Category: Technology

Stuck on OER (and somehow quotable)

One of the things on my bucket list is to be referred to (some day) as an expert.  You know, like those quacks on FoxNews in the split screen with the green screened cityscapes behind them.  For some reason that seems glamorous to me.

Getting quoted by a reputable blogger/educator only helps me take the first baby steps toward that goal.  Enter Miguel Guhlin, a really skilled and experienced Director of Instructional Technology in TX who quoted me on his blog (woot!).  The quote, well, it was from my comment left on this really interesting post at http://connectivism.ca that discussed the future of education technology and the differences (shortcomings?) of Learning Management Systems (LMS, which include Blackboard and Moodle) and Social Networking Sites (SNS, Facebook, Ning, etc.).

Here’s my comment in full, the bold is what Miguel picked out:

Great article, I really liked the fact that Martin chimed in about Moodle’s use and its design. I’ve been using it for several years and over that time have worked my best to educate teachers about the social features that can be used (as simply as the discussion forums). But training apparently isn’t enough, as course designs/construction almost always defaults to a content centric approach. It’s no fault of any Moodle administrators or trainers, it’s just that the Moodle tools provide a very easy way to organize content (and it’s often the very first thing taught to new Moodlers).

I’m eager to see the new features in Moodle 2.0, however I’m not sold that they will accomplish the necessary change alluded to in this blog post.

On another note, perhaps my biggest gripe is that we’ve provided teachers this AWESOME tool to structure courses and content that could easily be used by other teachers, but the software locks it down (or at least, it provides tools that are easily configured to “close” the content to the outside). Sure there are Moodle course exchanges, but far and wide content is closed to outsiders, difficult to procure (even if a backup is available) and not available as OER. Imagine if all the content created in Moodle were open? THAT would be a great asset to the educational community and would be ripe to transition past the “build today use for 3 years model” to more of a social approach (where the best content floats to the top of social interactions because it’s freely available).

I’ve got a soft spot for Open Educational Resources (OER — and I mean really, truly open resources, e.g. no passwords, fees, indexed by Google).  Part of it is driven by the fact that I think we (the human race) should have access to every subject matter that we want to learn (for free).  The idea of paying for access to certain content just seems less and less acceptable as I get older (at least some of that stems from how spoiled I am by my personal learning network and the internet, which never fails to edutain me).

The other part is driven by the fact that OER makes education easier.  It’s faster to use content that’s already been created and in many cases, that content has a high probability of being higher quality and vetted (not to mention thoroughly checked and re-checked by those that have come across it before and used it likewise).

So…how might I become an expert?  Well, I think the first part is to continue contributing to the discussion about OER and how it should be organized, categorized, classified, etc.  The other way to turn out any and all of my content as OER (but I really haven’t found an effective way to do that either).  Truly open resources are hard to come by (but they are out there: http://www.oercommons.org/), I hope to make it my job to advance and grow OER.  (After all, that’s 50% of the mission of http://Coursefeeds.com)

Quote – Jonathan Rosenberg of Google

There are two components to our definition of open: open technology and open information. Open technology includes open source, meaning we release and actively support code that helps grow the Internet, and open standards, meaning we adhere to accepted standards and, if none exist, work to create standards that improve the entire Internet (and not just benefit Google). Open information means that when we have information about users we use it to provide something that is valuable to them, we are transparent about what information we have about them, and we give them ultimate control over their information. These are the things we should be doing. In many cases we aren’t there, but I hope that with this note we can start working to close the gap between reality and aspiration.

Jonathan Rosenberg, Senior Vice President, Product Management, Google – “The meaning of open“

Dear HBO: Tell Cable to Suck It.

I love HBO.  And when I have it, it dominates my Sunday night.  The programming is just awesome.  HBO rarely pilots a crap show (Flight of the Concords, True Blood, Entourage, The Life and Times of Tim and even Hung are all great).  Not to mention Real Sports and all of the great HBO original series and specials like Band of Brothers and Generation Kill which, after watching, have prompted me to read the books and buy the DVDs.

The content is just that good.  But what pains me, is that if I want HBO, I have to pay for 100 crap stations just to get it.  I can’t just get HBO (which is a product of the more general issues with cable station bundling).  I am obliged to support and sustain crappy reality TV, Fox News and other television based disasters that shouldn’t even be on the air.  It pains me that some of my money is going to these stations.

If HBO were to offer a web-only streaming service to paying customers, I would totally pay 10 or 20 dollars a month directly to HBO for the content.  I know there are all sorts of pitfalls (sharing of usernames, cost of development, etc.) but really they could start cutting out the middle men (like Comcast and Verizon) and offer the programming directly to paying customers.  They could even buy the distribution channel from a company from Hulu (which arguably is the best TV on the internet viewing experience).

They’d probably make a boat load more money.

As an alternative option, they could go to a company like Roku and offer it as a premium channel through the Roku player (which is what Netflix does for their users who have the set top box).

If it’s all about $ and sustaining the brand, why limit your customer base?  This is what I imagine (though the people that want HBO is probably too big of a circle):

hbo

Why wouldn’t HBO try to get the entire green circle?  Seems like a “duh” situation to me.  Do you hear me HBO?

What I do as a non-programmer

A few weeks ago Spencer Fry (Carbonmade) posted a nice article about what he does as a non-technical/non-programmer employee/executive at a web-based company. I had already been playing around with a post discussing the same (his is very good) but it inadvertently fell to the wayside while I was…well…doing those things I wrote on my list.

The life of non-programmer at a web-based shop is interesting to say the least. A lot of time is spent either mulling the things that absolutely are necessary to keep the business on an upward trajectory and battling with myself as to whether that thing is actually necessary. That is to say, battling over what to contribute and what not to contribute (I believe the latter is more important than the former in the long run). Additionally, it’s not a rare moment when I’m questioning whether or not I can stay as valuable to the company as our code-contributing staff (who are literally the architects of our future/potential success).

I started in 07 as 50% of our non-programming staff (but 1/3 of our startup). In the early days it was easy to pick up the slack. I was eager to contribute ideas and copy and brainstorming sessions where we laid all of our future successes out like a road map. As soon as I understood the business well enough though, I resigned to do my best to pull my own weight since I was unable to contribute to the code.

Here’s my short list of 9 (but maybe more…) aspects of my non-programming position. Which I might also title my “start up job description”.

1. Test
2. Draw diagrams (but not imaginary screen shots – relational diagrams can help a lot more than “I want this button right here”)
3. find non-technical solutions to user problems
4. be a buffer
5. Build the business: go sell something, find customers, make $
6. Refrain from complexity (don’t spend time asking for additional features, just because you’re not busy doesn’t mean programming staff isn’t chipping away at the most recent revisions, enhancements, bug fixes)
7. write FAQs, site copy, user guide books, make tutorials
8. never use a bug as the basis to add an enhancement
9. PUBLICIZE
  1. Test – never a day goes by when I’m not on the system. I’m a power user. Be it Moodle, proprietary systems or just a home page. No link goes un-clicked, no combination of variables goes untested and no bug is left unearthed. When our programmers think the code is “perfect” it’s my job to point out where things break down or usability becomes confusing or some other practical/common process has been disrupted. I check from different browsers, different operating systems and with different end results in mind. Then I ticket and follow up and repeat. Testing, to me, is really synonymous to providing customer support and it’s either proactive or reactive (so might as well start testing now before you’re trying to test to find out a certain nuance that a user submits later).
  2. Draw diagrams (but not imaginary screen shots – relational diagrams can help a lot more than “I want this button right here”).
  3. find non-technical solutions to user problems. You might also call these “hacks”. If there’s a crazy bug or usability issue, I’ll ticket it. But I’ll also find a way around to ensure it’s not a blocker. Doesn’t load right in IE? Try FF. Doesn’t display in my profile. Unenroll and re-enroll. Blockers get highest priority, so when there’s a back log of those it’s my job to find (and disseminate) workarounds for the non-blocker (but critical) issues. This often means that I’m elbows deep in user interaction, guiding them through ways to fix the issue themselves or fixing this issues remotely to give them the smoothest user experience.
  4. be a buffer: I mentioned earlier that programmers are extremely valuable; that’s why I focus on keeping them out of the focus. The programming staff I’ve worked with is efficient and creates excellent applications for our clients. But they shouldn’t be changing passwords or trouble shooting for specific user issues. This goes the same for the executive/programmer line of communication (if you happen to be at a bigger company). Distractions are costly. If there’s a road map that is worth following, it’s only a matter of time before a client need 0r CEO idea brings you off course. Creating a buffer can help your app “stay the course”.
  5. Build the business: go sell something, find customers, make $, organize paperwork, manage finances (this stuff is the simplest when you’re getting started but it grows and grows in proportion to success).
  6. Refrain from complexity: don’t spend time asking for additional features, just because you’re not busy doesn’t mean programming staff isn’t chipping away at the most recent revisions, enhancements, bug fixes.
  7. write FAQs, site copy, user guide books, make tutorials. I would say that this is probably the 2nd most important role, besides customer support and satisfaction.
  8. never use a bug as the basis to add an enhancement.
  9. publicize/socialize: manage twitter, blog about the business, do the presentation circuit. Whatever you can do to spread the word about your business should be done and done well.

Android is the Ultimate iPhone Killer

Really this all looks like common sense to me.  Apple is great, the iPhone is wonderful (even the ipod touch is a superb product).  The Apple OS for their phones and ipods is flawless, intuitive and crisp.  It’s no wonder they’ve grabbed so much of the “app phone” market (to borrow a phrase from David Pogue); they invented it!

That being said, Google’s positioned Android to bring it down.  How?  Because they understand the fact that distribution is a key factor to success.  It’s interesting that Apple would so easily fall into a similar trap that it did so many years ago.  In my opinion, the Android vs Apple battle really is similar to the MicroSoft vs. Apple battle that’s so nicely portrayed in Pirates of Silicon Valley.  Back in the late 70s and 80s Apple tee’d off with a great product (an OS on a proprietary hardware set) that people loved.  It was user friendly and ground breaking.  MS followed with a knock off that became available to all computer manufacturers.  Distribution was in MS’s favor and they grew more quickly and grabbed a huge portion of the market that Apple (some might argue) created, that is, the personal computer.

Fast forward to the 00s and Apple pulled the same move, great product, easy to use, etc.  And it’s 100% proprietary.  They create a new market (app phones) and quickly become the leader.  A few years later an up and comer is released (that’s kind of a knock off) and is made available (for a fee) to all phone manufacturers.  Looks like familiar territory.  Check out this recent TechCrunch article that shows the progress Android has already made (based on Admob research).

I’m betting that Android will challenge Apple’s hegemony within the next 12 months.  The reason is distribution.  Android is now available on every major US carrier (Verizon, Tmobile, Spring and ATT) and has a legion of developers contributing to it’s advancement.  Additionally, the hardware available to manufacturers is getting much better.  Phones are getting more powerful and better equipped to exploit the software.  This is not to mention the fact that there’s simply variety in hardware (which speaks to our current desire to individualize ever facet of our existence).  iPhone’s don’t vary much, but for Android the hardware and software provide loads of ways to customize to the individual.

In terms of functionality, I agree that the iPhone currently has a huge lead in available applications.  But Android is an unexplored market for many developers, it also provides a more democratic marketplace to list apps and has the potential market size equal to that of the iphone marketplace (if it can be realized).

I would be happy with an iPhone, if it were for the service of ATT.  I was a happy Verizon user, but was turned off by their previous lack of nice phones.  I am a happy Android user, and I bet there will be many, many more like me shortly.  Can Apple out pace the competition?  Sure, but I think they’ll be severely hampered by ATT.

Athletes and Technology

Gizmodo is running a special section this week entitled “This Cyborg Life“. I love robots and a few people, so naturally I’m enjoying their quips. More so I really enjoyed the article guest-written by Aimee Mullins, who’s one of the fastest women in the world, on artificial legs.

She wrote about the prevalence of technology in advancing athletic feats (from prosthetic limbs, sporting equipment, bio-meds and surgeries) and the inherent stink made about it by those governing the events. A few examples she used was Tiger Wood’s LASIC surgery which vastly improved his ability to see down the fairway (before it was fixed his disadvantage, he says, was making him bleary eyed when on the course), the LZR suits that helped our Olympic swimmers kick a bunch of ass this past summer games, and even the equipment modern climbers use to ascent K2 and Everest. In each case our athletes are smashing previous records and contributing to the upward march of humanity. Progress is progress right?

The full article is available here: http://gizmodo.com/5403322/racing-on-carbon-fiber-legs-how-abled-should-we-be

Aimee’s article makes me think a little bit about pro sports in the US and how we want them to be better and better (to jump higher, run faster, grow bigger, hit harder) but we expect them to by natural means. In reality, augmentation (whether through new gear, surgery or even meds) is their only sure fire means of achieving progress. Face it, we don’t evolve fast enough to grow our sports players the skills we expect. Instead they cork bats, juice and are constantly provided better equipment.

Honestly, I don’t care if athletes do steroids. I think it’s a terrible example to set for our young players, but sports are entertainment and as a fan I want to see them perform seemingly superhuman feats. We expect it every Sunday! On a similar note, I don’t care what athletic advantages they attain through technology (prosthetics for the disabled are fine by me too). Got a better way to sharpen my skates? A better swim suit? A better gulf club? FORE!  If you think about it, even the shoes we wear to run are better than our fore fathers ever had access too.  A foot race between past and present would only show the glaring advantages technology has given us over the years.

Preventing these means from being used will only slow down our progress. The end goal is excellence. We could all use competitive advantage.

I’d only like to add that I’m also all for safety. I still stand behind the fact that football has some serious issues with the head injuries. I know it seems contradictory to be “fine” with athletes using steroids, but that’s a choice that players can make, hitting is an inherent attribute of the game (you don’t get to decide to take a hit for not, unless you’re a QB and slide around the field).