Off Course-On Target

Scan, Scan, Scan; as fast as you can (please!!)

First, scan the books

Christopher Dawson is a high school teacher who does a great job of producing the content for a blog on education that Ziff Davis publishes. As a former high school teacher myself, I can both relate to Chris's perspective and also appreciate the time and energy he manages to find on top of his exhausting "day job".  I'm a regular reader of his blog and recommend it for your consideration.

In his recent post "Is Google locking up historical works?", Chris points to some of the ongoing concerns about the efforts of Google (many others, such as Microsoft are making similar efforts) to scan and digitize the content otherwise locked up in books.  In particular is the very significant concern and possibility that yet again the use of copyrights and so called "intellectual property protection" could be applied to this "new old content" that is created by scanning the contents of books, especially very old and/or out-of-print books.  For example, a recent CNN article "'Monotonous' page turning helps digitize books for Google" highlights the work that the University of Michigan is doing to scan what is believed to be the oldest Christian Bible (16th century) in the world with Arabic type.

The scanning process for such valuable books is very slow and arduous, since it requires that each page be individually photographed, sent to a computer for clean up, then run through OCR software (optical character recognition) to turn the images into digital text that can be indexed and searched.  Then the whole thing needs to be published to the Web (hopefully in its entirety). 

We addressed this topic of scanning and digitizing the vast volume of content locked up in books in the previous OCOT article "Books - the NEW old medium" back in January 2007.  Unfortunately, not too much seems to have changed since then, although a few million more of the estimated 50-100 million books have been scanned and indexed.  So I would like to make that same point today, 14 months later, that I made to close out my posting back in January 2007:

"I was just delighted to finally see some acknowledgment that the majority of the world's content is NOT yet available on the Internet at all! Books are but one great example, especially those in most libraries. Then there are related issues of the degree to which most information in magazines (and especially journals) are still difficult to discover online. Yet to listen to some people, you'd think that if content doesn't show up in a search result, it doesn't exist. I, for one, can't wait to have this mass transfer of content to digital forms occur and for it to be accessible for mass discovery.  And I suspect that as noted in my upcoming podcast "Living in a World of Exponential Change", this will happen MUCH sooner than expected. Now we just need to shift the focus from searching to finding! But that's a topic for another posting."

While I share the concern for any reduction in access to the content of the world's vast collection of books and applaud all efforts to ensure that ready open access is the norm, I also hope that the pace of scanning all the world's books, magazines, journals, etc., to make their content available online and searchable continues and picks up pace dramatically as Google's new technology promises.  But we have far to go before we even put a dent in the vast reservoir of human knowledge that is otherwise locked up and unavailable. While the rate of new content continues to escalate (which is great news too) I suspect that much of this new content is stimulated by some of the "old" content and/or references it.  With the overall health and well being of all future content dependent in part on all the previous content, no goal could be more important.

Next, scan EVERY thing!

However, as enormous as this task of scanning the world's books is, my mind wanders to the even larger challenge of scanning EVERY thing in the world! Think about the goal of those book scanning projects noted above, as being to create a vast networked repository (virtually a single repository) filled with all the content of all the books in the world and available at your fingertips.  What I'm now asking you to imagine is an even larger virtual single repository filled with the drawings and models of everything that has ever existed!

As I already said, there is not really any truly and purely "new" content; rather we take parts and pieces of pre-existing "old" content, and ideas and use these to create or inspire new versions, iterations, or assemblies. Think about designing and building things in a similar light. Almost all "new" designs have their roots in things that have been previously designed and built. Even very new, provocative designs of buildings, clothes, cars, furniture...pretty much anything and everything...has these roots, and in many cases, actual components that have already been designed and built.   We simply create "new" things by taking existing objects and either combining them (welding, gluing, bolting, sewing, etc.) into new assemblies or modifying (cutting, shaping, grinding) them.

What's my point?  To wonder and ponder "Why?"  Why is it that we most often start with a bland paper/screen/canvas if most or even many designs consist of a large percentage of pre-existing parts, pieces, and design?  Seems to me that we often spend (waste?) time recreating these pre-existing parts and pieces that make up the new item we are designing before we can get started with the new design. Of course, sometimes it is best for the creative process to start with a "blank slate" so as not to be influenced as much by the past and try to create fresher, newer ideas and designs.

However, even in this case, we usually end up choosing to use some pre-existing components, so we just delay the time when we want and need to bring in the drawings and models of these pre-existing parts. All of which takes me back to my earlier comment about what a HUGE benefit it would be to our efficiency and effectiveness of designing and building if we had access to a repository of the drawings and models of EVERY thing that currently or previously existed.

To some extent, this problem of making drawings and models of EVERY thing available is being resolved by the increasing availability and affordability of scanners that enable us to quickly scan an existing item and have the resultant 3D model data displayed on the screen.  If this is new to you or you'd like more details, check out my previous posting "Coming Soon to a Desktop Near You: Massive Amounts of 3D for the Masses".  BUT, this task assumes that you have the existing item in your possession. What if you don't?  What if that part no longer exists?  What if you don't have one on hand?  What if you can't afford one?  This problem would be resolved if we had the repository of drawings and models.

And yes, yet again the same questions of "ownership", copyrights, and IPR enter the picture.  But, once again we need to step back and take the larger, longer view that if almost all "new" design is a product of the past, then isn't the best way forward and the production of more and better designs directly dependent upon the ready access to those of the past?  Would we not dramatically accelerate new designs if there were more access to all the objects we've already designed and built?  Heck, we could even start with the scanning and modeling of all the natural forms and objects from plants and animals to all the "old" objects and artifacts that do not "belong " to anyone. That just might take a few years itself!  If there are 50-100 million books. I suspect we'd need to add quite a few zeros to that number if we were counting the number of "objects" in the world.

Mass Contribution as a solution?

I'm quite aware of the enormity of this suggestion, and how truly overwhelming and impossible the scale of such a "boiling the ocean" type of problem this can seem.  But counter this with the increasing examples of exponentially scaling contributions.  Consider, for example, how all the metadata for songs—what you see when you put a music CD into your computer, for example—is created by mass contribution from average people like you and I.  Consider the flood of content being created daily by all of us as we type out e-mails, write blogs, take photos, create presentations, etc. 

Now imagine that we have something similar for scanning.  As more and more of us start to have our own 3D scanners for example, imagine if a "contribute & share" button came up every time you scanned something, and if you clicked on it, then "whoosh!"—away would goes your data to the big repository in the sky. Imagine if every manufacturer were to publish its product catalogues as 3D models and drawings, rather than just photos and text descriptions  (by the way, many are already doing this)?

Imagine if..................

In any case, ALL of this requires that we get started, so "Scan, Scan, Scan; as fast as you can!"

Cool Tools We Use

Over the years, many people have asked about some of the "cool tools" I use to do some of the things I do, which range from presentations to podcasts, welding to woodworking, and sailing to speaking. 

In one such discussion a few months ago, long-time colleague Tom King, who now also works with Elliott Masie and the Masie Center as a "Masie Fellow", sent me the following note:

"I'm fascinated by some of the nifty tools I discover one way or another through contact with you. Things like doodle.ch or SlideShare or however the heck you get transcriptions of your podcasts. A totally separate and intriguing topic is how you quickly create such compelling, lengthy, thoughtful posts, podcasts & presentations. I've already seen quite a preso on "Whole New Mind" from you."

"Moving back to nifty tools....I think the interesting idea here is how these tools are discovered and shared-- and what makes them good. That process of discovery & recognition seems to be the long-term value, even if any given "nifty tool" has a place that is only ephemeral in the Internet-time mid-term time phase."

And he went on to say:

"For what it's worth, I think the best tools develop when the tool will "scratch an itch" for their very own developer... or someone near & dear to them. Likewise, I think the best recommendations for a tool comes from someone who uses it, and the second best source is a recommendation from someone who has a trusted/respected source that uses a tool. If the user is passionate enough to convey the value to that second party (who may not even use such a tool), and then recommends it to me.. well sometimes I find that is actually the best recommendation."

Couldn't agree more with your observations, Tom !  I too find great value in discovering such tools, tips, and tricks from you and others. 

Tom being Tom, he had already started to post some of his favorite tools, tips, and tricks on his blog Mobilemind (highly recommended BTW), and you can check out his lists of favorite Web Solutions and his favorite applications from earlier this year.

Cool Tools Kevin Uses:

Of course this is not a new idea. Another of my favorite people, Kevin Kelly over at Wired magazine, has has been doing a phenomenal job of covering a similar idea on his site Cool Tools.  His description is right on target for me:

"Cool tools really work. A cool tool can be any book, gadget, software, video, map, hardware, material, or web site that is tried and true. All reviews on this site are written by readers who have actually used the tool and others like it. Items can be either old or new as long as they are wonderful. We only post things we like and ignore the rest. Suggestions for tools much better than what is recommended here are always wanted."

Even Dads can be Cool!

And then there is the totally cool offshoot that sprang up a bit later by Chris Anderson at Wired magazine called Geek Dad.  Check it out, no matter what your gender or status. 

So Many Tools, So Little Time

But what about the rest of us?  I truly believe that every one of us (yes, that includes YOU!) has cool tools that we use on an every day basis.  Even more valuable are cool stories about how we use these tools and how we came to find and use them.  How many of the cool tools that you use did you discover by seeing someone else use them?  Many, I suspect, but the problem is that as great as such serendipitous discovery is, it doesn't seem to scale very well. Considering that there are about to be 6.6 billion of us populating this planet, I think we may all have a few more to discover!

Later on in my discussion with Tom, I noted that I too am fascinated by the process of discovery, and I often point out that discovery is the opposite of invention—that discovery is the finding of something that already exists—whereas invention is the creation of something that never existed before (though most often consists of new combinations of previously existing ideas or things).  My point is to emphasize the differences and the power of going after both. I’m equally intrigued by the differences between invention and innovation, but I’ll stop myself from digressing (lucky you!) yet again. I merely want to emphasize how strongly I agree with Tom's larger point which is the value of the process of discovery and sharing.

So, thanks to Tom for the push. I'd like to see what we can do here on OCOT and as a group to explore and discover more Cool Tools. For starters, here are some quick thoughts from me and questions for all of YOU:

• Is this a topic that you would find to be of high value?
• Would YOU consider contributing one or more of your top cool tools and stories of how you discovered it, use it, etc.?
• Would this topic be well served by having a longer term “theme” or space on OCOT that is dedicated to “cool tools I use”? Or would one or two blog posts suffice?
• Might we be able to create a template that would help people describe their cool tools and stories, and make it easier for others to discover and use them? 
• Would a wiki-like capability work best for this, so that any given tool or technique could be expanded over time, so that other could add their examples of how they use the same tool differently, provide additional techniques or suggestions for getting more out of them, and add their own stories about how they came to discover the tool?
• Might “Cool Tools I Use” be a big enough topic to deserve its own “space” (section of a site, whole blog/wiki itself, etc.)?  For example, this could be a really eclectic mix of tools, where we are looking to discover them in any and all applications, walks of life, etc.

Please send in your comments or e-mails to let me know your thoughts on these questions.

Serious Fun, so let's make this a game!

In many cases we cease to consciously think about these tools. We use them so frequently and for so long that they are part of our "unconscious competency".  To "discover" them again, you may need to start noticing them again. 

So let's turn this exercise into a version of a once popular game based on the premise "If you could only take 10 things with you to live on a remote island for 10 years (randomly picked numbers), what would those be?"  And in the spirit of a game, let's not get too literal with this. Let's imagine that our basic needs for survival are met and focus instead on those things we could otherwise not live without.  In most cases, we probably could live without these, we just don't want to!

And let's really do some coloring outside the lines with this theme and not restrict ourselves to computers or the net!  I could imagine collecting “cool tool” ideas for anything from cooking to car repair to computers or canoeing (today’s post is brought to you by the letter C!).

Let's get Started!

In the interim, I thought I'd get things started by creating a "Cool Tools I Use" theme here on OCOT and use this to collect and share some of the cool tools each of us have found invaluable and to also share, perhaps even more importantly, the ways we found them or how they found us.  What I'll do on OCOT to help with this effort is create a metadata tag called "Cool Tools" and make sure all "Cool Tools" entries are marked with this tag so you can find them easily in the future.

Oh, and just for clarity, let's be clear that this is NOT to be used for nor does it represent ANY endorsement of promotion of a company or a specific product. These are authentic stories about "Cool Tools" that we use all the time and would not want to be without.

Should be fun, and if not, we won't do it! 

Now it's YOUR turn!

OK, that should be more than enough to give you an idea of what I'm thinking about.  Now it is YOUR turn to think about the "Cool Tools" you use and would never want to be without.  Send me your responses to my previous questions and we'll follow through accordingly.

Meanwhile, have a "Cool Tool" you use and want to share?  Send me your favorites with the following information and I'll start collecting and publishing yours and more of mine.

• Name of the tool and source for getting one.
• What does it do?
• How did you come to discover this?
• How do you use it?
• Why is it on your top ten "Cool Tools I Use" list?

I'm sure EACH of you have a list of tools you would not want to be without, and you probably have tools you know that are much better than the ones I have on my list. I can't wait to start to learning and benefiting from your cool tools!

w
a
yne
=====

More on Mashups

Last week I was honored to do the opening keynote for the symposium on Mashups put on by the New Media Consortium.  NMC, in collaboration with Educause, recently released the 2008 version of "The Horizon Report" which is "... a five-year qualitative research effort that seeks to identify and describe those emerging technologies that are likely to have a large impact on teaching, learning, or creative expression within learning-focused organizations." 

There is a full download of the Creative Commons PDF version here, which I recommend reading.  The report covers key emerging technologies, critical challenges, significant trends, and what they refer to as "Meta Trends", which have emerged after 5 years of producing The Horizon Report.

The Symposium on Mashups was a fun experience in and of itself, since the event was conducted entirely online using a parallel combination of the virtual world of Second Life and a more "traditional" online environment using Adobe Breeze. Sessions, where conducted live, lasted generally about 45 minutes with about one-third to one-half of that time devoted to dialog with participants using said audio tools.  And to add some additional uniqueness, I delivered the keynote from my "floating office" (a.k.a. the good ship Learnativity) while anchored near La Paz in the Sea of Cortez, Mexico.  I connected up via a combination of a web connection via my laptop data card and a cell phone for the audio portion.

For the past few years, I've been emphasizing and championing the power and potential that a more holistic perspective of mashups can offer, and you can refer back to some of my previous posts, such as "Mishmash of Mashups", "Mashed Up Snowflakes" and "The Future is a Monstrous & Marvelous Mashup", to get more about my views on this topic.

For this most recent opportunity with the NMC audience, I had the benefit and challenge of an audience who were very well versed on the topic and practice of mashups, but were still focusing and limiting their use of mashups to that of technology and content.  My objective was to take advantage of their expertise and experiences with mashups, and help them see how mashups can best be understood and used as an almost universal conceptual model that can be applied to almost everything and everyone.

In the slides below, I suggested that a simple definition of mashups should be something like, "A mashup is a unique assembly of bits and pieces from more than one source into a single integrated whole."

| View | Upload your own

Therefore mashups are also another powerful implementation of the LEGO block model of modularity. In the Q&A session, I highlighted the importance of understanding that mashups require the use of modules rather than raw resources.  This concept focuses on the challenge of using components that are "just right" in size by ensuring that they are as small as possible, but not one bit smaller. I suggested that, in my experience, optimum size  is when two fundamental criteria are met:

1. Each component is large enough and complete enough to exist on its own.
2. By itself, each component is too small to be useful.

For example, each LEGO block is complete and exists independent of any other block, yet any one block is unlikely to be useful all by itself.  It is therefore important to note that mashups are not the same as creating something new "from scratch".  Buildings today are largely "mashups" because over 85% of the materials used to create a building are pre-built components, such as windows, door units, light fixtures, heating and ventilation components, cupboards, etc. These are then delivered whole to the building site.  Manufactured goods such as computers and cars are no longer created in factories that build them from raw materials. Instead they are assembled from pre-existing components, such as hard drives, keyboards, engines, wheel assemblies, etc., in flexible manufacturing plants. 

We are already seeing how large shrink-wrapped software applications are being replaced by unique collections (mashups) of small modules of code in the form of widgets, utilities or the combination of two pre-existing applications, such as Google Earth and your database of places visited, pictures taken, or customers served.

Mashups have huge economies of scale and speed of creation because they are are new assemblies created from pre-existing components or "blocks". And yet, each assembly will most likely be unique, because that specific collection of components has never been assembled that way before.  Therefore mashups offer the promise of enabling truly exponential scaling and mass customization or personalization, which is at the heart of my passion about a future based on the Snowflake Effect, where everyone of us can increasingly have just the right people and things at just the right time, in just the right context, etc.

Based on the questions in the discussion segment at the end of this session, as well as the follow-on comments I've received, I think that most of the audience seemed to really understand how mashups can be and are being applied to everything from software code to events and conferences, projects and even people.  By "people", I'm referring to such things as the finding just the right combination of people for a successful project team, or the mashup of your skills, knowledge, and abilities (also known as the description of your real job!).

Now that we have more and more examples of mashups around us, I'm hoping that many more people will see this as a conceptual model, rather than any one form of implementation.  As you consider this much broader view of mashups, what applications and uses can you see?  How are you perhaps already applying the concept of mashups to a more diverse range of problems and solutions?

Getting back to the NMC keynote, I had just enough time to close out the session by telling a short version of my story about "flapping", which cautions against the trap of trying to design innovative new solutions by copying old models.  I've received a tremendous follow-up response from many of the attendees, telling how powerful this perspective was for them and how much it helped them, both in the rest of the sessions at the NMC Mashup Symposium as well as back on the job.  Please see "Confusing Flapping with Flying"  for the full story. You too can see how much you are flapping versus how much you are flying.

w
a
yne
=====