|
| Wireless Content Services for Municipal RFPs | | Date Created: Feb 19, 2005, 03:50 PM |
There is a steadily growing trend for municipalities to establish wireless networks as either "free" public amenties or as subscriber-based public-private partnerships. Public-private partnerships such as "community television" have for decades served the public good by offering a voice to community-based television producers. Now, wireless networks provide a similar opportunity for municipalities to continue their stewardship of community resources.
Community access programming over wireless networks has not yet been mandated by any municipal Request for Proposals (RFPs) to wireless providers. The following description is proposed for inclusion in municipal wireless RFPs and defines the community access services as DCAP, or Digital Community Access Programming. DCAP is a digital service analogous to cable access television, but targeting PCs and smart cell phones rather than televisions.
Digital Community Access Programming -
[Your city] has a tradition of fostering social, artistic and educational dialogues through community programs, arts and outreach. Wireless networks provide community members with new opportunities to expand this discourse within the local community. Such programming-related content shall be termed "Digital Community Access Programming".
Digital Community Access Programming (DCAP) is defined as community-produced programs made available wirelessly to computer desktops, laptops, PDAs and smart cell phones. DCAP is a digital variation on "cable access" programming, also known as PEG (Public, Education and Government) and made available to the public through the cable television industry. However, DCAP content and function may differ greatly from traditional cable access content.
Overview of responsibilities -
The Respondent shall:
1) Provide software template tools for collaborative project planning and collaborative content at no additional charge to users. Such tools will provide a framework for community members and community organizations to identify common interests, plan community activities, host interactive content, and contribute to the cultural and artistic fabric of the community. Template tools shall include the below listed Template Tool Set, Assessment of Community Needs, Design Document, Portal Provision, and Template Production.
2) Provide ongoing program planning advice and support to community members for the fostering and guidance of community-centered content and interactive programs developed by community members. Programming planning shall include the below listed Call for Programs and Projects, Advising on Programs and Projects, Promulgation of Services, and Ongoing Services.
The Respondent shall develop the above template tools and program planning in consultation with community-based non-profit organizations and educational programs in new media. Examples of non-profits include Digital Watershed (http://homepage.mac.com/gregdaigle/Digitalwatershed.html). Examples of educational programs include the [insert local university and college resources here].
Organizations collaborating in the development of template tools and program planning services must have a community-based focus, knowledge of developing and delivering custom software content, and must also demonstrate an understanding of:
a) The challenges and opportunities specific to digital access community programming in [your city].
b) Delivering custom software solutions
c) The capabilities and limitations of wireless information services
Template Tools -
After an assessment phase, software production templates will be developed, offered to community members and hosted on the DCAP portal. Once completed, these templates may be utilized by any community member with access to the municipal wireless network. One template alone could not address the wide range of community uses forecast, so a set of templates shall be produced. Templates shall be developed using open-source software when possible. Templates shall be playable on Windows, Macintosh OSX and Linux platforms when possible.
1) The Template Tool Set shall be comprised of:
a) Collaborative Project Template - Develop collaborative software template allowing community organizers to plan online community-based projects. Collaborative software, also known as groupware, is software that integrates work on a single project by several concurrent users at separated workstations (i.e. desktops, laptops.) Online projects are those where the planning (calendar scheduling, delineating tasks, sharing documents, messaging) is done over the Internet using software tools accessible to all wireless network users. For example, if a wireless network user wanted to organize work parties for a community garden plot, they list the project online and request interested community members to sign up for tasks such as procuring organic fertilizer, tilling, and providing refreshments for the work party. This can all be done online. Refer to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaborative_software) for general definitions of collaborative software.
b) Performance Template - Develop or modify open-source or freeware collaborative tools to allow "real-time" or "near real-time" music, dance and performance arts collaboration and compositions online. For example, a director may stage a play about the Grand Canyon and have members of the community upload photographs from their Grand Canyon vacations over the Internet during the play. The images would be screened for content and projected onto the play's scenery in real time.
c) Virtual Architecture Review for Public Spaces - Develop or modify open-source or freeware 3D engines to allow the public to freely review and navigate virtual 3D design models of proposed public buildings and community development plans in the metro area. Respondent will not be responsible for providing the architectural or planning models.
d) Online social networking - Make available to users existing or customized online social networking services used to identify other individuals with shared interests. Examples include "Friend of a Friend" (http://rdfweb.org/topic/FoafProject) and Friendster (www.friendster.com). Refer to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_networking) for description of social networking.
e) Mobile Weblogs (Moblogs) - Develop guidelines and provide minimally [insert number] sets of hardware for mobile Weblogers employing wireless handheld PDAs, cell phones and wireless digital video cameras.
f) Legacy E-learning Content - Identify and host locally-produced legacy e-learning content for the community. Collaborate with local public broadcasters, museums, and learning centers on providing legacy content to children and the general public.
g) Open Play - Make available to users existing "open-source" or freeware tools for the development of mobile games playable on laptops, smart cell phones and wireless PDAs. Develop general guidelines for creation of content.
2) Assessment of community needs -
Assessment to be conducted by technologist/anthropologist teams knowledgeable of wireless technology, interactive media and local neighborhood and non-profit organizations. Constituencies included in the assessment to include staff members designated by the city of [your city] , neighborhood associations, community service non-profit organizations, and professional media associations.
Outputs:
- Convene at least three planning sessions with individuals and groups representing citywide constituencies.
- Develop a Planning Document to include a refined set of organizational and operational goals, impacts, timeframes and action items.
Outcomes:
- At least 80% of the participants will express moderate to high satisfaction with the assessment process.
3) Design Document -
The Design Document will standardize features and attributes of the template tools for collaborative project planning and arts collaborative. The Design Document will also provide guidelines for the development of a portal for hosting content and tools. The design effort will be led by an experienced team of local producers for interactive content development.
Outputs:
- Design Document, including graphics Style Guide and Production Handbook offering production guidelines to community members.
Outcomes:
- Designated interests from the city to approve and sign-off on Design Document.
4) Portal Provision
Digital Community Access Programming will be accessed through a portal site. The Respondent shall develop, implement, maintain and update the portal. The Respondent must provide a link to the DCAP portal no more than two "clicks" away from the network log-in confirmation page.
Outputs:
- Design and develop a DCAP network "portal" site to host Template Tools and Production Handbook, archive prior productions, provide access to current productions, and to collect feedback from community members.
Outcomes:
- Designated interests from the city to approve and sign-off on portal site.
- At least 30 collaborative projects hosted within first year of operation.
- At least 20 arts collaborations hosted within first year of operation.
- At least 10 legacy e-learning content projects hosted within first year of operation.
5) Template Production -
Utilizing the results of the community assessments and adhering to Design Document guidelines, initiate the development of the templates. Templates shall be developed iteratively to incorporate incremental design modifications and functional capabilities. Respondent shall conduct beta testing with focus groups drawn from prior assessment sessions and the local media production community. Stable pre-release beta builds shall be made available for downloading through the DCAP portal until final release versions are made available.
Outputs:
- Beta versions and final versions of templates.
Outcomes:
- Online materials accessed by at least 10% of the user community within first year of operation.
Program Planning -
Concurrent with Template Production, the Respondent shall establish ongoing program planning services for the purpose of identifying interested community producers and soliciting feedback on template design interface, features and functions. After completion of templates the Respondent shall offer ongoing advisory services to local content producers and project organizers.
1) Call for Programs and Projects -
Initiate a call for content programs and collaborative projects to interested members of the community. Responses from the public will determine final features sets of current templates and desired features sets for future templates.
Outputs:
- Meet with local education, arts, and humanities non-profits to identify potential community producers.
- Meet with local community service organizations to solicit their interest in projects.
- Meet with local professional media groups such as MCAI (http://www.mcai-mn.org/aboutus/mcai-faq.html) to identify interested content producers.
- Develop a production calendar and introduce community producers to the template tools developed for them.
Outcomes:
- Receive at least 40 collaborative project inquiries within first year of operation.
- Receive at least 30 arts collaboration program inquiries within first year of operation.
2) Advising on Programs and Projects -
Offer ongoing advisory services to local content producers and project organizers in the form of online forums and monthly workshops.
Outputs:
- Offer online forums, FAQs and forum archives for community producers.
- Offer monthly workshops with content producers on digital production processes.
- Develop production and multicasting schedule.
Outcomes:
- At least 70% of the community producers will express moderate to high satisfaction with the assessment process.
3) Promulgation of services -
As Digital Community Access Programming is seen as a potential national model for municipal wireless network content, the Respondent shall promulgate program descriptions and production methods to other municipal networks.
Outputs:
- Outreach to online publications, conferences and other municipalities in the form of white papers, articles and speaking engagements as appropriate.
- Make available online materials describing the production model
Outcomes:
- PR releases on methods, production models and usage by the community is made available online and submitted to at least 20 online and print publications annually.
4) Ongoing services -
The Respondent shall provide for:
- Ongoing maintenance of the DCAP portal
- Ongoing advisory services to community-based producers and project organizers
- Updates to existing template tools
- Periodic addition of new template tools as appropriate
- Annual re-assessment of community needs
- Annual review of community-generated programs and projects
- Annual evaluation of DCAP services
© 2005 Digital Watershed |
| Community Access for the Digital Age
... the Digital Watershed | | Date Created: Nov 19, 2004, 02:45 PM |
by Gregory Daigle
Cable access television, the municipal service that provides coverage of local city council meetings, community lectures and talk shows hosted by local citizens, has benefited cable subscribers in communities for decades. But the television viewing audience, especially the young, is increasingly trading TV time for Internet time. The result is a growing gap in community-centered programming for those who choose online experiences as their preferred media. This article suggests a model for improving community-centered programming through "digital community access", a service that complements traditional cable access services.
Community Television Turns 30 Something
Cable access television (also known as cable communications, public access, community television, and PEG - Public, Education and Government) began in Dale City, Virginia in 1968 1. It was established to provide a community-centered voice over the newly established cable television network. Municipal cable networks were (and often still are) local monopolies. In the late 1960s establishing an alternative to corporate television programming on cable networks was considered a "free speech" issue and resulted in pressure on cable system owners to make access available to citizens through their local municipal government. In 1972 the FCC issued "Third Report and Order", a mandate that required all cable systems in the top 100 U.S. television markets to provide three access channels, one each for educational, local government and public use 2. It also required the cable companies to provide equipment and facilities for community members to produce programs. The FCC mandate was later extended to include communities with over 3,500 subscribers.
Since those early days of cable access many state governments, including Minnesota's 3, have codified that relationship between exclusive cable services and local governmental units. Access channels provided by the cable networks have focused upon community-centered programming. They include coverage of local government (school board meetings, city government meetings, and state legislative sessions), community and educational lectures, high school sports, talk shows and other programs representing a wide range of diverse community interests.
Cable access programs are shaped and defined by the technology of television. Like all television programs, cable access programs can be tape-delayed or live. The relatively low resolution of analog television works well for video imagery but less so for graphics and text. Finally, in standard analog television the video and audio travel one way ... to the viewers ... without a direct back-channel. Digital and "interactive" television may change some of these givens by allowing higher resolution for text and graphics and some limited capacity for interactivity, but such capability is rare for cable access facilities.
TV is down, Online is up
The Internet is now accessed by 75% of the nation's population 4. Another popular consumer technology, DVD players, has been adopted by consumers faster than any other electronic device. Yet DVD player penetration in U.S. households is projected to be only 66% by the end of 2004 5 . At the same time, youth markets are online more and watching the television less. Currently one-quarter of all Internet users say that the Internet has decreased the time they spend watching television, with fully one-third (37%) of broadband users saying this 6. Cable access remains an important community resource yet these and other trends indicate that it is losing potential viewers to the Internet even as the number of cable households climbs.
One of the limitations of cable access is that its facilities are centralized. The editing facilities, studio, and cable head-end are usually in a single location. Only portable equipment such as cameras are made available to citizen-producers for remote shoots on-location. This locally centralized model of cable access becomes an unintended hurdle for new producers and their productions. Even with the addition of consumer-owned digital video cameras and consumer PC video editing, the scheduling of highly desired studio time and broadcast slots limit access and act to curtail a wider range of community viewpoints.
Due to the limitations of bandwidth and the broadcast calendar, cable access is suitable for a limited number of viewpoints, perhaps in the hundreds. When conceived as a new service in the 1970s, planning for a moderate diversity of viewpoints seemed all that would be necessary. But with the increasing popularity of the Internet, citizens are regularly "publishing" their viewpoints not in the hundreds or even the thousands, but in the millions as personal Web sites. Cable access, though a valued resource, can not provide this level of access.
How many individual Web sites are there? That's impossible to say. However, the Google search engine, widely considered the most effective as of this writing, currently claims to index over 4 billion distinct web pages. However, not every page is indexed by the Google search engine, and Web sites are made up of multiple pages. But even if a conservative estimate is made, it is clear that there are far more Web sites existing than the total number of cable access programs ever produced. In fact, some 44% of U.S. Internet users currently create content online ... that's 53 million American adults and youth. And creating content is not reserved exclusively for only the well educated or upper income brackets. Online content creators are as likely to be female as they are to be male, as likely to not have graduated from high school as they are to have graduated from college, as likely to be African-American as they are white, and as likely to have income levels from $30-50K as they are $50-75K 7. Online content creation from the community is not only commonplace, it is also "equal opportunity".
Are Web sites the best model for bringing community access and discourse into the digital age? Perhaps not. First of all, Web refers to the World Wide Web. Once your Web site is up, it is just as easily viewed from Europe or Asia as it is by your neighbor down the street. Is the focus upon community-centered issues diluted by worldwide access? Are there advantages to being able to limit your audience geographically? Cable access programs are available only over the geographic reach of the community cable system and so their program content tends to be geographically targeted. With cable, you can't go beyond your geographic target. With the Web, you can't limit it.
Digital Media is not TV
Because the majority of Internet access is still through dial-up most access is currently ill-suited to broadband video content. But even if broadband were to dominate access, streaming video over the Internet typically offers little in the way of collaborative or interactive capabilities. Streaming video over the Internet offers little over cable television.
In the late 1920s and early 30s the first generation of television producers faced a similar question. What makes for good television programs? In those days television programming was a mixed bag of dance ensembles, film clips and orchestra programs. Early producers found that you couldn't just sit in front of a television camera and read a script. Before long television included more suitable programs formerly hosted by radio, such as sports broadcasts, political speeches, quiz shows, even Milton Berle. It was several years before the "rules" of television were created and mature content developed for television came into its own. So should cable access programs be the production model for digital community access? It may work technically, but the result may not take full advantage of the capabilities of the medium.
When television programming was being invented, it was a tabula rasa, an empty slate. But online content has already reached maturity (or at least its adolescence) without significant broadcast content to boost its acceptance. Due to the relatively slow adoption of broadband, video compression techniques, and the copyright fears of Hollywood, online content has had time to established itself without reliance upon broadcast media and its mantra of the uninterrupted "viewer experience".
The "viewer experience" is what television is all about. Attend the National Association of Broadcasters annual conference and you will hear repeated again and again just how important that uninterrupted experience is to viewers. But is it important to online media users? Users of online media aren't just ambivalent about the sacrosanct viewer experience, they reject it completely. This is frequently reported by studies of how online users multi-task, attending to several media streams at once. Is this shorter attention span a symptom of lack of focus, or, a coping mechanism for sampling a torrent of competing media streams? Regardless of cause, it is not the way that television is watched and therefore the model for programming must change for online experiences.
Online content differs from TV programming in choice, directionality and level of interactivity. Web access is fragmented into a ubiquity of "channels" ... tens of millions of sites, remember? ... not the mere few hundreds that cable access can offer. The Internet is two-way, whereas TV has a "one-way" directionality from broadcaster (or cable head-end) to viewer. Yes, you can dial a 900 number to vote for your favorite "idol" but that requires a phone. Finally, Web content is "interactive". What we mean by "interactive" varies from user to user and requires some clarification. But first, can television be interactive?
Since the late 90's broadcasters have been hopeful about "enhanced" or "interactive" television (ITV) technology as a step towards "convergence". ITV can be supplied over cable or, infrequently, broadcast 8 . But ITV is most likely a "bridge" or "tweener" technology. One of the limitations of ITV content is its direct association with a particular program. Watching The McNeal News Hour with ITV allows the translucent overlay of text and graphics pre-selected to be associated with the broadcast content. Interactivity is limited to simple on-screen menu options and often selected by "tabbing" with a non-mouse remote. Even with more capable interfaces, the content is usually unavailable after the duration of the broadcast to to preserve the "viewer experience" for the next program. So content is limited by both topic and duration. By most standards of the Internet this would NOT be a good online experience. Adoption rates of ITV hardware are miserably low and foreshadow that even if this bridge technology is fully realized, that it's a bridge to nowhere.
A True Community Discourse
Typically, Web sites limit their level of interactivity to simple navigations such as linking between pages of content. For example, a consumer may upload a set of vacation photographs to their homepage and you (as the user) may select between viewing different years of vacation photos, but little more. The Web sites become repositories of static content, not dynamic information. They often lack the ability to exchange ideas with others. Merely giving community members tutorials on how to build their own Web sites may not be the answer for dynamic community discourse.
A truly dynamic interactive capability would be like a conversation. In fact, it may be a conversation. Web content is only one manifestation of the protocols that underlie the Internet. Don't forget chats, instant messaging, email, or FTP for upload/downloading files. Online communities frequently employ these dynamic environments. Online social networking tools like Meetup or Friendster allow people with common interests to identify each other, share communications online, even meet in person. Collaborative tools such as Net Meeting or Groove Workspace allow users to share and edit files simultaneously, chat, even teleconference. Online games with virtual 3D engines allow users to interact in real time over networks, sometimes in the personas of knights, monsters or military soldiers.
Collaborative content would promote new forms of performance media, mobile Weblogs, e-learning and community discourse promoting a greater understanding and sharing of ideas and experiences. Collaborative tools and content typically provide a more participative rich-media discourse for sharing content and opinion. Social networking tools and collaborative software tools are a means to organize people for local opinion sharing and decision making. "Eighty to ninety percent of [real-world] social networks have a digital component" according to Antony Brydon 9, president and cofounder of social network analyst firm Visible Path. Users would be able to identify interested participants by employing social networking tools that identify relationships and shared interests between users. Participants would then be free to collaborate online through chats, white-boards, file sharing, editing documents and even edit presentations together.
A new model of digital community access would employ these dynamic elements preferentially over traditional Web sites. The offering would be inclusive, community-oriented and uniquely distinct from standard Web content offerings. Software templates for the online planning of community-centered projects would be designed and developed for community organizers. For example, if a city resident wanted to organize work parties for a community garden plot they would ask people to go online and sign up for tasks such as procuring organic fertilizer, tilling, and providing refreshments for the work party. This can all be done online. These programs would permit experiences more interactive than "streaming" of stored audio and video clips.
Templates and tools would also be for use by digital artists, playwrights and musicians. Near real-time collaboration between artists and audience would provide a new model of community participation. The collaborative content designed to entertain or educate would be developed by community producers. For example, a director may stage a play about the Grand Canyon and have members of the community send photographs from their Grand Canyon vacations over the Internet during the play. The images would be screened for content and projected onto the play's scenery in real time.
Wireless Community Access
As mentioned before, wiring a city for fiber-optic cable is an expensive proposition. Fortunately, the cost of "Wi-Fi" is low compared to laying cables. Wi-Fi is one of the fastest growing wireless network technologies for connecting computer users to the Internet and each other. Its "connect anywhere" mobility and growing community acceptance makes possible new opportunities for community access and collaborative participation. Many wireless hobbyists throughout the country are slowly cobbling together local Wi-Fi "hotspots" into community networks, but their progress has been slow.
Several small cities such as Cerritos, CA and some larger cities such as Philadelphia, Atlanta, Baltimore, and New York see wireless networks as a lower-cost alternative to laying fiber-optic cable. They see the same social tenets supporting the provisioning of the power grid and television cable as also supporting the establishment of information services over wireless networks. Wireless has the capability to provide communications for government and public safety, convention centers, businesses, schools, libraries and residents. Whether established as a "free" amenity 10 or as a "pay for use" system, a wireless network is seen as providing for the public good.
The signals used in Wi-Fi are limited in bandwidth and in strength. Even though the distance at which a signal can be received is usually only a few city blocks, there may be several access points in an area competing for the same bandwidth. This means that Wi-Fi is not only a shared resource in the community but also a limited one. Granting an industry partner the right to build a network covering an entire city would essentially be the granting of a monopoly. These the same constraints under which television cable systems were introduced in the late '60s and early '70s and which led directly to the establishment of cable access services.
Wireless networks and cable television networks share another similarity. They are both limited geographically. It is often forgotten that Wi-Fi is a WLAN (Wireless Local Area Network) technology. This is very similar to the LAN you might have in your office for the sharing of printers, servers and to keep PCs protected behind a corporate firewall. And just like the office LAN, the WLAN can be configured to allow access to the Internet. This provides the possibility of limiting access to community-centered programming, yet also providing access to the Web when desired. The ability to limit your audience geographically when you so choose and yet open it to a worldwide audience when you so choose is powerful. In an update of the adage, "Think globally, act locally", producers of digital community access programming can choose to "Think globally, access locally".
What is a Digital Watershed?
John Wesley Powell, scientist geographer, said that a watershed is: "... that area of land, a bounded hydrologic system, within which all living things are inextricably linked by their common water course and where, as humans settled, simple logic demanded that they become part of a community." A digital watershed is the equivalent of a natural watershed in its common linkage of all people into a community ... albeit connected digitally.
In 2003 the Minneapolis Parks and Recreation Board (MPRB) began consideration of a citywide wireless network with access points throughout the extensive park system in the city. Access points would be seeded throughout the community like so many "digital springs" with data flowing to and from community members. Apropos in a city nationally acclaimed for its park lands following miles of springs, creeks, lake shores, wetlands and river front. Like the natural watershed, the wireless spectrum in the city is a commonly shared yet limited resource. Accordingly, the city sought stewardship of this valuable resource.
On January 16, 2004 the Minneapolis City Council passed a resolution that Business Information Services (BIS) shall be the central organization responsible for all activities related to the development and deployment of a comprehensive city government-wide wireless strategy and infrastructure that integrates with the city's IT, telephony (including cell phones), radio and data communications environments. BIS was charged with defining specific wireless requirements to accommodate city department and business community needs and to negotiate shared ownership with the MPRB. On November 12, 2004 the City Council approved a measure granting authority to BIS to publish an RFP (Request for Proposal) for WISPs (Wireless Internet Service Providers).
In January of 2004 the non-profit "Digital Watershed" was founded to provide templates and tools to community members for the creation of community-centered projects and creative programs. Digital Watershed is similar in philosophy to cable access television, yet focused upon digital community access. It is not an Internet service provider nor does it seek to create physical networks. Support services include:
- Advise new media content producers in digital production processes
- Mentor producers on interactive opportunities inherent in the medium
- Mentor the development of content reflecting the local diversity and accessibility challenges
- Assist content creators navigate technical barriers
- Advise other community organizations on producing collaborative online experiences
- Coordinate accessibility outreach programs for the network
- Provide server space installed with collaborative software
- Provide server space for archiving creative programs
- Work with local new media program efforts from existing non-profits such as the University
of Minnesota's Department of Art, Institute for New Media Studies, InterMedia Arts, and the Minnesota TV and Film Board.
Services Not Offered -
Digital Watershed should not be seen as a Web site address or a Web-based "portal" for community resources. It's primary use is for discourse within a community network, not as an informational Web site. Services currently offered on the Web to citizens of Minneapolis will not be offered by Digital Watershed. These include informational resources and forums provided by the following Web sites (and more):
Minneapolis City services provided by http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/
Minneapolis Public Schools: http://www.mpls.k12.mn.us/
Minneapolis Parks and Recreation Board http://www.minneapolisparks.org/home.asp
Minneapolis Public Housing Authority: http://www.mphaonline.org/
Minneapolis Community Development Agency: http://www.mcda.org/
Metropolitan Airports Commission: http://www.mspairport.com/mac/
Minneapolis Public Library Board: http://www.mplib.org/board_admin.asp
Minneapolis Neighborhood Revitalization Program: http://www.nrp.org/
Minneapolis Commuter Connection: http://www.mplstmo.org
Minneapolis Telecommunications Network: http://www.mtn.org/
Minnesota Dept. of Transportation: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/
Minnesota E-democracy Project: http://www.e-democracy.org/mpls/
MPR Forum: http://forum.mpr.org/
Twin Cities Forum: http://forums.prospero.com/kr-tcitiesnews/start
Star Tribune Forum: http://online.startribune.com/forum/
Twin Cities Free-Net: http://freenet.msp.mn.us/conf/list.html
Areas of Production
In addition to collaborative software templates for community projects, Digital Watershed will be encouraging content creation in the following areas of creative program offerings:
Performance Media -
Performance has always played a prominent part of Minneapolis' cultural fabric. Collaborate software extends that capability. Participants may sample a live music performance, modify it, then play it back as a duet with the musician during the performance. Or, during a stage play amateur videographers and photographers may upload video clips and photos in real time to a stage manager who selectively projects them as part of a stage play's background montage. Interactive dramas and storytelling where the remote participants become part of the play are also possible.
Citizen Journalism -
This includes new models of reporting and journalism typified by Mobile Web Logging (Moblogs) and explanatory "interactives" such as viewed on CNN.com. Wireless technologies provide additional opportunities, such as video blogs using Wi-Fi-ready video cameras and role-playing or scenario interactions using video game engines. For example, a blogger may feed live video to a weblog while community members simultaneously upload personal photographs, interviews and data adding to the depth of the report.
E-learning -
In this context, e-learning covers the presentation of non-curricular educational games and simulations. Minneapolis has a rich history of educational software firms who have produced many fine examples developed for both CD-ROM and the Web. Versions of those software titles may be made available to network users. There is also the opportunity to coordinate non-curricular content efforts with the Minnesota State Digital Learning Plan. MSDLP is a technology group dedicated to "the technologies that will meet the necessary learning goals, efficiently serve educators' and learners' needs, and ensure accountability" for the state's K-12 students.
Games -
Games and simulations are an important part of digital learning. They run the gamut from fanciful video games to interactive communities like the SIMs. Modeling the social and civic dynamics of the real world is of particular interest. Participants could model and simulate local community issues as if they were navigating a version of the "SIMS" video game but using real governmental information, real settings and real issues. They could also do so networked to other players in real time. Simulations can be informational, such as emulating the process of passing legislative bills or participating in political caucuses. Beth Noveck, a professor of law at New York Law School stated that, "My supposition is that virtual worlds are going to be the best training ground for teaching the practices of democracy ... they offer a playground for complex social interactions and collaborative decision making, according to a set of rules defined by the game space" 11 . With a mobile network, games need not confine the user to the home. They can lead a player through the corridors of city hall to see where and how a permit is obtained, or guide and educate players in the outdoors while learning about the flora and fauna of the parks system.
Producers of content may also blend the above offerings into hybrid productions because no one knows which formula may be most effective for communicating to a particular audience. For example, we may find students producing a live Earth-Day performance on the environment including a live day-long blog on the topic. They may ask lakeside residents to take a short online e-learning course about biology surveys, then submit shoreline zebra mussel counts to a school server. Or they may ask non-lakeside residents to play a 3D a game simulation pitting water temperature versus Asian Carp migration.
Design Review for Public Spaces -
Minneapolis is a leader in innovative architecture for public facilities. Recent examples have included the Sears building renovation, the downtown public library, and LRT (light rail transit) stations along the Hiawatha corridor into downtown. Other projects have ranged from small scale architecture such as benches and bus stops on the Nicollet Mall to large scale architectural artifices such as recent submissions for baseball stadium designs. Providing venues for public commentary on such designs is essential to good stewardship of the city. However, 2D renderings of proposals aren't always accurately interpreted by the public. To assist visualization, architectural firms are increasingly using animated walk-throughs or fly-throughs as visual tools. But these animations travel along a predetermined "path" that also limits viewpoint.
Digital Watershed proposes the added use of 3D game engines to allow the public to freely navigate proposed architectural spaces. Such engines give nearly unlimited viewpoint to the user and are able to incorporate adjacent building facades and landscapes into the virtual space. The computer does the work of projecting the design into the space from any angle and viewpoint as it depicts context, construction and material textures. Some "open source" game engines are available to download and use for free. They run on modestly priced PCs and will even work on many laptops. So one could even visit the architectural site in person and, using a Wi-Fi enabled laptop, download and move through the design virtually.
Since many architectural firms already render their designs in 3D they need only import the data and textures into the game editor to enable viewing. The public will be unable to modify the designs. The incentive for the architects would be that the public will have a better understanding of their designs and therefore give a more informed consent.
Community Alert Notices -
In addition to the above service areas of content, Digital Watershed cuold also make possible the promulgation of Community Alert Notices. Community Alert Notices are infrequent but are important, especially to people who may be on the city-wide network and without access to radio or telephone. Notices may include:
- Emergency weather alerts capable of sending maps, text, video, audio
- Emergency environmental hazard alerts for beach closings, derailments, etc.
- Amber Alerts
_____________
1 Gillespie, Gilbert. Public Access Cable Television in the United States and Canada. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1975 (pgs 35-36)
2 http://www.geocities.com/iconostar/history-public-access-TV.html
3 Minnesota Statutes 2003, Chapter 238, Cable Communications.
4 Nielsen/Net Ratings Enumeration Study, February 2004
5 Digital Entertainment Group
6 Getting Serious Online, March 3, 2002, Pew Internet & American Life Project (www.pewinternet.org)
7 "Content Creation Online", by Amada Lenhart 2/29/04
Pew Internet & American Life Project (www.pewinternet.org)
8 http://etvcookbook.org/extra/saf.html
9 "Internetworking", by Michael Fitzgerald, Technology Review, April 2004.
10 "Who Pays for Wireless Cities", http://www.technologyreview.com
11 http://www.wired.com/news/games0,2101,61188,00.html
© 2004 Gregory Daigle
|
| The Scientific American Frontiers ETV Experience | | Date Created: Jul 15, 2001, 01:01 PM |
 Local Data Enhancements
Greg Daigle - July 2001
This overview highlights a spring 2001 trial for inserting local data enhancements into national digital television broadcasts. The challenge to the local production team was to create interactions based upon information from local sources and insert those interactions seamlessly between nationally produced enhancements accompanying the broadcast program. This overview is for television producers who will be working with interactive producers to create enhanced television experiences through digital television in accordance with the Advanced Television Enhancement Forum (ATVEF) specification.
Background
ATVEF provides two means for the delivery of interactive content for an associated television program. In one variation known as Transport A, content "triggers" arriving in the broadcast instruct the receiving set-top box to pull assets (animations, graphics, text, interactive elements, etc.) from the Web via an Internet connection. This trial instead utilized ATVEF Transport B to send the entire set of assets over the broadcast stream. No Web connection was required.
The subject of this trial was the PBS program "Scientific American Frontiers", produced by Chedd-Angier. It took place during the broadcast of four episodes: "The Bionic Body", "Chimps R Us", "Flying Free" and "Fat and Happy". The Scientific American Frontiers (SAF) enhancement effort involved two production levels: the national enhancement team from Chedd-Angier and seven local enhancement teams at various PBS stations.
The Minneapolis/St. Paul (TPT -Twin Cities Public Television) team included a Technical Director, an Executive Producer, and a development team from interactive agency SixtyFootSpider. The development team consisted of a Producer (team leader, writer), a Programmer (scripting, testing) and a Designer (visual, interactive asset creation). Quality assurance and testing was performed by a Webmaster.
Establishing the User Experience
The national enhancement team had responsibility for establishing an overall "look and feel" for the user experience. This included a template for the screen layout and the underlying HTML coding. The template took into consideration factors such as NTSC-safe colors and reduced screen resolution. Its design took into account an aesthetic selection of colors established to coordinate with each of the episodes (e.g. palette of "jungle" greens for the primate episode and "sky" blues for the episode on flight, etc.).
During viewing of the enhancements, the broadcast image was reduced to roughly two-thirds screen size and relocated to the upper right of the screen corner (see Figure above). The remainder of the screen was reserved for the display of enhancement assets and interactive elements. This maintained the integrity of the viewing experience and kept assets and interactions from obscuring the broadcast image.
The flexible use of the template was negotiated between the local team and the national team. This gave the local team the ability to portray unique local source information. For example, in the "Flying Free" episode a range of animations from the Minnesota Museum of Science depicting airflow were selectable by shape and angle. Also, a unique multiple choice navigation scheme was developed for the "Chimps R Us" episode, allowing viewers to participate in a quiz developed in concert with the Minnesota-based Jane Goodall Institute's Center for Primate Studies (not shown).
Location of TPT's signature (lower right in the text area) was also negotiated early in the process, as was the end credit for SixtyFootSpider.
Project Constraints
Several technical constraints made the development of enhancements different than typical Web page development. The remote control device provided with the set-top box hardware limited the users to "tabbing" through selection options on the screen by depressing one of four navigation directional arrows on a "thumb-stick". A blue rectangular highlight on the screen indicated which element was selected. Depressing the thumb-stick would "enter" the selection. This is very different from a PC's point-and-click interface provided by a mouse or touch-pad and was a key consideration in simplifying the onscreen navigations (see Figure 3).
The available memory on the receiving platform (a Triveni Digital set-top box) established a 1 megabyte limit for the assets to be displayed. Reception of broadcasts on a PC-based datacasting receiver would have fewer memory constraints but the hardware is less common than set-top boxes. Wavexpress, a provider of PC-based datacasting receiver hardware, also participated in this national trial but was not a platform available in TPT's trial reception area.
Other multimedia elements such as sounds were not included in the enhancements. Imbedded navigational and voiceover sound files were not considered as they might conflict with the show's soundtrack.
Local Production
The local development team was charged with finding and creating local enhancement experiences that would coordinate with the concurrent broadcast experience. The local team was given final scripts. Scripts indicated in their text the approximate insertion point of the enhancement trigger (no timecode reference was available). A rough-cut of the episode was not available for viewing in advance of developing the enhancements.
It was the local Producer's responsibility to develop the local enhancement concept for each episode. Upon approval from TPT the Producer then contacted potential source organizations for information and reviewed source materials. Text and captions were developed in coordination with a content editor. The Programmer was advised of interactive requirements and gave input and recommendations to the Producer. Any new graphical schemes and assets were developed and prepped by a Designer. When all assets were ready the Programmer authored scripts in HTML and Javascript. The Webmaster reviewed scripts for best practices and made QA changes.
Outcomes
Securing permissions from local organizations for use of material in a single enhancement rather than multiple enhancements made the production time longer. Building those relationships, developing understanding and trust with local organizations took a large chunk of time relative to the outcome. Lack of familiarity with enhanced television also required some time before the organizations were willing to sign-off on use of materials.
The average production time to produce each enhancement was 2 to 3 production-days (including quality assurance testing). The production team agreed that the level of difficulty was similar to that of a small Web site.
Most production slowdowns during the trial were not unlike issues encountered during Web site development. They include the gathering of assets (photographs, animations) and iterative reviews of editorial content with local sources, TPT and Chedd-Angier. The same graphical procedures and coding practices applicable to Web site design were easily adapted to this media.
Early in the development process the team was cautioned that an accurate test of functionality and screen layout of text and design elements required the use of a set-top box emulator installed on a PC. The emulator possessed less functionality than a PC browser and lacked simple built-in navigational controls such as "back" and "forward". This deviation from typical Web development should be taken into account when establishing production timetables.
Recommendations For Future Trials
The local enhancement team recommends some improvements to the process for the next trial:
- A more detailed description of where enhancements are triggered in the script (i.e. by timecode) and where the enhancements are "flushed" from the set-top box memory.
- Establishing naming conventions and procedures early in the process to track most recent versions of graphics, text and HTML code.
- Supply local enhancement teams with a consolidated "design style guide" establishing all of the guidelines for fonts, graphics, color, layout and navigation.
- A prioritization of style guide rules so that when a team needs to "break the rules" they will know which rules have flex and which are inviolate.
- As the local enhancement team was developing for a specific platform they were not faced with the added difficulty of designing for multiple set-top box platforms. The ideal of Create Once Play Everywhere (COPE) is still just that ... an ideal; just as it is in the Web world. Coordination with the leading interactive television authoring tool developers would be a valuable step toward that goal.
- As sound has become an important part of the Web, so too will sound play some role in enhanced content. Usage may be minimal at first (navigation sounds and confirmations of interactive selections) but some thought as to their co-existence with the broadcast soundtrack is warranted. |
| Articles in New Media (Total Entries: 3) | | | |
|
