Re: Acceptable media.

+1 Code School does a great job.

On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Jacob Reiff <jacob+webplatform@jaacob.com>wrote:

> 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
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>