October 23, 2003 – 6:07 pm
When does “ergonomics” become “urban comics?” When you let voice recognition software loose on your vocabulary. Voice recognition is either a godsend or a hassle, depending on who you talk to. It can also be a joke. I’ve encounted many interesting tales lately of odd transcriptions authored by various VR packages.
In my opinion, the VR blooper is becoming an art form in its own right. Someone, somewhere ought to run a contest for the best VR blooper.
Susan Fulton’s “Computing Out Loud” site offers an entertaining VR Goofs page. The examples here demonstrate not just the intriguing and amusing ways that VR packages mistranslate words, but also how they interpret stray sounds. For instance…
October 21, 2003 – 3:14 pm
When I relaunched CONTENTIOUS, I considered my options carefully. I selected the weblog approach and opted to add RSS because that strategy, I think, makes the most sense for me and for many of my readers.
“Many” definitely is not “all.” While the response to the new CONTENTIOUS weblog has been overwhelmingly positive, I have received [...]
October 21, 2003 – 7:09 am
Now that I’ve completed the major upgrading, updating, consolidation, and reorganization of my e-mail announcements list, I’ll be posting e-mail announcements listing recent CONTENTIOUS postings only every few days, not for each individual posting.
If you want to find out about CONTENTIOUS postings as soon as they hit the Web, your best bet is to subscribe to my RSS feed. (Again, if you don’t know what RSS feeds are or how to use them, read my RSS backgrounder.)
October 20, 2003 – 7:08 pm
A General Accounting Office report released today sharply criticizes a high-profile Bush Administration e-government initiative, the < ahref="http://www.regulations.gov">Regulations.gov site, which was supposed to enable the public to submit online comments on proposed rules from various federal agencies.
Bad site design and lack of appropriate links from agency sites is undermining this effort, said GAO.
Gee, why am I not surprised? (Read more…)
October 20, 2003 – 10:37 am
Colleagues of mine noted in comments to a recent CONTENTIOUS item, a new Web-based personal feed reader service called Bloglines. It sounded like it might be a good thing for RSS newbies, so I checked it out. It is indeed pretty cool, although I have some reservations about it. Here’s what I think of Bloglines, so far…
October 19, 2003 – 11:22 pm
Being a notoriously incorrigible word geek, one RSS feed I check every day is Dictionary.com’s Word of the Day. (Here’s the feed.)
….But this week, I’m a little concerned. I’m wondering whether the editor of this fine service is having a really bad week.
Here’s what I mean: Today (Sunday), the word of the day is execrable: 1. Deserving to be execreted; detestable; abominable. 2. Extremely bad; of very poor quality; very inferior.
Hmmmm... Looking back over the past week, other potential cries for help appear...
October 19, 2003 – 10:30 pm
I’d like to offer my heartfelt thanks for all the support and encouragement I’ve received from my readers, colleagues, and friends for relaunching CONTENTIOUS as a weblog.
I’d especially like to thank everyone who has posted comments to my recent weblog items – such interesting food for thought! If you haven’t yet had a chance to peruse the comments about postings here, please do – and feel free to post comments of your own!
Also, I’d like to thank some fellow bloggers who have been kind enough to mention the CONTENTIOUS relaunch…
October 18, 2003 – 7:20 pm
This entry is the table of contents for a 12-part basic tutorial on webfeeds. The tutorial a major revision and expansion of an article I originally published Oct. 18, 2003 under the title “What Is RSS and Why Should You Care?”
Please note that this tutorial reflects an important shift in terminology at CONTENTIOUS. This publication is transitioning from RSS feed to the more generic nickname webfeed. This shift is explained in Part 11.
(Read the table of contents…)
October 17, 2003 – 11:43 pm
This item is an introduction to the new CONTENTIOUS weblog for people who subscribed to the original version of this publication.
October 17, 2003 – 2:56 pm
Frankly, for years now I’ve been fairly annoyed at the attitude I get from many of my colleagues from mainstream media. These are the journalists, editors, and publishers who blithely dismiss online or independent journalism as inherently lacking in credibility. Not only is that belief inaccurate and counterproductive, it’s shortsighted.
I’d like to call to your attention a fabulous posting in one of my very favorite Weblogs, Phil Wolff’s A Klog Apart. Check out the Oct. 17, 2003 entry, How Much of a Journalist Are You, Blogger?, in which Phil discusses the kinds of standards which lend credibility to news reporting, regardless of which individuals or organizations are doing the reporting.
I’m pretty opinionated on the matter of credibility among online publishers. I’ve long held that the credibility of news and commentary stems not from the nature of the publisher but rather from intent, knowledge, and skill. I believe that independent publishers (online and elsewhere) and other types of organizations (such as companies or advocacy groups) can provide news and comment that is as valuable – sometimes even more valuable – than what comes out of many established news organizations. Wolff sets a fine example in this regard.
BlogoSquare