Eye Tea

Time to eat humble pie.  I met Sheldon Witney last week (link below) and he pointed out that cloud technology is ready right now and feasible for knowledge-based businesses such as consultancies. And he’s already done a full cloud set-up for several businesses, and I was introduced to the boss of one of them.

‘Course it’s ready for that kind of business, especially during its start up phase or in the first few years.  In my predictions for this year I was thinking of bigger businesses.  Sheldon’s got me thinking though – is it more feasible even for big organisations than I reckoned?  Need to have a few more chats with him I think … !

What we both agreed on though is this.  We come across lots of organisations that are happy to let the ICT Manager focus on purely technical objectives – a stable, secure system, maybe cheaper, greener.  We reckon you should ask more of your IT.  It should be on the hook to deliver core objectives: process more business, faster, with a better customer experience.

There’s a lot to gain from going into the cloud, and lots of businesses are talking about it.  The smart money starts with a business-focused IT strategy.  How do you know what to buy until you know what your business and people need?

Link: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=2949469&goback=.nmp_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1&trk=NUS_NCON-updtr

Word to the wise – who owns the copyright in the translated version(s) of your website?  Easy to get stung, easy to get it right as well.

Spend a few minutes on the web ‘shopping’ for sites that are accessible.   Which ones do you really rate as meeting every accessibility need?

I guess it’s only fair to look at big, high profile organisations that have a diverse user base – broadcasters, big retailers, public authorities.  Comments please: who are your top performers?  I don’t want a naughty list but if you spot some trends I’d be interested: “Not many retail websites do …”, “The public sector is great at …”.  My comment about websites for mid-sized organisations would be: “Patchy – not all websites address accessibility, and those that do often don’t offer a complete set of facilities”. 

Like many technology lawyers I’ve been offering ‘accessibility/ data protection/ consumer compliance audit’ services for years, so I’ve kept a lazy eye on accessibility features.  I think we’ve seen steady, quite slow growth in accessibility features on websites over the years.  I’d say it’s to do with the rise in businesses trying to learn about their customers and meet their needs, and not really prompted by the steadily increasing demands of the law over the same period.

Accessibility support is quite an easy thing for website buyers to specify,  and offers massive added value that appeals to perhaps 20% of the buying public who rely on accessibility features.  For anyone who’s spending money on the corporate website in 2011, it’s a simple but effective thing to put on the shopping list, a solid buy with a good business case at this time of slow recovery for many economic  sectors.

Getting hot on accessibility is also a pretty easy way for website developers/ providers to differentiate themselves from the competition and/or command a premium.  It could be a good return against the price of developing standard features that will appeal to many business customers across all sectors.   Sometimes legal compliance is just frustrating, whereas this one offers benefits for developer/ provider, corporate customer, staff and the public alike.  I’ve come across providers who are rolling out well thought-through features in their products this year. 

Killer apps for accessibility?  Yes, I think there’s plenty of scope for getting creative and taking it outside the ‘we must so we will’ category of website functions.   I’m not aware of anything out there at the moment – let me know if you are.   Maybe 2011 could be the year for accessibility.

I’m booked variously to speak and advise on accessibility this year so please get in touch if you’re looking for input/ support too – if we can get similar work whilst we’re on the boil it’ll help reduce our prices for everyone.  Meantime, have a look at the links.

Pesky People blog: http://www.peskypeople.co.uk/

WAI-ARIA web standard: http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/aria.php

Monday this week brought me an email from the marketing manager at the firm where I work, giving me a link to an illegal file sharing news item on the BBC website.  The link’s at the bottom of this post.

I popped up to see him.  I don’t know how to play this one, I said.  Blog it, he said.  Fair enough.

First things first.  At our firm we often call ourselves ACS.  We don’t trade as ACS:Law – that’s someone else.  No connection.

Moving quickly on.  The BBC article raises interesting questions about how you deal with copyright piracy on the internet.  The thing is, if ACS:Law’s clients see some strategic value in sending letters to every illegal file sharer under the sun, that’s the service that they want from their lawyers.  If we were convinced of the strategic value, frankly we’d do the same.

I’d like to see a debate and it’s a shame that the BBC article doesn’t invite comments, and that the views reported in the article are polemic. 

I  see mixed strategic value in using big mail shots in these cases.  It depends how good the evidence is against the pirates.  The BBC article quotes that point being made, but the implications aren’t explained and they’re key.  Internet piracy is increasingly conducted through social networks.  They don’t bother to set up big websites for law enforcers to shoot at.  If all you’ve got to go on to provide piracy is an IP address, a big mailshot could make the problem worse.  Copyright pirates often have some spirit and nerve.  They might be intimidated by being pursued.  But they’ll probably also wait for the threats to develop.  The implications: no evidence = empty threat = bolder pirate.

You can however understand copyright owners’ frustration.  It’s a costly road to go down if you want enough evidence to really nail illegal file sharers.  You can easily make yourself anonymous on the web, and under current UK law it costs a small fortune through the courts to get names from the ISPs.  If you’re a copyright owner you’re pretty comfortable with the proposition that some alleged infringers will pay to make the problem go away, not because they did it.  If you’re a music copyright owner who has responded to Napster etc by offering cheap MP3 downloads as an alternative to full price CDs, you’ve got some moral high ground to stand on.  And after all, the UK TV licensing authority behaves in substantially the same way.

In the BBC article the BPI is quoted as saying its policy is to concentrate on the big infringers.  On balance I agree that probably is the more responsible approach.  But I think what’s really needed is a change in the law so that it’s easier and cheaper to identify pirates and collect evidence to pursue them.

BBC article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8483482.stm