Re: Acceptable media.

I think that Envy Labs' Code School [1] courses are an excellent real-world example of toeing the line between quirky/funny to increase approachability, and "professional", in the sense that you could feel comfortable using the material in an educational institution.

[1] http://www.codeschool.com/courses

--
Jacob Reiff
jacob@jacobreiff.com
http://about.me/jacobreiff


On Nov 8, 2012, at 3:25 PM, Chris Mills wrote:

> My take on this - professionalism is good.
> 
> But making learning more enjoyable is also good.
> 
> Learning technical subjects can be hard and laborious, and any way in which you can make it more fun is a good thing. I would like us to move forward from the stuffyness of academia, and set a new standard for approachable learning style.
> 
> Of course, fun and humour can be subjective, so this needs to be thought about carefully. Is it funny to most people, of is it just offensive? Does it help carry the learning, or does it just get in the way and annoy people.
> 
> I love the bacon cat, but then again I love bacon. I am happy to defer to the popular vote on this.
> 
> Chris Mills
> Open standards evangelist and dev.opera.com editor, Opera Software
> Co-chair, web education community group, W3C
> Author of "Practical CSS3: Develop and Design" (http://my.opera.com/chrismills/blog/2012/07/12/practical-css3-my-book-is-finally-published)
> 
> * Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
> * Learn about the latest open standards technologies and techniques: http://dev.opera.com
> * Contribute to web education: http://www.w3.org/community/webed/
> 
> On 8 Nov 2012, at 15:19, Michael Del Tito <mdeltito@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> I think that until this becomes a real problem, we should tread lightly. Professionalism is subjective (to some degree). We could explicitly ask that all images and content are "professional", but that might not mean the same thing to everyone. This extends to all other content as well, not just media.
>> 
>> Example: http://mothereffingtextshadow.com/ is a great resource for demoing text-shadow in an interactive manner. I would imagine that URL would be "unprofessional" to some, especially educational institutions. So should we ban that resource because of the URL?
>> 
>> I'm not suggesting that bacon-cat be allowed, this is just something to consider whenever traversing the slippery-slope of "content appropriateness"
>> 
>> On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Jonathan Garbee <jonathan@garbee.me> wrote:
>> One of the target audiences for using WPD is educational institutions.  They require a certain amount of professionalism in the content that they either tell students to use or recommend they use.  Most of us don't care since we know it is just having fun.  The problem is if teachers are to use this in a classroom as a resource for students then media like that could be a distraction. Creating a distraction could deter them from using or recommending the site.
>> 
>> We should try to aid usage of the site in as many environments as possible.  If this means something as simple as asking for professional images be used, we should do it.
>> 
>> -Garbee
>> 
>> 
>> On 10/31/2012 7:29 PM, Alex Komoroske wrote:
>>> The image is in use as a generic example of an image that text floats around. There will likely be a lot of cases where a demo or example needs to show something off about working with an image. In those cases I don't think "relevancy" is necessary.
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Scott Rowe <scottrowe@google.com> wrote:
>>> Perhaps we owe it to our audience to keep images only if they are RELEVANT as well as inoffensive, not obscene, etc. What's relevant about a cat with a strip of bacon taped to it's ribs? Funny, maybe, but...
>>> +Scott
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 7:42 AM, Jonathan Garbee <jonathan@garbee.me> wrote:
>>> So, it sound so far like we should go with, "As long as it isn't obscene we can have a laugh."  I'm down with that as long as others are.  I just saw that and professionalism jumped into my head straight away compared to having fun.
>>> 
>>> So at this point the main question would be, Does anyone simply outright object to non-professional style images?
>>> 
>>> -Garbee
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 10/31/2012 6:37 PM, Alex Komoroske wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Jonathan Garbee <jonathan@garbee.me> wrote:
>>>> I somehow ended up checking recent uploads and found this little treat [1].  While funny, I am wondering if we                                       should have some terms for acceptable media that is uploaded to the site?  I think we should ask images be more professional than this.
>>>> 
>>>> Whoa, at first glance I thought that was a cat with a recent surgical wound (gross!). Other than that concern about this particular image, however, pictures that are a bit irreverent don't personally bother me.
>>>> 
>>>> On the one hand, we want to create a credible site that professionals can trust. On the other, WPD is part of the                                       internet ecosystem--an ecosystem that has a certain kind of irreverent humor. I'm personally fine with images that are irreverent as long as they aren't over the top or potentially offensive. 
>>>> 
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> -Garbee
>>>> 
>>>> [1] http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/File:box_baco.jpg
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 8 November 2012 23:38:23 UTC