People have mocked me for taking the time to include at least minimal accessibility features (and better than minimal where I know how) on my website's craft tutorials, especially for beading. Some people thought it quite silly that I'd bother, alleging that blind people can't bead.
Then a couple of months ago a woman wrote to me to thank me for taking the time, since she is converting patterns to a blind-friendly format by listing the number of beads by colour by row. She works with an elderly woman who has not let blindness stop her art.
I'm now in the process of converting my patterns to this format for blind users.
It's amazing what a little bit of consideration can do, even if one doesn't expect it to be useful.
"I still can't understand why these companies would be upset at getting MORE viewers... Also, whats the big deal if people rebroadcast your material? As long as it's live and not recorded, I don't understand what they're all up in arms about... all their gettig is more viewers = more advertising."
This is pretty much exactly what Bill Craig himself told me in an interview for a Network World Canada article a few months ago.
As mentioned in that article, he also figured it would add more viewers than even possible with cable, since many business areas do not have cable and can't go by straight antenna, so iCrave would be bringing TV to a whole new audience. (Not that I imagine a lot of bosses would be thrilled to find employees watching TV instead of working, and worse still the ire of the network administrator who suddenly has no available bandwidth...)
But some businesses could probably use the ability to watch the news in their offices, so the advertisers would be getting a whole new market.
The problem is that iCrave put its banners on, and made money without asking permission. And the issue of not allowing Americans to watch was not to prevent them from getting US networks online, but to present a qualified advertising list to local advertisers in Toronto.
The networks may have been interested in the idea of allowing iCrave to do this if the company had come to them first and said, "Hey, let us open up whole new audiences for you." And they would have had to concede that it's only fair to let the company bringing in the new audiences make money themselves.
I think the problem is the Goliaths that be didn't like a little David snubbing them entirely, and, smart business move or not, they sought immediately to crush him.
-- Kimberly "this WILL be a method of TV delivery in the not-so-distant future" Chapman
Re:Had to love the chick in the leather outfit...
on
X-Files FPS Episode
·
· Score: 2
(although it baffled me why such a woman would hold up a rather sexist image as her best-of-possible self).
Women programmers can fall prey to stereotypes just as much as men. And this woman wanted the character to be everything she wasn't. Furthermore, if I were to program something to hurt men, I'd probably make her look like something that would stun them into the drool zone long enough to pull out a gun, just like she did.
Given how many games don't have female characters to play, women have to play as men. Ever play that old game Castles, where you build your little castle and the Celts come and try to knock it down? It had a setting to play as "Queen" instead of "King," but the graphics were always still of a King and the readme file basically said they couldn't be bothered to create Queen graphics. Not that it mattered beyond the graphics, for that game.
The first game I recall giving me a choice was the Infocom classic Leather Goddesses of Phobos...hardly the epitome of bash-you-over-the-head feminism. But it did let you play as either gender, and the game took shape accordingly (ie you could boink the opposite gender in the unforgettable "lewd" mode). I played as both just to see what amusing differences there were. IIRC, if you played a guy you had an impressive "unit" and if you played a gal, you were blessed in the chest area.
-- Kimberly "couldn't play Arthur Dent as a female, though" Chapman
Do you get the feeling that even the programmers know that their software is pretty much useless?
Given the ones I've interviewed for articles on this subject (for Network World Canada), yes. The people who produce these products are fairly aware that they're playing on parental and school board insecurity to sell something.
That's why many of these products spend less effort on blocking pages (since kids can get around them, often just by using numerical IP addresses) and focus instead on logging everything the user does. That way, mommy and daddy can check the log later and see that little Timmy was looking at porn and little Susie was reading about wicca (a common target of censorware).
This is, of course, even more insidious, because a confused kid looking for honest information on sexual orientation, diseases, etc. can think they're safe, only to have someone come down on them later. What better way to pry into your kid's life than give them a false sense of privacy?
The people making the software exude an attitude of giving parents control, not of protecting children. And proudly so.
-- Kimberly "evil liberal" Chapman
Re:Jon, *please* leave the research to the pros.
on
LonelyNet (Part Two)
·
· Score: 4
I haven't looked at the study in detail, but your dismissal of it is particularly weak. Your evidence? "Well, a bunch of guys emailed me and posted to Slashdot to say that they're not losers." For one, do you really expect people to post en masse saying, "Yeah, I guess I am a loser."?
First of all, the concept of "loser" is so highly subjective as to be irrelevant to the discussion. Katz' article doesn't use the word, so critiquing it on that basis is spurious at best.
The point is, a bunch of researchers with a pre-defined notion of acceptable societal behaviour went out, selected a group of people without 'net access, gave them access, and then measured how they spent less time on other things. Given the finite nature of the day, spending any time online would necessitate spending less elsewhere, yet they had the gall to turn around and declare the Internet as a hindrance to social interaction, again based on their own view of what interaction ought to be.
Katz is saying here that he has seen posts and email that tells a different story, one that perhaps the researchers should have taken into account. Does the 'net isolate some people in a negative way? Probably. Are all regular 'net users anti-social? No way!
This was a badly designed study with poorly interpreted data, which was then, of course, presented even worse in the mass media that loves to feed paranoia.
The anonymity factor. When attaching their names (or handles) to posts, most people are going to fudge the truth rather than come out and admit that they're losers. It happens in real studies, too, but not nearly as much as when people are letting out personal details for the entire world to read.
Considering how many ACs post here regularly, and how many did stand up and say that maybe their online time isn't so great for their lives in response to this story, your observation here is incorrect. One guy even did post about how much better his family life was once he cut out a chunk of his 'net time. The point is, much as that may be true for some, evidence here (both named and anonymous) seems to indicate that social interaction is made better for others because of the Internet, and research groups making alarmist declarations of the degradation of society are more of a problem than any electronic medium.
Kimberly "'net goddess" Chapman
Explain my wedding ring, then!
on
LonelyNet
·
· Score: 3
If the 'net isolates people, then I must be a living anomaly. My ex-common-law husband (with whom I'm still a close friend) and I met on the 'net in 95. I just went all the way to marry my new love, whom I met online in 98. The first was in the same city, the second was in the US (I'm in Canada, but moving down there in a few weeks). Yes, my new hubby and I have met in person many many times and spent a lot of time together, but we first bonded as close friends online because we met in a newsgroup that interested us both.
So if the researchers are all worried that Internet communication lacks "warmth" and human closeness...well...ahem...let's just say my new hubby and I have proven that deliciously wrong. *grin*
The study is meaningless, IMHO. They took people without 'net connections and hooked them up, then asked them if they did other things less. Well duh. There are still only 24 hours in a day, and if you're spending time doing _anything_ more, you're doing the rest less. And plenty of studies show that, particularly with kids, what's being given up for 'net time is TV time (ie as cited in Growing Up Digital by Don Tapscott).
These studies only show a change in behaviour, and conclusions drawn from individual changes are spurious at best.
If a woman wants "equality" she should get it, but if she just isn't interested in a particular area why is there this incessant need to make it a "problem" and shove it into her face?
On one hand I agree that it's as stupid to tell a female she should go into a field as it is to say she shouldn't. However, I think you're missing the point.
There are girls interested in going into computer stuff, but get discouraged along the way by several factors: sexist teachers, being picked on by boys in the classes (especially in teenage years when this can be excruciating), and an overall societal myth that girls aren't good at math and science.
While a lot of charges of sexism are overrated, I have to tell you that I experienced the abovementioned crap firsthand. I was the only girl in the high school's computer science class when it started. I quickly fell to the bottom of the heap when every time I had a question, the teacher would roll his eyes and make me feel like an idiot for asking about something that it seemed the guys already knew. I was soon too embarassed to ask for help, and started failing projects, for which I was mocked mightily by the guys. And I was raised my whole life to believe girls just aren't good at math and science, which didn't help my confidence.
Now I wish I was a programmer, but I don't have the time or money or energy to go take all the necessary courses. So I'm a tech reporter instead, and I try to be as much of a geek as I can.
The really wonderful bit is imagining the huge stupid Academy Awards production number to the song! Debbie Allen is going to have a conniption fit trying to come up with something for all the idiotic dancers to do for the song.
That's going to be the best part of the Oscars this year, IMHO. It's a good thing they didn't pick Uncle Fscker...can you imagine that choreography? Okay, stop imagining it, you pervs.
I'm sure the hardest part of any live-action performance will be cutting the dancers' heads in half to play the "Canadians."
Seriously, I think it's cool that the Academy has that much of a sense of humour. Well I hope they do. I sincerely hope they're not like many of the yokels I've heard who actually think the movie is anti-Canadian. As a Canadian, I find it sad that so many Americans thought we would be offended by what is clearly satire targeted at the US!
-- Kimberly "the top of my head is attached, thanks" Chapman
Slashdot Mirror
People have mocked me for taking the time to include at least minimal accessibility features (and better than minimal where I know how) on my website's craft tutorials, especially for beading. Some people thought it quite silly that I'd bother, alleging that blind people can't bead.
Then a couple of months ago a woman wrote to me to thank me for taking the time, since she is converting patterns to a blind-friendly format by listing the number of beads by colour by row. She works with an elderly woman who has not let blindness stop her art.
I'm now in the process of converting my patterns to this format for blind users.
It's amazing what a little bit of consideration can do, even if one doesn't expect it to be useful.
This is pretty much exactly what Bill Craig himself told me in an interview for a Network World Canada article a few months ago.
As mentioned in that article, he also figured it would add more viewers than even possible with cable, since many business areas do not have cable and can't go by straight antenna, so iCrave would be bringing TV to a whole new audience. (Not that I imagine a lot of bosses would be thrilled to find employees watching TV instead of working, and worse still the ire of the network administrator who suddenly has no available bandwidth...)
But some businesses could probably use the ability to watch the news in their offices, so the advertisers would be getting a whole new market.
The problem is that iCrave put its banners on, and made money without asking permission. And the issue of not allowing Americans to watch was not to prevent them from getting US networks online, but to present a qualified advertising list to local advertisers in Toronto.
The networks may have been interested in the idea of allowing iCrave to do this if the company had come to them first and said, "Hey, let us open up whole new audiences for you." And they would have had to concede that it's only fair to let the company bringing in the new audiences make money themselves.
I think the problem is the Goliaths that be didn't like a little David snubbing them entirely, and, smart business move or not, they sought immediately to crush him.
-- Kimberly "this WILL be a method of TV delivery in the not-so-distant future" Chapman
Women programmers can fall prey to stereotypes just as much as men. And this woman wanted the character to be everything she wasn't. Furthermore, if I were to program something to hurt men, I'd probably make her look like something that would stun them into the drool zone long enough to pull out a gun, just like she did.
This discussion in particular is broadened at womengamers.com, for anyone who is interested.
-- Kimberly "I like breasts too, but they're a pain in combat!" Chapman
Given how many games don't have female characters to play, women have to play as men. Ever play that old game Castles, where you build your little castle and the Celts come and try to knock it down? It had a setting to play as "Queen" instead of "King," but the graphics were always still of a King and the readme file basically said they couldn't be bothered to create Queen graphics. Not that it mattered beyond the graphics, for that game.
The first game I recall giving me a choice was the Infocom classic Leather Goddesses of Phobos...hardly the epitome of bash-you-over-the-head feminism. But it did let you play as either gender, and the game took shape accordingly (ie you could boink the opposite gender in the unforgettable "lewd" mode). I played as both just to see what amusing differences there were. IIRC, if you played a guy you had an impressive "unit" and if you played a gal, you were blessed in the chest area.
-- Kimberly "couldn't play Arthur Dent as a female, though" Chapman
Given the ones I've interviewed for articles on this subject (for Network World Canada), yes. The people who produce these products are fairly aware that they're playing on parental and school board insecurity to sell something.
That's why many of these products spend less effort on blocking pages (since kids can get around them, often just by using numerical IP addresses) and focus instead on logging everything the user does. That way, mommy and daddy can check the log later and see that little Timmy was looking at porn and little Susie was reading about wicca (a common target of censorware).
This is, of course, even more insidious, because a confused kid looking for honest information on sexual orientation, diseases, etc. can think they're safe, only to have someone come down on them later. What better way to pry into your kid's life than give them a false sense of privacy?
The people making the software exude an attitude of giving parents control, not of protecting children. And proudly so.
-- Kimberly "evil liberal" Chapman
First of all, the concept of "loser" is so highly subjective as to be irrelevant to the discussion. Katz' article doesn't use the word, so critiquing it on that basis is spurious at best.
The point is, a bunch of researchers with a pre-defined notion of acceptable societal behaviour went out, selected a group of people without 'net access, gave them access, and then measured how they spent less time on other things. Given the finite nature of the day, spending any time online would necessitate spending less elsewhere, yet they had the gall to turn around and declare the Internet as a hindrance to social interaction, again based on their own view of what interaction ought to be.
Katz is saying here that he has seen posts and email that tells a different story, one that perhaps the researchers should have taken into account. Does the 'net isolate some people in a negative way? Probably. Are all regular 'net users anti-social? No way!
This was a badly designed study with poorly interpreted data, which was then, of course, presented even worse in the mass media that loves to feed paranoia.
Considering how many ACs post here regularly, and how many did stand up and say that maybe their online time isn't so great for their lives in response to this story, your observation here is incorrect. One guy even did post about how much better his family life was once he cut out a chunk of his 'net time. The point is, much as that may be true for some, evidence here (both named and anonymous) seems to indicate that social interaction is made better for others because of the Internet, and research groups making alarmist declarations of the degradation of society are more of a problem than any electronic medium.
Kimberly "'net goddess" Chapman
If the 'net isolates people, then I must be a living anomaly. My ex-common-law husband (with whom I'm still a close friend) and I met on the 'net in 95. I just went all the way to marry my new love, whom I met online in 98. The first was in the same city, the second was in the US (I'm in Canada, but moving down there in a few weeks). Yes, my new hubby and I have met in person many many times and spent a lot of time together, but we first bonded as close friends online because we met in a newsgroup that interested us both.
So if the researchers are all worried that Internet communication lacks "warmth" and human closeness...well...ahem...let's just say my new hubby and I have proven that deliciously wrong. *grin*
The study is meaningless, IMHO. They took people without 'net connections and hooked them up, then asked them if they did other things less. Well duh. There are still only 24 hours in a day, and if you're spending time doing _anything_ more, you're doing the rest less. And plenty of studies show that, particularly with kids, what's being given up for 'net time is TV time (ie as cited in Growing Up Digital by Don Tapscott).
These studies only show a change in behaviour, and conclusions drawn from individual changes are spurious at best.
-- Kimberly "happy geek" Chapman
On one hand I agree that it's as stupid to tell a female she should go into a field as it is to say she shouldn't. However, I think you're missing the point.
There are girls interested in going into computer stuff, but get discouraged along the way by several factors: sexist teachers, being picked on by boys in the classes (especially in teenage years when this can be excruciating), and an overall societal myth that girls aren't good at math and science.
While a lot of charges of sexism are overrated, I have to tell you that I experienced the abovementioned crap firsthand. I was the only girl in the high school's computer science class when it started. I quickly fell to the bottom of the heap when every time I had a question, the teacher would roll his eyes and make me feel like an idiot for asking about something that it seemed the guys already knew. I was soon too embarassed to ask for help, and started failing projects, for which I was mocked mightily by the guys. And I was raised my whole life to believe girls just aren't good at math and science, which didn't help my confidence.
Now I wish I was a programmer, but I don't have the time or money or energy to go take all the necessary courses. So I'm a tech reporter instead, and I try to be as much of a geek as I can.
That's going to be the best part of the Oscars this year, IMHO. It's a good thing they didn't pick Uncle Fscker...can you imagine that choreography? Okay, stop imagining it, you pervs.
I'm sure the hardest part of any live-action performance will be cutting the dancers' heads in half to play the "Canadians."
Seriously, I think it's cool that the Academy has that much of a sense of humour. Well I hope they do. I sincerely hope they're not like many of the yokels I've heard who actually think the movie is anti-Canadian. As a Canadian, I find it sad that so many Americans thought we would be offended by what is clearly satire targeted at the US!
-- Kimberly "the top of my head is attached, thanks" Chapman