IWB Interoperability

[crispinw]

I'm not a whiteboard expert but am interested in this issue from the interoperability and SALTIS perspective - discussion of SALTIS is in a seperate thread.

 

I understand from Margaret Allen on the NAACE list that Promethean Flipchart will now work on anyone's board - but I understand from steve that this does not apply to ActivStudio (presumably this is a larger toolbox than Flipchart alone?)

 

There are concerns around this issue, particularly in the light of Becta's common file format initiative and whether this will address the issues of whiteboard interoperability - if issues there are.

 

It seems to me, prima facie, to be anti-competitive that any software should insist on any hardware being present, or vice-versa (freely available drivers excepted). I think there are particular concerns if, having a particular software program is driving you down the route of installing a particular voting system as well as a particular whiteboard.

 

Do people generally see this as a problem and would they agree that whiteboards, voting systems and software should be completely decoupled, so that any will work with any other?

 

Crispin.

[russdev]

I am in two minds about this software I can understand why active, smart go down route they do not totally out of this world for a ie board maker to have software that works only with there board.

 

I do like the fact that smart software can install anywhere except with another companies board.

 

The open format on other hand is where I think it is interesting this means the "we must use this software becomes redundant" as any software will open it that supports open format. Think that ie software must support this standard in full. A way to make this happen is make part of requirement to be on 'becta approved list' etc

 

Russell

[Ric_]

I've split this off from another topic so that it may be discussed properly...

 

In some respects, I think that the open file format will be brilliant for schools. Teachers would be able to produce content that could easily be taken with them around the school and indeed into other schools.

 

An open file format should therefore enhance the opportunities to share materials.

 

The only problem I can foresee is the stifling of innovation. If, for arguments sake, you have 5 manufacturers using the open standard and one manufacturer develops a new feature, how do they exploit their new feature without giving it away to the others for free? Before long, it is possible that a 'stagnation' could occur and we would not see IWBs developing as quickly as they have in the past year or two.

[CyberNerd]

Becta have commissioned RM to 'develop a common industry-wide standard'

http://news.becta.org.uk/display.cfm?cfid=1832298&cftoken=dd05b3ee06a1146c-36175D5E-DF25-1F33-4FE8403F6D421A47&resID=35000&page=1658&catID=1633

and an open source IWB file viewer. I'm just hoping that RM don't tie any of their code to a particular platform,

[webman]

I wouldn't hold your breath CyberNerd, we all know what happened with the QCA software.

[dhicks]

> Do people generally see this as a problem and would they agree

> that whiteboards, voting systems and software should be completely

> decoupled, so that any will work with any other?

 

Depends how you been by "should". It would be nice, from the consumer's point of view, if they did. However, it's advantageous for a manufacturer to have a bunch of users with content created in their own propriatory format, unable to switch to a rival's product, so I don't think IWB manufacturers are actually going to get around to creating a common whiteboard format any time soon.

 

I figure the answer lays with third-party software of some kind. Preferably, software that integrates with VLE systems in some way. I wrote such a system in FLash/PHP for Moodle, but PHP is rather limited for this task (a language designed to handle web page requests, an inherently multi-user task, with no kind of decent semaphore / monitor system?). I aim to try again in Python as a stand-alone application.

 

--

David Hicks

[localzuk]

I think the way forward with this is to tie such a format in with Flash or similar - that way, new features can be implemented by manufacturers with their own software packages and other manufacturers could then 'play' the content but not be able to necessarily create the same...

[CyberNerd]

I think the way forward with this is to tie such a format in with Flash or similar

 

I don't think flash is such a good idea, ideally the format needs to be open.

A VLE/web based method is clearly the way forward though.

 

The problem is going to be that whatever system Becta/RM come up with there are no carrots and no sticks to enforce it. Companies can overcharge schools whatever bulls*it lock in rubbish they like. I think it should be taken further and legislated against.

[russdev]

Later on will post info rm open standard but key thing here is format is being released as open source.

 

For now got to carry on with getting dinner ready..

 

Russell.

[dhicks]

[localzuk wrote:]

> I think the way forward with this is to tie such a format in with Flash

> or similar - that way, new features can be implemented by

> manufacturers with their own software packages and other

> manufacturers could then 'play' the content but not be able to

> necessarily create the same...

 

This sounds more like the issues that SCORM/IMS are designed to deal with.

 

[CyberNerd wrote:]

> Companies can overcharge schools whatever bulls*it lock in rubbish

> they like. I think it should be taken further and legislated against.

 

Companies can, indeed, charge locked-in customers over-the-odds for systems, but then that is what companies do (and have always done), and I don't think legislation is the answer. I figure the less legislation, the better - just a nice open market that lets system compete on technical merits.

 

I figure an IWB-of-tomorrow system might have the following features:

 

- Web based, runs on any platform (PC, Mac, Linux, maybe even

Phone/PDA (use that stylus for something!)).

- Available as a web-based hosted service or locally-installed software.

- Integrateable with VLE systems (probably via username/password

synch modules or single-sign-on mechanisms rather than more direct

integration (VLE code is crud)).

- Imports existing/future IWB (and other) file formats properly.

- Exports multiple formats (IWB formats would be nice, obviously, but

SCORM/IMS packaging might be an idea too).

- Acts as both read and write repository (with support for paid-for

content).

 

Now all we need is to get on and write it.

 

--

David Hicks

[dhicks]

> Later on will post info rm open standard but key thing here is format is

> being released as open source.

 

I read the link CyberNerd posted - it looks promising, like someone's got the right idea about how to go about it, anyway.

 

--

David Hicks

[CyberNerd]

Companies can, indeed, charge locked-in customers over-the-odds for systems, but then that is what companies do (and have always done), and I don't think legislation is the answer. I figure the less legislation, the better - just a nice open market that lets system compete on technical merits.

 

I don't have any problem with companies making money, my issue is that taxpayers (my!) money gets wasted. In many other countries it is the norm that government institutions must only use file formats that are open standards. Forcing open standards gives companies more incentive to develop better, inter-operable products, reduces cost and gives more choice.

 

There are several definitions of Open Standard:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard

[russdev]

Thing to add to info cybernerd posted is this

 

The following is a summary of the approach to be taken by the project (which commenced on November 23rd)

:

1. Establish contact list and circulate information about the project, collect

sample whiteboard materials.

2. Devise an outline file specification, with features that are common to

whiteboard applications and yet sufficiently rich to enable content to be

useful to teachers. Test sample content against outline file format.

3. Circulate outline file format and gather feedback from whiteboard

application publishers, content publishers and other interested parties.

4. Devise a detailed file specification and supporting documentation.

5. Develop and test the library code, associated documentation and support materials, with appropriate open-source licence. The library will be C code and written for cross platform support.

6. Develop and test the java viewer application with appropriate open-source licence. The viewer will render files in common file format, and will allow on- screen manipulation, but will not enable editing or saving of files.

7. Provide limited technical support for publishers to integrate the library code into their own applications

 

Russell

[CyberNerd]

6. Develop and test the java viewer application with appropriate open-source licence. The viewer will render files in common file format, and will allow on- screen manipulation, but will not enable editing or saving of files.

 

Presumably this could be re-compiled as a .war file and run from a tomcat/jboss server, the RM QCA testing or CMIS eportal server might even be able to deliver it.

[dhicks]

> Develop and test the java viewer application

 

Java-based viewer, which would find loading Flash-based materials non-trivial (unless... transparent Flash layer over a Java Applet? Would that work?).

 

--

David Hicks

[crispinw]

Thanks for all the interesting replies to this.

 

An open file format should therefore enhance the opportunities to share materials. The only problem I can foresee is the stifling of innovation

 

Which is not to say that you can't have both types - one common format without the bells and whistles for sharing and another proprietary format with the latest gizmos for those who are only working on the proprietary systems. With an equivalent of the “warning: you will lose formatting information” message when you save as a less advanced format. But:

 

1. Aren’t there already open file formats which would support most of what is required? Isn't most of the flipchart functionality to do with runtime interactions going on in the classroom (text annotations etc), meaning that templates of material to import into a flipchart, before doing flipcharty type things with it, could be distributed in e.g. PPT, HTML, Flash, PDF (I see that Promethean ActivStudio imports most of these, how well I don’t know).

 

2. This still does not address the issue of a free market in flipchart applications. Take the analogy of Windows Media Player - there was no problem with open *formats* (MPG etc. being open), but with anti-competitive bundling of the *application*. If any flipchart application can be used on any hardware, you encourage innovation *and* better compatibility.

 

there are no carrots and no sticks to enforce it

 

If the board distributers are deliberately nobbling their software to work only with proprietary boards, what is the chance that they will adopt open file formats even if they are available? (I guess everyone will import, but will be very reluctant to export, if that means their own proprietary libraries can be used on competitors’ products).

 

However, it's advantageous for a manufacturer to have a bunch of users with content created in their own proprietary format, unable to switch to a rival's product... [and] ...I figure the less legislation, the better - just a nice open market that lets system compete on technical merits.

 

I agree you can't stop people getting locked in by proprietary formats (though you can make people aware of the danger) - but you *can* prevent lock-in by anti-competitive linkages between different types of product - that is what competition law does. And I don't agree that legislation and markets are necessarily antithetical - free markets need policemen if they are to remain free.

 

I figure the answer lays with third-party software of some kind

 

For those who do not frequent the VLE board, there is a thread there in which I introduced SALTIS (see http://www.saltis.org ). Content packaging / SCORM is an area we have been doing a lot of work on - these are standards which are still not sufficiently tightly defined and could do with better compliance testing and kite-marking. This will support a market for content which may be versioned for whiteboard, individual assignment and home use and integrated with the VLE.

 

So I agree that there is a huge and largely untapped potential for a type of this kind of third-party, structured content (and it should be possible to develop it virtually any language/medium you choose) but the interoperability issues around this run along a different content packaging / SCORM track. Which still leaves the fact that there will continue to be a need for flipchart software (and benefits to be gained from supporting a competitive market).

 

So the questions I still have about flipchart issue are:

 

1. What percentage of third-party content distributed for flipcharts requires features not supported by other open formats (because if this is a very small figure, the common file format may turn out to be largely irrelevant)?

 

2. What carrots and sticks are to be used to ensure that anyone pays any attention to the format once it has been developed?

 

3. Is there a completely different (and possibly more significant) problem around open interoperability between flipchart programmes and IWB hardware; and if there is, does this indicate a breach of existing competition law?

 

Crispin.

[CyberNerd]

An open file format should therefore enhance the opportunities to share materials. The only problem I can foresee is the stifling of innovation

 

because a standard is open doesn't mean that it is static, or that it stifles innovation. ODF for example has moved from v1.0 to 1.1 (current) and v1.2 is being worked on. Same with XML,HTML,PCI and so on. As long as any changes are shared and that no one company controls the format I don't see the problem.

 

1. What percentage of third-party content distributed for flipcharts requires features not supported by other open formats (because if this is a very small figure, the common file format may turn out to be largely irrelevant)?

I guess a lot could be done with ODP (OpenDocument Presentation), difficult to say though. The examples you gave (ppt/flash) are not open by any definition.

 

 

2. What carrots and sticks are to be used to ensure that anyone pays any attention to the format once it has been developed?

It's the same deal with the technical specification that Becta released - all very sensible, but probably no schools are fully compliant with it because they have no incentive (do bsf companies conform?)

 

3. Is there a completely different (and possibly more significant) problem around open interoperability between flipchart programmes and IWB hardware; and if there is, does this indicate a breach of existing competition law?

lots of companies still sell software coupled to hardware dongles, A PITA but I doubt it breaches any law.

[crispinw]

because a standard is open doesn't mean that it is static, or that it stifles innovation. ODF for example has moved from v1.0 to 1.1 (current) and v1.2 is being worked on. Same with XML,HTML,PCI and so on. As long as any changes are shared and that no one company controls the format I don't see the problem.

 

I am sure the standard can move, though as it requires a degree of consensus, it will inevitably trail individual companies' ability to innovate - and this also presupposes that there is a body to manage continuous development of the standard. Will Becta do this?

 

I guess a lot could be done with ODP (OpenDocument Presentation), difficult to say though. The examples you gave (ppt/flash) are not open by any definition.

 

I think they are 'open' to the extent that anyone can read from them, though not write to them or control their development. I agree that a recognised de jure open standard is preferable to a de facto standard which is in fact proprietary; but a de facto standard may be preferable to a de jure standard which, having ticked all the boxes, sits on a shelf and isn't implemented by anyone. If the common file format isn't just going to sit on a shelf, Becta is going to have to put serious backing behind it in order to ensure it achieves general recognition. I understand that so far, no-one has committed to support it other than RM which is developing it.

 

It's the same deal with the technical specification that Becta released - all very sensible, but probably no schools are fully compliant with it because they have no incentive (do bsf companies conform?)

 

The fact that the whole system is dysfunctional is not a reason one shouldn't attempt to improve it. So instead of just going through the motions and producing more bits of expensive paper, isn't it better that we bring the pressure to ensure that these initiatives are properly thought through and produce real benefits?

 

lots of companies still sell software coupled to hardware dongles, A PITA but I doubt it breaches any law.

 

A dongle is different because it has no function other than to validate the software. Nobody says "I've bought this really good dongle and I'm really disappointed that I can't use it with any other bit of software". The problem is the linkage of two things which do different things and each of which have independent value.

 

If you don't think the linkage of different components is anti-competitive, what happens when you string together a whole set of linked components - so company X sells you a flipchart and you create a lot of content with it that can't be used on anyone else's software. Then they say "if you want to use this system with a whiteboard, it will only work on our whiteboards; and if you want to use it with a voting system, it will only work with our voting system; and if you want to use it with a VLE, it will only work with our VLE..." and this is all done incrementally so that at each stage it becomes increasingly expensive to trash the very large investment you had already made, in money, time, and training of staff.

 

And if you think that this is all fair game then why was Microsoft fined $600,000,000 for unfairly bundling Media Player with Windows?

 

Crispin.

[russdev]

 

So the questions I still have about flipchart issue are:

 

1. What percentage of third-party content distributed for flipcharts requires features not supported by other open formats (because if this is a very small figure, the common file format may turn out to be largely irrelevant)?

 

2. What carrots and sticks are to be used to ensure that anyone pays any attention to the format once it has been developed?

 

3. Is there a completely different (and possibly more significant) problem around open interoperability between flipchart programmes and IWB hardware; and if there is, does this indicate a breach of existing competition law?

 

Crispin.

 

1) Think key here is wording if you say flipchart software then got valid argument but if you say Interactive Board software which is more than just 'flip chart' software. Then open format is needed and will work only if free viewer is kept upto date look at pdf files.

 

2) As said link it into the BETCA interactive whiteboard framework as 99% of all board makers are on it.

 

3) Yes is problem and no because you are buying the board not software that is the added value in some respects. I think smart have got it half right the fact that any ie board will work with (but it is against terms to use it with non smart board). so they need to make it affordable to buy licenses to use the software on non smart board.

 

Russ

[crispinw]

1) Think key here is wording if you say flipchart software then got valid argument but if you say Interactive Board software which is more than just 'flip chart' software. Then open format is needed and will work only if free viewer is kept upto date look at pdf files.

 

Hi Russ - I agree with this - but in what sense is that wider body of SCORM / Flash / web content "IWB content"? Isn't it just part of a continuum of VLE content, e-portfolio / tools etc.

 

I also question the value of a "flipchart viewer". Isn't the point of a flipchart that you can write on them? And I don't think the Becta software is going to be anything more than that - I doubt it will view SCORM content.

 

2) As said link it into the BETCA interactive whiteboard framework as 99% of all board makers are on it.

 

But I think it came to an end last January. Even while it was running, I don't think you can remove people from the framework as they have a contract. That is why I don't think Becta is in any position to do anything about learning platform standards for 3 years - because it has no way of imposing its standards on people who are on the framework (what was the outcome of all the workshops that we all went to in the autumn? - I haven't heard a squeak).

 

3) Yes is problem and no because you are buying the board not software that is the added value in some respects. I think smart have got it half right the fact that any ie board will work with (but it is against terms to use it with non smart board). so they need to make it affordable to buy licenses to use the software on non smart board.

 

Russ

 

If I were in Becta's shoes I would

 

(1) get serious legal advice on whether the licensing and technical restrictions on whiteboards breaks competition law, and

 

(2) kite-mark products against a wide range of technical interoperability standards (i.e. lots of different feature-marks, not one big one). Anyone who met the tightly defined conformance criteria could get the kite-mark at any time (and could have it removed at any time if they broke the conditions). I would then explain very clearly to schools what these marks meant and why they were thought to be important and then leave the buying decision entirely to schools.

 

Crispin.

[CyberNerd]

A dongle is different because it has no function other than to validate the software. Nobody says "I've bought this really good dongle and I'm really disappointed that I can't use it with any other bit of software". The problem is the linkage of two things which do different things and each of which have independent value.

 

 

A better analogy might be laptop manufacturers bundling windows (and other cr*pware) onto their products. It should be decoupled, if I pay for a computer I begrudge paying microsoft for a product I'll never use.

[dhicks]

[Crispin wrote:]

> So I agree that there is a huge and largely untapped potential for a

> type of this kind of third-party, structured content

 

Absolutly.

 

[Crispin wrote:]

> What carrots and sticks are to be used to ensure that anyone pays any

> attention to the format once it has been developed?

 

Get a bunch of decent content created in the new format and dish it out free/cheap to teachers. Release a development library to assist third-party developers (looks like Becta have the right idea there). Release a free tool for content creation that's easy for teachers to use (the Becta one is only a viewer).

 

Problem with doing the above: if done by a government-backed organisation of some kind, you get a whole bunch of IWB companies complaining about unfair competition. I understand that this was the main issue with the BBC Jam content - it was simply too good!

 

Your kite-mark idea looks sensible, how would you plan to get people to implement it?

 

--

David Hicks

[crispinw]

A better analogy might be laptop manufacturers bundling windows (and other cr*pware) onto their products. It should be decoupled, if I pay for a computer I begrudge paying microsoft for a product I'll never use.

 

I take your point, and agree that the world isn't perfect. Some things are necessarily dependent on each other - including a computer and its operating system. And an operating system is itself an infrastructure which should support an open market in applications, while a flipchart program is an end-use application which doesn't act as infrastructure to anything else.

 

Get a bunch of decent content created in the new format and dish it out free/cheap to teachers.

 

I have to admit I am against government-commissioned content because the end-user is disempowered. I don't think its a question of public vs private sector supply, but rather top-down vs end-user as purchaser. Though there may be a case for pump-priming (but you have to show that it is a genuine case for pump-priming, and not just an excuse to claw money back into central budgets).

 

Release a development library to assist third-party developers (looks like Becta have the right idea there). Release a free tool for content creation that's easy for teachers to use (the Becta one is only a viewer).

 

Again, I agree that there is huge need for good development/high-level authoring tools (they just don't exist at the moment) - but I really do not think that Becta or any other government agency is in a position or has the skill-set to provide them directly. I thought Stephen Crowne hit the nail on the head in his introduction to the Harnessing Technology conference, when he said that their job was not necessarily to solve every problem, but to create the environment in which problems could be solved.

 

Problem with doing the above: if done by a government-backed organisation of some kind, you get a whole bunch of IWB companies complaining about unfair competition. I understand that this was the main issue with the BBC Jam content - it was simply too good!

 

My feelings on that are very mixed. I turned against BBC Jam because (a) their content was not truly interoperable and (b) they were hard-wiring it to their own management system (which, on competition grounds, the DCMS conditions had forbidden them to develop). I made a fuss about this but I don't think anyone took it seriously - what sunk Jam was the issue of "complementarity". I think that if the BBC had produced truly interoperable content, and had spelt out at the beginning of the project that this was the sense in which their content was complementary to the existing market, they wouldn't have had any trouble. So I don't think you can put the thing down to wicked businessmen - though the content might have been good, the management of the project was very incompetent.

 

Your kite-mark idea looks sensible, how would you plan to get people to implement it?

 

By ensuring that it carries credibility in the market. No-one is interested in "nanny says" kite-marks, but if the kite-mark carries real information, then it will influence people's buying decision; and then business will make sure that they have it.

 

Crispin.

[dhicks]

> I have to admit I am against government-commissioned content because

> the end-user is disempowered.

 

I'd tend to be against government-commissioned content on a large scale (like you say, you want end-users to be able to create their own content, or entrepreneurs), but yes, I think there would be good case for "pump priming" here. Get some really top-quality, all-singing, video/audio/animation content (assuming your common file-format can handle such, of course) commissioned for each subject (probably for KS3) so every teacher has something they can look at and teach with.

 

> I really do not think that Becta or any other government agency is in

> a position or has the skill-set to provide them directly

 

I really don't get why government agencies can't just directly hire some programmers and get on with it, instead of having to outsource to consultants the whole time. GCHQ does, can't the DFES do the same?

 

Do you have a drafts of your kite-mark standard around, or any further explanation of what each kite-mark would signify?

 

--

David Hicks

[crispinw]

I think there would be good case for "pump priming" here

 

I'm not against pump-priming, as long as it is part of a genuine attempt to pump a well-targeted pump and not a constant flow of expensive govnt-sponsored content with no evidence that anyone wants it. If it is to be an exercise in pump-priming, they need to make sure they have a clear vision of where they are leading and that the industry is in the loop, and going to follow where they lead (and the industry has a lot of technical experience which can help inform the policy deliberations). Those were really the conditions laid on BBC Jam (which, as a supposed pump-priming exercise, clearly had to provide something that wasn't already being provided. But there was no clarity about how it was going to be different (I would have 100% welcomed it if it had been used to bring in robust technical standards) and there was very little engagement with industry. If anything, Becta's engagement with industry has become even weaker over the last year.

 

Get some really top-quality, all-singing, video/audio/animation content (assuming your common file-format can handle such, of course) commissioned for each subject (probably for KS3) so every teacher has something they can look at and teach with.

 

I think the magic ingredient is "interactive" (and also including a lot of the creative and Web 2.0 pedagogies which i doubt are useable in the classroom without being "wrapped" as curriculum-specific content.

 

I really don't get why government agencies can't just directly hire some programmers and get on with it, instead of having to outsource to consultants the whole time. GCHQ does, can't the DFES do the same?

 

Particularly when many of the consultants don't really know what they are talking about. When Becta produced a "Best practices guide to content packaging" in 2004/5, they employed a consultant who had never even *heard* of SCORM before she started the work - and it showed. Becta should stop handing out "advice" of very dubious quality.

 

But programmers have to be pointed in the right direction and the development of imaginative new software involves considerable risk - that is what industry is happy to do. It just needs to be given a market environment which incentivises it to do so.

 

Do you have a drafts of your kite-mark standard around, or any further explanation of what each kite-mark would signify?

 

I have produced a draft for content packaging within SALTIS (50 pages and quite technical). At the moment it is confidential to the group (talk to GrumbleDook) but after the next meeting in early Feb, I shall see what the group feels about publishing the second draft and perhaps more supporting documentation. But there is a limit to the amount of unpaid work I am prepared to do, unless government engages with the process.

 

The content packaging proposal has been welcomed on the group and also by IMS in America (who owns IP in the content packaging standards) who proposed in November that Becta sponsor SALTIS to take the proposal to the IMS working groups - the signs are that the proposal is very complementary to what their K-12 sector is thinking (and many companies in the UK are naturally concerned that any UK proposal should be globally compatibile).

 

Becta appears to have responded by issuing a tender for the production of non-binding guidance (a re-run of the 2005 exercise) on distributing interoperable content, to be directed at publishers and practitioners (who shouldn't be troubled with technicalities) but *not* at their learning platform providers (who, being on the framework, naturally do all that is required already :? ). They have not yet responded, either to the proposal from IMS, or to my request for a meeting, or to my expression of concerns about the usefulness of the non-binding guidance... but I hope that after BETT, we might start to have a more useful dialogue.

 

Do come and say hello to me at BETT on stand Q32. SALTIS is being launched at a press conference at 3 p.m. on the Wednesday.

 

Crispin.