Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

On The BBC 2.0

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the autie-beeb-gets-new-clothes dept.

132

novus ordo writes "BBC has been exploring the 'Web 2.0' approach in its future plans 'to keep the BBC relevant in the digital age.' They have also put an experimental catalogue online. 'This will allow you to find out about any of the one million programmes that the BBC holds in its archive, going right back to 1937. It's a window onto an amazing cultural and national resource.' They have also opened up a competition to completely redesign its home page."

cancel ×

132 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Staying Relevant (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15228660)

I think the BBC needs to first get rid its left wing, anti-US bias if it wants to be relevant in the digital age. That would be the first thing that needs to be changed.

In this age of right-leaning blogs that can monitor the BBC's biases, people will realize how much of an agenda they have.

Re:Staying Relevant (2, Insightful)

quiffhanger (639793) | more than 8 years ago | (#15228683)

You've got the remember, America as a country if far more right wing than the UK (particularly the popular media). Consequently a "centrist" POV for Brits looks right wing in the US. Personally I think Auntie has a fairly NPOV but I would, being a "left wing" (for the US) uk citizen. -ross

Re:Staying Relevant (3, Informative)

masklinn (823351) | more than 8 years ago | (#15228707)

Consequently a "centrist" POV for Brits looks right wing in the US.

You meant "left wing" (prob. a typo), other than that this remark is true all over europe. In most european countries, Democrats would well be the right wing and Republicans would be the far right.

Re:Staying Relevant (1)

quiffhanger (639793) | more than 8 years ago | (#15228732)

Yep, left wing, sorry.

Re:Staying Relevant (0, Redundant)

digital.prion (808852) | more than 8 years ago | (#15229630)

riiiiight..





//pft

Re:Staying Relevant (1)

Gonoff (88518) | more than 8 years ago | (#15229856)

Republicans would be the far right

I think much of Europe sees the Republicans as even further right than that..

Re:Staying Relevant (3, Insightful)

masklinn (823351) | more than 8 years ago | (#15228684)

Who cares about your right-wing-american-nutjob sensibilities? BBC is not even left wing by european standards, and 5 billion people are anti-americans.

Re:Staying Relevant (3, Funny)

kfg (145172) | more than 8 years ago | (#15228714)

. . .5 billion people are anti-americans.

Why that's. . .that's, well, UnAmerican, that's what that is.

KFG

Re:Staying Relevant (-1, Troll)

thrillseeker (518224) | more than 8 years ago | (#15228791)

5 billion people are anti-americans

... unitl they need something done that they can't do themselves.

Re:Staying Relevant (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15229063)

Exactly! You should be modded up, its too bad the moderators on slashdot are mostly left wing assholes.

Let's feed the trolls! (1)

Animaether (411575) | more than 8 years ago | (#15229702)

Ah, yes... I take it you're referring to the two world wars?

Let's see... the U.S. got involved in WW1 because they were helping Europe out? Ah, no, they did so because those silly Germans used their U-boats to sink and seize U.S. commercial ships. Before that, the U.S. tried to stay the hell out of it.

Well then... the U.S. got involved in WW2 because they were helping Europe out? Ah, no, they did so because those silly Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. Before that, the U.S. tried to stay the hell out of it.

Don't get me wrong, a lot of Europeans thank those who have fought in those wars, fighting side-by-side with their own countrymen - to this date, many nations hold remembrance days for those fallen, including special days for (among other) the Americans and Canadians (WW2). But don't kid yourself if you think the U.S. came in to save the day out of the good of their hearts or because other nations needed them to (though ultimately the U.S. troops helped beyond measure) - it did so because it was provoked.

(And of course the U.S. provoked japan with the embargos, etc. etc. - plenty of history books if you want to read about it)

Re:Staying Relevant (2, Insightful)

mrdaveb (239909) | more than 8 years ago | (#15229879)

When you think a randomly selected cross-section of people is showing a political bias.... you might want to re-align your political spectrum or something

Re:Staying Relevant (1)

Traiklin (901982) | more than 8 years ago | (#15228885)

5 billion people are anti-americans

That's rather amazing, there isn't even 300,000,000 people in the US yet 5 BILLION people are anti-americans, do you mean 5 billion hate america or do you mean that there are 5 billion people that are anti-american (aka, Americans that hate america)? cause that's some funky math going on there.

simple math? (2, Interesting)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 8 years ago | (#15229068)

He might be referring to simple math.

5B = earth_population - Golden Billion [wikipedia.org]

I have no comments on the reasons for this.

Re:Staying Relevant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15229415)

Bowie said it best, "...no one needs anyone, no one even just pretends...I'm afraid of American's. I'm afraid of the world. I'm afraid I can't help it. I'm afraid I can't...johnny wants a brain. johnny wants to suck on a coke. johnny wants a women, johnny wants to think of a joke...johnny is in america, johnny looks up at the stars. johnny combs his hair and wants pussy and cars...I'm afraid of American's. I'm afraid of the world. I'm afraid I can't help it. I'm afraid I can't...god is an American."

Moderation Abuse (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15229039)

Nice job mods. Calling someone a right-wing nutjob is "insightful" while calling the BBC biased is a "troll".

Obviously, name-calling is only acceptable when you do it to conservatives. The moderation buse is too glaring in this case.

Re:Moderation Abuse (2, Insightful)

Cal Paterson (881180) | more than 8 years ago | (#15229268)

Have you considered that perhaps the moderation was not for the insults, but for the points they raised? Thought not.

Re:Moderation Abuse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15230186)

Cry more, faggot.

Re:Staying Relevant (0, Offtopic)

TummyX (84871) | more than 8 years ago | (#15229040)


and 5 billion people are anti-americans.


Yeah, and 99.999% of those "anti-americans" are the kind that burn american flags in response to danish cartoons tho most can't be bothered to get off their asses unless it's to collect their american aid.

Anti-Americanism is a fad and it really doesn't mean much that people are "anti-american". They're anti-American in the same way as Anti-Globalisation protestors who stop by starbucks and mcdonalds on the way home from a protest.

Re:Staying Relevant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15229725)

99.999% is 99,999 out of every 100,000, y'know. Are you sure that's right?

Re:Staying Relevant (1)

minus_273 (174041) | more than 8 years ago | (#15229096)

No, he/she is not a nutjob. Even the BBC's internal investigations have acknowledged that there is some left wing bias mostly in the form of anti-ameican and anti-semetic bias at the BBC. Read this article [scotsman.com] if you want to see an example of one such investigation.

if you dont feel like clicking the link, here is he meat:
  THE BBC Governors have upheld a complaint against a radio reporter who wept as dying Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat departed the West Bank.
The corporation's head of editorial complaints initially cleared From Our Own Correspondent journalist Barbara Plett of bias.But a listener appealed and yesterday the Governors' Programme Complaints Committee overturned that ruling

 

Re:Staying Relevant (1)

Psykosys (667390) | more than 8 years ago | (#15229171)

This is descending into total OT-ness, but since the above got modded up... That's an investigation of one specific incident and also hardly one that could be called "anti-Semitic" (and definitely not "anti-semetic"). A number of people thought Arafat stood the best chances of negotiating peace with Israel (a far stretch in my opinion), because he had so much loyalty within the Palestinian population. For much of Palestinian history he was the country's biggest political figure, and therefore was seen to represent the struggle for sovereignty, flaws and all. To say that it's anti-Semitic to cry for him is to insult victims of actual anti-Semitism. -A Jew

Re:Staying Relevant (1)

minus_273 (174041) | more than 8 years ago | (#15229978)

" For much of Palestinian history he was the country's biggest political figure"

Considering palestine has never been a country he must not have been much of a leader. The west bank was part of jordan before israel invaded (you wont read that in the media) and "Palestinians" are just ordinary arabs.

Re:Staying Relevant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15229429)

Yes he is and so are you. Anti semitic, huh? Frankly, i've given up on you people.

Re:Staying Relevant (1)

Jeian (409916) | more than 8 years ago | (#15229481)

BBC is not even left wing by european standards

If Europe is "left-wing"... then it wouldn't really seem left-wing to them, would it?

Re:Staying Relevant (4, Interesting)

spectrumCoder (944322) | more than 8 years ago | (#15228742)

I shall further this informed and relevant debate thus...

I think Fox needs to first get rid its right wing, anti-Europe bias if it wants to be relevant in the digital age. That would be the first thing that needs to be changed.

In this age of left-leaning blogs that can monitor Fox's biases, people will realize how much of an agenda they have.

Re:Staying Relevant (2, Insightful)

Millenniumman (924859) | more than 8 years ago | (#15229789)

Even if it has a very slight right wing bias, how is Fox News anti-Europe? Because it occasionally hints at not being showing complete opposition to the President?

Re:Staying Relevant (4, Insightful)

Cal Paterson (881180) | more than 8 years ago | (#15229262)

Anti-US bias? You are confusing bias with factual reporting. It's something you might not get on Fox News.

I've never seen anyone accuse the BBC of anti-american bias before; probably because the idea is so incredibly stupid. The only real case of a reasonable case for poor quality reporting in the past two decades was "Campbell Dossier", and this wasn't related to America in any real sense.

If there really was any real accusation of anti-american bias, there would have been some kind of report or media discussion. There hasn't been; you're just sounding off because you don't like the coverage.

Re:Staying Relevant (1)

Jeian (409916) | more than 8 years ago | (#15229501)

If there really was any real accusation of anti-american bias, there would have been some kind of report or media discussion.

I suppose. Now where's those (reputable) reports and media discussions about Fox News? You know, the network that doesn't do "factual reporting?"

Re:Staying Relevant (1)

DDiabolical (902284) | more than 8 years ago | (#15230371)

I never go a week without seeing a new article about how bias the BBC is. I read about 4 different newspapers every day though. Maybe it's because you read The Mirror..

BBC Bias is certainly a very talked about issue. [google.co.uk]

6 million sites can't be wrong!

Re:Staying Relevant (2, Insightful)

Gibsnag (885901) | more than 8 years ago | (#15229306)

Well... At least the BBC represents the British public even if our government won't.

huh? (0, Troll)

m0biusAce (899230) | more than 8 years ago | (#15228664)

You can see the catalogue...but you can't view the videos or anything of substance... nothing to see here, move along...

Re:huh? (2, Interesting)

Bloke down the pub (861787) | more than 8 years ago | (#15228694)

If you're outside the UK it won't let you see most things. And if it did, they'd be in realplayer format (don't install realplayer - it's crap).

Re:huh? (3, Informative)

Stalks (802193) | more than 8 years ago | (#15228782)

And if it did, they'd be in realplayer format (don't install realplayer - it's crap).

So install Real Alternative [codecguide.com] instead.

Re:huh? (1)

moro_666 (414422) | more than 8 years ago | (#15228847)

on linux mplayer still plays it with the correct codecs.

who'd install `real crap` on their unix machine anyway ?

i'd like bbc on my pc, i could even pay the bbc the 'tv tax' to watch it outside the uk. they have a nice program and they have more independent news than the channels that start with F or C.

gl bbc

Re:huh? (4, Informative)

Coryoth (254751) | more than 8 years ago | (#15228925)

who'd install `real crap` on their unix machine anyway ?

Given the quality of RealPlayer for Linux (basically just HelixPlayer packaged with proprietary codecs) I certainly would. I seen the Windows RealPlayer, so I certainly understand your reservations... but HelixPlayer and RealPlayer are remarkably simple clean multimedia players. Well worth the effort.

Jedidiah.

Re:huh? (1)

gripped (830310) | more than 8 years ago | (#15229556)

I would and have.
All other options, for embedded 'real' format content, seem to have issues of one sort or another.
Realplayer for linux just works.

Very cool, actually! (1)

yroJJory (559141) | more than 8 years ago | (#15228873)

While there's not media content, there's a lot of useful info and a huge quantity of data for those of us in the US who only get to find out snippets about what our favorite actors/comics have been up to in the UK.

Actually, it'll probably help me understand quite a few of the pop culture jokes in Vicar [imdb.com] of Dibley [bbc.co.uk] . :-)

Re:huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15229528)

I went for an assessment day for a job at the BBC R+D Department a month or so ago, and from chatting with one of the engineers there, the intent is there to make the catalogue available...it's just that there's all sorts of legal hoops to jump through first - much like the ability with the new BBC TV online thingy that will only let you watch TV progs online for a week after they're broadcast. The engineers seemed to view this as a bit pointless and annoying, but something that they had no control over. Interesting chaps. :)

great resource, but incomplete (2, Funny)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 8 years ago | (#15228673)

No search results found for
blake's 7

No search results found for
q

No search results found for
crystal tips and alistair

etc.

But hey, they have a great disclaimer :

The catalogue is not comprehensive. It does not contain an entry for every programme broadcast by the BBC on TV and Radio since the 1920s. The main exclusions are sport, feature films, other non-BBC copyright programmes (e.g. TV series imported from the USA), some regional programming and programmes which do not exist.

Re:great resource, but incomplete (1)

abscissa (136568) | more than 8 years ago | (#15228682)

This refers to programs which do not exist in the archive.

Re:great resource, but incomplete (1)

adamwright (536224) | more than 8 years ago | (#15228733)

FYI, Blake's 7 is in there, under "Blake's Seven". See http://open.bbc.co.uk/catalogue/infax/series/BLAKE 'S+SEVEN [bbc.co.uk] .

I guess their search engine need some more work.

Re:great resource, but incomplete (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15228952)

Why? It did the correct thing as the title is "Blake's Seven" not "Blakes's 7" Did you try a regex just based on Blake?

Re:great resource, but incomplete (2)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 8 years ago | (#15228991)

The show is called "BLAKES 7"

As other parts of the BBC correctly tell you

http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/classic/blakes7/ [bbc.co.uk]

Re:great resource, but incomplete (4, Interesting)

Fred Or Alive (738779) | more than 8 years ago | (#15228735)

The search apparently screws up with one letter terms (Just a Minute returns no results but Just Minute does for example), and Blake's 7 is under Blake's Seven for some reason anyway, and the Q series are under the umbrella series of "Spike Milligan", with the episodes as Q5 / Q6 / etc. I'd guess it probably makes more sense if you work in the BBC archives and are used to the various qwirks of the database.

Re:great resource, but incomplete (1)

poolmeister (872753) | more than 8 years ago | (#15228737)

really? [bbc.co.uk]

Re:great resource, but incomplete (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15228980)

That's just brittish humour.

Re:great resource, but incomplete (4, Informative)

Cal Paterson (881180) | more than 8 years ago | (#15229202)

programmes which do not exist

This notice is because some programs (such as Dad's Army) have had tapes written over/destroyed because of previous BBC policy.

Re:great resource, but incomplete (1)

turgid (580780) | more than 8 years ago | (#15229247)

No search results found for crystal tips and alistair

Try "Crystal Tipps"

try 'sex' (1)

nihaopaul (782885) | more than 8 years ago | (#15230084)

search => sex
redirecting you => sex+porn
redirecting you => porn
redirecting you => hitler

i think they either designed it that way or there is some good hitler porn out there! either way, please share.

Re:try 'sex' (1)

LordOfTheNoobs (949080) | more than 8 years ago | (#15230542)

Holy shit. I thought you were just joking and tried it offhand. That's fucking hilarious.

Is it Just me.... (0, Offtopic)

roe-roe (930889) | more than 8 years ago | (#15228681)

Its becoming more and more common for legitimate companies to start a "competition" for one thing or another, its one thing for an FOSS project to hold these competitions or events, but for a "for profit" to hold these competitions seems like either lazyiness (their web developer doesn't want to) or incompetitance (their web developer isn't able to) I mean, honestly, just hire someone to do it

Re:Is it Just me.... (1)

Neeex (768224) | more than 8 years ago | (#15228748)

I suspect you know, since you used quotes around "for profit", but the BBC isn't run for profit, it's a public service. Personally, I would feel a bit disappointed if my licence fee was used to pay an extortionate amount of money to a 'designer' for a new look. If this competition does result in a better BBC website, then it will have been cheap and tha can only be a good thing IMHO.

Re:Is it Just me.... (4, Informative)

Mr Thinly Sliced (73041) | more than 8 years ago | (#15228765)

You know the BBC is not a standard US 'for-profit' corporate - right?

Check out their 'about us' [bbc.co.uk] stuff.

The BBC is financed by a TV licence paid by households. It does not have to serve the interests of advertisers, or produce a return for shareholders. This means it can concentrate on providing high quality programmes and services for everyone, many of which would not otherwise be supported by subscription or advertising.

Re:Is it Just me.... (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 8 years ago | (#15229827)

OT Question: Is the BBC's general programming of a higher quality than the US's, or am I just catching good shows? It amazes me with how much more than can do with less.

Re:Is it Just me.... (2, Informative)

Mr Thinly Sliced (73041) | more than 8 years ago | (#15229861)

Disclaimer: I am British, living in Belgium and get the Beeb over cable here.

Probably the biggest benefit is that lack of adverts - it also helps in keeping the other channels amount of ADs down too.

The best programmes (shows) that come out of the BBC have to be their natural history and documentaries - some of the National Geographic stuff is in this calibre I must admit. I don't hold the Beeb up on a pedestal though, but consider the standard to be perhaps a little higher .-)

Re:Is it Just me.... (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 8 years ago | (#15229932)

Thanks for replying. :) Have a good weekend.

Re:Is it Just me.... (2, Informative)

wfberg (24378) | more than 8 years ago | (#15228769)


Its becoming more and more common for legitimate companies to start a "competition" for one thing or another, its one thing for an FOSS project to hold these competitions or events, but for a "for profit" to hold these competitions seems like either lazyiness (their web developer doesn't want to) or incompetitance (their web developer isn't able to) I mean, honestly, just hire someone to do it


No, it's what we like to call "just a marketing gimmick". In fact, they even address any "ripping off" or "freeloading" concerns on the blog right there. They'll be using any winning design for one day only, as you'd expect from a marketing gimmick.

Also, the BBC isn't a "for profit". It's a corporation founded by royal charter, funded directly by the public via a "TV license fee". While it does own several for-profit entities (such as BBC America), the corporation itself is a non-profit.

Next time, read the rules first (1)

bj8rn (583532) | more than 8 years ago | (#15228814)

You didn't read the contest page, did you? They will hire (or have already hired) proper web developers to build the new site. The competition most likely serves to get them some input on what the users would like to see. The winning entry will only be turned into the homepage for a (that is, one) day.

The real question is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15229335)

are you STUPID?

competition rules (4, Funny)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 8 years ago | (#15228741)

"They have also opened up a competition to completely redesign its home page."

The catch is that they want it to have the same color scheme, font, icons, and certain design elements from the Slashdot home page.

Re:competition rules (1)

vyvepe (809573) | more than 8 years ago | (#15229562)

Hah, the question is whether they can master it up to OMG Ponies!

Xmltv of tv and radio programmes (1, Insightful)

Lobais (743851) | more than 8 years ago | (#15228743)

A thing I really think they should do 'to keep the BBC relevant in the digital age.' is to make xmltvfiles of all their tv and radio programme info. This would make them very useful for a lot of people, and sure wouldn't be very hard.

Re:Xmltv of tv and radio programmes (2, Informative)

Neeex (768224) | more than 8 years ago | (#15228774)

They do, via the Radio Times (which is a BBC service/publication).

See here [dave.org.uk] for more details.

Re:Xmltv of tv and radio programmes (5, Informative)

pldms (136522) | more than 8 years ago | (#15228810)

The BBC provides extensive listings for all channels, covering one week, in the tv-anytime xml format. It's updated every morning.

7 Day Listings [bbc.co.uk]

There's also the RadioListings web site (3, Informative)

Larry Lightbulb (781175) | more than 8 years ago | (#15228759)

Although the catalogue is a great source of data it needs interpretation, and that's where sites like mine - http://www.radiolistings.co.uk/ [radiolistings.co.uk] - come in.

I take the data the BBC (and other stations) list, edit it it for readability, and include things like series and episode numbers - things that are essential for any collectors.

Yes, this is a blatent plug for my site.

Re:There's also the RadioListings web site (1)

dredre123 (962507) | more than 8 years ago | (#15229372)

Blantant, the word you're looking for is "blatant". Neat site! It's really simple and useful.

Re:There's also the RadioListings web site (1)

mustafap (452510) | more than 8 years ago | (#15229649)

Just curious,

is there a copyright issue with what you are doing?

The BBC's Website (5, Interesting)

spectrumCoder (944322) | more than 8 years ago | (#15228763)

The first and possibly only thing they should change about the BBC home page is the fact that it's designed to be viewed at a resolution of 800x600. Surely a company as big as the BBC is capable of producing a web site that utilizes all of the screen space available in a browser window?

Re:The BBC's Website (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15228803)

Must be nice to be able to upgrade your screen size so frequently. The majority of regular users are at 1024x768, and an 800x600 window fits nicely on there. On my 1280x1024 display, an 800x600 window is perfect size for when I'm multitasking.

Re:The BBC's Website (2, Interesting)

iangoldby (552781) | more than 8 years ago | (#15228913)

I know I really shouldn't rise to the bait, but the original poster did say "a web site that utilizes all of the screen space available in a browser window". That doesn't mean bigger than 800x600 or smaller than 800x600. It means fully using all of the space available - whatever the size may be. Something like a liquid layout [google.co.uk] .

Re:The BBC's Website (3, Insightful)

robthebob (742982) | more than 8 years ago | (#15228927)

Just to play Devil's Advocate here (I'm at 1600x1200), firstly as pointed out by other replies a lot of people don't have screens that are that huge. Secondly, the BBC website is designed to adhere to certain standards of readability, and this involves presenting information in a primarily vertical fashion. People tend to lose track of text that flows over more than around 60 characters per line (cf Latex).

Re:The BBC's Website (1)

Firehed (942385) | more than 8 years ago | (#15228987)

"that huge"? Hasn't 1024x768 been a standard since about 1993? I hate static width websites as it is, but ones made for 800x600 just kill me on my 1920x1200 display. Even at the increasingly popular 1280x1024 it's pretty wasteful.

Re:The BBC's Website (2, Insightful)

robthebob (742982) | more than 8 years ago | (#15229030)

Sure, I'd be surprised if anyone was running below 1024, "huge" was referring to our kind of screen sizes, which really are the exception rather than the norm. I think my second point still stands.

Re:The BBC's Website (2, Interesting)

snarlydwarf (532865) | more than 8 years ago | (#15229044)

Well, my browser window is almost always less than 1024....

But then, I see very little reason to make windows take up the whole screen.... I usually have 2 or 3 that i'm watching in the background and I want some of them visible.

This is why static sized pages of any sort suck. Fix a narrow column or two, let the browser size the rest based on how much is left. It's not that hard.

Re:The BBC's Website (1)

Dis*abstraction (967890) | more than 8 years ago | (#15229641)

Offtopic, but in your sig... er... isn't "content restriction annulment" a good thing? Why would you want to stop it?

Re:The BBC's Website (1)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 8 years ago | (#15229161)

a lot of people don't have screens that are that huge.

He said "utilizes all of the screen space available in a browser window". He didn't say "utilizes an area larger than 800x600". Web design isn't like print media, it can (and by default does) dynamically reflow into whatever space is available when the web designers don't intentionally stop it from doing so.

So if a visitor has a small screen, that's not a problem, and visitors with large screens (or in this case, average-sized screens) can actually use their whole browser window instead of having an ugly blank strip down the side.

People tend to lose track of text that flows over more than around 60 characters per line

That's not really a problem in practice, because most websites use sidebars etc to reduce horizontal space anyway, so you'd need an especially large and high resolution screen with especially small fonts to have very long lines of text, and even then, that's remedied with the max-width CSS property, so that the page flows naturally up to a certain width and then stops growing any further.

Re:The BBC's Website (1)

qoa (704941) | more than 8 years ago | (#15229026)

At some point, believe it or not, the world moved away from tiny monitors. Following your line of thinking, why not format everything to 640x480? Surely some people use that? It's not fair to them that websites default to twice their screens is it?

They don't print books on cash register paper, so why make every website on that? It's not like I'm saying make it 1200x1600 default.

BBC on /.'s revamp? (5, Informative)

jbn-o (555068) | more than 8 years ago | (#15228797)

An interesting point from the BBC "Reboot [bbc.co.uk] " Q&A considering /.'s recent webpage redesign contest:

[...]To kick-off, jay left the following comment on the blog: "What you are really asking for is numerous submissions of what is in essence a $million rebranding. Not a bad exchange for an apple laptop."

I think it's worth pointing out from the very beginning that we are not asking people to provide million £ rebranding for us. Indeed we are NOT going to use or commission any designs for the final front page. Yes, we will turn the winning design into the homepage for a day - but that's as a prize and as recognition for the winning producer's efforts (and if they really don't want us to, then we won't).

I would completely agree with jay that we would be ripping people off if we were going to turn entries submitted into the final homepage design. But that's not the objective of this competition.

Online archive (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15228824)

The French institute called INA (institut national de l'audiovisuel) has opened online archives, with free video and audio content (you can also pay for high quality versions).

It's available here : http://www.ina.fr/archivespourtous/index.php [www.ina.fr]

Re:Online archive (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15229254)

Yeah, but its the french, so who cares?

In Sweden as well... (5, Informative)

isecore (132059) | more than 8 years ago | (#15228876)

The Swedish government-owned TV networks are exploring similar options. SVT [svt.se] (as they're called, sorry, not sure if their site is available in Anglosaxon) are working on making available all of their archives over the internet.

A small(ish) selection of the historical archives is available, and shows are available online up to a week after having been aired - but the plan is that one day all of the archives will be indexed and digitized and viewable over the intarweb. There's also rumors that this will be completely free for everyone who lives in the country and pays the state-imposed TV-license.

Re:In Sweden as well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15229371)

That's OK...most people don't speak anglo-saxon now anyway.

I looked for the Churchill speech (0, Redundant)

imrdkl (302224) | more than 8 years ago | (#15228901)

His "We will never surrender" speech seems to be listed, but darned if I can get it to play or download... I wonder if there's to be a cost for downloading the old clips.

Re:I looked for the Churchill speech (2, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 8 years ago | (#15229019)

From the front page of the linked site:

DOES NOT INCLUDE:
Anything to listen to or watch... Sorry, but the programmes themselves are not available.
That would probably be why. Hopefully they will appear soon, since the BBC's charter does make it clear that it is their duty to get their content to as wide an audience within the UK as possible.

Re:I looked for the Churchill speech (1)

imrdkl (302224) | more than 8 years ago | (#15229111)

Ah, thanks for pointing that out. I remain hopeful, however, that they will eventually include the actual footage/recordings. Indeed, I will never surrender, whatever the cost may be. (unless it goes over £1/speech)

Re:I looked for the Churchill speech (1)

Fred Or Alive (738779) | more than 8 years ago | (#15229158)

Well, I doubt the archive will appear on the catalouge, seeing as it's basically a front end to the BBC archive's internal database. It's basically a very bid index.

I suppose stuff like the iMP [bbc.co.uk] could have archive programming however, but there may be rights issues preventing stuff to appear, plus putting the entire archive online would probably be rather unfeasible from a time and money perspective.

I think the BBC is also supposed to make money from stuff like DVDs as well. It's all rather confusing and contradictory...

Re:I looked for the Churchill speech (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15229027)

You are an idiot. It specifically says no sound or video.

Re:I looked for the Churchill speech (1)

smallfries (601545) | more than 8 years ago | (#15229176)

But a search for doctor who only found *nine* items. Which is a bit shit really.

Re:I looked for the Churchill speech (1)

Sinus0idal (546109) | more than 8 years ago | (#15229343)

Try Dr Who

Re:I looked for the Churchill speech (1)

smallfries (601545) | more than 8 years ago | (#15229625)

Good tip, that's a much better result. I guess google has made me lazy...

Web 2.0 (0)

pen (7191) | more than 8 years ago | (#15229022)

It seems that, if BBC's web designers are to be believed, "Web 2.0" really just means "make all your fonts huge".

From a big fan of the current bbc.co.uk [bbc.co.uk] .

The Computer Programme (1)

glas_gow (961896) | more than 8 years ago | (#15229101)

It really is experimental, all it does is give the tv listings for the programme, a bit like an old newspaper on the bottom of a drawer. I was hoping they'd put "The Computer Programme" online, so I could look at those hulking great modems with the suckers for the earpiece and receiver.

Re:The Computer Programme (1)

steevc (54110) | more than 8 years ago | (#15229480)

Maybe they could revive the old Teletext pages where you could download programs if you had the right hardware! I had loads of fun with my old BBC Micro.

Javascript... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15229177)

Less of this:
onclick='Element.removeClassName($("js_sucks"),"hi dden"); Element.show("js_sucks"); return js_sucks;'
More of this:
onclick='BBC.switchStreamingMediaFormat("rm", "ogg"); return real_suck;'

0/10 (1)

Tim Ward (514198) | more than 8 years ago | (#15229374)

"No results found" searching for ISIRTA.

('Spose I could try Angus Prune as well ...)

bbc 2.0 = snookr snookr snookr (2, Funny)

Bazman (4849) | more than 8 years ago | (#15229584)

And it will look like this [msn.com] ...

yes, its the world championship snooker at the moment, so BBC2 stops everything for green baize action...

Re:bbc 2.0 = snookr snookr snookr (1)

stunt_penguin (906223) | more than 8 years ago | (#15229805)

You sir, are a b3ta.com user.

AICMFP

Or I could be mistaken.

I've had it (0, Troll)

packetmill (955023) | more than 8 years ago | (#15230422)

That's it. The next dork who says anything with 2.0 in it will be shot.

What's with these people? The urge to move on and be part of the next big thing is overwhelming, I know, but for petesake dont invent meaningless words and put them in articles for the other hopeless twats to read when everybody knows it's all first degree BS.

I could punch somebody.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>