Twitter redesign – APIs make you raise your game

The thing I like – really like – about the upcoming Twitter redesign is the way it turns the Twitter website back into something it should always have been: the best place to get the purest Twitter experience.

To date, Twitter’s website has always felt slightly weaker as an experience than some of the best Twitter apps out there, because it’s a website, and it’s had to make all the compromises a website has to make to be a website. The fact that Twitter had a full-fat API made it easy for independent developers to out-Twitter Twitter.

But I think one of the benefits of having a full-fat API is that it forces you to raise your own game. When we were discussing the API for guardian.co.uk that became, long after I left, the Open Platform, we always said it suggested that guardian.co.uk should not just be the place where you read the Guardian. It should be the best place to read the Guardian – the place that was more Guardian than anything else anyone might build. Sure, some people might build great apps around particular piece of content, but, by God, if people wanted the Guardian in the round there should only be one place for it.

(So, for instance, when Phil Gyford launched Today’s Guardian, I had an uncomfortable feeling that this might just be a better, more Guardian experience than guardian.co.uk. It isn’t, quite. But it very nearly is).

So, if you’ve got an API, make sure you’ve done the really difficult thing: being the best consumer of that API, the most creative, the most complete, the most robust, of anyone out there.

Guardian digital income “down a bit”

Guardian Media Group said digital revenue at its Guardian News & Media division “declined only marginally” in the year to March, as it announced slightly improved annual losses of £57.9 million at the news publisher.In the 2009/10 annual report, outgoing GMG CEO Carolyn McCall says on digital: “We expect to see a return to growth in the coming year.”The publisher doesn’t break out digital income from cross-media figures for its news division, which owns ContentNext Media, although reported comments from last year put it at £30 million.

via Guardian Digital Income Down ‘Marginally’ In Reduced GNM Loss | paidContent.

Guardian education story FAIL



Guardian education story FAIL, originally uploaded by lloydshep.

I was going to post something over the weekend about how Richard Desmond’s chamberpot of a business was now actively toxic to UK citizens, what with commemorating the death of Jade Goody before it happened and manipulating some of the most tragic teenagers on the planet to sell a few extra issues in Scotland. But there’s something even more insidiously awful about the Guardian’s front page this morning.

The story the Guardian is reporting is this: the education editor, Polly Curtis, has seen draft plans for a shake-up of the primary school curriculum undertaken by Sir Jim Rose, the former Ofsted chief. I haven’t seen the plans, obviously, but the drift of Polly’s report seems to be that Rose is proposing to make two rather fundamental changes: trimming down the 13 standalone subject areas into six “learning areas”; and giving teachers and schools some concrete choices about which options to teach in class. In history, for instance, schools could choose to teach either the Victorians or the Second World War.

Now, if you know anyone at all who teaches, they’ll probably tell you that the single thing the government could do to improve things would be to give teachers and schools a bit more leeway to tailor teaching to the circumstances of their schools and their classrooms (David Hepworth has a nice post on this today). So a more fluid platform on which to hang subjects, together with some options to pick and choose, seems like an eminently sensible course.

Oh, and the Rose plans apparently recommend that children should be given some teaching on “digital media” – on self-publishing, on shared knowledge, on the changing shape of how we talk, share and learn in the new digital sphere.

So what pithy concept has the Guardian chosen to illustrate this move towards a more flexible curriculum, which acknowledges that the way children consume knowledge has changed utterly in the last decade? “Kids to be taught Twitter, and Second World War no longer compulsory.”

How does this help human understanding? How does this disingenuous attempt to grab some attention on the newsstand help children, teachers or parents? Why is a supposedly intellectual institution like the Guardian succumbing to sub-Daily Mail posturing? What on earth happened here?

Well, we know what happened, of course. A front-page team and a news editor and a reporter took an interesting story. And they juiced it. They juiced it so much that a story about one thing became a story about something else. And in the process they managed to make Jim Rose – a highly-respected, experienced educationalist – look like a dad at a wedding playing with the cool kids by associating his work with Twitter, which for many is the poster child for feckless technical twiddling and twaddle.

The Express-Dunblane stuff was unconscionable, nasty and even evil. But this is intellectually ridiculous and socially poisonous. When a newspaper changes the weave of a story deliberately to gain attention – and when that newspaper is the poster-child for independent British journalism – all our arguments about the centrality of journalism and its importance are in danger of being seen as flimsy attempts to prop up a discredited profession. This is shoddy, vicious and cynical.

More BNP goodness

Those pinko liberal commie scumbags at the Guardian having been having fun trawling the far-right message boards to find messages of panic from exposed BNP members. The schadenfreude runs deep and true. My personal favourite:

“There must have been a commie mole within the BNP. This is nothing short of political persecution at its worst.”

Look, you haven’t quite got the hang of this politics thing, have you? If it’s “political persecution” to reveal your membership of a political party, what does that say about the party of which you’re a member?