Manovich’s idea of the logic of new media[13] (production on demand, just in time, things made possible by computers) is related to this new network structure. New media networks are more capable of meeting the individual needs of their viewers than old media networks. Because they are able to produce video on demand there is no waiting and viewers are able to customise their experience by watching what they want, in whatever order when they want. This means that the traditional “prime time” space (usually 7PM-11PM) is moot. Traditionally old media has offered video on demand, pay per view and others but these are space restricted to the television, they cannot be moved or archived at a viewer’s discretion or watched on another platform. Revision 3 uses RSS feeds and iTunes for subscribers and in a sense this is like a user putting together their own on demand television channel. The difference that new media makes is portability, modularity and automation[14].
New media networks are also adept at evolving with consumer needs. Television does not, it stays in one corner of the room and is a one way medium. Granted, television networks have made some shows available on iTunes but one must look further than the simple distribution avenues. iTunes carries major television programmes which makes it popular but the format is low resolution and video is cropped to look better on an iPod shaped screen as many users will be watching the video using video iPods but the downloads are often watched on a computer screen and the low resolution and cropping has several side effects.
Fig 1 From roughlydrafted.com[15]
Figure One is a representation of the difference. Comparatively Revision 3 offers video quality ranging from small to high definition for its programmes[16]. This is different to iTunes as their video can be watched without restriction on all platforms in several formats and this better serves their viewers. Computer users can download the high definition version and portable device users can download the small version. Whereas Revision 3 produces all their material iTunes is dependent on old media makers which means they are beholden to their outdated rules, even ones which limit the potential revenue. Cropping the frame and low resolution has the side effect of forcing the most loyal and thus the most valuable viewer, the type that wants the full experience, to turn to illegal file sharing to obtain an uncropped high resolution version. This is the modern version of traditionalists looking for a pristine film print.Downloading is still a highly contentious issue among old media makers because they perceive downloading as a low revenue enterprise[17]. NBC initially pulled its programming from iTunes citing this. The universally abhorred Digital Rights Management restrictions on downloads are also an inherent aspect of all iTunes’ files and DRM, indirectly, preserves DVD market purchases which are of higher quality and more costly[18]. Microsoft’s Darknet paper, describes the effects of the inconvenience of DRM versus a lack of restrictions:
…..a securely DRM-wrapped song is strictly less attractive: although the industry is striving for flexible licensing rules, customers will be restricted in their actions if the system is to provide meaningful security. This means that a vendor will probably make more money by selling unprotected objects than protected objects. In short, if you are competing with the Darknet, you must compete on the Darknet’s own terms: that is convenience and low cost rather than additional security.[19]
Because of the built in flaws iTunes represents a hybrid. It uses the distribution lines of new media and the content of old media. Content makers have attempted to transfer the rules of physical access, from a viewer sitting in front of a television to a viewer watching on an iPod or a computer by using DRM. It could be argued that this is a stealth attempt to make viewers pay for space shifting, buying one low resolution copy for their iPod and a DVD copy for television viewing. iTunes has just started offering high definition content but, at the time of writing, it is limited to film rentals, not to keep. Mass legal downloading and the ability to purchase a wide variety of programmes is a significant step forward but the deliberate limits imposed demonstrate how old media concepts still play a large role and are ultimately self defeating.
Differences between new media production and old media productionOn a basic cable television programme there is a staff of at least fifteen people plus the crew (who probably tape other shows at different times of the day) so there will be approximately forty people working on a show at a given time[20]. On an audio podcast such as Weezy and The Swish (W.A.T.S)[21] much of the work is simpler because of the format and the video based WebbAlert only has one camera, one shot and is a short show. W.A.T.S has a recording engineer and part time web developer. These programmes are often created and produced by the host(s) and assisted, technology wise if they are incapable themselves, by a few contacts. In the case of Revision 3’s Infected (2005) the three hosts (Sargent, Spieden and Rabier) made the series themselves for an investment of less than three hundred dollars[22]. At these budgets most new media is not on the same level as a studio produced programme[23]. However having all these technically aware personnel represents a fundamental shift in the division of labour which means that programmes can be made by very few people, especially when they are expert enough to be able to use technology. A podcast requires as little as one host, some basic sound editing tools and a content delivery method.
These are important differences but many old media practices survive. Though new media has a new set of production principles and a free hand to serve any niche thought still has to be given to sponsors. In this sense the old and new are still closely linked by way of some offline conventions that have been adapted to online ideas and ways of distribution.
Jennings states that because new media sources do not have the physical and currently higher grossing supply lines that old media has such as selling a CD in a shop, this has forced new media to invent new methods of promotion and advertising[24] and the overall business model. Old media perceives no need to change. Online, advertising has been reinvented for the new medium. The Internet has banner advertisements and Google Adwords but new media cannot just run the same television adverts or the same radio spots. Users do not download and search for things only to be advertised to and podcasts that follow this course are ultimately unsuccessful as they are seen as an extension of the sponsor[25] and thus not credible or interesting. This means there needs to be a new kind of integration and rethinking of typical advertising policies and product placement. Revision 3[26], is pioneering the visual advertising evolution and works very closely with one of its big sponsors, Go Daddy[27], to the extent that advertising is filmed in their studio with hosts and spokesperson Candice Michelle who also appears at live tapings at special events[28].
This is markedly different to most older methods. Go Daddy is an Internet domain registrar whose income comes from IT users and Revision 3’s core audience are these people. This audience is international in nature and domains can be purchased all over the world so using Internet based advertising is a good way to reach them. Go Daddy has advertised in the Super Bowl but is now able to work directly with a media maker and produce “laser targeted”[29] advertising that is effectively integrated into programming. Using Miss Michelle as a spokesperson and giving discount codes keeps an audience watching instead of switching off during a hard sell by a host “holding up the can of beans”[30]. The audience remains more interested than they otherwise would. The viewers are an unusual demographic in that they are more technically adept than average (ergo not very reachable via old media methods) and liable to go to another website if they feel exploited. The discount codes are also unique to each programme allowing Go Daddy to monitor success. Through this integration and acknowledgement Revision 3 is still appealing to viewers while keeping a sponsor.
However, new media is in the habit, in these initial first steps, of taking a lead from old media with regard to advertising. The familiar model of a host endorsement and a spot pronouncing “This programme is brought to you by….” still lives on, to an extent but in a less formal or blatant way. Sargent has pointed out that there were three segments separated by ad breaks on many Revision 3 programmes. The primary difference is that most of this material seem to be produced by the programme’s makers. The sponsor appears to buy the spot and allows (in Sargent’s case at least) a host to write copy and produce a spot that keeps viewers engaged and less likely to click on ahead. Also, because of the low amount of time required it keeps a viewer immersed in the programme as it is less disturbing. Jenkins calls this technique affective economics[31] citing the decreasing value of the thirty second advert: blurring the line between entertainment content and brand messages. This is very different to present television advertising which uses approximately 15-17 minutes per hour for advertising even though hardware such as Tivos are able to fast forward through them. New media advertising has been more closely integrated and it is more effort to click forward than to observe it. The increased cooperation with sponsors has effectively made the spots an extension of the show’s creativity. This is a newness that online tools have made possible and illustrates the changing nature of new media compared to old.
Comparatively old media differences in this regard are significant. Print/television/radio concerns obviously target different audiences but they aim to deliver as many viewers to advertisements as possible. In both mediums numbers are important but in different ways. Online tools and low investment mean low risk, low costs (to advertisers and producers) and there is more precise tracking so more programming and experimental ideas are likely to be tried. With the international reach of podcasts Go Daddy can appeal specifically to a large group of Internet users whereas a thirty second Super Bowl spot, though watched by millions, will only be seen once and only in America. Podcasts and other new media programming have the potential to make a longer lasting impact on a wider scale due to their longevity and unparalleled accessibility.
However, there are still elements of old in the new. Sponsors are important because they fund programming and provide income. The high profile sponsors such as Go Daddy or Bank of America have standards. Even though sponsoring a podcast does not come close to the high price of nationwide television campaigns sponsors still feel the need to protect their image and still wield a fair amount of power. This is not necessarily a weakness in new media in that there are automated text advertisements such as Ad Sense but for a more significant income bigger sponsors are required.
That sponsors of old media like Bank of America are moving into online niche appeal programmes is interesting because it demonstrates that niches have two qualities that sponsors like. The first is that a niche appeal product such as a media centre can be marketed directly to computer enthusiasts. Because of the niche a sponsor that makes a niche product can be less general than they would otherwise need to be. The second is that even when a programme operates in a niche there are general services and products that most people need such as banking which can still be marketed.
The precise level of influence that advertisers have over online video-casters is unknown. Because advertising is less frequent, shorter in length and programmes are very keen to find and keep advertisers it would likely mean that a sponsor wields more control over what it considers content that it does not want associated with its brand.
An analysis of videocasting
Morgan Webb is a television personality who has been hosting programmes on television since 2001. Her expertise is in computing and gaming. WebbAlert (2007-Present)[32] is an independent podcast produced by her and two other part time employees that covers gadgets, video gaming and other major technology news in the space of about five minutes. An interesting aspect of the production of WebbAlert[33] is the background of Webb and the programme she has co-hosted for several years, X-Play (1998). ZDTV changed format due to attempts at a mainstream breakout becoming TechTV and later through a merger became G4 which has since been rebranded as a computer gaming channel. X-Play was the only programme that survived these format changes. Webb’s X-Play co-host, Adam Sessler, hosts the Sessler’s Soapbox[34] (2007-Present) podcast and is the only on air host from the original ZDTV network still present. Similarly, Webb is the only host from the TechTV generation still at G4. Officially part of the G4 website, Sessler’s Soapbox is an opinion piece in which Adam Sessler talks about an issue in gaming, such as censorship in games and legislation. The topics and opinions Sessler puts forward are very different to G4’s television content.Because of these historical roots and what Martin Sargent called an “obvious sense of wonder and a real level of authenticity”[35] present at ZDTV, X-Play has been a secure old media position for its hosts who are culturally different to G4. They are open to future media development in a way that G4 itself is currently a step behind. The channel has a few programmes which are downloadable and forums for their shows but these are now standard web protocols and often only ports of television content.
Thematic Analysis
Fig 2 Webb Alert, reproduced at 100%
Based on the frame in Figure 2 one may initially equate WebbAlert to a typical news broadcast however a number of key differences are present. WebbAlert’s frame is very compact and is the only angle a viewer sees of the show and the shot is never altered. It reveals no expansive set or a newsdesk backdrop. The only element apart from Webb is the screen in the background and the occasional by-line in the lower third of the screen.
Fig 3 A CNN news set
News features like Webb’s, in an old media setting, use pictograms that reference the story whereas Webb’s unchanging basic video screen is the only detail and the dress is informal. However Webb takes the news anchor format and changes it to suit production needs and the Internet viewer. The video’s viewing window is not the size of a large television and a lot of the standard, largely unnecessary, news program background is cut out (Fig 3). This makes the presentation feel more legitimate because it is not visually verbose. Also, the minimal nature enables a viewer using a portable device to watch it properly unlike conventional material. A person watching a streaming news feed has to strain to see text, background detail and sometimes even the presenter[36].
Figure 4 is from a KPIX weather broadcast being streamed from their website. KPIX seems to be of the opinion that a television stream will work just as well online. The text information, usually much larger on a television, is unreadable and the other elements of the frame seem squeezed in. A minimum size is required for Internet video to be comfortably watched and this increases if the video is from a foreign medium such as television which is produced under the impression that an entire screen will be used to display it. Content makers should keep in mind that the living room is no longer the only place to watch video as a larger audience is available in conjunction with the web and portable devices. When WebbAlert displays text it occupies the entire frame and is readable (Fig 5).
As with a news programme Webb goes to a story feed but uses a fade to when transitioning to a website which contains a story and browses over it, focusing only on the key aspects while linking to the site in the show’s notes. The visual language of the Internet (web design, interaction of colours, infinite variety, scrolling down pages) is also used as she glides over web pages in an apparently effortless and well co-ordinated manner. This is meaningful because it stays immersed online and uses the visual language of the Internet and thus remains contemporary. It does not look back to old media’s field reporters and ensconces viewers in the ‘net.
Fig 6 Sessler’s Soapbox, reproduced at 100% (download edition)
Sharing a similarity with WebbAlert, Soapbox’s camera is placed at eye-level and the shot is a medium close up (Fig 6). Sessler’s delivery and the camera placement gives the piece the feeling of a conversation between viewer and host. The tight frame focuses on Sessler and the background, presumably X-Play’s control room, giving the impression of a background set. The video monitors fill the frame and are displaying content directly relevant to the subject being discussed and the multiple screens provide depth and connotations of high tech while distinguishing it from the set of X-Play. These commonalities with WebbAlert (new media) and differences to KPIX (old media) show there are new visual ideas being explored for the Internet and the users are the ones aware of digital culture.
Content
With regard to programme content WebbAlert is about five minutes per programme. Though short, Webb has already filtered relevant information and then cast her own, generally well regarded, analysis on a subject. This presents a level of convenience and conciseness for a viewer. A contributing factor that reaches areas old media does not is that Webb and Sessler are able to report rumours and peripheral information that is not in a format that television or radio is ready to draw from on a regular basis such as blogs and websites. Old media tends to avoid this to prevent invalidating itself. This is important as there are stories that originate on the Internet meaning that a reporter does not have to be dispatched, film a piece, transmit, arrange interviews etc. All of it moves much more quickly and at the pace of a web savvy user and new media. Even though Webb often covers broken stories, so far, her content and editorial opinion on a story are unique as is her linking of multiple aspects of a story and keeping it concise and relevant to her target audience . In contrast, Anderson Cooper’s 360 Daily[37] is just a series of highlights from CNN’s nightly news.This authorial context of online broadcasting means neither Webb nor Sessler have to go to an alternative point of view or give equal time to “nut jobs”[38] or present both sides. Their programmes are tailored to suit people who want to stay informed on technology issues and they do not want to listen to a predictable corporate spokesman giving the party line. Webb/Sessler have an open editorial style because they are not bound by FCC regulations and their analysis is more insightful than old media who are beholden to their sponsors. Old media also has to “dumb down” reports and analysis because they need high numbers of readers/viewers.
Distribution
Both Webb and Sessler do not restrict viewership to their websites. The programmes can be embedded in another site or downloaded automatically in a variety of formats which are DRM-less video files. This allows a user to freely space shift the content to any device. This recognition of online potential comes from having a creator who is skilled in technology and its related issues. By opening and freeing the content it can be more widely distributed but the main advertising in the video is preserved. Because the programme can be watched on a portable device and on other websites its advertising impact is greatly enhanced because the result is more hits. This provides a large audience for an advertiser and not just a one-time limited exposure on a single site. In addition to this the programme is downloadable for as long as the site exists so new viewers may see it as well.Two way communication is a staple feature of new media and executing it well is not just due to the technological properties of the Internet. Jenkins describes interactivity as the ways that new media can be more responsive to consumer feedback and in this case the conversational style of Soapbox can be further developed. This is because Sessler is involved with X-Play’s forums[39] (part of the core audience for Soapbox) and has appeared as a guest on at least one other podcast[40]. This kind of personal involvement is often lacking in high budget old media productions and is important in fostering an online community if the responsible party wants to harness it.
Curiously Soapbox is commercial free. The lack of commercialisation stops Soapbox being considered as a hybrid tool used by old media to augment viewership of their television programmes. Soapbox could have a “Watch more Adam Sessler on X-Play” or similar announcements but it does not. This lack of agenda or overt commercialisation and indeed the lack of requirement for the content to be commercial in nature (which is a necessary part of the cable medium) gives the podcast a lot of integrity. Webb keeps her credibility because the services/products are directly relevant to the viewer and she does not “hold up the can of beans”[41]. Without credibility a podcast will fail[42]. WebbAlert and independent shows like it need sponsorship to survive whereas Soapbox is a G4 production which began with Sessler. As such it stands as an extra on the website encouraging page views (new media) and may be subscribed to. The cost of production is especially low as it is one take with a similarly brief editing process. Writing is the significant time sink but the op-ed style and the passion Sessler has makes the overall investment minimal. Because of these strong qualities the programme has a reasonable opportunity to develop and deliver growth for the network, an ability that many old media institutions reckon new media does not have[43].
New media conclusions
New media is still an emerging sector of the media both in terms of technology and its definition. Because it is still developing and not quite a cohesive well defined area it is difficult to form marketable products that appeal to a large group of people and this weakens it in the face of old media competitors.The relationship that new media has with old media is a constant struggle in which classic ideas of revenue are balanced with new methods of communication and challenges to produce a profitable business model. To old media, in an age of flawless mechanical reproduction, television is still the fortress of profitability and will be for some time to come. Not all aspects of old media transfer well to new media, sport for example cannot be watched well on small video iPod sized screens and it would not make sense to narrowcast an event to millions when it can be more efficiently done with a single satellite.
The overall niche oriented nature of new media is not in itself a weakness but because it is so focused it may slow the development of larger and stronger competitive elements, when compared to old media’s technique of saturating a marketplace. Burgeoning networks[44] such as Revision 3 are old media’s most direct competitors as they use high resolution video to compete directly with broadcasting quality. Old media is more capable at producing story based products such as dramas, science fiction and period pieces because of the higher financing required. New media’s low revenues restrict the genres it can operate in on a for-profit basis. Many fan films exist on a non-profit basis and are of high quality but there are no long running seasons of material yet as there is no profit model and it is effectively a hobby for the makers. This may change in the future depending on how distribution problems could be solved, perhaps in an iTunes-like way. High production value story content is currently the domain of television. Trying to compete with its established brands and franchises will be a high risk endeavour, but is possible. Audio podcasts on the other hand are more able to compete with radio programmes because of their portability, space shifting and the much lower investment compared to video.
The other aspect of broadcasting in new media is that there is an expectation for a constant stream of media and progression because of the online culture. Online culture never stops changing and evolving and this generates a lot of pressure. Users know that new media is not usually a high budget operation so they expect more flexibility and fresh content. On the other hand when Stargate Atlantis (2004) finishes the season more episodes are not expected because a show is in production and justifiably off the air for some months (on a first run basis). Old media experiences the same pressure to update in the news genre but not across the board.
Even though there is a constant stream of production, as Sargent notes, with regard to structure, some aspects of new media are very similar to the old. While Revision 3 already uses unconventional advertising methods further development is required to distinguish the actual viewing experience from television and other media. This will help make videocasting a more attractive advertising platform and enhance competitiveness based on its worldwide reach, something no television network has. This should develop as more creators learn about visual language from more sources than just television and film. Expansion into low overhead audio broadcasting may be one way of diversifying content and exploring other niches in a low risk manner and experimenting with new concepts.
Outside the professional for-profit new media there are still legions of producers but they do not present a credible threat that will draw viewers hooked on a particular programme away from old media. Originators[45] on Youtube are not able to offer the reliability of television’s seasonal length production of high-quality content. Youtube users do not subscribe to this methodology and produce content semi regularly depending on how dedicated the user is and his/her other commitments.
Attracting viewers is still an unresolved issue in new media. The Internet is becoming larger and this creates a lot of background noise. Old media’s recognition transfers well to the Internet because it is able to cross promote itself in well established communication channels. Even as these traditional communication ways are beginning to fade away there is still enough time to use them to build brand awareness.
Cable and satellite television already have hundreds of channels, the Internet has millions of websites, News Corp is made up of over eight hundred firms. Getting noticed may require real world advertising as used by old media[46]. Many old media ports are popular on iTunes and other services because they are known and they have visibility. Morgan Webb’s old media visibility as host of X-Play and large fan following was the launch pad for WebbAlert. On a technical level there are fundamental differences between the operation of old and new. People have to seek out and find these new programmes whereas for television and radio there are clear cut guides and packages available. This lack of public knowledge is a problem as hard core audiences will discover things quickly but the general public are rarely aware of what could be online.
Overall until new media can organise itself into a group of networks that have a more significant public profile and diversify into new genres of programming there will be unresolved obstacles that prevent it from reaching a critical mass by way of audience and revenue. A lack of popular take up because of the short history of new media is a factor and one that will recede as more diverse users become familiar with computing.
Chapter 2 Old media mindsets
This chapter aims to discuss and analyse what old media’s response has been to new media start ups. Old media is using a variety of methods to maintain a monopoly over its own products. In some areas it ignores the possible avenues of innovation and simply “plugs” in its content to the new media sphere. For example, many so called top podcasts[47] are actually just converted from a talk show or radio source, the only difference being that they are usable on an iPod or equivalent. The issue old media has with new media is the lack of control. These new technologies threaten traditional methods of control. The effect on old media may be to force change so extreme as to stop old media companies being competitive.
Traditionally content makers charged for physical access to a product, such as at a cinema and supported itself with advertising as on television. Because of the Internet’s increasing bandwidth video media can now be accessed at home bypassing the old methods of control. Also, as there is a huge amount of choice online the basic cable/satellite advertising i.e. 14 minutes of advertising per hour does not work as well in this format as there are endless free programmes and content. The process of using a computer is more interactive (typing web addresses, moving and clicking with a mouse, downloading, uploading) compared with the passivity of television viewers.
It is difficult to quantify the extent to which old media is catching up as there is little consistency. Sometimes NBC lets iTunes sell some of its programmes directly to the consumer online, a day or so after they are televised. At other times a very technical network such as G4[48] appeals to their technology oriented audience by having a larger amount of online content directly on their website.
The issues behind this reticence are economic and cultural. New media will not satisfy an old media firm’s growth requirements and is, on the face of it, a loss maker to an executive. Why invest when you could finance part of the next Iron Man (Favreau 2008) or Scrubs (Lawrence 2001)? In the Innovator’s Dilemma, Christenson argues that well managed companies have trouble seeing beyond today’s profitable markets because the markets of tomorrow cannot be analysed “Companies whose investment processes demand quantification of market sizes and financial returns before they can enter a market become paralysed or make serious mistakes.”[49] Television has the standard Nielson ratings[50] whereas even podcasting experts cannot agree on metrics with which to judge podcasts.
Quantifying and judging new media has been extremely difficult if not impossible for television corporations and other firms. This means given the choice between funding a new television show or a podcast television is seen as a safer investment. Christenson’s #1 principle is that corporations rely on their customers for resources ergo few listeners = few resources. This is as true for old media as it is for new media but producing small programmes does not require a large outlay. These small experiments are not large risks and are not enormous drains on an old media firm’s resources.
Another problem pointed out by Apella[51] (Time Warner legal counsel) is that new media will not, for the foreseeable future, satisfy the growth needs and thus profit requirements of Time Warner. This seems to be a Catch Twenty Two situation. Time Warner is an enormous media firm and they and others do not seem prepared to enter the market and take part in the creation and evolution of the medium. Leaving it to the so called amateurs means that it will evolve to meet their needs with Warner only looking on from the outside, totally cut off. This is an example of a firm delaying making a strategic commitment to enter a market[52].
This dismal outlook on technology may have its roots in the cultural differences between technology makers and content makers and their different business goals. There are few firms that operate in both industries but those that do seem to do better than firms that work only in one[53]. Technology makers only provide the tools to view media and do not understand content creation or production as a broadcaster does and the content makers do not actively pursue hardware development. Not understanding the key enabling technologies that technology firms provide is a major weakness which will limit their ability to leverage content on these platforms. This lack of high level understanding with regard to online/technology culture is probably why NBC and others sell their television programmes on iTunes instead of selling them online themselves.
The new inside the old
The newer parts of the old media are still regulated by old media concepts. For example hulu.com[54] is described as “Ad-supported streaming television shows and movies, including some in high definition.” This is a next generation service far surpassing the quality on a standard video sharing site. However, it is unavailable for use outside the United States of America. The official reason is “This requires clearing the rights for each show or film in each specific geography and will take time”[55]. Reading between the lines one can ascertain that because several programmes from the USA such as 30 Rock (Fey 2006) are still first or second run programmes on terrestrial television internationally their licence holder wants to maximise television revenue then relegate the programme to the Internet as a tertiary profit measure. These programmes would probably not be as profitable given their budget if they were shown online with unrestricted access and then broadcast on a television locally. This is why only some programmes are available on iTunes one day after being broadcast on television.Counting the cost
Old media programming is often extremely expensive to produce compared to a podcast. This is not to say household names and talented writers should be eschewed but it does mean that risk taking is often avoided because the consequences of a failure are extreme and so experimenting and trying out new methods are discouraged when something already works. The fact that television is not a connected medium is not the great issue. The great issue is that it mostly ignores what it can do for a relatively low cost. Comparatively producing the content is vastly more expensive and makes the cost of a few minor new media experiments insignificant.However, in the final analysis simply putting video online at a site like hulu.com is not enough to engage audiences, niche or not, because it is inherently passive. It only serves as a basic route for content. It might as well be television. Television programming offers no interactivity between creator and viewer except in the most extraordinary circumstances[56] where creators are not only aware of the fan base but willing to engage with it on a level that is more than just lip service.
Technically aware old media maker Ron Moore (Battlestar Galactica 2004) produced webisodes (The Resistance 2006) for viewers in between seasons. These were short episodes (ergo low risk) that viewers could watch online. The purpose of the Battlestar webisodes were as “Craig E. Engler, general manager of SciFi.com noted, “…a way to get people talking about the show a month before it airs.””[57]. Clearly the webisodes were designed to create excitement around the upcoming series but they were the tip of the iceberg. The amount of online material that was made available was unusually high: deleted scenes, blogs, podcast episode commentaries. All this material was free for download and Battlestar itself was made available on iTunes.
The final point is important because it means that there was no need to watch the broadcast version as all the content was online. This has demonstrated that new media can be used in a way that is more meaningful than just trying to get more people to watch television and can foster interactivity on a global scale built around what was a conventional television series and use it as a foundation. The Battlestar audience are a very technically oriented demographic as are the creators and all of this material gave viewers something to look forward to and discuss online and greatly enhanced the Battlestar experience. This innovative use of a very popular property is an example of the new in the old successfully satisfying fringe customers who are slowly becoming mainstream customers as people start using technology at a younger age.
These experiments demonstrate that there are efforts in some old media firms to reach new markets but these are generally exceptions. The Battlestar webisodes were only officially available for USA viewers but despite this they spread throughout the Internet beyond NBC’s control (the same was true of the full episodes). This restriction on the webisodes was difficult for international fans to understand as they were supposedly free. By being available only to USA viewers fans were driven underground to the pirate file sharing sites and potential revenue was lost forever. The fact that some parts of the world had not had all of the prior regular episodes broadcast seemed to be the reason behind the restriction. This is another flaw in old media thinking. At a time when information moves at the speed of light the release problem was caused by the old media concept of deliberately delaying releases of media, called the tyranny of digital distance[58]. Arbitrary release dates that are often months behind others caused this issue in the first place. Leaver gives the Battlestar example that in Australia the first season was broadcast thirteen months after the first season in America. Leaver points to the unwarranted yet standard delays like this as being a cause of widespread illegal downloading:….these delays are also hurting the businesses who live off advertising. The delays in TV shows have led to a widespread culture of TV-show downloading; torrent TV is the easiest and fastest way to keep apace of your favourite TV show.[59]
Different parts of the world have seasons at different times and by broadcasting in the summer months ratings are expected to be lower thus they are broadcast in the autumn/winter and as a result are out of sync with American broadcast times[60]. However old media broadcasters no longer have the monopoly over deciding when a consumer will see a programme, the consumer does. Consumers will always want to get information from the fastest and easiest source. So if Battlestar will not be broadcast for thirteen months why would any tech savvy user bother waiting and not download programmes or at least buy an already released DVD set? This causes a loss of ratings figures for international affiliates. Jenkins states “establishing loyalty means lessening the traditional rules of control”[61]. It was a forgone conclusion that the copyright infringement was going to happen. Limiting access to webisodes was technical naivety. NBC’s protestations about story spoilers etc are not strong enough reasons as fan communities are well versed in “Spoiler Warnings” and other netiquette.
From a promotional standpoint the webisodes could have been handed to international affiliates without promo idents ready for the affiliate’s own, had the series actually been up to date in other countries. International television markets are not marginal revenue markets and are arguably more valuable than a domestic market (especially for high production value American material). However they are fringe customers when it comes to new media because downloading episodes gives them new features, i.e. not having to wait, commercial free and, possibly the most valuable: the ability to discuss and be a part of a community of other fans of the programme in the present.
One of the differences that new media offers over old media is two way communication that can be centrally registered then viewed by others, a BBS or message board. In the past the role of the forum or internet mailing list was played by the fan magazine or fanzine. They were produced and then distributed by hardcore fans of a particular property. There were elements that limited the success of such an endeavour. Most fanzines were produced haphazardly as a side project, were not always reliable or of high quality and were not “official” and printing costs reduced the number of copies that could be reasonably expected. New media has changed not just distribution but the level of what can be achieved. The ViewAskew Message board[62] is an extension of the official Kevin Smith site and there are several sections for fans to discuss various topics There is a huge banner at the top for ViewAskew products. One section is for budding film makers. Previously, showing and discussing media other than print was quite difficult due to distances, shipping costs and the relatively low interest and high investment needed. However, new media has created the beginnings of a new history. The idea of a fanzine has transformed online to having blogs and people can go further and show their own productions and discuss them in a suitable place.
The difference between the message board and the comments under Youtube videos, for instance, is that there is a well established community and people begin to know each other, can start their own topics and the community continues to develop. Smith’s message board is also notable in that it has several people interested in actually producing film, not just being lurkers. Comparatively videosharing sites are vast and do not encourage the exchange of well thought out ideas, partially because of the limit on characters per comment and most users are not interested in leaving a long response. The users who are can be directed to an extent. On the ViewAskew board because there is a special area for originators this increases the concentration of this type of user. They can gather and have a more productive discussion than would otherwise be possible.
Smith is able to encourage brand loyalty in a new way by providing general areas of discussion about his films and advertise his wares to a very loyal and thus most valuable audience. One measure of loyalty is that it costs two dollars to join the board which is rare among forums as they are usually free. He often personally posts and chats on the board. The care and attention afforded and the media in use is an example of a collective intelligence that would be inaccessible outside the digital medium. It could not reach a significant size due to the aforementioned physical transmission barriers. In this case the Internet has been used to communicate with and generate a loyal brand community that existed but would otherwise be unreachable. A firm can harness the community that likes minority/select appeal material and increase the value of the brand by interacting with a community online in a meaningful way (that is, not only to boost sales or ratings). This can enhance the image of the producers, cultivate community interest and link periphery products making it an encompassing experience in both new and old media.
The generation gap between the youth of today who have video iPods and the
Boomers who watch television will in time, disappear as people age. Now most young people purchase digital downloads, not CDs whereas only five years ago the opposite was true. Because modern audiences are very much connected compared to only a few years ago the media entities which use this to their advantage (such as ViewAskew) will garner greater attention from them. If content producers’ communication improves they will be more valuable. This means media which can be used properly on a portable screen and interacted with appeals more than something that does not have these features.The direct competition
There have been other attempts at reclaiming digital ground other than simply putting video online. Newspapers and other text based media outlets run major websites which generate a large number of page views per month and run advertising alongside their stories. This has been largely successful for media firms such as the Wall Street Journal and the BBC. These websites are reflections of print or broadcast versions and are major online players simply because of the infrastructure behind the old media section and their recognition. Old media has a strong influence here because it already has the attention and branding from pre-Internet work. Compared to many new media productions that are difficult to find or simply lost in the background noise of the Internet this fame and high recognition factor pushes old media ported material to the top of iTunes and in the genre of news makes them an online destination.Producing conventional news is difficult for new media because old media is able to broadcast news on a 24/7 basis. Most new media video/audio podcasts do not produce more than an hour or two of material each week and are rarely live. Even online users will go to CNN.com for news. CNN and other large media firms have reporters all over the world and can report information instantly using satellites and another network’s feeds through various inter network agreements. Users can post online from all over the world but this is not synonymous with having experienced journalists and more like a raw information source for select events. A news media programme features footage from journalists who may be embedded in an armed forces unit or live press conferences at 10 Downing Street. This footage is also streamed live online in an increasingly high resolution to thousands of people by a comprehensive backbone that small outfits do not have. However, users do download podcasts for analysis of the news[63].
The national news is an example of a mass appeal genre that can hold its own online, for the moment. Local news is a different story. Curtis has observed that local news is the only aspect of news left that is not covered by national networks or news providers the opposite side of the globe. There is no need for a viewer to look to them for national news as there are other major carriers and they are mostly affiliates simply carrying the national feed. That said, local news is a niche interest and not immune to erosion, Curtis remarks:
Why…would anybody pay attention to local mass media? For what? People can already read national news on a national news site. People already read local politics on their local blogger’s site. People can find restaurant reviews and movie listings elsewhere as well, linked directly to where they can make reservations and buy tickets.[64]
Local papers do not use the Web 2.0 tools that users need to continue their train of thought or online journey. In a print format a film critic will write a basic review and that will be all except for some show times listed elsewhere in the paper. The same content will then be copied online. The review does not link to an affiliate site[65] like Moviefone[66] where a reader can book tickets, it starts and ends at the review. Bloggers on the other hand put hyperlinks in their text to other reports, refer to other blogs and can link to high resolution colour photos and video and use more casual sources like forums and photoshopped material for discussion[67]. Twitter.com’s microbloggers were the first to report on the 2008 L.A earthquake[68]. Information came from them far in advance of old media. Users can also reply and discuss the post with input from the blogger. This gives rise to a flow of relevant information instead of being an isolated story.
Conclusion
This dissertation has identified a series of key differences between old and new media. The more important differences are not technological but cultural. This means the desire to use and adapt technology and the ability to find new innovative ways to reach audiences that old media is either ignoring or trying to secure using outmoded models. The new media creators are unhindered by old media norms as they understand not just communication but technology and digital culture. Old media’s strengths are in its recognition and its offline history. It enjoys the results of offline market saturation but low production and distribution costs are now making niche programmes and Internet video increasingly competitive.
The competition and cultural differences signal key issues for both sides. Old media does not (from it’s perspective) need to substantially innovate as it already has high revenues but new media has to invent and develop as they are not yet profitable. This means new media is much better versed with the business models of tomorrow but will struggle in the near future. With its status as an emerging technology/business model new media cannot compete in all media genres, but this will change. New media has to break out of its technology oriented subgenres and start producing content that appeals to more niches and more groups.
What new media means to old media is a profit damaging shift of power into the hands of amateurs. The entrenched old media firms will keep to older traditional profit gathering methods despite unauthorised new media success (see Warner’s attacks on Harry Potter fan sites[69]) and will delay undertaking exploration that deviates from established norms while profits are still high.
New media’s greatest influence on old media has been on extraordinary old media creators such as Moore, Sargent, Webb and Palanker who, unlike unimaginative corporate management, are contributing to and shaping this new medium. Old media has been influenced to the extent that there have been isolated cases of change, such as KPIX (and others) putting a video stream online and some sectors of old media have made ancillary content available that uses new media. However these items are usually tied to old media concepts, thematically and in price. This is a quiet acknowledgement that new media is more efficient than old media at distributing information but using new media on a fully independent basis does not suit the old profit model. That old profit models are still used to judge new media potential means that old media is still judging it improperly and failure then becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.
New media’s presence has not altered the core of old media. The main changes have been in external culture and information exchange which in turn directly effects old media’s future.
New media has yet to coalesce into a network(s) that seriously challenges old media. Much of the reason old media networks succeed is because they are an easy way for an audience to receive information. Old media now relies on technical ignorance. The place in society of the film studio, television network and newspaper will not change in the near future, however over the next thirty years the media sphere will undergo a restructuring in the light of innovative, low cost communication technologies and a more technically aware populace.
Technology is slowly becoming more familiar to a wider group of people. As this process gathers pace new media will have the chance to diversify its genres of programming for these new audiences and use its new interactive tools to be more appealing than old media equivalents. If old media firms continue to stall their development and be wilfully ignorant[70] they will become extinct.
List of figures
Fig 1 From roughlydrafted.com, A video comparison
Fig 2 WebbAlert
Fig 3 A CNN news set
Fig 4 A KPIX Weather report
Fig 5 News story in progress on WebbAlert
Fig 6 Sessler’s SoapboxBibliography
Articles and Journals
Anderson, Chris (2004) ‘The Long Tail’, Wired. Issue 12.10 – October 2004The Digital Humanities Quarterly, Summer 2007: v1 n2
http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/001/2/index.htmlEuropean Journal of Communication Sage publications, 2006 Volume 21 Number 3
Hattersley, Mark ‘BBC iPlayer is infuriating’ Macworld.co.uk
http://www.macworld.co.uk/blogs/index.cfm?blogid=2&entryid=211 Retrieved February 2008Kiss, Jemima ‘ISPs fear iPlayer overload’ The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/aug/13/digitalmedia.bbc Retrieved February 2008Leaver, Tama. (2008) ‘Watching Battlestar Galactica in Australia and the Tyranny of Digital Distance’, Media International Australia 126: 145-154
Rockwell Geoffrey (Co-editor) TEXT Technology / The journal of computer text processing. Online Edition http://texttechnology.mcmaster.ca/current_content.html
Rosenfeld, L. (2002) ‘3 Reasons Why Data and Document Retrieval are not the same’, Dr. Dobbs’ Portal
Rothman, Wilson ‘Vudu Test Confirms HD Download Worries (Plus: What Needs to Be Done)’ Gizmodo
http://gizmodo.com/352392/vudu-test-confirms-hd-download-worries-plus-what-needs-to-be-done Retrieved February 2004Williams, Chris ‘Why is the iPlayer a multi million pound disaster?’ The Register
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/22/beeb_week_iplayer_comment/page2.html Retrieved November 22nd 2007Books
Curtis, Drew. (2007), It’s Not News, It’s Fark: How Mass Media Tries to Pass Off Crap As News. DIAF edition. GothamChristensen, Clayton M. (2006), The Innovator’s Dilemma. Collins
Erdman, Terry J. (2000), Deep Space Nine Companion. PocketBooks
Geoghegan et all. (2007), The Business Podcasting Book, Focal Press
Hauer, Rutger. (2007), All Those Moments. Harper Paperbacks
Helm, Dieter. (editor), Jenkinson, Tim (editor) (1998) Competition in Regulated Industries. Clarendon Press
Horan, Thomas A. (2000) Digital Places: Building Our City of Bits Urban Land Institute
Jenkins, Henry. (2006a), Convergence Culture. New York University Press
Jenkins, Henry. (2006b), Fans, bloggers and gamers, exploring participatory culture. NYU Press
Jennings, David. (2007), Net, Blogs and Rock ‘n’ Roll: How Digital Discovery Works and What it Means for Consumers. London Nicholas Brealey Publishing.
Levy, Pierre, (1997), Collective Intelligence: Mankind’s emerging world in cyberspace. Perseus Books.
Mitchell, William J (1995) Space Place and the Infobahn. MIT Press
Murray, Janet. (1998), Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace. The MIT Press
Manovich, Lev. (2001), The Language of New Media. MIT Press
Nielson, J and Loranger, H. (2006). Prioritizing Web Usability. New Riders Press
Olsson, Jan. (Editor) (September 2004), Television After TV: Essays on a Medium in Transition. Duke University Press
Thorburn, David, (Editor) (2004), Rethinking Media Change: The Aesthetics of Transition (Media in Transition) The MIT Press; New Ed
Zielinski, Siegfried (January 2006) Deep Time of the Media, MIT Press
Papers
The BBC Royal Charter and Agreement
http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/policies/charter/ Retrieved 19 January 2008Hayles, N. Katherine.
‘Boundary Disputes: Homeostasis, Reflexivity, and the Foundations of Cybernetics Configurations’ – Volume 2, Number 3, Fall 1994, pp. 441-467Bill Cope, Mary Kalantzis and Christopher Mackenzie,
‘Managing Knowledge And Leading Change In The Printing And Publishing
Industries: Creator To Consumer In A Digital Age’
http://c-2-cproject.com/Courseware/oc/MKLC/C2C-MKLC_Element-2.2.pdf
Retrieved January 2008Royal Academy of Engineering report on ‘Dilemmas of Privacy and Surveillance’
http://www.raeng.org.uk/policy/reports/pdf/dilemmas_of_privacy_and_surveillance_report.pdf Retrieved March 28th 2008Schiesel, Seth (2006) ‘The land of the video geek’ New York Times. USA
Prestospace on Media Migration
http://prestospace-sam.ssl.co.uk/tutorials/T2/T2-1.html Retrieved February 23rd 2008Willman et al, 2002, ‘The Darknet and the Future of Content Distribution. ACM Workshop on Digital Rights Management’ http://www.bearcave.com/misl/misl_tech/msdrm/darknet.htm
Conference Papers
What makes History? Michael S. Mahoney Program in History of Science Princeton University Consulting Historian, HOPL-II Conference 1993IFRA, Newspaper Techniques, January 1982. Third IFRA Symposium Report, given December 3rd 1981.
Financial Times Cable, Satellite & New Media Conference, 27th/28th of February 1995 Barry Spikings’ address
Sider, Larry. School of Sound. London, 1998-2001 and associated papers up until 2007, Wallflower Press.
Podcasts
Diggnation
http://revision3.com/diggnation/Internet Superstar
http://revision3.com/internetsuperstar/Infected
http://revision3.com/infected/Revision 3 Gazette
http://revision3.com/rev3gazette/tour/Sessler’s Soapbox
http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/tag/172/Sesslers_Soapbox.html
Smodcast
http://www.quickstopentertainment.com/2008/06/02/smodcast-52/WebbAlert
www.webbalert.comWeezy and The Swish
http://www.weezyandtheswish.comLectures, Interviews
Lecture, Andrea Apella, Time Warner, 15th January 2008, King’s College LondonLouise Palanker, Senior VP of Creative and co-founder of Premiere Radio
Networks, Interview May 27th 2008
Martin Sargent, Interview 21st May 2008
The Web
http://www.archives.gov/digitization/ Retrieved 13 February 2008
http://www.armadillosystems.com/books.htm Retrieved 10 February 2008
http://www.associateprograms.com/directory/entertainment/dvd-and-videos/index2.html Retrieved 19 June 2008
http://www.bl.uk/about/annual/2006to2007/audiofiles/annualreport07voice.mp3 Retrieved 12 March 2008
http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/ttp/digitisation.html Retrieved 2 March 2008
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/09/12/0638432.php Retrieved 21 July 2008
http://books.google.com/ Retrieved 9 December 2007
http://www.britishpathe.com/faq.html Retrieved 8 February 2008
http://cbs5.com/ Retrieved 20 June 2008
http://www.futureofthebook.org/blog/archives/2006/02/who_really_needs_to_turn_the_p.html Retrieved 14 February 2008
http://www.g4tv.com/thepile/videos/26397/Sesslers_Soapbox_Attention_Bigots.html Retrieved 12 June 2008
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/aug/13/digitalmedia.bbc Retrieved 21 July 2008
http://www.hulu.com/ Retrieved 21 July 2008
http://www.londonlibrary.co.uk/ Retrieved 28 March 2008
http://labs.live.com/Seadragon.aspx Retrieved March 2008 Retrieved 2 March 2008
http://ponderance.blogspot.com/2005/08/tyranny-of-digital-distance.html Retrieved 17 June 2008
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Home/305F863B-B74C-4261-8E16-D129EC54D863.html Retrieved 12 September 2006
http://www.revision3.com/ Retrieved 1 January 2008
http://www.scifi.com/battlestar/blogs/ Retrieved 17 June 2008
http://www.tate.org.uk/supportus/corporate/sponsorship.htm Retrieved 2nd March 2008
http://www.talkitoverradio.com/blog/_archives/2006/3/20/1831695.html Retrieved 9th July 2008
http://www.theglobeandmail.com Retrieved 3 April 2008
http://twit.tv/ This Week In Tech Retrieved 19 June 2008
www.twitter.com Retrieved 9 June 2008
http://www.viewaskew.com/theboard/viewforum.php?f=18&sid=db6fdd11cbefd0c06fd5b6c3e5448d30 Retrieved 20 June 2008[1] Jenkins 2006b
[2] Christensen 2006:7
[3] Christensen 2006:63
[4] http://revision3.com/rev3gazette/godaddy/ Retrieved 30 May 2008
[5] What makes History? Mahoney, HOPL-II 1993[6] Disruptive technologies change the value propositions of the market and initially offer lower performance in terms of the attributes that mainstream customers care about. Typically smaller, simpler and faster – Christensen, Clayton M. (2006). The Innovator’s Dilemma. Collins
Pg 264
[7] www.webbalert.com Retrieved 9 July 2008
[8] Christensen, 2006:265.
[9] Jenkins 2006a
[10] Geoghegan 2007:11
[11] Martin Sargent, Interview 21 May 2008
[12] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3_ZUm72XDI Retrieved 29 July 2008
[13] Manovich 2002:27
[14] Manovich 2002:30
[15] http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Home/305F863B-B74C-4261-8E16-D129EC54D863.html Retrieved 12 September 2006
[16] http://revision3.com/rev3gazette/studioop/ Retrieved 21 July 2008
[17] http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071030.WBmingram20071030121440/WBStory/WBmingram Retrieved 3 April 2008
[18] Even in DVDs content can be different. The Region 2 sets of Battlestar often lack the bonus content of Region 1 (American) releases and DVD players usually have to be hacked to playback discs from other regions..
[19] http://crypto.stanford.edu/DRM2002/darknet5.docRetrieved 19 January 2008
[20] Martin Sargent, Interview 21 May 2008
[21] http://www.weezyandtheswish.com/ Retrieved 9 July 2008
[22] Martin Sargent, Interview 21 May 2008
[23] Revision 3 did recently invest a in a high quality studio that has experimental technology but appear to be unique in this regard. See Gazette Number 11 http://revision3.com/rev3gazette/studioop/ Retrieved 9 January 2008
[24] Jennings, David 2007:157
[25] http://www.intuitive.com/blog/edelman_screws_up_with_duplicitious_walmart_blog.html Retrieved 12 June 2008
[26] www.revision3.com Retrieved 1 May 2008
[27] www.godaddy.com Retrieved 29 July 2008
[28] http://revision3.com/diggnation/2008-05-01mightier/ Retrieved May 1 2008
[29] Martin Sargent, Revision 3’s Head of Comedy Programming, Interview 21 May 2008
[30] Louise Palanker, Senior VP of Creative and co-founder of Premiere Radio Networks, Interview 27May 2008
[31] Jenkins 2006a:61-64
[32] www.webbalert.com Retrieved 12 June 2008
[33] www.webbalert.com Retrieved 12 June 2008
[34] http://www.g4tv.com/thepile/videos/26397/Sesslers_Soapbox_Attention_Bigots.html Retrieved 12 June 2008
[35] Martin Sargent, Revision 3’s Head of Comedy Programming, Interview 21 May 2008
[36] http://cbs5.com/ Retrieved 20 June 2008
[37] http://edition.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/anderson.cooper.360/podcast/index.html Retrieved 29 July 2008
[38] Curtis, Drew 2007:111-133
[39] http://forums.g4tv.com/forum.jspa?forumID=109 Official Soapbox forum Retrieved 19 April 2008
[40] http://www.talkitoverradio.com/blog/_archives/2006/5/29/1992420.html Retrieved 18 April 2008
[41] Louise Palanker, Senior VP of Creative and co-founder of Premiere Radio Networks, Interview May 27 2008
[42] http://www.intuitive.com/blog/edelman_screws_up_with_duplicitious_walmart_blog.html Retrieved June 11 2008
[43] Lecture, Andrea Apella, Time Warner, 15 January 2008, King’s College London
[44] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Internet_television_channels Retrieved 21 June 2008
[45] Jennings defines Originators as those that produce original content and post it online 2007:48
[46] http://kungfurodeo.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/ironman_billboard_wide_sm.jpg Retrieved 18 June 2008
[47] Anderson Cooper’s (CNN anchor) highlights
[48] http://www.g4tv.com/ Retrieved10 June 2008
[49] Christensen 2006:265
[50] A rating tells how many people watched a particular TV program http://www.nielsenmedia.com FAQ Retrieved 21 July 2008
[51] Lecture, Andrea Apella, Time Warner, 15 January 2008, King’s College London
[52] Clayton 2006:63
[53] See Microsoft’s success with the Xbox gaming consoles and its gaming software.
[54] http://www.hulu.com/ Retrieved 21 July 2008
[55] http://www.hulu.com/support/content_faq Retrieved 21 July 2008
[56] http://www.scifi.com/battlestar/blogs/ Retrieved 17 June 2008
[57] http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/09/12/0638432.php Retrieved 21 July 2008
[58] http://ponderance.blogspot.com/2005/08/tyranny-of-digital-distance.html Retrieved 17 June 2008
[59] http://ponderance.blogspot.com/2005/08/tyranny-of-digital-distance.html Retrieved 17 June 2008
[60] Leaver 2008: 145-154
[61] Jenkins 2006a:191[62]http://www.viewaskew.com/theboard/viewforum.php?f=18&sid=db6fdd11cbefd0c06fd5b6c3e5448d30 Retrieved 30 June 2008
[63] http://twit.tv/ Retrieved 19 June 2008
[64] Curtis, Drew 2007:256-258
[65] http://www.associateprograms.com/directory/entertainment/dvd-and-videos/index2.html Retrieved 19 June 2008
[66] www.moviefone.com Retrieved 29 July 2008
[67] http://www.firstshowing.net/2008/05/09/captain-americas-shield-found-in-iron-man/ Retrieved 8 May 2008
[68] http://webbalert.com/2008/07/july-31st-2008.html lead story. Retrieved 31 July
[69] http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/12/20/meet_the_warner_bros_jekyll/ Retrieved 29 July 2008
[70]http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071030.WBmingram20071030121440/WBStory/WBmingram Retrieved 9 April 2008Tags: analysis, new media, old media, palanker, podcasting, relationship, sargent, sessler, thesis, webb
-
26Aug
Here’s one I made earlier.
-
21Aug
Youtube is a growing site and an interesting hybrid of new media and old media. Whether it is the future of television is a matter of both cultural debate and technological obstacles. There are many topics that may be discussed in the area of online video services. This piece will concentrate on Youtube from a Media Arts perspective and the cultural interchange it enables with some associated technical aspects.
It seems certain elements of television are best suited to broadcasting while certain niche subcultures benefit from being narrowcast through the Internet[1]. This notwithstanding many previously broadcast (and copyrighted) videos exist on Youtube. Users often re-engineer them into music videos for example and television, almost symbiotically, picks up on and broadcasts Youtube news, as it were. In addition to this, television channels are beginning to react to the Futurist like culture of Youtube by making their own network/programme specific Youtube-esque sites, some more open than others. It seems that content with a broad audience still appeals to users of niche markets in addition to their specific niche interests.
Jennings’s work on digital discovery states that there are three types of user of collaborative sites such as Youtube: lurker, synthesizer and originator. Lurkers make up the vast majority of users (Jennings, 2007, p44). This means that most users visit Youtube and watch the content in an almost television like manner.
Youtube is similar in many ways to television. It has channels for example and viewers can switch channels as if they were watching television. The way people perceive programmes/channels, in this respect, is not dissimilar to television. However, users may have their own channels and add other channels to a favourites list as if it were a custom television system. This on demand style and television reminiscent agency a user experiences presents a financial threat to television and also hinders Youtube in that it prevents it from having a ‘primetime’ as users may access content at anytime and anywhere. This directly impacts on revenue and alters a user’s perception of content.
Television is on the opposite end of the spectrum as it has not, at the time of writing, allowed the broad interactivity that Youtube is able to offer its users such as commenting or becoming a content creator. One could say the near universal bid to prevent/protect access to television content limits the intellectual property to such an extent as to preclude this interactivity. The regular ‘content removal’ sweeps conducted by Viacom on Youtube is a clear example of this attempt to protect corporate television. Youtube could almost be thought of as a tool that lets you share a videotape or lend a friend a DVD, except the number of friends would be equal to the number of views.
From a technical perspective Youtube has strengths such as discussion between users but in order to stay profitable it enforces technical constraints. This can be viewed as a sort of regulated innovation (Helm, Jenkinson 1998).
The constraint with the most visual impact is video resolution. Compared to television, in which High Definition is becoming more common[2] the resolution is very low, however this allows content to be viewable on mobile devices and over low bandwidth connections. This is important, because the living room is no longer the only place to watch television, making for a potentially much larger audience. Because resolution is low a wider range of devices are granted access to the content and may act in the creation of content. As users accept this limitation this may be seen as beneficial to Youtube culture because it does not restrict who sees what. Comparatively television requires a high price for access to content.
Because Youtube is accessible on an international scale the entire world may view it. This creates a series of cultural benefits and raises questions that television rarely presents. One example of an older piece of legislation still at work even online is the restriction of certain kinds of symbolism in Germany, Nazi swastikas for example, though this is not illegal in the USA. So while national cultures may interact with one another in this setting some cultural standards may not apply and even be illegal in another culture. However, common subcultures are enabled. For example, computer gaming culture is not any one nation’s prerogative. ‘Gaming’ is a cultural aspect of the world. Video gaming culture in different nations is remarkably different, South Korea for example has television channels dedicated to spectating. Even though it is a cultural element that is different in every country, the core interest is the same. Many comments on computer game videos on Youtube are in different languages. Gaming is no longer a solitary activity, multiplayer services enable users from all over the world to interact, even with voice headsets. The international platform from which Youtube works empowers this culture (and other subcultures) as common subcultures like Gaming often use language as a secondary means of communication. In Gaming examples of this can be by way of watching strategies or hints for a game created from in-game footage as they are not usually directly dependent on language.
While Gaming is not a solitary activity anymore, watching Youtube often is. During electronically based conversations Youtube links are often exchanged or on discussion forums for instance and the video is usually watched by a single person sitting at their computer. An interesting sociological disconnection exists between watching Youtube and television. Families do not gather around the computer to watch Youtube whereas they often watch family programming like game shows, films shown on national holidays and comedy. These things are either on Youtube for a fleeting moment due to the aforementioned copyright sweeps or not present at all. This coupled with a resolution which generally is not suitable for a large television screen prevents a family from gathering in a living room to watch it.
There are also genres of programming that are not well suited to Youtube but are perfect for television Sport events, for example. Sport such as football does not display well on a small screen. An audience is usually looking at a large part of a field in football and scaling it down, even from an HD signal, does not yield results comparable to television (see final photo in the appendix). Miodownik[3] points out in this regard that broadcasting to tens of thousands of people in a narrowband method requiring a massive amount of bandwidth (due to audience numbers), in low resolution compared to broadcasting via satellite or other conventional methods does not make sense. Sociologically the solitary aspect is still present but even more pronounced as relatively few audience members watch football alone as it is often viewed in a social setting.
Television markets in very generic terms whereas Youtube fulfils a series of niche areas. For example, television networks may find in market research that a certain character in a programme is popular with mothers watching with young children as in the case of an after-school programme. Strength in numbers is television’s method of selling adspace or airtime. However, in the case of a sitcom one audience member in a survey of one thousand may enjoy clips of a character’s best moments edited in time to music or re-dubbed with new dialogue. Television does not cater for such a specialist interest but Youtube does. Major parts of the equation for sites like Youtube are for such interests, for example the Smosh Channel (http://youtube.com/user/smosh) has nearly ten million views and is famous for re-filming 1980s cartoon idents. These markets are perceived as small but they exist and in a way that television has great difficulty reaching or has no desire to, allowing Youtube to capture the advertisement revenue.
Originators on Youtube are not able to offer the reliability of television’s production of large amounts of new high-quality content. Collectively however Youtube is able to offer this and do so for the entire year. Comparatively television broadcasts in seasons and a show is in production and thus off the air for some months (on a first run basis). Youtube users do not subscribe to this methodology and produce content semi regularly depending on how dedicated the user is and his/her other commitments. For example the Skateboarding Dog video (rnickeymouse 2007) with 1.4 million views has been cross promoted on television and websites making it a highly successful channel/user but one with only three videos.
Recently there has been a development in the direction of a generic model for Youtube. Youtube has launched a German version of itself and Mark Spath (Blognation)[4] reports on one of its first public partners:
One of their first official partners is public television channel ZDF. What’s symptomatic for the thinking of German TV networks is the way ZDF has launched its channel.This is an interesting approach to Youtube and one that requires great care and attention as it must be constantly updated. News stories and current events programming can only be run once (Curtis, 2006) and they will not be watched repeatedly by the same people. At the time of writing ZDF have available fifty five videos, some over an hour in length.
This is an example of a public media entity investing the minor technical/financial resources required for a Youtube channel but providing the same high quality and high investment content that they broadcast on television. This is an exception to the Youtube paradigm. Most of the Originators (Jennings 2007) do not produce professional-grade content and they usually do not produce a quantity of content similar to a season’s length in television. Most television programmes are regular (have a season), have high production values and have full-time well known actors. So called ‘one offs’ such as the Star Wars (Lucas, 1977) parody Troops (Rubio,1997), a spoof of the American television show COPS (1989) or one of the many Star Wars (Lucas, 1977) Internet fan films are examples of a production time that is able to concentrate fan culture resources for a single elongated programme.
This seems to be part of the inherent nature of Youtube content producers. Most individual channels do not offer a wide range of programming in a manner similar to most television stations (stations such as the Sci-Fi channel notwithstanding). Instead they generate content that they (the creators) find interesting. The user/channel Retroist publishes “Usually Slightly old stuff”. By this they mean older promotional television material or strange advertisements. So while users like Retroist are originators in the technical sense that they post and digitize material they are arguably only synthesizers in a cultural sense as they are republishing content they themselves did not make.
At this point comparing Youtube channels and television channels becomes difficult as a Youtube channel is often only run by one user or a small group of people, depending on how one determines this number, whereas a television channel employs a large number of specialists. This is why users may be called users/channels. Perhaps one has to view Youtube itself as a network (in a television sense) or as a Gestalt or look at user channels and television channels on a per show basis judging by individual examples. Television networks employ professional content makers to produce programmes. Youtube’s user created content is usually a product of non-professional film makers/content creators/originators. However, with the cost of technology like digital cameras and edit suites decreasing, technology is increasingly making up for this disparity. With the advent of television in the 20th century, generations have grown up aware of the conventions of television and Youtube users have applied them to their work but in a new environment, the Internet.
Additionally, the culture is so very different, a hobby with friends compared to a full time professional job makes it seem like comparing apples and oranges. One may ceaselessly examine technical constraints. It must also be appreciated that well-made television will usually be a better viewer experience, on a per show basis, to most amateur produced Youtube material because professional creators have more time, a larger budget and the training/experience with which to best harness these resources.
While not directly posting videos to Youtube itself some parts of television programmes may now be viewed online. A premiere example of this is Comedy Central’s The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (1999). Recently the full archives were put online. This was seen as a strange move[5] as Viacom, the parent firm of Comedy Central, has been a major objector to videos of its copyrighted content being posted on Youtube. So instead of directly posting on Youtube The Daily Show (1999) and its archives may now be viewed in full on the official website[6]. This method of compromise has been made in the face of online culture and fans relentlessly posting their favourite clips online. By hosting the content on the official website Comedy Central retains the advertising revenue that would have otherwise been lost to entities such as Youtube thus retaining market share and learning, to an extent, about online culture. Just like Youtube a user may “Join the community”. Compared to other similar moves in the television industry The Daily Show (1999) example is clearly the boldest as it may be viewed in any country just like Youtube. Networks such as NBC often restrict viewership to United States users only, as is the case of the comedy 30 Rock (2006)[7].
This exposes another aspect of television’s relationship with Youtube, that is copying it. Certain late night American cable programmes have segments which show videos that are popular on Youtube. It seems that while television could use the Youtube model to an extent, as in Comedy Central’s case, some programmes are taking content from Youtube directly. This does not end simply in taking actual content. News stories based on Youtube videos are also aired. One only needs to be reminded of the controversy of user/channel Lonelygirl15.
lonelygirl15 is a user/channel that started on Youtube June 16th 2006[8] Lonelygirl15 (Flinders 2006) began airing on the premise it was an actual videoblog produced by a sixteen year old girl with a web cam. It was in fact a fictional creation of which no hint was given. A spin off series has been launched called KateModern (2007) and combined the two series have 70 million hits[9]. This is where one must draw the line between niche and popular viewing. While something may emerge in a niche market based on a new technology (Youtube) it can quickly obtain viewers on a mass scale as, unlike television, the Internet lends itself as a medium to both.
One must also think about television’s older, historically popular programming in a Youtube viewing context. Formats such as soap operas have transitioned well to the Internet when they are in the hands of technically adept designers using online design ideology. Lonelygirl15 (Flinders 2006) was a soap opera appropriate for Youtube. This was because it was generated in online culture and not just a soap opera that could be watched online. Television soap operas are purpose-built for television just as radio programmes are made-for-radio. Lonelygirl15 (Flinders, 2006) was made-for-Youtube, the Internet friendly format of using one (web)camera angle and each episode being only a few minutes long meant the piece would never have been accepted for television broadcast, yet it still had mass appeal even in the niche online cultural institution of Youtube.
This means that while television programming may be ported directly to video websites such as Youtube, content produced with the Internet in mind cannot be taken to television. This is because television lacks the additional tools Youtube has that make the works themselves different (such as ultra wide distribution, free access, new thematic conventions based on Internet technology/culture) and the ability to be different to television in user/creator interactivity and the cultural space that allows experimental work to be done in sharp contrast to the often strict conventions of television that require a return on investment. Reverse compatibility only just works for television being ported to Youtube because television is upgraded by moving onto Youtube whereas Internet based programmes cannot be downgraded for television.
The present method of simply allowing a viewer to watch a standard television programme online is not enough to encourage a future where Youtube or sites like it are the future of television. However, some steps are being taken in this direction catering for audiences who are considered technically savvy by television makers. For instance, the writers of the remade Battlestar Galactica (2003) created a series of short web-only episodes thus taking a step forward. It used pre-existing sets, cameras and crew for example so the web content’s production values were just as high as the broadcast programme and like ZDF used minimal resources (hiring a few new actors, bandwidth costs etc) but they took two steps backwards when the ‘web only’ content was expanded exclusively for a DVD box set release. This physical distribution was anathema to the online fan culture that the very concept of ‘webisodes’ appealed to and were supported by.
Broadcasters that are willing to experiment such as Comedy Central rather than just try to increase television ratings or at the very least interact with online digital culture have begun the slow process of to having their channel eventually mirrored online. Whether they choose to serve an international audience and how they deal with local cultures will be interesting to observe, such as the Daily Show’s (1999) so called ‘International Edition’ and the place it will be given on the new official site.
Even though Youtube and television cross over, in some ways, television is more entrenched than ever in its ways of commissioning and producing programmes. It is extremely difficult for a programme to move past the stage of being a pilot (a prototype) or to stay on air if its viewing figures are deemed too low by the channel or its sponsors. Television channels want as high a market share as possible and usually only use the Internet to augment viewer figures for television.
Youtube as we know it may not be the future of all television, but television may adapt a part of itself to be compatible with Youtube’s ethos. Youtube wants to show everybody’s programmes and videos, viewer figures do not matter. Because it operates online Youtube can act as a repository and active users keep it fresh. Television is only starting to understand the potential their professionally made material would have in this environment.
Bibliography
Journals, Articles, Newspapers
European Journal of Communication Sage publications, ISSN 0267-3231 Volume 21 Number 3 September 2006
Digital Humanities Quarterly http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/001/2/index.html
Schiesel, Seth (2006) ‘The land of the video geek’ New York Times. USA
Books
Helm, Dieter (editor) Jenkinson, Tim (editor) (9 April 1998) Competition in Regulated Industries. Clarendon Press
Jenkins, Henry (September 1, 2006). Fans, bloggers and gamers, exploring participatory culture. NYU Press
Jennings, David (2007) Net, Blogs and Rock ‘n’ Roll: How Digital Discovery Works and What it Means for Consumers. London Nicholas Brealey Publishing.
Levy, Pierre, (1997). Collective Intelligence: Mankind’s emerging world in cyberspace. Perseus Books.
Olsson, Jan (Editor) (September 2004). Television After TV: Essays on a Medium in Transition. Duke University Press
Thorburn (October 1, 2004). Rethinking Media Change: The Aesthetics of Transition (Media in Transition) The MIT Press
Conference Papers
Financial Times Cable, Satellite & New Media Conference, 27th/28th of February 1995 Barry Spikings’ address
IFRA, Newspaper Techniques, January 1982. Third IFRA Symposium Report, December 3rd 1981.
The Web
http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Main_Page
http://www.nbc.com/30_Rock/video/episodes.shtml#vid=190356
http://www.thedailyshow.com/
www.webbalert.com Webb, Morgan WebbAlert (2007)
www.youtube.com
Appendix
Sorry, the image database is down. This will be fixed soon!
[1] Miodownik, Mark. Interview November 2007
[2] According to the Battlestar specific Wikipedia site Season Three of Battlestar Galactica (2003) has been broadcast in high-definition on Sky One in the UK and Ireland since January 9, 2007 and in North America on Universal HD since January 27, 2007.
[3] Miodownik, Mark. Interview November 2007
[4] http://de.blognation.com/2007/11/08/youtube-launches-in-germany/
[5] www.webbalert.com Webb, Morgan WebbAlert (2007)
[6] http://www.thedailyshow.com/
[7] http://www.nbc.com/30_Rock/video/episodes.shtml#vid=190356
[8] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lonelygirl15
[9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lonelygirl15</span>
Tags: constraints, cross media, jennings, marketing, television, youtube
-
19Aug
Visualisation is a new tool for representing information in a digital space. Like a graph it represents data visually which means it may be applied to maps, immersive visualisations such as realistic environs or used to quickly test the validity of older data[1]. However as an academic practice it has yet to achieve widespread accreditation outside its superficial qualities. The scope of this essay will be to analyse the London Charter covering its history, why it came about, the discussions that ensued before its parameters were decided and its subsequent implementation.
The London Charter is a document which offers guidance through a series of principles:
The current Charter (1.1) has eight key points:
Principle 1: Subject Communities
Principle 2: Aims and Methods
Principle 3: Sources
Principle 4: Transparency Requirements
Principle 5: Documentation
Principle 6: Standards
Principle 7: Sustainability
Principle 8: AccessibilityThese principles aim to enhance not just the academic reputation of visualization work but provide a benchmark for it. They may also be applied in offline work as they are not dependent on any type of technology. In the full text[2] there is a deliberate absence of technical standards. I asked Dr Hugh Denard, a key writer of the Charter, why this was the case[3]:
“An upfront idea was that the Charter had to be based on fundamental principles of what research requires and has to be independent of technology because that technology will change. Software will change, capabilities will change.”
It may be possible to open relations between a Charter body recognised by its adherents and the software industry to build in or incorporate Charter principles to software, i.e. assisting the implementation of metadata tags. Others have argued for a requirement for open source to be used however this did not gain a consensus[4].
There has been a past attempt to write something similar. The Arts Humanities Data Service created a guide to good practice[5] entitled “Creating and Using Virtual Reality” in 2002. It acts as a guide and introduction to virtual reality and covers points such as access, documentation methods and techniques. This is similar to the Charter but focuses much more on technical details. This previous effort will form the basis of comparison when considering how the Charter has furthered the cause for academic standards.
Because they are digitally based visualisations can use the Internet for distribution. A shared space such as Second Life means visualisations can be explored in a realistic manner. 3D visualisation can be an excellent way for the public to access humanities research due to its user friendly method of displaying research results. Much of the public and scholars outside the humanities can easily interact with and use visualisations. This is because users do not require special knowledge or training to learn and interact. Users are typically able to recall a lot of information when it is visual compared to prose or a string of statistics. Often visualisations mimic, or take inspiration from, the physical world. It may be only natural that visualisations interpret physical space into the electronic. This mimicry offers users a wide range of possibilities.
However perspectives as to the use of visualisation differ, for example, between theatre studies or archaeology. These and other conventional subjects will likely use visualisation differently because of their own subtleties and differing lines of questioning.
There can be problems with visualisation and its uses. Unlike prose or other standard means of study visualisation is very new. This means some problems and conventions have not yet been resolved and there are generational differences by way of use and creation. Multiple fields of academia can use visualisation[6] and this creates another complication as use of visualisation in these fields varies. The tools to create visualisations are becoming easier to use and cheaper to procure. However many new users experience difficulty as they are not trained or aware of many of the associated pitfalls.
The general yet subtly different uses of visualisation and its digital (i.e. new) nature have created major complications when work is assessed. Standard procedures such as peer review and scholarly apparatus do not lend themselves very well because visualisation communicates using a new medium. It uses visual (and often aural) methods, not just standard text and still images. Simple things like being able to annotate, reference and publish are totally alien and this information cannot be seen at a glance. A primary reason for writing the London Charter (L.C.) was to solve the transparency issues surrounding visualisation.
As computers became cheaper and the possibility of 3D reconstruction was realised there were discussions[7] about the problems associated with visualisation and the term “intellectual transparency”[8] was coined during the creation of the L.C.[9] It seemed that the primary issues in visualisation were lack of transparency and standards. Creating things on a technical level was initially costly but technique could be learned, but there were no set publication requirements or scholarly standards (for creating digital works) as is the case for peer reviewed journal articles. The technology is so new and different that normal ways of assessing worth and credibility are not viable.
However, there is much to be learned from basic non-digital ways of assessment including the need for a bibliography and the naming of research sources, for example. Knowing where information for the visualisation comes from increases reliability during the production and reception. Visualisation methods must be given the opportunity to develop and not dismissed out of hand. Conventional subjects have been in existence from several decades to several centuries. During this length of time communities have developed and assessment problems have been solved.
For 3d visualisation to be of scholarly quality it must conform to academic standards but scholars must let them be applied in new ways that suit the medium. The problem with offline academic standards is that many of them cannot be used without being significantly adapted. Footnotes, peer review and most scholarly apparatus cannot be directly inserted into a project as is possible with text. An archaeologist who reviews work may be using visualisation for complex acoustic analysis whereas the work submitted is based on something they have no experience of within their field. Both reviewer and creator are familiar with visualisation but they are using it to accomplish different goals. There are very few strict rules, unlike prose for example. These crossovers and the adaptable nature of visualisation work means work is often incongruous or difficult to review. Equivalent digital approaches to offline practices help. But metadata for example, is not widely equated with a normal bibliography, especially by a first time user or sceptics.
The other issue is that most projects are unique in execution so stringent conventions cannot be reasonably applied without causing restrictions on the project’s use of ideas and creativity. The general lack of uniformity amongst visualisations and the sometimes low skill of users often causes confusion and isolates projects from the mainstream of evaluative prose because those subjects do not typically use advanced digital tools. The requirement for standards arise not just to cover basic academic requirements but also the need for other subjects (many of which are extremely old) to be able to adjust to a digital age.
Technology can make a difference to visualisation projects but only when properly applied. Technology itself is often seen as a tool used to speed up a project whether it is sorting information in databases or transmitting the written word. Visualisation offers a different type of communication, i.e. immersion and 3d representation. It is important as humans gather a vast amount of data by visual means and new studies can be undertaken. The work of Adolphe Appia may be studied in a far more efficient manner using visualisation. Appia worked in the theatre and became a theorist on the ways of interaction of light and space during a time when electrical light started coming into mass use. Appia’s work was more than just writing and included lighting plots, stage construction, backgrounds and other elements[10]. By using visualisation, lights and stages can be rebuilt and changed in a realistic 3d environment at the speed of a mouse click and sound can surround a user. Even performances can be digitally recorded. This can all be done physically but digitally it can be re-imagined, such as changing Appia stage layouts or modelling live performances onto virtual sets. Prof. Beacham has undertaken studies of Appia’s work:
Using the usual tools of the trade, slides and text all of us suffered…from the perception that…we were dealing in the wrong media for what we were investigating, movement, sound, text, a synthesis. We had an intractable problem, we were trying to describe things in media that were not very fitting. The technology had not caught up to my imagination.[11]
This kind of study of Appia would be greatly aided by 3d visualisation because other mediums simply cannot recreate the aspects Beacham names. Denard wrote about the need for a visually unified object in the context of the Pompey Project[12]. Prose can describe, stage notes can record and film cannot be manipulated (at least not without expensive CGI) but none of them can recreate or re-imagine. In prose one can write about theatre structures or lighting. By using visualisation actual performances can be accomplished using motion capture. It is possible to use visualisation to make studies of light and sound in ancient theatres and then demonstrate the findings, as opposed to describing angles of incidence in literature and presenting acoustic statistics. Seeing and hearing augments these other traditional media by providing additional sensory reference.
Prose can only take a subject so far. Seeing an accurately recreated, interactive environment from a first person perspective is an entirely different experience and is strengthened, when presented with prose[13] and other scholarly communication means such as charts and maps. Martin Blazeby of King’s Visualisation Laboratory reconstructed a theatre that stood in the centre of Athens. It showed how light entered the building and how it behaved on stage. Prose would be an inadequate method of conveying this type of information.
There are different ways of looking at visualisation. There is the aforementioned theatre studies perspective, expanding old media into new and the archaeological, for example. Perspective is often influenced by subject communities. When one considers creating a visualisation, new media aspects become apparent. A synergy can be present as visualisations are often able to use aspects of other mediums, audio and motion picture material, for example. The QuickStop Visualisation Project[14] is an example of the integration of the synergistic possibilities of 3d visualisation. Its goal was to facilitate and enhance Internet based communication in the genre of message board posting and be a forum for discussion. Most aspects of the Charter applied, such as Principle 2: Aims and Methods (evaluating 3d as a correct avenue to pursue). However, Principle Six is a point that considers subject communities and encourages
“outcomes to be documented, to enable…optimum inter subject interoperability and comparability.” This was not completely applicable. This principle does not just refer to academic standards but also to community standards, interoperability and metadata considerations. As the project was based on film material there was not a wide range of visualisations or creators around which a community could be formed that was interested in communication, as opposed to basic recreation.Most Second Life visualisations that are similar to the QuickStop use fictional universes to their own ends in fandom, such as building game simulations based on copyrighted intellectual property. Community in such areas of culture intersect with fandom and the interests and goals of creators are often very distant, thus much of a community was absent aside from the fan clichés of screen accuracy and other such matters. Hollywood recently created a visualisation for I am Legend (Lawrence, 2007)[15] though its interest in these matters is not long lasting due to profit motives.
Principle Six can be difficult to implement because while some subject communities are already well developed outside of visualisation others are not. Even in the developed communities projects can vary according to how intransigent others are in that community. For example the Egyptology department of the British Museum is part of a wide community which obtained new data and made a display(Mummy: Inside Story, June 2004) that was compelling for researchers and museum visitors alike. A subject like new media for example is ill defined and adapting a new media idea to visualisation is more often seen as art and likely appeals to only a small audience or a sub community. The more culturally significant a subject is the more likely Principle 6 will be in place. Therefore this responsibility is more important to developed subject areas and more organised (i.e. older) communities. Smaller communities that use the Charter will probably start becoming more organised, though as it is, the principle is still reasonable to follow or adjust to. Even in small or growing communities this is important because it still encourages review, discussion and learning.
According to Pletinckx, the perspective of archaeology on visualisation is that of detail and recreation of different sites: “Archaeologists’ drawings have the major advantage that you can go in detail in certain areas and remain vague about certain other things, with 3D however, this is more difficult”[16]. Because one aspect of a visualisation may appear highly detailed, even though it may be as basic as a blueprint, users often take it as a sign of further complexity. Distinguishing differences and purposes is currently a skill that is difficult to master in a world of nuances. It seems there is a higher expectation of detail and quality due to 3d capabilities. An SGI idea was to digitally record everything that happened on a dig site for post dig visualisation but the recording would have taken days and required highly sophisticated equipment. A very public example of successful archaeological visualisation (that occurred before the Charter was written) is the Silicon Graphics, British Petroleum’s co-sponsorship of the British Museum’s Mummy: Inside Story. The purpose of the visualisation technology was to digitally take apart a sarcophagus. This project was led by Dr. John Taylor. Principles 2,4,5 and 7 were the ones that would have been of the most value to this project[17]. SGI provided the technology and BP provided much of the funding and the project was seen as a success. A short book[18] about it was published for museum visitors and the technology proved very useful for museum researchers.
The aims of the British Museum were to create a display to educate and inform those that visited about the Mummy that was examined. The aim of BP and SGI was to showcase their technical expertise. These aims initially blended well, as the technology was vital for the work but the SGI Onyx computer system was not compatible with other computers[19]. Whenever data about the Mummy was required the Onyx computer was the only terminal that researchers could use. Researchers were disappointed with this as the data was very useful. The Onyx system is now fifteen years old. It is clear that visualisation was the only route that could have been taken, aside from the highly undesirable step of physically disassembling the sarcophagus. It is clear from this experience that long term and short term objectives and the achievability of them depend on initial planning and the cooperation of stakeholders. Interoperability has to be kept in mind in order for more than one project or one group of researchers to benefit as in the future the result of those efforts may be inaccessible to other researchers. In this case limits on transparency prevented proper documentation of the technical side of the project and really limited sustainability of the research data. Using non-proprietary file formats for the data together with “creative commons”[20] rights management could help information to survive technological change.
Using a propriety system in a visualisation creates a potential weakness. The Onyx system was fit for purpose but not for the future. When planning a project a careful assessment of technical needs and what can reasonably be achieved must be made. The Charter has principles to guide on these issues and warns users against locked in methods due to future migration, dissemination issues and compatibility requirements. Past projects such as Mummy: Inside Story illustrate what could have been avoided. The involvement of private companies like SGI does not always mean propriety systems will be involved but a lot of software solutions do not have compatibility with other systems.
There were also issues with the technology being showcased and the display. The project was very SGI driven, thus raising the issue of the level of influence private investors may have in a public setting. In a public institution advanced technology is often out of reach because of budget constraints as is the training staff to use it. When a private firm donates time and equipment they have a high degree of leverage because of the near indispensable technology and expertise. Sponsors may be more interested in generating cultural capital (knowledge and contacts)[21] or brand awareness. Taylor stated[22]:
“It was hoped that more visualisation technology would be used at the museum in light of the Mummy. There wasn’t any formal organisation or Charter that you could point to, anything there to say this is beneficial and say this is the way forward.”
Besides being a series of relevant standards the Charter has the potential to influence the take up of visualisation and its development as a tool for academic and cultural use. There has been no formal assessment of the impact of Mummy: Inside Story. On the surface and according to Dr. Taylor it has not had a lasting impact by way of its tools and methods, however funding and sponsorship links may stem from it.
The L.C. is not so much about advocating visualisation but about the standards therein. Most projects use different technologies and software packages that will change and become obsolete. Commitment to the L.C. principles will help ensure that not only are a project’s results understood but the processes and research that generated it. Learning how and why elements are present in a project is essentially learning about a project’s research methodologies, sources and what has been extrapolated from tertiary data.
To this end many of the principles recommended by the Charter may seem difficult to implement, such as point 4.5
4.5 The high occurrence of dependency relations[23] (see Glossary) within 3d models means that, in order for the process and its outcomes satisfactorily to be evaluated, it may be necessary to disseminate documentation of the interpretative decisions made in the course of a 3d visualisation process and, as far as is practicable, the sources used.
Pletinckx has discussed [24] interpretation management and one of his key points is that in a complex project spanning multiple time periods he found
….the process of attributing a find or interpretation to a certain period is complex and highly interlinked, as the process of interpretation is complex and ever changing, I started to document my process and use it for discussions with archaeologists.
According to Pletinckx the process of “turning available sources into a 3d visualisation is far less defined”. This would likely move the Charter into the realm of “project creep” wherein additional features and designs slowly creep into a project and distort goals. This seems to be a bridge too far because of the strict nature that would seem to be required. The L.C. in this sense does not require rules on how to best make historical structures, as there are often case by case exceptions or the possibility of a strong sub-Charter.
This links into the dependency relationships of 4.5, i.e. making decisions that have an effect that moves beyond a single element. There is not much guidance on how to actually record these decisions as they can often be based in paradata[25]. Recording the process and workflow trail of traceable decisions and transparency seems to be the best method at the moment.
This also aids intellectual transparency because of the dissemination guideline. An explanation or documentation format showing dependency relations helps to demonstrate how different aspects of the project affected each other. Recording these in durable files and granting access is important in judging and learning about a project.
Not all the Charter’s guidelines are revolutionary and not all practitioners need reminding of all of them. However, because guidelines are created and existing ideas re-emphasised and unified in a single document, a degree of expectation is levelled on visualisation work in a community. This raises the quality of work, that desires to be taken seriously, up to a minimum level in the aspects of the Charter that apply to it. Newcomers to visualisation are able to build in aspects to their project to prevent it being only a learning experience. The Charter is at its most valuable here as it is open to interpretation according to the project and genre a project is in.As the Charter is a series of guidelines and principles specific details on good practice in some sections is absent, partially due to technical pressures and what would probably be seen as an overzealous regimen. This creates the possibility of mutable sub-charters that may work in these environments perhaps on a yearly basis or at the departmental level appropriate to the hardware and funding available.
For those undertaking visualisation for the first time technical knowledge is often assumed to be paramount. Training and using up to date tools is part of visualisation but at the end of a project (and during a project, according to the Pletinckx for example) there must be a traceable record. Eventually the technical aspect will become obsolete. In the future if it is necessary to reformat or update the project then sources and background must be retrievable to make a new model/visualisation (Principle 5: Documentation). Data and research are the core of a project and will form the basis of its intellectual worth upon review and use (present and future).
It is difficult to foresee perfect adherence to the Charter becoming common as for some projects a principle may be out of context or others may simply not apply.
This is an issue for the Charter and a boon to its adherents. Because few, if any, projects can be said to be perfect adherents the Charter’s future in UNESCO or other heritage organisations is unclear. When a code is applied project leaders want to tick every box. Because the Charter does not require or expect every principle to be followed project leaders wield a large degree of autonomy in deciding upon issues in individual cases. In a large wide scale visualisation effort it is foreseeable that there will be areas that are covered by all the principles of the Charter. This means that the Charter is easier to scale up as more of it is likely to be applicable to large projects compared to smaller focused efforts or in undeveloped communities. Because of this some projects may be unfairly judged by way of funding, credibility and quality. However the language of the Charter does not in any way encourage this discrimination.In 2002 the AHDS released the guide to “Creating and Using Virtual Reality”. There are a number of similarities and differences between the Charter and this guide. The Charter has a more developed sense of what visualisation is, partially because it was written several years later. This meant that many more visualisation projects had been completed[26] and technology had evolved. Methodology had changed partially because of the increase in visualisations that had been created and there was also an increased amount of collective experience. This creation of knowledge through practical experience in visualisation workflow meant more problems had been diagnosed and more experience had produced possible solutions.
The AHDS guide is more focused on 3d visualisations than the Charter and it instructs on technical aspects of virtual reality[27]. Like the Charter it is divided into sections. Much of the focus is on technical aspects of Java, X3D and some virtual reality formats. However it features recommendations for project documentation, archiving and the reasons behind using visualisation. Section 3 is about Virtual Reality Methods and Techniques. While it is a broad descriptor it discusses specific software such as AutoCAD, 3D Studio Max and has brief technical advice about 3d design, such as polygon counts and the level of detail. In the language of the London Charter a similar section may discuss the approach of a project to standards of detail appropriate to the user and the project. Overall this is very different because L.C. does not discuss specific technologies, but specific ways in which technology should be used in principle. This key difference between the two illustrates the value of not being tied down to specific technical issues.
Because of this approach the Charter is able to address the use of modern tools. It is standard for every new computer sold by major retailers in the last five years to have powerful graphics cards whereas in 2002 graphics cards had only just started to take grip outside the gaming market. These advances show technical hurdles becoming less important. This is the problem when talking about specific technology as it changes rapidly and hardware guides become obsolete. New methods for disseminating information for example are not limited to website downloads but are accessible on blogs or podcasts, techniques nearly unknown in 2002.
One of the key ideas of the Charter is that of intellectual transparency, a term coined during the initial drafting. This is where the Charter differs from prior efforts such as the AHDS guide. The AHDS guide does offer a section on reporting project outcomes and for project documentation but it is not on the same level of scholarly apparatus of other fields. The AHDS states in point 5.4 (Documenting: Methods and Techniques) of the guide that “This will help with both maintenance and testing of the model and in archiving it for subsequent reuse”. This does not go as far as intellectual transparency in the Charter. This does not stem from want of effort on the part of the writers of the guide but to the very recent development of high level 3d visualisation possibilities.
Transparency is an issue for all projects. Free, yet proprietary methods are often used. A present day example of this is Google Maps being used to map archaeological finds or spatial data. Google Maps is well produced, accessible and easy for users to find and learn from. However future reverse compatibility is unknown and Google may go out of business taking these applications with it. The future of the technology itself is also uncertain as technology changes and improves. It may be argued that the raw data may always be input to a new system but this is very labour intensive and time consuming. For the present however high level GIS systems remain extremely costly and the free yet impressive Google Maps is very helpful to many low/no budget projects as it enables sharing of information. This comes at the cost of transparency and in some cases documentation. The other extreme was the call for an open source requirement (this happened in a prior Charter drafting meeting). Open source software is free and open but often does not come close to professional programmes in capabilities or reliability. Opensourcegis.org[28] for example is still a work in progress.
The argument for transparency is reminiscent of scientific subjects which require it for independent recreation. Conventional scholarship (in this context, offline work) is assessed on several levels: quality of research, presentation of material, ethics, plagiarism and level of sophistication[29] to name but a few. For visualisation several of these qualities apply in principle but cannot be displayed in the same way. For the Theatron project, research was clearly carried out, ethics were in place and it was reviewed by other scholars. The background work involved in researching information for a visualisation work is similar to researching prose or other conventional analyses such as resolving architectural queries. A bibliography, as is found in prose, will likely be present in any written material for a project as well as references, but in the form of metadata.
The difference between the conventional methods and visualisation is in the execution and presentation of work and the method in which the project and its research is recorded. Visualisations can’t implement standard scholarly documentation methods such as footnotes and cannot really be quoted, as prose can. The work generated from the research can only be built on as long as the platform is operational and appropriate to the target audience but it is rare for a 3d model to be reused (though research can be). In order to combat technological obsolescence documentation is vital. The Charter has emphasised this more than the AHDS guide and is seeking to make visualisation a more open process.
There are possible solutions to documentation issues that presently are unfriendly to pre-digital users. Michael Stocking of Armadillo is considering allowing users to leave notes in Turning The Pages (TTP) books, like annotating with post-it notes. Non-digital printed works can be responded to by being quoted and analysed or manually annotated and easily revised years later. As TTP is generally considered the best 3d book visualisation it was seen as a weakness that a user could not interact with it on this basic level. In the Second Life platform message receptacles may be put in the visualisation so that users can submit their comments but this is not the same as being annotated or quoted.
Metadata, documentation and presentation standards must be at least as high as in other academic fields in order for a project’s research and data to be resurrected, in a later 3d visualisation for example. This is described as being “technology independent[30]”. Andrew Baker, also of King’s Visualisation spoke on this subject[31].
“We accomplish our research, record paradata, so that when I come to doing something in five years time, all the information has been recorded. The visualisation is just the end point.”
The “end point” of a visualisation will eventually become obsolete. By using Charter principles research can be technology independent and thus continue to yield value after the project has ended or is placed in an archive and still be accessible and transparent. The future of visualisations will depend on forming unified methodologies or principles that will allow for decentralised decision making based on the unique nature of a project and its intended audience. As visualisation becomes more common and the digital culture gains a mainstream foothold in academia new applications for visualisation may be forthcoming in conventional academic subjects. As the London Charter becomes more refined and venerable these challenges outside of cutting edge digital study may change it or generate more specific sub-charters, however this still lies on the road ahead.
Bibliography
Websites
3D Visa
http://3dvisa.cch.kcl.ac.uk/projectlist.html Retrieved November 2007
The 3d Visa site contains a list of visualisations and is a generally interesting reference for visualisation events and news.AHDS Creating and Using Virtual Reality: a Guide for the Arts and Humanities
http://vads.ahds.ac.uk/guides/vr_guide/ Retrieved February 2008
An early forerunner of the London Charter that reveals the opinion and viewpoint of an earlier time in visualisation. It discusses specific technology. It shares some vaguely similar points with the London Charter and is useful for showing the development of visualisation ideas since.http://creativecommons.org/
Creative Commons is a new method for creators of material, be they visualisationists, teachers or scientists to brand their work with the types of freedoms and rights they want it to carry.The London Charter, initial paper
http://www.londoncharter.org/Beacham-Denard-Niccolucci_paper.doc Retrieved February 9 2007
This paper outlines the thoughts and reasoning that generated the initial drafts of the London Charter and provides valuable insights to the origins and opinions of the authors.The Online tour of the Mummy: Inside
http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/online_tours/egypt/mummy_the_inside_story/mummy_the_inside_story.aspx
This online tour offers a guide to the Mummy exhibit and explanation behind the use of the specific technology involved. It also provides the reasons for such a high tech and focused survey of a sarcophagus. The Mummy provides a waypoint in the study of visualisation because of the interaction with private sponsorship inside a museum setting. This is because of the technology involved and the limitations of what a museum is able to in a new digital era.The QuickStop Visualisation Blog
http://quickstopvisualisation.blogspot.com/ Retrieved February 14th 2008
This is a brief example of how some aspects of the Charter do not yet apply to all areas of visualisation. It also demonstrates the transparency and dissemination principles.SGI’s: Mummy: Inside
http://www.sgi.com/company_info/features/2004/june/mummy/
This press release is indicative of the approach SGI took with regard technology and the assistance provided to the British Museum.
Theatron, Created by the King’s Visualisation Lab http://www.kvl.cch.kcl.ac.uk/THEATRON/ Retrieved November 2007
The Theatron website is a useful example of the potential of visualisation on a large scale with a direct relation to a conventional field of academic interest, Classical Studies.Lectures, Interviews
Prof. Beacham, Lecture, Kay House, 2007, Application of visualisation
Professor Beacham explained the application of visualisation in ways such as motion capture, stage construction, light and acoustics in an enlightening lecture. He focused on theatre history and its new possibilities with visualisation..Dr. Denard, Hugh Interview February 2008, Centre for Computing in the Humanities Drury Lane, London.
A primary author of the London Charter, Dr. Denard has worked in visualisation for several years. Our discussion focused on why, how and who in the development and reasons behind the London CharterDr. Adams, Ruth Dr Lectures, Culture and Commerce, November 2007
These lectures have been useful in determining the place of visualisation amongst a myriad methods of disseminating and displaying cultural works in a time of corporate sponsorship and financial crises at public institutions.Dr. Taylor, John. Telephone, February 2008 discussion with Dr. Taylor detailed the attitude and aims of the British Museum during The Mummy: Inside Story project. His main point was the wish that the visualisation technology had had more of an effect on the institution and its thinking. He felt the Charter was an excellent step forwards.
Articles
Denard, Hugh “Virtuality and Performativity: Recreating Rome’s Theatre of Pompey” Performing Arts Journal 70 (2002) 25-43
The article presents a strong argument for the use of visualisation and a clear and unequivocal display of the strengths for it as a research and communications medium.Pletinckx, Daniel Interpretation management, Pre-print, 2008
An EPOCH Common Infrastructure Tool, for Interpretation Management
How to make Sustainable Visualisations of the Past 2008
Pletinckx presents a paper about making visualisations of the past sustainable. He discusses assessment, source correlation and sets benchmarks for research time compared to visualisation construction. A tool is presented for interpretation management and methodology is discussed in detail.Digital Archaeology: Design Research and Education. Connecting Historical Narratives and Digital Environments (in Special Section: The Planetary Collegium) Lily Díaz Leonardo, Vol. 31, No. 4. (1998), pp. 283-287.
The article provides an introduction to Digital Archaeology and the interdisciplinary needs of the field from archaeologists and artists. It also argues that digitally assisted work is vital for disseminating information.Books
History of Art in the Digital Age. Problems and Possibilities. Digital Art History: A Subject in Transition, eds. Anna Bentkowska-Kafel, Trish Cashen, Hazel Gardiner, Intellect, 2005.
A series of papers that delve into 3d visualisations by way of digital art, collections and archives but also computer gaming. Gaming is the most widespread form of 3d visualisation, often encompassing worlds with excruciating detail. Many visualisations do not achieve this and mainstream gaming may be an example to follow. It also has an interesting discussion on interface design.A Companion to Digital Humanities, ed. Susan Schreibman, Ray Siemens, John Unsworth. Oxford: Blackwell, 2004
An interesting examination of a number of aspects to humanities computing such as the visualisation and furthering of print media in an online space (section twenty five) as well as aesthetics.Beacham, Adolphe Appia: Texts on Theatre Routledge; 1 edition (1993)
Beacham’s book on Appia presents many writings from all the major Appia works. Appia’s use of light and stage construction were extremely influential to theatre and Beacham’s work is widely thought of as seminal in theatre studies.William J. Mitchell City of Bits: Space, Place, and the Infobahn
http://books.google.com/books?id=MxOgb9RWpKAC&dq=city+of+bits+book&pg=PP1&ots=3jRjExNg0H&sig=_Du7DpgI0eB33geZJW3pGyTKxEU&hl=en&prev=http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=opera&rls=en&hs=ER0&q=city+of+bits+book&btnG=Search&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail
Mitchell’s book was simultaneously released online for free and in print. He discusses the redefinitions of “space, personal identity and subjectivity” and the radical affect the Internet is having on physical rules.Papers
Bernard Frischer, Franco Niccolucci, Nick Ryan, Juan A. Barceló. From CVR to CVRO: The past, present and future of cultural virtual reality. 2000
The paper presents the idea of a guild for those interested in visualisation, the CVRO. It serves as a barometer for opinions about visualisation in cultural heritage as the CVRO wishes to go a step further that defining standards. In fact this is one of the last listed goals. It mainly puts weight and ideas behind “defining and defending the interests of its members“. This idea that a guild could be created is not one present in the London Charter.M. J. Pringle The Use of Virtual Reality for the Visual Presentation of Archaeological Information – PhD Thesis – Cranfield University 2000
4.2.1 Archaeological Illustration and VIT
A breakdown on two points of view in the representation of archaeological material, “recording and reconstruction”. It promotes a methodical approach in the area of technology and purpose and the idea that the visual path is the best to the human brain.The London Charter
http://www.londoncharter.org/ retrieved November 1st 2007
The London Charter presents a series of important, if not vital, principles for guiding visualisation attempts. It does not refer to technology but explains how technology as a concept might best be used in visualisation and subsequent documentation and dissemination.Miscellaneous
English Department Res Handbook http://www.kcl.ac.uk/schools/humanities/english/current/postgraduates.html
Brief reference material for the expectations on academic work in a conventional subject.[1] A key example of this is Blazeby’s as of yet unpublished work on verifying past archaeological drawings of a theatre in Athens.
[2] http://www.londoncharter.org/ retrieved November 1st 2007
[3] Denard, Hugh Interview February 6th 2008
[4] London Charter meeting, late 2007
[5] http://vads.ahds.ac.uk/guides/vr_guide/
[6] http://3dvisa.cch.kcl.ac.uk/projectlist.html Retrieved November 2007
[7] http://www.londoncharter.org/Beacham-Denard-Niccolucci_paper.doc retrieved February 9 2007
[8] Intellectual transparency has no strict formal definition but in the Beacham-Denard-Niccolucci paper the purpose of transparency is listed as follows: “….it must be possible for those communities to evaluate the choice of a given visualisation method, and how it has been applied in a particular case without having to rely exclusively on the “authority claims” of the author”.
[9] Denard, Hugh Interview February 6th 2008
[10] Beacham, Adolphe Appia: Texts on Theatre, Routledge; 1 edition (July 28, 1993)
[11] Beacham, Lecture, Kay House, 2007, Application of visualisation
[12] Denard, Hugh “Virtuality and Performativity: Recreating Rome’s Theatre of Pompey” Performing Arts Journal70 (2002) 25-43
[13] http://www.kvl.cch.kcl.ac.uk/THEATRON/ Retrieved November 2007
[14] http://quickstopvisualisation.blogspot.com/ Retrieved February 14th 2008
[15] http://iamlegendsurvival.warnerbros.com/ Retrieved February 15th 2008
[16] Pletinckx, Daniel Interpretation management, Pre-print, 2008
[17] Principles 2 Aims and Methods, 4 Transparency Requirements, 5 Documentation, 7 Sustainability
[18] Mummy : The Inside Story by John H. Taylor (2004) HNA Books.
[19] According to Dr. Taylor migrating the data does not appear likely.
[20] http://creativecommons.org/ Retrieved February 21st 2008
[21] Dr. Adams, Ruth Lecture, Culture and Commerce, November 2007
[22] Dr. Taylor, John, Telephone interview, February 2008
[23] Dependency relations are defined by the Charter as “A dependent relationship between the properties of elements within 3d models, such that a change in one property will necessitate change in the dependent properties.”
[24] Pletinckx, Daniel Interpretation management, Pre-print, 2008
[25] Paradata is the constant decision making workflow, whether it is based on prototype sketches or mental cognitive processes. The Charter states in the glossary “Paradata is thus constantly being created, irrespective of whether they are systematically recorded or disseminated.”
[26] http://3dvisa.cch.kcl.ac.uk/projectlist.html Retrieved November 2007
[27] http://vads.ahds.ac.uk/guides/vr_guide/sect25.html Retrieved February 29th 2008
[28] http://opensourcegis.org/
[29] English Department Res Handbook http://www.kcl.ac.uk/schools/humanities/english/current/postgraduates.html February 2008
[30] Denard, Lecture, 2008, Drury Lane.
[31] Baker, Blazeby, Lecture, 2008 Drury LaneTags: 3d, Charter, digital visualisation, london charter, TLC
-
19Aug
The two extremes of the digitisation of text are represented by high end custom book simulation work and mass flat scanning. Both of these techniques and their variants offer new opportunities to readers and libraries alike. For the first time libraries have the opportunity to display a precious book on a digital shelf making it accessible to everyone. However, different institutions are digitising materials in diverse ways. The British Library (BL) is currently sponsoring high end digitisation work of a very limited number of books from its Treasures collection in a custom high end format named Turning The Pages (TTP)[1]. Google has a Books [2] project which places emphasis on the other end of the spectrum, mass quantity, digitising at least three thousand books per day
These different methods each have their own strengths. Mass digitisation is adept at taking large print media stacks and producing flat images for the world to see. However, it often has a lower than optimal resolution and digitisation errors are common. The British Library supported high end digitisation of a very few, select treasured books producing photo realistic simulations, also for the general public but this is very costly. There are efforts which fall in between. Gutenberg.org[3] uses plain text only, often user submitted, no illustrations or scans and it only distributes material in the public domain, rare or not. There are other more ad hoc efforts such as some of the entries at archive.org which use scans of books similar to the large scale effort of Google Books.
The BL’s and Google’s usually contrasting efforts are producing a new way of treating users, possibly as a consequence of digital culture. Recently the British Library has made it clear that it wishes to go much further into digital technology[4], most likely to preserve the relevance of an offline medium in an online era. Mass digitisation is providing new and easier ways for users to obtain the information they want about a book they want.
There are still a number of matters to solve in both mass and high end digitisation. There are different scalability issues at each end of the spectrum and cultural problems within institutions that are not cutting edge technology companies. Both still have a long way to go in the realms of interface, scalability and searching. Currently, searching for digital texts is difficult for much of the public due to obsolete library search systems and by the fact that users do not experience a regular design or level of quality.
In the future these projects may have to find a middle ground on which to establish a shared idea for a digital library. At this point an access strategy will be needed as many books will already have been digitised. They will require storage and retrieval from an institution. Ideas such as consistent design and user interaction will need consideration.
The opposite ends of digitisation
As stated the BL is using the TTP format produced by Armadillo Systems[5], sponsored by Microsoft[6]. TTP gives users an unique opportunity to use computers to virtually turn the pages of rare and precious books. Users may also manipulate those books by rotating, magnifying, reading/hearing translations and use directional lighting. The system has the ability to simulate different mediums such as vellum, paper, leather, shows shining inlaid gold and presents books at full scale[7]. I spoke to Geoff Hughes, of Microsoft’s Reading office about TTP: “It is a very niche application… making it as realistic as possible gives users a feeling that they are being given access to something special.”[8] Viewing the book itself anchors it in reality and is the only method really able to convey organic qualifiers such as age. TTP is the only simulation that tries to achieve this virtually and in context (though for scholars viewing the physical book will remain the best mode of study). The methods used by Google Books present a flat page from a book and are often hyperlinked[9]. They are perfectly serviceable as reading material but not in representing books or observing a physical remnant of the past.Google is interested the content of books, not on how users actually interact with regular books or other print media as TTP is. Google aims to distribute as many books as possible and scanning them is a low cost and high speed way of achieving this. Google’s goal is to generate a two dimensional web display in which a user can choose from a large repository of books. TTP does not seek to simulate every book ever written whereas mass digitisation wishes to digitise as many books as it can as quickly as possible. TTP is also limited to only a few thousand books compared to the potential millions for a project such as Google’s (there is no official statement on how many books have been digitised so far). TTP has completed approximately twenty complex book simulations over a period of a few years including a few of the British Library’s rare works and books of the Treasures[10] collections and put them online.
These Treasures and rare books are so precious that most library users cannot obtain access. In the past they have remained inside display cases and a curator turned a page once every few months at best. This is disjointed and locks a valuable item into one place. TTP is an attempt to solve this problem by digitising the material in order to provide wide access not dependent on time or location and provide an experience that goes beyond showing a photograph through direct user interaction. TTP has begun thinking about user needs, specifically the experience of reading a book and how that interaction can be served better now that most of the public have access to computers and the Internet. The Internet and the public’s general access to computers is of great advantage for digitisation projects as a digitised text may be distributed quickly and to many people.
Google Books’ mass scanning is limited to an Internet display whereas TTP has also produced a touch screen kiosk version of their software. As opposed to moving a mouse or using a keyboard and on screen buttons the touch screen recalls using a book. Users touch the edge of a page and drag it across the screen, literally turning it. Rather than be difficult to use or distinguish the act of reading a digital version of a book from a real one it chooses to emulate the book[11]. This is very important as it is very different from how one would normally use a computer (i.e. clicking on an arrow button that says “Next page”) and very similar to turning the page of a real book. It has a very low learning curve as it is simple and life like[12]. Digital tactile interaction with the book draws a member of the public to the closest point of using a book before using the actual book itself. Because of these triggers of agency users feel as if they are reading a book, not just staring at a screen, if only psychologically.
It is very rare for a standard user to read an entire book off a computer screen. This is because in the past the computerised interface of presenting a book’s text has been abstract and based on the conventions of the computer. Digitising and displaying books as TTP is doing is a new perspective on how to treat normal readers because it not only liberates text from a restrictive offline medium but offers an interface that is rewarding to use. It appeals to the normal reader by using physical conventions of reading and digitising them. An important achievement of TTP has been how it has reached out to the general public to enable them to access, to an extent, some of the rare books in an intriguing manner.
This appeal to a normal reader and the considerable effort put into making the simulation seem book like in terms of interaction does not mean that TTP is a substitute for the actual book in all cases. Scholars for example have an interest in these texts already and usually want to study specific details[13] rather than the more general aspects of a book. According to Gardiner the main issue the academic community has with digital material overall is that the digital is not physically real or of high enough quality. Simulation, colour correcting and page turning are all artificial[14] and often far from what is desired. For the non-high-research oriented users these scholarly barriers of simulation are what makes it interesting. The reason for the ease of interaction and the page turning simulation is to make these rare and valuable books accessible and give the a reader a compelling reason to read them. Therefore there is a difference between high level research needs and the display methodology that TTP presents for normal users.
One may see the page turning and other aspects of the simulation as a skeuomorph[15] because computers don’t have or necessarily need pages but this point of view does not take into account why TTP has a display method reminiscent of a museum. Given the method of display in the gallery like layout of the TTP programme[16] and the “book as object, as art” goals of Armadillo one could say that TTP was less about reading and more about placing emphasis on visual qualities and the visual impact. This is the kind of affect a tome will have that has likely never been seen before by most of the public and TTP takes advantage of this in its simulation of rare and valuable works.
What TTP is able to do effectively that mass digitisation cannot is display these more general aspects of the book. One example of this are their physical dimensions. Physical size is important[17] not just to the provenance of the book but also the comparison to others[18] and the affect that size has had on the content. A mass digitised PDF file or similar method does not translate such physical distinctions like depth very well or other elements that TTP simulates such as binding, raw materials or light sources. Viewing the inside of the TTP books, especially the ones that have several illustrations, demonstrates the sometimes strange aspect in the relationship between text and images that low end or text only digitisation is unable to effectively render. These broad page sized features work well in a TTP scenario. Codices by da Vinci for example use hand writing and sketches in tandem to illustrate concepts and ideas.
These simulation aspects of TTP have been the product of new thinking in how to serve user needs in a digital age. To this end it can be seen as a kind of experimentation in how to help users interact with digital texts in more meaningful ways. This applies on a per user level and with the viewing of rare books but also potentially more extensively. It is a valid first step into realistic digital simulations of rare books because it shows that they can be represented better than previously thought and challenges the general notion that print media is always best.
Due to the different methods and objectives of mass and high end digitisation each has their own scalability and search problems. Working with pre-digital works is more complicated because computers were not used in the production or printing of them leading to subtly different layouts and unusual artistry. This means TTP requires precise image capture and skilled human driven image editing. Despite the advancement of being able to “plug” scans into the newest version of TTP and build the virtual version of a book in a matter of minutes the preparation for producing a TTP simulation is still time consuming and labour intensive. If more than a few hundred books are to be given the TTP treatment there will be the issue of users searching for and correlating information. This is an instance where one mass digitisation project has an advantage, Google already has a well branded search technology that suits the average Internet user due its “fuzziness” in search results. This is not cataloguing books in a conventional sense but enabling a much wider search pattern than a typical library catalogue. Mass digitisation, on the other hand, has the scalability problem of quantity over quality[19]. There is also the problem of mistakes in either the metadata or by scanning hands[20].
Scalability and Searching on different levels
Because so many works are being digitised (approximately one million per year in Google’s project alone) access and scalability are now key causes of concern[21]. If a digital library is to take shape then provisions must be made for interaction and management. Digitising large quantities of material moves digitisation work away from being carefully curated one-off projects towards the creation of a true digital library. This is because more works will be downloaded and a more complex underlying storage and access infrastructure is required.Access to digital texts does not initially appear to be difficult as library card catalogues are a mature technology. But if a modern digital library is to be assembled from the results of mass digitisation then a search system based on old card catalogue methods is non-applicable. The reason libraries have online catalogues is because they quickly and autonomously return results. However, the digital era has spawned new ideas such as collective intelligences, Wikipedia, new ways of searching such as Google and new ways of supplementing information already present with user input. These are already in operation on websites such as Amazon.com. Library aims and objectives are compatible with digitisation but not all of the offline tools, that libraries have used to achieve their objectives prior to the digital era, are and many are now inadequate.
At present most users initially search for a required piece of information using Google or another Internet search engine. However, those engines do not take into account the database entries of libraries as database queries are not input by Web Crawlers (though it is possible to make a database’s fields “Google visible”). Internet search engines are only able to search a small proportion of the Web and do not even “see” the Deep Web which is thought to be vast even when compared to the Internet itself. The current mode of catalogue construction libraries currently use, in the face of modern ways of searching, prevents a user from finding a library’s books efficiently.
What is disappointing about the way that libraries themselves are using these online catalogues is the basic and unfriendly construction at most libraries’ websites which forms a barrier and precludes full and proper access to materials. The British Library’s online catalogue does not recommend texts (though it stores prior searches), nor does it present worthwhile visual information or enhance the user’s experience. Unconventional resources such as Archive.org use a relatively complex interface and multiple colours to differentiate sections[22], links for example are in the standard blue and sections are separated by a red boundary which contain a title. Using colour Archive.org constructs an easy mode of navigation whereas the British Library only uses it to mark buttons.
Fig 1. The British Library Search interface.
Figure 1 is the present interface of the British Library search function. Note the greys, bright blue and black colouration. This visual appearance assists the visually impaired as the colours are few and markedly different. However, colours have a lot more potential beyond making parts of the page distinctive because colour can naturally act as a pathway for a user (Nielsen, Loranger, 2006, p214). The BL’s interface’s colouration may seem unfriendly and difficult to interpret, apart from the basic text information. The colours Archive.org uses and how it uses them are an improvement on the BL’s because of their near intuitive nature but in using many colours it has become more complex.
The British Library must recognise that they are in competition with a host of other online resources many of which provide a far more satisfying interface. While the BL’s interface and those of other search catalogues are functional in colour and layout there are very few users who gain a pleasant experience apart from being able to order a specific book using the focused search algorithms. The limited fields (author, title and others) are useful only in searching for a specific text that a user already knows exists.
Amazon.com is an example of how digital ideas can be used in this area. It has a different goal in mind to the British Library, generating revenue through sales. It uses the Internet to present books in an attractive and interesting way instead of listing just basic information[23] (author, title and so on). These different ideas in searching methodology represent the ideas of document retrieval and data retrieval.
The British Library catalogue presents a user with an answer (in a yes or no manner) to the question “Do you have a copy of this book?” Commercial media sellers are still able to return an answer to this question but by using a different idea of searching, results present additional information. The Amazon approach to the results of a search provide excerpts and users may view a random page from a book with the “Surprise me feature”, this is similar to the Google Books approach of being able to view a whole page, albeit at random. Covers are presented to give a visual reference for the book and the product page lists a series of other similar books “Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought:” providing links to possible areas of interest. This is important because it moves searching beyond just looking for a known text and presents a user with alternatives and other books they may not know about. A key area is the “Inside This Book” section. Because this section lists statistically improbable phrases and the citations in the book and other books that cite it, links are created to other books automatically giving rise to a flow of relevant information. Typically citation data like this are secured in academic databases requiring paid subscriptions for access (though the Amazon versions are not wholly academic in style).
There are other useful features as well such as the “Tags Customers Associate with Similar Products”. The British Library lists basic data such as subject and ISBN in a series of grey boxes. This lack of networking between sources of information is an outdated mode of searching. Library databases are fortunate in that their fields are grouped pertaining to a specific work. The Amazon methodology is clearly a better search experience and persuasive. It’s search methodology says “Yes we have this book and here are all the interesting things about it, a picture and some related books too”.
Amazon is an example of how using modern digital techniques is much better than using mature offline card catalogue ideas. This does not stem just from the display of extra information, Amazon also harnesses collective intelligence. This is a term to describe a group of people who freely give and enhance basic information[24] and is a way of obtaining obscure information and analysis of a subject that exists outside of most metadata schemes. This improves other users’ experience and increases the speed of searches and selection of material. The Archive.org method of allowing user input shows this is a possibility for libraries and instead of purchasing complicated catalogue data it may be possible for it to be provided freely by a collective intelligence[25]. Libraries could share it, making only the initial purchase of the basic record. Inevitably there will be erroneous data but because of the sheer volume of data[26] librarians may only have to carry out a supervisory role instead of researching and writing material.
The potential scale for such items is reasonably high. Gutenberg.org has between ten and twenty thousand books and the British Library (among others) has millions. This disparity in volume may initially appear daunting but there are now ten million Wikipedia articles[27] in a variety of languages and many different independent groups are using Wiki architecture such as Prestospace[28]. Prestospace is an archiving website and it holds many detailed articles[29] proving that many people are interested in contributing lengthy[30] and usually accurate information[31]. Wikipedia has successfully weathered the initial barrage of hostility and has a relatively long history (based on the life expectancy of most websites). Current catalogue methods are seen as mature but Google and Wiki technology are a major change in how information is found, created and shared. Offline cataloguing technology might be mature but online technology has a lot of potential. In a digital era normal data fields with the possibility of Wiki-like manipulation[32] may be more suitable. This interaction could be an excellent outreach method with not only subject communities but library users in general due to the increased potential for interaction and collaboration between them and the library.
When it comes to requesting books after a search and discovery process the BL method is reminiscent of very offline ideals. The current BL system requires a user to add each individual book to a list, confirm each request then specify each book’s date and pick up location. To a reader using this system for the first time this will be unusual and difficult as they will likely be familiar with modern e-commerce systems. One cannot complete an action for an entire group or preload a “favourite” pick up point. A user having to repeat the same action multiple times is probably going to make a mistake. Compared to Amazon’s add to cart and one click ordering this is less than optimal. Memorising a few key user details is not a major step and is a basic component of e-commerce systems. Updating obsolete request controls might be considered as an investment in modernising the system as opposed to just being an aesthetic choice.
It may be argued that selling books is not the main purpose of the British Library. And although all the colour, interface enhancements and other aspects of Amazon make for a better experience and search inside a book and so on are visually gratifying they would ultimately be surplus to requirement. This would be correct if every user knew precisely what they were looking for and wished to view only that specific item. However because an Amazon user can preview a book, learn more about it than just basic data and look at similar books along with two types of citations, knowledge and information gathering is radically improved and most importantly so is a user’s decision making. The search function is more efficient because more sources of information are identified in a shorter period of time and are gathered without user intervention yet remain in context to the original search parameters.
On the other hand libraries are staffed by knowledgeable librarians[33]. This is yet to be well simulated by digital methods and is a weakness of the digital library. Librarians are very helpful to patrons looking for books and in assisting them in locating other libraries which may hold a book that is difficult to locate. This is especially true when a patron does not quite know what they may be looking for. In a possible future users would be granted immediate access to a number of digital texts with the reinforcement of a physical location and back up of human information specialists.
Overall, not allowing a preview of the text prevents a user from really determining if a book is worth their time or the journey to a library and when in doubt a user’s interest ceases[34]. The library industry has recognised the need for online searching but has generated an online card catalogue. As is often the case, moving an old medium into a new medium but failing to grasp the tools of the new medium represents a technological change but not one that is entirely capitalising on the new possibilities[35]. The standard procedures of consumer sites are clearly far more successful. Their adaptation to library oriented aims and goals would improve user accessibility to library materials backed up by human assistance which would encourage more people to read more books.
Present day digital libraries and development
Because some libraries are completely digital, such as Project Gutenberg[36]. They are organised and distributed online. Gutenberg is an example of loyal users generating content and this has been a growing online trend. Providing a zone in which users may aid a library and assist in generating information about texts would harness the power of a large collective intelligence. Ordinary libraries use the Internet differently, usually to augment their physical readership and search functions, such as the British Library with a series of gradual motions moving towards online reading.The requirement to provide a wealth of information is no longer the sole requirement as there are usually many different information sources online. Libraries now need to adjust their focus on the user by embracing digital culture.
They must communicate with their users in new and innovative ways which is what will keep institutions intact while enabling them to capture and sustain interest in a time when there are many repositories for text.In the greater scheme of things more research will be needed as to the best way of developing digital libraries and using shared ideas if progress is to made. The current impact of the digital era on libraries and creators of texts is that of granting the opportunity to change interaction. Having text in a digital form gives it the properties of portability and perfect replication. A computer server with digital texts may act as a virtual printing press. The creators of this new culture have not fully saturated the creative industries or the field of library sciences thus a cultural divide exists.
For now libraries will have to work with digitisers and overcome the difficulties of cataloguing works that are only digital in nature (Cope, Mason, 2002). The rapid access and other opportunities that mass digitisation represent are that of protecting the library in a digital age from being bypassed or forgotten because they will still be able to provide books, but digitally. However this depends on the tools being well implemented and not restrained by the ideas and conventions of old tools and media. To this end there must be a shared idea of the digital library to provide a forum for discussion and development.
The contents of some libraries are more modern texts, other libraries are older and have not only vast modern collections but tens of thousands of rare books and hundreds of incredibly rare and valuable tomes. This means the technical requirements of individual libraries in digitisation are different but their general aims of being a source of knowledge are not. For the digital library providing increasing access to texts is a key reason for libraries to digitise. The physical library could not be used as well or be as accessible without its texts being searchable in the digital domain. This symbiotic relationship generates versatility and improves the library’s service to the public/user at a relatively low cost. For the British Library the Digital Object Management Programme may be the beginning of a large scale digital library[37].
This essay has looked at the two extremes of digitisation, the small number of valuable books being simulated by TTP at the BL and the millions of present day books that are being mass scanned by organisations like Google. They may seem like very separate entities but both try to give books to users and in that sense they have a potential for unity. The major differences are in how people interact with the results of their projects. But both create books that will be “opened” and looked at if it is a mass scan or a rare book simulation. Producing a unified experience for the modern digital user would be beneficial as libraries need to focus on users differently than in the past. Understanding how users interact with digitised material now and thinking about how to make this process converge for both rare and mass books will be an important step in establishing a centre ground.
Such an integration of rare and mass digitisation in a single physical form, a digital book, may establish an increased potential for presenting both types of text to an audience. The book as machine[38] would not be considered a skeuomorph as it developed into a digital device but a logical progression. Technology ideally lowers the barriers between the user and text, both rare and present day works and successful engineering should make those barriers invisible. In the time of punch cards these ideas were unimaginable but now with modern online collective intelligence and new digital tools books have a greater potential value than ever before.
Bibliography
Websites
http://www.archives.gov/digitization/ Retrieved February 13th 2008
http://www.armadillosystems.com/books.htm Retrieved February 10th 2008
http://www.bl.uk/about/annual/2006to2007/audiofiles/annualreport07voice.mp3
Retrieved March 12th 2008
http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/ttp/digitisation.html Retrieved March 2nd 2008
http://books.google.com/ Retrieved December 2007
http://www.britishpathe.com/faq.html Retrieved February 2008
http://www.futureofthebook.org/blog/archives/2006/02/who_really_needs_to_turn_the_p.html Retrieved February 14th 2008
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/aug/13/digitalmedia.bbc
http://www.londonlibrary.co.uk/ Retrieved March 28th 2008
http://labs.live.com/Seadragon.aspx Retrieved March 2008 http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=blaise+seadragon&search_type= Retrieved March 2nd 2008
http://www.tate.org.uk/supportus/corporate/sponsorship.htm Retrieved March 2nd 2008Lectures, Interviews
Campagnolo, Alberto, Lecture, Michael Stocking, CEO Armadillo Systems Centre for Computing in the Humanities, Drury Lane February 20th 2008
Collins, Tim Head of Photography, National Gallery, Lecture February 2008
Deegan, Marilyn, discussion 8th February 2008
Gardiner, Hazel CCH, Material Culture 20th March 2008Articles
The BBC Royal Charter and Agreement
http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/policies/charter/ Retrieved January 2008Prestospace on media migration
http://prestospace-sam.ssl.co.uk/tutorials/T2/T2-1.html Retrieved February 23rd 2008Books
Curtis, Drew. (2007). It’s Not News, It’s Fark: How Mass Media Tries to Pass Off Crap As News. DIAF edition. GothamHoran, Thomas A. (2000) Digital Places: Building Our City of Bits Urban Land Institute
Jenkins, Henry (2006). Fans, bloggers and gamers, exploring participatory culture. NYU Press
Jennings, David (2007) Net, Blogs and Rock ‘n’ Roll: How Digital Discovery Works and What it Means for Consumers. London Nicholas Brealey Publishing.
Smith, Adam. An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. By Adam Smith, The eighth edition. London, 1796. 529pp ESTC Number T095382 Retrieved March 12th 2008
Levy, Pierre, (1997). Collective Intelligence: Mankind’s emerging world in cyberspace. Perseus Books.
Mitchell, William J (1995) Space Place and the Infobahn. MIT Press
Nielsen, J and Loranger, H. (2006) Prioritizing Web Usability. New Riders Press
Zielinski, Siegfried (January 2006) Deep Time of the Media, MIT Press
Papers
Bill Cope, Mary Kalantzis and Christopher Mackenzie,
Managing Knowledge And Leading Change In The Printing And Publishing
Industries: Creator To Consumer In A Digital Age
http://c-2-cproject.com/Courseware/oc/MKLC/C2C-MKLC_Element-2.2.pdf
Retrieved January 2008Dinosaurs: With Special Reference to the American Museum Collections
http://www.archive.org/details/dinosaurs19302gut Retrieved February 10th 2008Example of Amazon Search technology
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b/002-1720705-3286455?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=digital+bits&x=0&y=0 Retrieved February 20th 2008Review of the BBC’s Royal Charter, the changing media landscape
http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/policies/text/green_paper_response.html Retrieved March 18th 2008The BBC policy on retention of materials www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/dq/pdf/media/programmes_selection_retention.pdf
Retrieved February 23rd 2008British Library Annual Report and Accounts 2006/07
http://www.bl.uk/about/annual/2006to2007/fullreport.pdf
Page 13 Retrieved March 2008Example of British Library Search technology
http://catalogue.bl.uk/F/EPJ9XU3QYACMS98RU21EBD896JHCI3QBRU7THD5PGNLFG3C6CN-62939?func=full-set-set&set_number=153173&set_entry=000004&format=999 Retrieved February 15th 2008CLIR reports on Strategies and Tools for the Digital Library
http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/strategies.html Retrieved March 28th 2008E-resources for research in the humanities and social sciences – A British Academy Review
http://www.britac.ac.uk/reports/eresources/report/contents.html
Specifically:
http://www.britac.ac.uk/reports/eresources/report/sect1.html#part3
“Going electronic may mean no more than converting a library card catalogue to e-form;”
Retrieved March 28th 2008Project Gutenberg
http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page Retrieved November 2007Preservation in the Age of Large-Scale Digitization by Oya Y. Rieger February 2008
http://www.clir.org/pubs/abstract/pub141abst.html
Waters, D Digital – Archiving: The Report of the CPA/RLG Task Force. In Preservation and Digitisation: principles, practice and policies. Papers given at the National Preservation Office 1996 Annual Conference, University of York, 3-5 September, London British Library, 1996. 37-48.Wikipedia Accuracy
http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_11/chesney/ Retrieved March 27th 2008Wikipedia Editing patterns
http://www.research.ibm.com/visual/projects/history_flow/ Retrieved February 2008Willman et al, 2002, The Darknet and the Future of Content Distribution. http://www.bearcave.com/misl/misl_tech/msdrm/darknet.htm
The London Charter of visualisation
http://www.londoncharter.org/ Retrieved November 18th 2007Boundary Disputes: Homeostasis, Reflexivity, and the Foundations of Cybernetics Configurations – Volume 2, Number 3, Fall 1994, pp. 441-467
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/configurations/v002/2.3hayles.html Retrieved March 11th 2008Royal Academy of Engineering report on Dilemmas of Privacy and Surveillance.
http://www.raeng.org.uk/policy/reports/pdf/dilemmas_of_privacy_and_surveillance_report.pdf Retrieved March 28th 2008[1] http://www.turningthepages.com/ Retrieved March 2008
[2] http://books.google.com/ Retrieved December 2007
[3] http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page
[4] http://www.bl.uk/about/annual/2006to2007/audiofiles/annualreport07voice.mp3 Retrieved March 12th 2008
[5] http://www.armadillosystems.com/ and http://www.turningthepages.com/ Retrieved January 2008
[6] http://www.slipperybrick.com/2007/02/microsoft-vista-british-library-digitize-leonardo-da-vinci/ Retrieved April 4th 2008
[7] In the next version a rule similar in function to the Blake Archive’s may be implemented http://www.blakearchive.org/blake/ Retrieved 15th October 2007
[8] Hughes, Geoff, Interview January 14th 2008
[9] http://books.google.com/books?id=xKGhI_gXe2gC&printsec=frontcover&dq=wealth+of+nations Retrieved March 18th 2008
[10] http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/whatson/exhibitions/ritblat/historical.html Retrieved April 4th 2008
[11] This is likely to be further developed in the future with the addition of the “notes” function.
[12] Sally Northmore has complained of “Carpal Tunnel-inducing rhythm” problems when using a mouse with TTP. http://www.futureofthebook.org/blog/archives/2006/02/who_really_needs_to_turn_the_p.html Retrieved February 14th 2008
[13] Discussion, Lavagnino, John, King’s CCH March 2008
[14] Gardiner, Hazel, King’s CCH, Material Culture 20th March 2008
[15] “A skeuomorph is a design feature, no longer functional in itself, that refers back to an avatar that was functional at an earlier time” -N. Katherine Hayles http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/configurations/v002/2.3hayles.html Retrieved March 11th 2008
[16] http://www.bl.uk/ttp2/ttp2techdetails.html Retrieved March 11th 2008
[17] An on screen ruler similar to the Blake Archive’s may be implemented in the next version of TTP
[18] Another soon to be implemented feature is side by side comparison.
[19] http://blog.historians.org/articles/204/google-books-whats-not-to-like Retrieved April 5th 2008
[20] http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/12/06/google-books-adds-hand-scans/ Retrieved February 2008
[21] Preservation in the Age of Large-Scale Digitization by Oya Y. Rieger February 2008
[22] http://www.archive.org/details/dinosaurs19302gut Retrieved February 10th 2008
[23] http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b/002-1720705-3286455?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=digital+bits&x=0&y=0
http://catalogue.bl.uk/F/EPJ9XU3QYACMS98RU21EBD896JHCI3QBRU7THD5PGNLFG3C6CN-62939?func=full-set-set&set_number=153173&set_entry=000004&format=999 Retrieved February 15th 2008
[24] For an example see Dave Cordes’ informative review (first on page) http://www.amazon.com/Blade-Runner-Trilogy-25th-Anniversary/dp/B000Z0OX9O/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1207207521&sr=8-1 Retrieved March 18th 2008
[25] Levy, Pierre, (1997). Collective Intelligence: Mankind’s emerging world in cyberspace. Perseus Books.
[26] Jennings, David (2007) Net, Blogs and Rock ‘n’ Roll: How Digital Discovery Works and What it Means for Consumers. London Nicholas Brealey Publishing.
[27] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/10M_articles Retrieved April 3rd 2008
[28] http://wiki.prestospace.org/ Preservation Guide – Retrieved March 28th 2008
[29] http://wiki.prestospace.org/pmwiki.php?n=Main.PreservationStrategy#Where Retrieved March 28th 2008
[30] http://www.research.ibm.com/visual/projects/history_flow/ Retrieved February 2008
[31] http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_11/chesney/ Retrieved March 27th 2008
[32] http://www.research.ibm.com/visual/projects/history_flow/ Retrieved February 2008
[33] Deegan, Marilyn, discussion 8th February 2008
[34] Nielsen, J and Loranger, H. (April 20, 2006) Prioritizing Web Usability. New Riders Press
[35] Curtis, Drew. It’s not news, it’s Fark.com 2007[37] http://www.bl.uk/about/annual/2006to2007/ British Library Report 2006-2007 Retrieved March 11th, 2008
[38] Campagnolo, Alberto, Lecture, Centre for Computing in the Humanities, Drury Lane February 20th 2008Tags: digital books, digital text, digitisation, high end, text
Recent Comments