Thursday, January 28, 2010
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Interactive Digital TV Program II
Interactive TV show II - guide or direct the acrobats or for example dancers. It would be a cultural, artistic and also a study program. Normally there is action going on and a list of steps or elements (keywords) on the side with the phone number for texting.
As a keyword is sent by a viewer, the clip with according element or step is presented. Then, either the next element will be presented if there was another message, or the default improvisational show goes on.
There could be several shows with different styles (classical, street-dance, pop etc.) and in case of numerous messages a routine could be formed based on the sequence of "ordered" elements.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Interactive Digital TV - Program Concept
Peeter Oja and Piret Laurimaa on the TV3 show "Vilde Tee"My solution here is an elaboration to the idea we worked out yesterday with Maibritt and Kirke. The task was to come up with an idea for interactive TV program and explain it through the functionality or flowchart, some possible show set and photos for illustrating the feeling of the show.
The show would be based on improvisational theater - actors on stage begin with some default play and will be guided by sentences given by for example show leader. The sentences will be shown on screen with phone numbers of each actor. The audience can then call or send a text message to vote which actor has to act the situation out.I suppose there should be a time limit, maybe 1 minute, for voting. The results are also shown on screen live and as the time is up, the show will go on according to the vote results. Soon next sentence shall be on the screen.
On the mock-up there is the possible screen during the show. The time limit on left, text provided by the show and possible actors at the right. The layout needs to be reconsidered in case of more actors on stage.
While in search of a photo for describing the atmosphere of the show I became to another possible
Friday, December 18, 2009
Week 11: Free Software vs Open Source
There are several expressions in use in the field of software licensing to describe the software and its conditions to use. Open source and free software are two approaches which are often confused. To compare to the proprietary software these two stand at one side but still they are not the same.
The founders of open source approach did not approve all the ideas of Richard Stallman - the founder of free software approach - and started their own initiation.
In 2002 to ZDNet interview Richard Stallmann has stated his view to the differences between the free software and open source approach:
As I get it, both open source and free software enthusiasts are producing software to be used with no fee, with openly shared source and peer production. Both agree that you can make business with your products (meaning also to sell them) but not to make it proprietary. A great difference is that free software supporters do not agree with any kind of proprietary software but the open source supporters do not fight against it.
The founders of open source approach did not approve all the ideas of Richard Stallman - the founder of free software approach - and started their own initiation.
In 2002 to ZDNet interview Richard Stallmann has stated his view to the differences between the free software and open source approach:
The open-source movement differs from the free-software movement in that they never say we're entitled to these freedoms -- the freedom to study and change and redistribute. They never say it's particularly wrong for software to be proprietary; they say they don't particularly like it. They would rather that software is not proprietary, but they will never say that it's wrong. Whereas we in the free-software movement say our freedom is at stake here; don't you dare try to get us to use proprietary software. I don't want it in my life.
As I get it, both open source and free software enthusiasts are producing software to be used with no fee, with openly shared source and peer production. Both agree that you can make business with your products (meaning also to sell them) but not to make it proprietary. A great difference is that free software supporters do not agree with any kind of proprietary software but the open source supporters do not fight against it.
Week 10-2: Copying restrictions
With emergence of digital information making copies and distributing it has become very easy and prevention of it much more complicated. Big companies profiting from proprietary distribution have come up with numerous ways to fight for their income and rights to their products. Is it the question of digital rights or digital restriction? Are the restrictions useful?
One can agree to the need to protect the income and rights to products and the will to restrict unauthorized copying by the corporations - it is their money they will lose. "Their" in the meaning that they have already counted on it and the law formally is still on their side. But as the world is changing an intellectual property regulations under question by already great amount of users, the things have changed ant the corporations need to come up with new measures.
Tapscott and Williams in Wikinomics bring an example of Sony Corporation programming the restriction of three copies per OS user on their discs. The user playing the disc did not know that a piece of software was installed automatically to send information back to Sony where as more personal information was sent than on the copying process. Sony argued that no harm was done and a regular user had no idea anyway what was going on, so it did not hurt. The discs wre called back from market butthousands of users were already "infected". This is a measure for the company that goes way too far and for the company will be worse rather than useful as it will not be a secret for long.
The restrictions made are not acceptable the users today and the ways to go around are found. To protect against massive unauthosized copying some other new measures must be found while the restrictions that interfere to users rights and privacy won't stand still. With growing community of free and open-source software supporters and the new generation of people growing in digital world the corporations also need to find new ways.
One can agree to the need to protect the income and rights to products and the will to restrict unauthorized copying by the corporations - it is their money they will lose. "Their" in the meaning that they have already counted on it and the law formally is still on their side. But as the world is changing an intellectual property regulations under question by already great amount of users, the things have changed ant the corporations need to come up with new measures.
Tapscott and Williams in Wikinomics bring an example of Sony Corporation programming the restriction of three copies per OS user on their discs. The user playing the disc did not know that a piece of software was installed automatically to send information back to Sony where as more personal information was sent than on the copying process. Sony argued that no harm was done and a regular user had no idea anyway what was going on, so it did not hurt. The discs wre called back from market butthousands of users were already "infected". This is a measure for the company that goes way too far and for the company will be worse rather than useful as it will not be a secret for long.
The restrictions made are not acceptable the users today and the ways to go around are found. To protect against massive unauthosized copying some other new measures must be found while the restrictions that interfere to users rights and privacy won't stand still. With growing community of free and open-source software supporters and the new generation of people growing in digital world the corporations also need to find new ways.
Review of wiki on "Advertising in Video Games"
This is a post to review a group-wiki "Advertising in Video Games". The review covers the content, argumentation and formal side of the wiki.
I start with what I see first when looking at the wiki - the way the wiki is built and presented by the group. The front page consists of the list of group members followed by the title of their section of the article. From this list understanding the structure and the logic of the article is not as easy as could be - there is no logical sequence of the parts, no correct table of contents.
Derived from the tool used - Wikiversity - the wiki parts have good functional side of the content and referencing. It is easy to move inside the article and to see the references using the links. Again there is a weakness in the consistency while authors do not share the approach to references and use different styles for that. Not all the authors have made use of the wikiwersity functionality concerning the referencing.
Content
The wiki contains the following articles:
The in-game advertising business section is well-built, has logical sequence and structure with subtitles. It includes target audience, numeric data about the market and different types of advertisement. The section sums up both the benefits and the controversies or weaknesses. There are some factual controversies between two authors, which indicates lack of collaboration of the authors.
In-game advertising on mobile is probably the latest approach of the field and well covered by the author. It seems to me it could be better structured or structured some other way around while the article contains several very short subtopics which could be connected to one. The whole part is a bit shorter in comparison to other authors, but it is also reasoned while being a new field and additional information on that is surely to be growing fast in coming years.
Impact of video games is a long and thorough section. The introduction is very long in comparison to other parts and could have been either shorter or left aside in cooperation with other team mates who also covered the introduction to the field. The main topic comes at the second part of the article and is covered fully and is a very interesting reading.
Players attitudes and financing development gives a lot of interesting information. Even if the connection between title and contents stay somehow confusing all together, the content is very good. The questions raised are well answered and reasoned. References are well formed and used.
All authors have reached the goal of giving thorough overview of their topic and reasoning the argumentation. The reader can find sufficient facts about the development of in-game advertising, reasons behind it, different ways of placing the ads as well as the aimed audience and their attitudes toward the games with several kinds of ads.
To point out the main weakness and strength would be - lack of coordination and cooperation on covering the topic as a whole on the one hand and giving great amount of information and analyze the variety of sides of the field.
It was very good reading and for sure with some more effort on cooperation and integration a great consistent wiki article could be constructed.
(I am aware that the group did not know there was a request for a consistent article worked on as a team, therefore their approach was not wholesome. Even though I give my critique/opinion based on how I understood the task.)
I start with what I see first when looking at the wiki - the way the wiki is built and presented by the group. The front page consists of the list of group members followed by the title of their section of the article. From this list understanding the structure and the logic of the article is not as easy as could be - there is no logical sequence of the parts, no correct table of contents.
Derived from the tool used - Wikiversity - the wiki parts have good functional side of the content and referencing. It is easy to move inside the article and to see the references using the links. Again there is a weakness in the consistency while authors do not share the approach to references and use different styles for that. Not all the authors have made use of the wikiwersity functionality concerning the referencing.
Content
The wiki contains the following articles:
- History and the involvement
- The business of the in-game advertisement
- In-game advertising on mobile
- Impact of video games advertising - introduction and review
- Types of financing development of the games and players attitudes toward in-game advertising
The in-game advertising business section is well-built, has logical sequence and structure with subtitles. It includes target audience, numeric data about the market and different types of advertisement. The section sums up both the benefits and the controversies or weaknesses. There are some factual controversies between two authors, which indicates lack of collaboration of the authors.
In-game advertising on mobile is probably the latest approach of the field and well covered by the author. It seems to me it could be better structured or structured some other way around while the article contains several very short subtopics which could be connected to one. The whole part is a bit shorter in comparison to other authors, but it is also reasoned while being a new field and additional information on that is surely to be growing fast in coming years.
Impact of video games is a long and thorough section. The introduction is very long in comparison to other parts and could have been either shorter or left aside in cooperation with other team mates who also covered the introduction to the field. The main topic comes at the second part of the article and is covered fully and is a very interesting reading.
Players attitudes and financing development gives a lot of interesting information. Even if the connection between title and contents stay somehow confusing all together, the content is very good. The questions raised are well answered and reasoned. References are well formed and used.
All authors have reached the goal of giving thorough overview of their topic and reasoning the argumentation. The reader can find sufficient facts about the development of in-game advertising, reasons behind it, different ways of placing the ads as well as the aimed audience and their attitudes toward the games with several kinds of ads.
To point out the main weakness and strength would be - lack of coordination and cooperation on covering the topic as a whole on the one hand and giving great amount of information and analyze the variety of sides of the field.
It was very good reading and for sure with some more effort on cooperation and integration a great consistent wiki article could be constructed.
(I am aware that the group did not know there was a request for a consistent article worked on as a team, therefore their approach was not wholesome. Even though I give my critique/opinion based on how I understood the task.)
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Week 10-1: The future of software licensing
The task is to predict the future of software licensing landscape in 2015... It is already in 5 years. During last five years the new version of GNU GPL was released and the amount of open-source free software has risen. Proprietary licenses stand for many products and are also widely used, in the meantime also violated. Which changes could be faced and in which direction the licesing will develop?
As the amount of people respecting the idea of free software is growing, the amount of software and products under free licenses will also grow. Even Microsoft has made an effort to step closer to the approach with its Shared Source Initiative, even though it is not so much evaluated by the enthusiasts of open source and free software.
I believe that the majority new comers would go towards open source and free software licensing and try to benefit the project from the collaboration with other programmers. But in five years time the proprietary licenses will not disappear. I guess the stand between those different licenses will change towards more free licensed software emerging but the usage of big proprietary software (like those of MS) will not drop drastically.
As the amount of people respecting the idea of free software is growing, the amount of software and products under free licenses will also grow. Even Microsoft has made an effort to step closer to the approach with its Shared Source Initiative, even though it is not so much evaluated by the enthusiasts of open source and free software.
I believe that the majority new comers would go towards open source and free software licensing and try to benefit the project from the collaboration with other programmers. But in five years time the proprietary licenses will not disappear. I guess the stand between those different licenses will change towards more free licensed software emerging but the usage of big proprietary software (like those of MS) will not drop drastically.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
