Comments for Iggy Pop's Leg blog

Comment on Watch and learn by ostephens

ostephens — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 12:16:50 +0000

The University of Auckland tutorial is incredibly well thought out and produced.

BUT (a big but) – it emphasises to me how broken some of this stuff is:
Why is the reading list not accessible online?
Why does he have to go to a dedicated computer, not access from his mobile?
Why does he have to omit the word ‘The’ from the title search – why is this not just ignored (like Google) or part of the search

I could probably go on, but I shouldn’t. What they have done here is the right thing – a tutorial to allows students to get the most out of their library service. I just find it frustrating that the service isn’t more attuned to their needs in the first place.

Comment on Dead 2.0 by Andrew Day

Andrew Day — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 12:02:09 +0000

I like the sound of ‘WebPlatform’, as that seems to be the way that things are going and ‘WebRevolution’, which you could shorten to WebRev? Not sure about Weblutions though, it sounds like a noun for the act of using a laptop in the bath!

In terms ‘2.0, 3.0′ terms, I was wondering how relevant they would be when we’re trying to introduce technologies related to web 2.0 to staff and students who aren’t familar with the marketing/technological spheres that ‘Web 2.0′ as a term relates to. Certanily when I’ve been to training days based on Web 2.0 technologies it’s not been the ‘Web 2.0′ thats’ struck me as describing what I’ve learnt about so much as ideas of community, collaboration, syndication and easy access to and production of media.

Comment on Dead 2.0 by ostephens

ostephens — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 11:13:25 +0000

In this week’s Guardian Tech Weekly Podcast (http://www.guardian.co.uk/techweekly) there is an interview with Tim O’Reilly, usually regarded as the person who coined Web 2.0 (although in the podcast he reveals who actually did). What is interesting is that he saw Web 2.0 as a way of ‘marketing’ the web after the dot com bubble burst.

The use of 2.0 is clearly to appeal to the ‘tech’ population – using the terminology of software releases to refer to the next ‘version’ of the web. As you say 3.0 has already been used a bit, although if anything this is less focussed than Web 2.0 – which is already very unclear in its scope!

So – what will we use next? Although ‘new and useful technologies’ has a certain Ronseal charm, not sure it is going to catch on as a marketing term. Here are some suggestions just for fun:

WebNG
WebPlatform
DataWeb
Weblutions
WebЯevolution

Comment on Digital natives and immigrants vs residents and visitors by ostephens

ostephens — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 13:57:32 +0000

Just a little correction – it’s Andy Powell, not Paul.

I would also characterise myself as between the two somehow although towards the resident end (perhaps I’m a digital timeshare?)

Comment on First we had bloodlust, then wanderlust, now: technolust by ostephens

ostephens — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 13:48:27 +0000

I don’t disagree with the stuff that Michael says (and usually says very well), balancing the ‘planning and preparation’ stuff he advocates – e.g. environmental scans, timelines – against the ‘getting on a doing stuff’ approach he also advocates – e.g. beta is your friend.

I think this is the crux of point 7 in the article you link to “Overthink and die” – but it is much more difficult in practice than in theory I think.

Comment on ‘I named my web 2.0 site after the last five pieces of Alphabetti left on my plate’ by Andrew Day

Andrew Day — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 09:04:43 +0000

…or maybe there are so many -oogle, -sta, -ka and -ku style names that they just don’t stick out any more? Once something starts to shift into the realm of self parody then it’s probably time to stop and do something else. I do wonder sometimes if the focus groups that come up with site names involve the head of marketing donning a suit of armour and rolling around in a pile of alphabet fridge magnets until a suitably ‘-oogley’ combination of letters sticks to them.

Comment on ‘I named my web 2.0 site after the last five pieces of Alphabetti left on my plate’ by Debbie

Debbie — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 08:40:56 +0000

Is 84% sad enough to be impressive? I think the test has backfired somewhat; I now want to start a web 2.0 site and call it ‘dooku’ (sorry Andrew – though you can rest assured I don’t have the technical skill). It’s also interesting in that most of the ones I recognise are the Star Wars ones – some of the web 2.0 ones clearly have more promotional work to do…

Comment on ‘I named my web 2.0 site after the last five pieces of Alphabetti left on my plate’ by Andrew Day

Andrew Day — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 08:21:45 +0000

I scored around the same and I think it would have been near impossible to be male and 20+ without having at least a working knowledge of Star Wars, so I’d add myself as c) more Wookiee than Facebooky.

Comment on For those of you thinking ‘you know what, there really should be more Google on the web’: Google Chrome by ostephens

ostephens — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 16:25:54 +0000

I’m definitely a fan of Chrome – the speed is the main selling point, and I’m not a big FF extension user. There are a few other nice touches – I like the homepage concept (this is a bit like Opera’s speed-dial feature, but dynamic – and in fact one of the 3 FF extensions I use is one that replicates the Opera speed-dial function). I also think the ‘Find in page’ function is even better than FF – and actually this is (for me) one of the key advantages that FF has over IE (whose ‘Find’ function is just the worst thing ever)

Comment on ‘I named my web 2.0 site after the last five pieces of Alphabetti left on my plate’ by ostephens

ostephens — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 16:12:17 +0000

If I scored 74% does that make me

a) a bit sad
b) not quite sad enough to be impressive