Okay, so I know the Metro isn't exactly the bastion of great journalism or anything, but they ran a story today based on a Harris Interactive study, that bugged me: METRO: Britons remain tolerant despite terror outrages (the linked story lacks the infographics that accompanied the printed article).

Harris Interactive interviewed 1,296 people, who were asked to rank their strength of faith from 0-10, with zero being agnostic. I'm curious why the Metro used this label. Surely atheist is the correct definition for someone with 'zero faith'? To me, agnosticism implies that some doubt - trace amounts of faith - may remain.

The main issue the data raised for me was completely ignored by the article. Those surveyed were asked which religion was 'best' and which was 'worst'. Sensibly, 65% answered that no one religion was better or worse. Christianity stormed ahead in popular opinion however, with 26% voting it the 'best'. The 'worst', according to 24%, was Islam.

That result, in my view, contradicts the Metro's conclusion that we remain tolerant. Also, there is a very strong implication that it's the Christians that have the biggest problem with Islam. Sadly, the Harris Interactive data hasn't been published on their site to elaborate on the Metro's assertions.

I left a (polite and reasonable) comment on the Metro post, but it wasn't published.

   

Click here to download:

Britons_remain_tolerant_despit.zip (675 KB)

Loading mentions Retweet

I have always had the ambition to design typefaces, but besides reading several books on the subject and creating one (very rough) font, I've not made any progress.

Well, I still haven't, but I have just installed FontForge. After much digging, it seemed to be the only real option for Linux (not that other Mac and Windows are exactly overflowing with options). I'm know Inkscape has some type-specific features - and I plan to explore these - but I really wanted to try a dedicated program.

My first impression of FontForge was very negative - it looks old and rough around the edges. But I remember thinking the same of Fontographer (back when Macromedia owned it). The second impressions kicked in very quickly though: I really like the feel of the tools, everything is very quick to grasp. You seem to have a lot more contol than you get in a typical vector editor. It feels more precise - like CAD software, but still freeform - like you would expect a creative tool to be.

Should be a fun project!

   

Click here to download:

FontForge_-_Any_other_ways_to_.zip (273 KB)

Loading mentions Retweet

Mark Coleran's portfolio of mock interface designs from movies has some lovely concepts. I wish more Linux distros looked like this out of the box. This is the kind of OS I want to drive!

     

Click here to download:

Fantasy_GUIs_tag_linux_design_.zip (1154 KB)

Loading mentions Retweet

I don't think this is a very fair comparison. 'Open source programming' my ass, the real selling feature is freedom, and they totally ignore that.

Loading mentions Retweet

Boundaries uses Flickr geotagging data to draw local area boundaries on a map. It's creator, Tom Taylor, says:

Flickr understands that places are more than unique geographic identifiers; that they are mental models people use to identify with location. Moreover, they are fluid and opinionated, varying based on a number of parameters such as context, ambition and personal background. In true wisdom of the crowds style, Flickr use the combined selections of their thousands of photographers to compute the shape of these places.

Cardiff regions on Boundaries.

Loading mentions Retweet

These are my notes from the first meeting of the Cross Party Digital Group. Check out my earlier post for what this was all about, and you can also check the Twitter hashtag #digitalwales for some other backchannel chatter.

Turnout was rather good, filling the medium-sized conference room with suits. Rory Cellan Jones kept everything on target, with only a few sidelines into the news of Rupert Murdoch's plans to remove his content from search engines, and another chap who for a moment I honestly thought was going to ask the Google lady why his site wasn't ranking well.

The key nuggets to take away were:

1. Everyone on the web is equal. The voice of one blogger can be as loud as yours. You're going to have to come to terms with that. Resisting or denying it will get you nowhere.
2. Release your data so others can use it. (I was disappointed there wasn't more said about this - hopefully it will be a bigger theme for the next group meeting)
3. Go where people already are. The platforms are there. People are already using them. Join them.

Some other points I especially liked, and a few thoughts of my own:

• Karina Brisby suggested that the Assembly should "Embrace the crazy". She said that you can always defer issues, promise to give answers later, but that you should be prepared to take anything on board. (I wonder if she knows how crazy some locals are).
• Run regular blogger briefings. Bloggers are not as high-impact as the mainstream media, but what they write often has much greater value to a smaller audience. They are serving an important long tail.
• According to Jag Singh "Wales has the lowest takeup of social networks". He was the most pessimistic/realistic of the panel in this regard.
• Work with people with what interests them. Give people a hook, something to get them using the technology. Great example: Pigeon fanciers who needed to use the internet to share their stats.
• What is really so important about new media and technology, and how can you convey that?
• The need to tell a story to make it relevant.

There was one rather strange question from Dave Jones who asked how all this digital technology could help end poverty, like if it couldn't accomplish that, then why even bother? Maybe he was driving at something I'm missing.

Anyway, I don't draw any particular conclusions from this evening. I turned up with no real questions and no particular expectations. Hopefully future sessions will focus on the importance of making data avaliable for all to access and use however they like.

NOTE: Carl Morris has posted a much more thoughtful reaction. (11.11.2009)

   

Click here to download:

Notes_from_the_Cross_Party_Dig.zip (155 KB)

Pictured: Rory Cellan Jones, Karina Brisby(Oxfam), Sarah Hunter (Google), Jah Singh (MessageSpace).

Interesting footnote: There was no real information on the web about this Digital Group evening, so when Rory mentioned it on Twitter beforehand, he linked to my blog post. Go figure! 

Loading mentions Retweet

Tomorrow evening is the inaugural meeting of the National Assembly for Wales's Cross Party Digital Group (6pm, Tuesday, 10th November, 2009 - Conference Room 21, Tŷ Hywel, National Assembly for Wales, Cardiff Bay)

It's going to take the format of panel discussion and questions, chaired by Rory Cellan Jones, BBC Technology Correspondent, asking the question:

"How can we make better use of new media and digital technology to engage with the people of Wales?"

Panelists include:

• Sarah Hunter, Google's Head of UK Public Policy. Her background is in Government, where she was a Special Adviser for two Culture Secretaries, and was Tony Blair's Senior Policy Adviser on Culture, Media and Sport.
• Karina Brisby, who has led the campaign and advocacy digital strategies for Oxfam since 2004, as the Head of Digital Campaigns for Oxfam GB, where she has focused on supporting global efforts to end poverty and injustice, such as; Make Poverty History, In My Name and ClimateVoice.
• Jag Singh, a veteran of American political campaigns. He is currently Chief Information Officer at online campaigning and advertising agency MessageSpace in London, which aims to connect a politically influential and aware audience with brands and organisations that aim to harness the new participatory processes taking place on the Web. Jag has worked for Democratic Presidential candidates (Wes Clark, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton), as well as Senators and Gubernatorial candidates in Florida and Georgia, on both sides of the political aisle. His specialisation revolves around using technology for voter/stakeholder profiling and contact, but has more recently branched out into targeting voters and audiences online.

Loading mentions Retweet

It's not that hard frankly! I've attached a graph showing the last three months of followers and following for the @web_cardiff account, and you can see the pattern clearly: The green line is the bot. It follows a bunch, waits a few days and unfollows those who didn't follow back. Repeat. (My graph isn't 100% accurate, but you can see the numbers for yourself: followers / 'friends'.)

What do you think? Is this bad practice? In this case, the information isn't bad - a few links go to the owner's site, but most point to genuinely useful resources. Friendly spam or useful resource worth promoting in this way?

Loading mentions Retweet