On The BBC 2.0

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."

Comments

Staying Relevant

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[quiffhanger]

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

[masklinn]

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

[masklinn]

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

[kfg]

. . .5 billion people are anti-americans.

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

KFG

Re:Staying Relevant

[quiffhanger]

Yep, left wing, sorry.

Re:Staying Relevant

[spectrumCoder]

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

[Traiklin]

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.

Re:Staying Relevant

[TummyX]

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

[minus_273]

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 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

[Psykosys]

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

[Cal Paterson]

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

[Gibsnag]

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

Re:Staying Relevant

[Anonymous Coward]

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."

Re:Staying Relevant

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Staying Relevant

[Jeian]

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

[Jeian]

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

[digital.prion]

riiiiight..





//pft

Re:Staying Relevant

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Staying Relevant

[Millenniumman]

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

[Gonoff]

Republicans would be the far right

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

Re:Staying Relevant

[mrdaveb]

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

[minus_273]

" 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

[DDiabolical]

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.

6 million sites can't be wrong!

Re:Staying Relevant

[CountBrass]

Good lord, if you're an example of the product of the American Education system then God help us.

Anti-American means they don't like you. And there are more people in the world than just those living in the US.

Re:Staying Relevant

[CountBrass]

I'm sorry but you're wrong. People are anti-American because they don't like the way the arrogant and imperialistic way in which the USA behaves, doubly so under George "the moron" Bush.

Re:Staying Relevant

[CountBrass]

And half of them are left-wing newspapers complaining of right-wing bias and the other haf are right-wing newspapers complaining of left-wing bias.

Oh and then there's the Sun, owned by one of the BBC's competitiors (Sky), that just complains because their boss tells them to.

Re:Staying Relevant

[mpe]

And half of them are left-wing newspapers complaining of right-wing bias and the other haf are right-wing newspapers complaining of left-wing bias.

There probably would be bias if some group wasn't complaining about bias.

Re:Staying Relevant

[Anonymous Coward]

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

One of the ironies involved here is that the Palestinians actually are Semitic (and speak a Semitic language), whereas the majority of Israelis are not.
Then there's the quite deliberate confusing of Zionism with Judeism. Even though plenty of Zionists (and supporters) don't even claim to be Jewism, even including a "Jew Haters" (the odd few "Jew hating Jews" too), many Jews are rather indifferent to the whole idea of Zionism and some of it's strongest critics (including those who claim that it is impossible for someone to be both Jewish and a Zionist) are Othodox Rabbi...

Re:Staying Relevant

[the_womble]

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.

More than most of Europe, most of the world.

Re:Staying Relevant

[Cal Paterson]

Well, you may have noticed that a search for '"bbc bias"' gives 68,000 results, compared with the `BBC` search that results in 401 million. Even if one were to include the 5.5 million results linked by you; it is a minority issue.

But let's be honest, google hits don't mean shit. There is no issue of BBC bias.

Re:Staying Relevant

[Anonymous Coward]

QFT.

Re:Staying Relevant

[TummyX]

Sure, what you say will get your modded up on /. but could you be any more unoriginal? Aeeeee!! The US is imperialistic *wank* *wank* and arrogant *wank* *wank*.

Perhaps the rest of the world could give back all their US AID and technology.

Re:Staying Relevant

[lysergic.acid]

Being pro-Palestine or simply against Israeli occupation doesn't make one 'anti-semitic'. Even ignoring the fact that Arabs are also semites, there are Jews (and even Israeli Jews) who are also against the occupation. Opposing Zionism and the state of Israel does not mean one hates Jews. In fact, the only reason Israel was established was because the British and U.S. government didn't want an influx of Jewish refugees after WWII. So the creation of the state of Israel is more anti-semetic than opposing its existence.

And simply being critical of U.S. policies does not make one anti-American or biased. Otherwise you may as well say that the entire world has an 'anti-American' bias. Have you ever considered that maybe you (and your prefered news sources) just have a pro-Bush administration bias?

Lastly, I rather think it's a good thing that BBC journalists aren't expected to conform to what American news outlets consider to be a 'centrist' point of view. Unlike in the U.S., the media is not strictly controlled by conservative elements in the U.K., and similarly, the BBC does not only present the Israel-Palestine issue from the perspective of Israel as American news outlets have a habit of doing. Perhaps you'd like to see reporters be fired just because they may have a different perspective than yours, but the rest of us like to be able to see all sides of the story.

Re:Staying Relevant

[lysergic.acid]

That's why he said "by european standards." Unlike, you, the GP understands that 'left-wing' and 'right-wing' are subjective terms that can only be used in relative comparisons. Calling Europe 'left-wing' is just stating that they are 'left-wing' by your standards--by their standards, you would also be 'right-wing' then.

Are perhaps you think that your point of view is the universally centrist point of view which all political attitudes should be measured against?

Re:Staying Relevant

[Jeian]

No, I'm more than willing to admit that I'm right-wing.

Re:Staying Relevant

[trewornan]

When you think slashdot moderators are a representative cross-section of people.... you might want to reduce the amount of time you spend online or something.

Re:Staying Relevant

[mrdaveb]

Slashdot moderators are slashdot readers. Yes, OK - Slashdot readers are possibly a bit of a freak-show, but it just seems a bit wierd to say "This group of people (which anyone is free to join and of which I am an equal member) is biased"

Re:Staying Relevant

[StrawberryFrog]

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.

Rubbish.

Firstly, you're trolling. "you have to be right-wing in order to be relevant" ? WTF, get a life, go back under that bridge, troll, etc.

Secondly, the BBC is paid for by the citizens on the UK via the TV licence tax. It is not even directly controlled or financed by the UK government via tax budgets, but via the licence fee. If Americans don't like what it says, that is largely thier problem, not the BBCs problem, and not the citizens of the UK's problem.

Thirdly, the BBC does a stand-up job of reporting news, far better than, say, Fox or CNN. If anything, they were to easy on the US and UK goverments during the whole "Iraq has weapons of mas destruction" fiasco.

Re:Staying Relevant

[StrawberryFrog]

It may be free to join, but it is self-selected, not representative of the general population, and so will have different biases to the general population.

huh?

[m0biusAce]

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

Re:huh?

[Bloke down the pub]

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?

[Stalks]

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

So install Real Alternative instead.

Re:huh?

[moro_666]

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?

[Coryoth]

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

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. :)

Re:huh?

[gripped]

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.

Re:huh?

[Don_dumb]

Not that I am doing a job selling the Beeb, but you should still be able to get BBC radio anywhere in the world. For news it would be the institution that is Radio4, although that isn't quite as unbiased now as it was pre-Hutton report.
IMO the Beeb has always been slightly pro-government (whoever was in power at the time) after all the BBC does have a charter that is up for renewal soon http://www.bbc.co.uk/thefuture/charter/charter.sht ml. So the BBC will always lean, albeit only slightly, towards those who have the power to destroy it (currently T.Blair).
A former editor of the Sun, Kelvin Mackenzie, always said that BBC stood for "Blair's Broadcasting Corporation", but then he was editor of the Sun, which doesn't deserve any respect and which is far more of a mouthpiece for New Labour.

Whenever I am away from the UK and watch BBC World I am reminded of just how good and balanced their news is. It's such a shame they are giving so many people the sack.

great resource, but incomplete

[DrSkwid]

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

[abscissa]

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

Re:great resource, but incomplete

[adamwright]

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

I guess their search engine need some more work.

Re:great resource, but incomplete

[Fred Or Alive]

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

[poolmeister]

really?

Re:great resource, but incomplete

[stx23]

http://open.bbc.co.uk/catalogue/infax/series/CRYST AL+TIPPS+AND+ALISTAIR

http://open.bbc.co.uk/catalogue/infax/search/Q9

Re:great resource, but incomplete

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

That's just brittish humour.

Re:great resource, but incomplete

[DrSkwid]

The show is called "BLAKES 7"

As other parts of the BBC correctly tell you

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

Re:great resource, but incomplete

[Cal Paterson]

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

[turgid]

No search results found for crystal tips and alistair

Try "Crystal Tipps"

competition rules

[tverbeek]

"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

[vyvepe]

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

Xmltv of tv and radio programmes

[Lobais]

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

[Neeex]

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

See here for more details.

Re:Xmltv of tv and radio programmes

[pldms]

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

Re:Is it Just me....

[Neeex]

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.

There's also the RadioListings web site

[Larry Lightbulb]

Although the catalogue is a great source of data it needs interpretation, and that's where sites like mine - http://www.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

[dredre123]

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

[mustafap]

Just curious,

is there a copyright issue with what you are doing?

Re:There's also the RadioListings web site

[Larry Lightbulb]

The BBC makes their listings free to use for non-commercial usage - and neither the traffic nor the advertising that RadioListings has makes it anywhere near being commercial. Also I add some value to them by matching up repeat broadcasts, giving episode numbers, etc - and I've had unofficial contact with producers, writers, and performers thanking me for making the information available when the BBC wasn't doing so.

The BBC's Website

[spectrumCoder]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[iangoldby]

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.

Re:The BBC's Website

[robthebob]

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

[Firehed]

"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

[qoa]

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.

Re:The BBC's Website

[robthebob]

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

[snarlydwarf]

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

[Bogtha]

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

[Dis*abstraction]

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

[Frozen Void]

Content Restriction,Anullment and Protection.

Re:The BBC's Website

[mikeydb]

I'm currently using an 800x600 display on an ageing PC but then again it's only used for slashdot, e-mail and a bit of shopping now and again. My other machines have 1024x768 displays,one is purely used for playback/capturing of audio and video media (ie it's a personal video recorder), and the other is for games and internet, the sites designed for 800x600 don't bother me in the slightest.

Re:The BBC's Website

[Dis*abstraction]

Ah, thanks... Demonstrating again the power of the comma. Without the comma, that phrase just doesn't make sense.

Re:The BBC's Website

[Firehed]

Because the source that created it left out the comma, and I haven't been bothered to correct it.

Re:The BBC's Website

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with your logic is that you are thinking only of monitors.

Right now I am typing this from my PVR system which has a 600p (800x600) 28" TV as its display. I also have another mp3 server system (different room) that is attached to both a TV (SVideo) for visualisations and POS style touch screen for selecting the songs. This is run at 640x480, because this is the best resolution for TV output ledgibility.

Nothing is more frustrating than people that creat e dialogs that are too large to see the OK /Cancel buttons at the bottom of the page. KDE has real issues with this even at 800x600.

And trying to broswe a site on my XV6700 when its wider then 800x600 is a nightmare.

Re:The BBC's Website

[ErroneousBee]

People tend to lose track of text that flows over more than around 60 characters per line (cf Latex).

Possibly true for dense print, but looking at some books on my desk we have

• O'Reily DHTML Definiative Reference: 100 chars wide
• Raskin, The Humane interface: 75 chars wide

And Im sure Ive seen data that shows putting text into newspaper-style columns reduces comprehension, but cant find a reference.

And people who quote this, possibly mythical, eyeball flyback effect seem to completely miss the effect that constant scrolling has on aquiring the next line in a text.

Re:The BBC's Website

[lysergic.acid]

Well, if you set a max-width property, aren't people still going to complain if their resolution width is higher than the max-width?

The problem with autoresizing layouts is that you lose a lot of editorial control over content layout. For pages that are just straight-forward single-article documents, this isn't much of a problem. However, most home pages of large, content-rich sites follow a magazine/newspaper-frontpage layout. So the content is divided up into several columns and panels with custom graphics accompany different features. Most of the graphics are typically the width of a single column of text, or multiple columns if that panel happens to span more than one regular column. Now, the column text can easy expand horizontally with the layout, but the graphics will stay the same size. This'll end up creating a lot of large patches of white-space in the middle of the page, which looks very ugly.

From an editor/graphic designer's perspective, a fixed width layout is really the best way to go. Aside from that, it's also much more annoying to read huge long lines of horizontal text than it is to simply scroll down a page as you read--hence why newspaper/magazine articles are written in columns, and why most documents are longer than they are wide.

The whole "wasted screen realestate" complaint is just jibberish. It's not as if you gain any extra value from a layout that takes up 100% of your screen's width. It's not like you're watching a movie and you actually get more out of having the picture fit your screen perfectly. It's still just the same amount of web content. Web layouts are designed to be around the same width as a normal physical document because that's really the ideal width for reading text.

When you read magazine you don't hold up the magazine so that all you can see in your field of vision is the page you're on. In fact that'd probably be pretty annoying. Even when you watch a movie you wouldn't want to be sitting so close to the screen so that the edges of the picture are rigth where your field of vision ends. So what difference does it make if there's extra screen space that isn't being used? Having a 30" monitor at 1900x1200 resolution doesn't mean you have to read everything from one edge of the screen to the other. If you have a 15" monitor and you have the resolution set that high then you're just being silly by setting the resolution at an unreadable level for yourself.

Re:Is it Just me....

[Mr Thinly Sliced]

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

Check out their 'about us' 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....

[wfberg]

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.

BBC on /.'s revamp?

[jbn-o]

An interesting point from the BBC "Reboot" 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.

Next time, read the rules first

[bj8rn]

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.

Online archive

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Very cool, actually!

[yroJJory]

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 of Dibley. :-)

In Sweden as well...

[isecore]

The Swedish government-owned TV networks are exploring similar options. SVT (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...

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:In Sweden as well...

[bheer]

> (as they're called, sorry, not sure if their site is available in Anglosaxon)

You know, I'm American, I'm not 'Anglosaxon', and I can speak English pretty well. I know its hard to realize when you live in almost-lilywhite Sweden, but race does not correlate to language.

Or maybe you were just playing to the Euro Slashdot audience that thinks its cute to talk about le anglo saxon and their ghastly language. It'll be pretty freaking funny when these guys get the memo that more people speak English in Asia these days than the US+Europe combined.

Anglosaxon, my fucking nonwhite ass.

Re:In Sweden as well...

[bheer]

Ok, that other comment was a little too harsh. Much. Switch to. Decaf.

Re:In Sweden as well...

[isecore]

Y'know, actually I am American. Due to a rather complicated history I live in Sweden. I was merely trying to be a bit witty, but apparently that backfired rather badly. Apologies about that.

I looked for the Churchill speech

[imrdkl]

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

[TheRaven64]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:I looked for the Churchill speech

[imrdkl]

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

[Fred Or Alive]

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 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

[smallfries]

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

Re:I looked for the Churchill speech

[Sinus0idal]

Try Dr Who

Re:I looked for the Churchill speech

[smallfries]

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

Re:I looked for the Churchill speech

[Anonymous Coward]

Churchill (or an actor, opinions differ) recorded those speeches and they were issued commercially on record during WW2. I am not sure whether these rerecordings were made by the BBC or another entity. The BBC may have this in its archive, but does it own the copyright on any recordings of these speeches?

Web 2.0

[pen]

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.

Moderation Abuse

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[Cal Paterson]

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

Re:Moderation Abuse

[Anonymous Coward]

Cry more, faggot.

simple math?

[mapkinase]

He might be referring to simple math.

5B = earth_population - Golden Billion

I have no comments on the reasons for this.

The Computer Programme

[glas_gow]

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

[steevc]

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...

[Anonymous Coward]

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;'

The real question is

[Anonymous Coward]

are you STUPID?

0/10

[Tim Ward]

"No results found" searching for ISIRTA.

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

bbc 2.0 = snookr snookr snookr

[Bazman]

And it will look like this...

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

Re:bbc 2.0 = snookr snookr snookr

[stunt_penguin]

You sir, are a b3ta.com user.

AICMFP

Or I could be mistaken.

Let's feed the trolls!

[Animaether]

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:Let's feed the trolls!

[trewornan]

Incidentally, the UK is still paying the US for it's assistance during WWII - from Hansard (record of debates in UK parliament):

"Bob Spink: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what outstanding liabilities there are to the United Kingdom of lend-lease loan facilities arranged during the Second World War; [38441]..."

"Ruth Kelly: The information is as follows."...

"Under the Agreement the loans would be repaid in 50 annual instalments commencing in 1950. However the Agreement allowed deferral of annual payments of both principal and interest if necessary because of prevailing international exchange rate conditions and the level of the United Kingdom's foreign currency and gold reserves. The United Kingdom has deferred payments on six occasions. Repayment of the war loans to the United States Government should therefore be completed on 31 December 2006, subject to the United Kingdom not choosing to exercise its option to defer payment.

As at 31 March 2001 principal of $346,287,953 (£243,573,154 at the exchange rate on that day) was outstanding on the loans provided by the United States Government in 1945. The Government intend to meet its obligations under the 1945 Agreement by repaying the United States Government in full the amounts lend [sic] in 1945. "

So not only do Americans seem to expect eternal gratitude - they want paying as well! Not that I have a problem with paying the money back, but you'd kind of think . . .

Re:Is it Just me....

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

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....

[Mr Thinly Sliced]

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....

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Thanks for replying. :) Have a good weekend.

try 'sex'

[nihaopaul]

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'

[LordOfTheNoobs]

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

Slashdot staying Relevant?

[neoguri]

I think Slashdot needs to first get rid its anti-Microsoft 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 tech blogs that can monitor Slashdot's biases, people will realize how much of an agenda they have.

Redesign the site

[TechnicalThug]

I suggest we take off and nuke the site from orbit. it's the only way to be sure. (And I'm professionally allowed to say that ;-p )