Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

On The BBC 2.0

Posted by Zonk on Sat Apr 29, 2006 12:49 PM
from the autie-beeb-gets-new-clothes dept.
Media Programming Television The Internet IT Technology News
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."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] News: Slashdot CSS Redesign Contest 587 comments
A few months back we went and redesigned Slashdot with fancy new CSS templates. The idea was that with a new clean CSS framework under the skin, we could more easily redesign the look & feel of the site. At that time I mentioned that we wanted to have a contest to redesign Slashdot. Well that time has come. Read on for the rules, instructions, and timeline. Oh, and did I mention that the top prize is a new laptop?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

On The BBC 2.0 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • 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.

  • competition rules (Score:5, Funny)

    by tverbeek (457094) on Saturday April 29 2006, @01:13PM (#15228741) Homepage
    "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.

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

    by Larry Lightbulb (781175) on Saturday April 29 2006, @01:17PM (#15228759) Homepage
    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.

  • The BBC's Website (Score:5, Interesting)

    by spectrumCoder (944322) on Saturday April 29 2006, @01:18PM (#15228763) Homepage
    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?
    • 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).
      • "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.
        • 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.
          • 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.

      • 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 act

      • 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].

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

    by jbn-o (555068) <mail@digitalcitizen.info> on Saturday April 29 2006, @01:24PM (#15228797) Homepage

    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 (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 29 2006, @01:29PM (#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]

  • In Sweden as well... (Score:5, Informative)

    by isecore (132059) <isecore&isecore,net> on Saturday April 29 2006, @01:44PM (#15228876) Homepage
    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.

  • bbc 2.0 = snookr snookr snookr (Score:3, Funny)

    by Bazman (4849) on Saturday April 29 2006, @05:12PM (#15229584) Journal
    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...
    • 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

    • 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.

      • . . .5 billion people are anti-americans.

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

        KFG
      • 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 com

        • 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

          • 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
        • 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 (Score:4, Interesting)

      by spectrumCoder (944322) on Saturday April 29 2006, @01:13PM (#15228742) Homepage
      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 (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Cal Paterson (881180) on Saturday April 29 2006, @03:35PM (#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 (Score:4, Insightful)

          by CountBrass (590228) on Sunday April 30 2006, @04:18AM (#15231146)
          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.

    • Well... At least the BBC represents the British public even if our government won't.
    • 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 proble
    • 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? (Score:3, Informative)

        by Stalks (802193)
        And if it did, they'd be in realplayer format (don't install realplayer - it's crap).

        So install Real Alternative [codecguide.com] instead.

      • 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? (Score:5, Informative)

          by Coryoth (254751) on Saturday April 29 2006, @01:57PM (#15228925) Homepage Journal
          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.
    • 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]. :-)

    • 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.


    • 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 "freeloadi
    • 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.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.