Archive for the 'accessibility web standards' Category

Reading List 228

Reading List 227

Reading List 226

Reading List 225

A (usually) weekly round-up of interesting links I’ve tweeted. Sponsored by Smashing Magazine who slip banknotes into my lacy red manties so I can spend time reading stuff.

Reading List 224

A (usually) weekly round-up of interesting links I’ve tweeted. Sponsored by Smashing Magazine who slip banknotes into my lacy red manties so I can spend time reading stuff.

Reading List 223

A (usually) weekly round-up of interesting links I’ve tweeted. Sponsored by Smashing Magazine who slip banknotes into my lacy red manties so I can spend time reading stuff.

Accessibility: Back to the Future

Here’s a talk I did at a lovely inclusive, anarchic, friendly conference last month called Monki Gras. It was great; a low ticket-price, proper food, craft beers and melted cheese snacks, a diverse group of speakers and a diverse audience. I made loads of new friends and heard loads of new perspectives.

Reading List 222

A (usually) weekly round-up of interesting links I’ve tweeted. Sponsored by Smashing Magazine who slip banknotes into my lacy red manties so I can spend time reading stuff.

Reading List

A (usually) weekly round-up of interesting links I’ve tweeted. Sponsored by Smashing Magazine who slip banknotes into my lacy red manties so I can spend time reading stuff.

On Smart TVs

When I was doing developer relations at Opera, I did everything I could to avoid having to go near the Opera TV part of the business – which was basically an app store of HTML5 websites for “Smart” TVs. This was for three reasons: the world of Smart TVs was a world of closed standards. Secondly, as Patrick Lauke wrote, the chips in the early Smart TVs were cheap and crappy which seriously crippled the web experience.

But the main reason was that I felt Smart TVs were a solution looking for problem.

TVs are big, beautiful screens and good speakers, sitting in a social space. No-one wants to surf Facebook on a screen that mum and dad are also watching, especially controlling it with arrows on a remote control unit.

A cheap device like a Chromecast allows people to control the content with a portable device they already have and know how to use – be it a laptop, tablet or phone, and see the movie/ photos on a big screen with family and friends. TVs are meant to be dumb; your phone is smart and a little USB gizmo connects the two.

So why did Opera have a B2B division developing Smart TV offerings? (And after the dismemberment of Opera, it continues as Vewd). The answer: because TV set manufacturers wanted Smart TV, so would throw money at us. But why did the set manufacturers want it?

A news report last week made it clear: it’s about collecting data off users, hitting the network a lot to phone that data back to HQ, then “monetizing” it, in some cases, advertising to viewers. That helps reduce the cost at sale of TVs. As the Verge puts it: Taking the smarts out of smart TVs would make them more expensive. From their interview with TV manufacturer Vizio’s CTO Bill Baxter:

So look, it’s not just about data collection. It’s about post-purchase monetization of the TV.

This is a cutthroat industry. It’s a 6-percent margin industry, right? I mean, you know it’s pretty ruthless. You could say it’s self-inflicted, or you could say there’s a greater strategy going on here, and there is. The greater strategy is I really don’t need to make money off of the TV. I need to cover my cost.

…there are ways to monetize that TV and data is one, but not only the only one. It’s sort of like a business of singles and doubles, it’s not home runs, right? You make a little money here, a little money there. You sell some movies, you sell some TV shows, you sell some ads, you know.

I have a Smart TV (it’s difficult to find a new one that isn’t). I’ve never connected it to the web, for just this reason.