Sunday, 23 November 2008
Thursday, 20 November 2008
Time is short!
When does this course actually finish? What is the last session? Bit worried as I'm guessing we have only 3 and a bit weeks to complete the following:
Write content and build our site
Create a presentation about our site in Flash or Powerpoint
MySql database assignment
Flash assignment
Photoshop assignment (could the photoshopped images for our site, count as the assignment, as per the Flash assignment?)
After Saturday, will we be covering any new topics or will it all be class time for our projects from then onwards? For those of us who work full time, I'm thinking all of the above is going to be a very tall order.
It was great to be able to work on our sites last night. A very valuable session I thought!
Write content and build our site
Create a presentation about our site in Flash or Powerpoint
MySql database assignment
Flash assignment
Photoshop assignment (could the photoshopped images for our site, count as the assignment, as per the Flash assignment?)
After Saturday, will we be covering any new topics or will it all be class time for our projects from then onwards? For those of us who work full time, I'm thinking all of the above is going to be a very tall order.
It was great to be able to work on our sites last night. A very valuable session I thought!
Sunday, 16 November 2008
Mission Impossible?
Question: Google’s mission statement boldly claims to make information universally accessible. Is this really the case?
Google’s mission statement, it seems, is a tad contraversial. Here’s the aforementioned mission statement:
Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful.
As directed, I have picked four sources that I have used as a basis to draw some conclusions about Google’s success in achieving what they set out in their mission statement. Firstly, an interesting interview in the online edition of Time Magazine. Time Article This interview was conducted 2 ½ years ago. Whilst it isn’t especially current, it has other merits as a good source of information on this topic. It is from the horse’s mouth, so to speak, as it is an interview with Google Founder Larry Page, CEO Eric Schmidt and Vice President Marissa Mayer. They are asked a number of questions by Time readers. Now for the same reason, this article could be judged as unreliable, and as a Google PR exercise (which it undoubtedly is). But it does provide some insight into the challenges and restrictions they face in making the world’s information universally accessible. Something they no doubt wish to overplay, but they do discuss the areas in which they are unable to deliver. Time magazine is long-established publication with an international readership and a reputation for political and business reportage, and as such are expected to steer clear of bias and obvious promotion. What I don’t know is if they have any commercial relationship with Google, such as sponsorship or advertising.
My second source is a BBC report on bbc.co.uk
BBC report This report is about Google’s search censorship in China. This article was published in 2006, but for what it lacks in timeliness, it makes up for in presentation and relevance. It pretty much sticks to the facts (though sources for stats are not quoted). Nonetheless, the BBC are internationally respected as a producer of factual and news reportage.
My third source is a blog entry by Nicolas Steenhout published on his site accessibility.net.nz in September 2008.
Accessibility.net
Nicolas Steenhout is an accessibility expert who offers his services in evaluating and advising on website accessibility. Clearly, a blog on a commercial site is not going to be perhaps as rigorously researched as an article written by an international news agency (though not necessarily always the case), but to back up and illustrate his argument, he refers to an accessibility review by another accessibility consultancy and provides a link to a statement made by Google on this topic. I don’t see any particular reason for any bias against Google and though ‘only’ a blog, it is nonetheless an informative comment on Google’s accessibility issues, from an accessibility expert (see ‘About’ page for his credentials).
My fourth source, has something positive to say about GoogleLab’s Accessible Search out-law.com This is an article published on an international law firm’s website that deals specifically with IT & e-commerce legal issues.
It is from August 2006, so not particularly current, but it appears to be a well-researched article, quoting numerous sources including Google Accessible Search creator TV Raman, Net-Guide, the RNIB, the AFB and AccessWorld.
Conclusion
It’s clear from the googlization of just about everything that Google obviously think big. I think it’s fairly predictable that they are going to fall some way short of their ambitious mission statement, particularly when it comes to deploying their services in countries with strict censorship laws. Google do not consider it an option to opt out in these instances, preferring to make some information available rather than none at all. Not at all surprising, when you consider the potential revenue from a country with 250 million internet users.
When it comes to accessibility for disabled users, it would seem that they are praised and criticised in equal measure. Well, probably criticised a bit more than praised in truth, but their Accessible Search from Googlelabs has received approbation from a number of charities and spokespersons from the accessibility arena. However, it would seem they are still some way off from making accessibility a priority in the development of new Google products such as the new Chrome browser.
In conclusion, it sounds as if they might have a greater chance of fulfilling their mission statement if they changed it to something along the following lines:
‘Google’s mission is to provide quite a lot of the world’s information to some of the world: after all, some information is better than none’.
Google’s mission statement, it seems, is a tad contraversial. Here’s the aforementioned mission statement:
Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful.
As directed, I have picked four sources that I have used as a basis to draw some conclusions about Google’s success in achieving what they set out in their mission statement. Firstly, an interesting interview in the online edition of Time Magazine. Time Article This interview was conducted 2 ½ years ago. Whilst it isn’t especially current, it has other merits as a good source of information on this topic. It is from the horse’s mouth, so to speak, as it is an interview with Google Founder Larry Page, CEO Eric Schmidt and Vice President Marissa Mayer. They are asked a number of questions by Time readers. Now for the same reason, this article could be judged as unreliable, and as a Google PR exercise (which it undoubtedly is). But it does provide some insight into the challenges and restrictions they face in making the world’s information universally accessible. Something they no doubt wish to overplay, but they do discuss the areas in which they are unable to deliver. Time magazine is long-established publication with an international readership and a reputation for political and business reportage, and as such are expected to steer clear of bias and obvious promotion. What I don’t know is if they have any commercial relationship with Google, such as sponsorship or advertising.
My second source is a BBC report on bbc.co.uk
BBC report This report is about Google’s search censorship in China. This article was published in 2006, but for what it lacks in timeliness, it makes up for in presentation and relevance. It pretty much sticks to the facts (though sources for stats are not quoted). Nonetheless, the BBC are internationally respected as a producer of factual and news reportage.
My third source is a blog entry by Nicolas Steenhout published on his site accessibility.net.nz in September 2008.
Accessibility.net
Nicolas Steenhout is an accessibility expert who offers his services in evaluating and advising on website accessibility. Clearly, a blog on a commercial site is not going to be perhaps as rigorously researched as an article written by an international news agency (though not necessarily always the case), but to back up and illustrate his argument, he refers to an accessibility review by another accessibility consultancy and provides a link to a statement made by Google on this topic. I don’t see any particular reason for any bias against Google and though ‘only’ a blog, it is nonetheless an informative comment on Google’s accessibility issues, from an accessibility expert (see ‘About’ page for his credentials).
My fourth source, has something positive to say about GoogleLab’s Accessible Search out-law.com This is an article published on an international law firm’s website that deals specifically with IT & e-commerce legal issues.
It is from August 2006, so not particularly current, but it appears to be a well-researched article, quoting numerous sources including Google Accessible Search creator TV Raman, Net-Guide, the RNIB, the AFB and AccessWorld.
Conclusion
It’s clear from the googlization of just about everything that Google obviously think big. I think it’s fairly predictable that they are going to fall some way short of their ambitious mission statement, particularly when it comes to deploying their services in countries with strict censorship laws. Google do not consider it an option to opt out in these instances, preferring to make some information available rather than none at all. Not at all surprising, when you consider the potential revenue from a country with 250 million internet users.
When it comes to accessibility for disabled users, it would seem that they are praised and criticised in equal measure. Well, probably criticised a bit more than praised in truth, but their Accessible Search from Googlelabs has received approbation from a number of charities and spokespersons from the accessibility arena. However, it would seem they are still some way off from making accessibility a priority in the development of new Google products such as the new Chrome browser.
In conclusion, it sounds as if they might have a greater chance of fulfilling their mission statement if they changed it to something along the following lines:
‘Google’s mission is to provide quite a lot of the world’s information to some of the world: after all, some information is better than none’.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)