The creative industries are sectors of the economy that make money from the sale of their intellectual property. This intellectual property comes from the sale of performances and the design of artistic works of art.This way of being is often referred to as artistic or creative practice.  This is different to the traditional view of industry which makes money from the sale of things and such as cars, coal, steal,commodities like wheat and corn and services such as the sale of insurance. The following video presentation provides us with a thorough analysis fo the creative industries.

The creative industries developed from government policy documents in Australia and the United Kingdom in the early 1990s.This is because the intellectual property that relates to performances and artistic works can now be licensed in a similar fashion to royalties. This means that a creative practitioner can sell the design of an artistic work to a buyer for a percentage fee of all sales or a once of fee for the work. The creative practitioner can also hold the rights to those works depending on the type of contract worked out.

The creative industries approach has become important to governments around the world. This is because our economies are global and connected together via complex system of electronic trading. In developed countries the past 20 years has seen the creative industries become embedded in almost all sectors of the economy which is tied into the growth of digital media and and the world wide web as a tool that is being used for electronic commerce.

Where once the arts were reliant on government funding they can now become more self-supporting and self-enterprising. This means that governments are now focusing on creative Industry based policy which has seen the word ‘creative’ move a long way from its common usage. Creativity and Innovation are now primal industry drivers.

The Creative Industries now includes sectors such as:

• Advertising Antiques;
• Architecture Crafts;
• Design Fashion;
• Film Leisure software;
• Music Performing Arts;
• Publishing;
• TV;
• Radio;
• Software;

Reference List

DCMS. (1997). Creative Industries Mapping Document. London.

Hartley, J., & Cunningham, S. (2001). Creative Industries: from Blue Poles to fat pipes.Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane.

Howkins, J. (2002). The Mayors Commission on the Creative Industries (No. 020 74682334). London: London Development Agency.

Leadbeater, C. (1999). The weightless society : living in the new economy bubble. New

The semantic-web affords the bringing together of the technical affordances of the web 2.0 paradigm shift into a documented and publicly accessible design framework. This new international design standard can be used for developing web 2.0 applications. The purpose of creating such a standard is to increase the useability of websites. This newfocus on usability as an international standard has evolved from lessons learned from the web 1.0 interaction and design paradigm. Whilst in the past web design standards were applied on a mostly ad-hoc basis, or in institutions that used them as part of policy to achieve best practice. The semantic web is working towards the standardisation in the way websites and web-applications communicate with each other.

In the following video Tim Berners Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web, provides an analysis of the semantic-web in a down-to-earth manner.

This is important to all application designers, including ePortfolio designers, as the semantic-web aids in achieving best practice more rigorously. Many organisations will not allow for a website or web-application to be published unless the authors can clearly demonstrate that their application meets these international standards. These newstandards are created in consultation with internet publishers and e-commerce providers. The main body that controls this framework is the World Wide Web consortium (WC3).

In this post I would like to explore what is meant by the term Web 2.0. This term has become quiet hyped in the media of late and relates to the design of social networking sites such as Facebook.com and Flickr.com. I thought it timely then to provide my view on what I think Web 2.0 is in a down-to-earth manner.The following video presentation gives an excellent analysis of Web 2.0 for those us who prefer video. Please feel free to read my post below for a more text based explanation.

In presenting the affordances of digital media and the internet it should be noted that there was also a relationship between the online systems architecture that housed traditional websites which affected what was technically possible in the design of static websites. These early systems were based on relatively primitive computers and networks which were not very digital media friendly for the majority of personal computer users. These systems were impeded by technical constraints such as flaky operating systems, incompatible web browsers and hardware that had limited ability to render digital media as it was meant to be performed. These limitations greatly affected the philosophy of design that went into building a static website. It should also be noted that static websites and infrastructure which preceded the dot com crash of 2001 are commonly referred to as Web 1.0 websites.

Thus we see how the web 1.0 paradigm severely limited interaction and design philosophy which in turn limited the type of websites and digital media assets that could be published via the World Wide Web. Furthermore web 1.0 websites did not allow for complex interactions between the website visitor and website content. Often the website visitor was restricted to reading text and playing very small sound files and videos.

In a web 1.0 paradigm, interaction designers were limited to the use hypertext mark-up language, customized stye sheets, compressed digital images and movie files and computer code such as java-script to achieve fancy visual or user interactivity effects. This content could not be shared easily between different web site visitors. Commonly the website visitor was often unable to leave comments about the digital media nor were they allowed to share it with other internet users. To update a web 1.0 website the whole website often had to be closed down and re-written so that digital media assets could be uploaded.

The updating process was costly for the owner of the website and often meant delays in the website visitor gaining access to the website whilst the site was being maintained. A further disadvantage of web 1.0 websites was that each website owner had to have a web hosting account with an internet service provider and a domain name that would help the website visitor find their website. In some countries a commercial website could not be hosted publicly without being owned by a registered business.

However, the web 1.0 design philosophy was not without its benefits. For the gatekeeper of the website, known as the webmaster, a number of technical advantages could be made available for website visitors. Many web 1.0 interaction designers argue that web 1.0 is more secure and more stable. Web 1.0 designers often remark that even with the advent of cheaper broadband for internet users not everyone has access to high speed broadband. This issue is important as a web 1.0 framework offers websites that are lighter and take up less bandwidth. Websites that are lighter are more accessible to people who have slower broadband connections such as dial-up. Thus web 2.0 can sometimes preclude equitable access to information and services due to web 2.0 tending to be heavier in digital media applications and content. This restriction should be seen as deign consideration that needs to be taken into account when designing web 2.0 websites.

What is web 2.0?

Shortly after the dot com crash a number of new media organisations started seeking answers as to what went wrong with their web 1.0 based websites and electronic commerce business models. The aim of this reflection was to come up with profitable websites that would be sustainable into the future. It was also the dot com crash which drove the evolution of a new philosophy of interaction and design. For example, News Corporation Ltd purchased Myspace.com as a vehicle to increase its online audience size and to increase revenue through advertising. Digital content and commercials are now part of the Myspace.com online user experience. This new design philosophy has become known as web 2.0 and is starting to be used as a web development strategy by many interaction designers.

Web 2.0 (O’Reilly, 2005) is often seen as being about designing websites and web applications that are focused on user-centred design, to make websites more acceptable to their users. However, web 2.0 is not just about user-centred design, it is also about achieving a profitable website or web-application that meets a client’s business goals. To achieve this, web 2.0 websites and applications must incorporate a profitable business model which then becomes part of the web platform.

What are the affordances of web 2.0?

Web 2.0 affordances are difficult to define as they are more about the philosophy of interaction and design and business models than the graphical aesthetics or technical aesthetics of a website. O’Reilly’s (2005) suggested web 2.0 affordances include:

• Putting the website user first by not allowing the technology to rule what the website user can do;
• Trusting the user and allowing users to have access to certain levels of features;
• Include small pieces of loosely joined information and applications which enable the users to post and host their own small websites. This allows for the contribution of User Generated Content (UCC);
• Long-tail economics which evokes a philosophy of working towards the edge of the long-tail to achieve higher innovation and creativity;
• Include data as the Intel inside which allows easy access to data;
• The perpetual beta which allows for continual improvement to the perpetual beta scenario; this means that software should not be closed as a final version as doing so indicates that you think you can’t make it better;
• Hack-ability which allows the user to change the software to meet their needs.
• Allowing the users to add software content and report faults and bugs quickly which helps improve quality control; and
• The Right to Remix; Some rights reserved allows website visitors the flexibility to increase content on your site while giving credit to the website user (O’Reilly 2005).

O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0? Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Retrieved August 10, 2008, from http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html.

This work is part of an article that I am currently working on. I have a basic structure which explores notions of  how digital media and web 1.0 and web 2.0 technologies relate to each other.This post will provide an introduction to changes in the philosophy of interaction design theory and the use of digital media in new web-publishing paradigms. The affordances of this new design philosophy will be compared with traditional interaction and design views.

The following videos come from Cisco systems and formed part of their ‘Human Network’ adverstising campaign. This presentation does however gives us an overall summary of the potential of digital media, however it is quiet hyped and commercial in nature.

1.   Digital media

Digital Media can be defined as a group of media that connect and combine data, text, sound and images of all kinds. These digital media files can then be shared, displayed, and maintained through the use of digital networks (Flew 2002, p: 10). However, defining digital media is not sufficient to comprehend the meaning and benefits of digital media to interaction designers who design websites and web -applications. To understand this relationship we have to examine the affordances of digital media. Professor Terry  Flew (2002) tells us that digital media has four main affordances which include:

1.      A lessening in the cost of storing and distributing data and information;

2.      An increased chance in raising the value of digital media through the repurposing of it as media content;

3.      New opportunities to increase advertising audiences;

4.      The ability to move from mass supply models to systems that are more customisable by individual consumers. (Flew 2002, p:98)

2.   What are the affordances of digital media?

To gain a greater understanding of the role of digital media and its affordances to interaction designers we now examine the historical ties that digital media have with traditional mass media publication outlets. The internet is primarily made up of the electronic networks of globally connected computers that allow people to share information, files and applications with each other. In essence the internet is the hardware that allows data and information to be passed between computers and networks. The World Wide Web should be thought of as the software that is used to allow us to view and share files between computers. The affordances of what the internet and the World Wide Web offer include:

* Freedom and personal control of access to information;
* Access to multiple sources of information;
* Freedom of expression using a variety of digital media formats;
* The break down of distance and cultural barriers which allows for free transfer of ideas and information between cultures over geographically dispersed locations;
* Economic capacity building can occur, without discrimination, making gender, race, nationality or disability less of an inhibitor to commerce and trade;
* Networks have grown exponentially as more information and content has become available over the network;
* Hypertext has allowed us the ability to access multiple and interconnected information sources;
* Dynamic information is now available at the touch of button where traditional publication systems are much slower to publish information and share data;
* Trusted relationships can be created between the publisher of information and their audience (Flew 2002, p:16).

3.   What is the relationship between digital media and interaction and design?

In presenting the affordances of digital media and the internet it should be noted that there was also a relationship between the online systems architecture that housed traditional websites which affected what was technically possible in the design of static websites. These early systems were based on relatively primitive computers and networks which were not very digital media friendly for the majority of personal computer users. These systems were impeded by technical constraints such as flaky operating systems, incompatible web browsers and hardware that had limited ability to render digital media as it was meant to be performed. These limitations greatly affected the philosophy of design that went into building a static website. It should also be noted that static websites and infrastructure which preceded the dot com crash of 2001 are commonly referred to as Web 1.0 websites.

Thus we see how the web 1.0 paradigm severely limited interaction and design philosophy which in turn limited the type of websites and digital media assets that could be published via the World Wide Web. Furthermore web 1.0 websites did not allow for complex interactions between the website visitor and website content. Often the website visitor was restricted to reading text and playing very small sound files and videos.

In a web 1.0 paradigm, interaction designers were limited to the use hypertext mark-up language, customized stye sheets, compressed digital images and movie files and computer code such as java-script to achieve fancy visual or user interactivity effects. This content could not be shared easily between different web site visitors. Commonly the website visitor was often unable to leave comments about the digital media nor were they allowed to share it with other internet users. To update a web 1.0 website the whole website often had to be closed down and re-written so that digital media assets could be uploaded.

The updating process was costly for the owner of the website and often meant delays in the website visitor gaining access to the website whilst the site was being maintained. A further disadvantage of web 1.0 websites was that each website owner had to have a web hosting account with an internet service provider and a domain name that would help the website visitor find their website. In some countries a commercial website could not be hosted publicly without being owned by a registered business.

Conclusion

However, the web 1.0 design philosophy was not without its benefits. For the gatekeeper of the website, known as the webmaster, a number of technical advantages could be made available for website visitors. Many web 1.0 interaction designers argue that web 1.0 is more secure and more stable. Web 1.0 designers often remark that even with the advent of cheaper broadband for internet users not everyone has access to high speed broadband. This issue is important as a web 1.0 framework offers websites that are lighter and take up less bandwidth. Websites that are lighter are more accessible to people who have slower broadband connections such as dial-up. Thus web 2.0 can sometimes preclude equitable access to information and services due to web 2.0 tending to be heavier in digital media applications and content. This restriction should be seen as deign consideration that needs to be taken into account when designing web 2.0 websites.

Our next post will focus on what web 2.0 and what impacts this design philosaphy has on interaction and design approaches.

References

Flew 2002 Flew, Terry (2002 ) New Media: An Introduction . Oxford University Press .