So delighted to hear about Creative Commons, which provides copyrighted material whose owners are happy for you to use within boundaries. Sounds simple. However, to a complete copyright novice like myself, there are far too many slightly different variances on a theme – which caused me so much confusion that when I eventually chose an image to use an as example for this blog I now am no longer certain if I have just broken the law or not….
It is ‘attribution 2.0 Generic‘ which I think means it is free to use as long as I give “appropriate credit” if supplied. Which it wasn’t, so I haven’t. So I think I’m in the clear.
This is certainly an alternative supply of potential images I’ll alert our marketing bods too – it’s free so worth a serious look!
Registering with Wikipedia and going through the introductiory “Wikipedia Adventure” tutorial actually gave me a lot more confidence in the reliability of Wiki-formation than I had previously.
The tutorial itself was pitcvhed just right to let you get stuck in without blundering around like a novice, and focussing more on the underlying fundamental proinciples rather than the technical editing tools (which cna be picked up as you go along).
The editing itself (or writing from scratch) is a bit formulaic, but I guess it has ot eb othersie it’ll look a ocmplete mess as you navigate across pages.
As for doing any editing myself – my firts attempt led to wasting half an hour on grammar sites tryign to find out deifntiiviely whether band names are singular or plural – at which point I retreated form the fray!
Postcript: yesterday I found an article in wikipedia that mentioned my failed attempt to become a Green MP in 2001, but which spelt my name wrong. Ideal: at last something I felt comfortable revising from a position of strength. Revised!
Being aksed to tial Google Hangouts or “a different type of vido chat platform” immediately throws up the issue of having t choose a platform, when all you want ot do is chat to your mates or work colleagues.
The last thing I need is another option, having t currently check so many different social and work media sites on a daily (or more frequent) basis.
So rather than trial yet another new format, I’ll stick with Teams for work and WhattsApp for social group organising, with a wee bit of Facebook messenger thrown in for good measure.
Google hangouts actually does look good for social vc, but relies on eveyrone havign it an knowing how to use it.
I’ve seen lists of pros and ocns on line, but perhaps the most instant con is the name. Sounds trivial, but I don;t line in a US TV show, so don’t ‘hang-out’ with anyone. And if I did, it would be down the pub and not online.
Instructed by 23 Things EdUni to set up a Facebook Group, I was quite excited to try this new aspect of my old Facebook account.
I was, however, a tad disappointed when I clicked on the ‘group’ area only to discover I’m already a memberof several groups, and hadn’t looked at any of them for several years.
Probably not a valuable addition to my social media stable, then!
Not a complete waste of time though, I did enjoy my wee wander along memory lane and then felt the satisfying de-cluttering glow when I deleted them all.
Looking at how I used to use these, they have basically been supplanted by WhatsApp – they were being used mainly for short-term organising and the odd amusing photo or comment, whcih works just as well on that format, probably slightly better.
So that’s me signed up to twitter – minimum fuss and very easy to get started.
For something that is sold on the attractiveness of brevity, after choosing to follow a very small number of tweeters my inbox is deluged with all manner of stuff. Took me half an hour to skim through it all.
Not sure whether to stick with it, so have started a twitter poll, but then wiht no followers I can;t imagine there is going to be a mass turnout…
Plugging our web address into the WAVE web accessibility evaluation tool results in this bewildering array of error messages.
A nice visual representation of how complex this issue is, if such a high number of issues pop up on what is a well designed website belonging to a right-on organisation.
I wonder how anyone other than an extremely well resourced organisation with a high-priority focus on (and understanding of) accessibility can be expected to be able to provide digital content / services that cater for everyone – particularly where needs may clash.