First impressions:

Sleek Design

Well, it’s obviously gorgeous. If you’re a fan of sleek, brushed aluminum and high resolution brilliant screens, you won’t be disappointed here. There are some variations, but yes, it is essentially a giant iPod touch (on steroids). Whether that’s a good or bad thing is subjective. I was personally a little let down at its lack of new-ness.

Fire it up!

Another non-surprise, the OS is eerily familiar. This for most people has been the biggest gripe, and initially I totally felt the same way. Did I just get a big, expensive version of my phone? Bummer.

It's an iPod, it's an iPhone, no wait, it's iPad!

But, and this is a big but (hee hee), the apps specially made for the iPad are way cooler and far superior than their iPod/iPhone cousins. These are honest to goodness computer programs that run fast and can do a lot. Also, it is MUCH more fun to use. We’ve all amazed ourselves with how much content and how many actions we can fit on the tiny iphone screen, but this is multi-touch done right. Gestures are natural, typing is a breeze (as evidenced by this lengthy post!), and the user experience is just different…once you let yourself start pushing it further.

Take Pages for example; Pages is Apple’s answer to Microsoft Word. While I’m not tossing my copy of office for Mac out the window, this is an impressive word processing program for any computer, and the iPad just makes it look cooler.

Sample flyer template from Pages

Email: the email client is a lot more sophisticated too; it has panes so you can view your inbox and messages simultaneously, and they’ve added some snazzy new graphics for things like deleting and moving folders to boot. With the MS Exchange support you’re used to on the iPhone, the iPad makes a reasonable work and personal email device.

Web: here is where this puppy shines. Simply put: it’s fast. Like really fast. Like nothing you’ve ever gotten out of your smartphone or netbook on wifi or otherwise. It *almost* beat out my Macbook pro in a non-scientific “push the link at the same time and see which loads faster” test. The custom processor Apple made shines when put under pressure, at least so far. In fact, I think the processor has made me overlook the biggest gripe the device has received yet: the inability to multitask. You can switch back and forth between apps with nearly the speed of switching open windows (aka multitasking). Also, most apps will take you right back to where you left off. And it does have a little multitasking capability, it can play music through the ipod app in the background with any other app open. Still, the lack of multitasking is a bummer, one Apple will undoubtedly remedy with a software update, sooner or later.

Full web page view with readable-sized text, and no auto-send to mobile version of the site.

I won’t torture you with every detail of every app, but in summation my recommendation to those thinking of buying one would be this: if you already had plans for an e-reader and/or netbook, give the iPad a closer look. Its battery life, web-capability, and sheer prettiness make it a great alternative. And if you were thinking of getting both, then this will save you money. Most Netbooks are going to cost you at least $350, and e-readers aren’t cheap. If you have a great laptop you don’t mind carrying around, and have no need for the portability or ebook functions, then I would hold out. Chances are it will get cheaper and better in a year or so anyway.

That said, I fully believe the real treats are yet to come; the apps developers come out with, and the software updates Apple comes up with are sure to make the device evolve into something even cooler than it already is. And if you do decide to be an early adopter such as myself, you can rest easy. As with the original iPhone, Apple generally doesn’t doll out products that don’t have longevity. If you had a first generation iPhone today, it would be able and capable of running the same software the new 3GS runs, and besides a slightly different back it is aesthetically identical as well. If you’re going to take a risk with a 1.0 product, you’re picking the right one.

Cool iPad Weather Channel App (not your old iphone app! live radar, video, forecasts, and a bunch of stuff I haven’t explored)

Cool iPad WeatherChannel App - with live radar, videos, forecasts, and a jillion settings this is not your wimpy iPhone weather app.

I once had a friend say to me that she didn’t want to read a certain book before she saw the film because she didn’t want to spoil the movie. I was shocked. And for a moment felt supremely superior. I was clearly the wiser of us and knew better.

But then it got me thinking…every adapted book I’ve seen at the theaters I have thoroughly enjoyed. This can’t be because they are all great movies, but simply because of my knowledge of and connection to the characters.

Take the (in)famous Twilight. Literary masterpiece? Hardly. Catchy, page-turning, goes-after-your-inner-13-yr-old sob story? Yes. Worth a read? Yes! The movies were horrible. Objectively and unabashedly horrible, yet I still loved them. While it took about 15 minutes comprised mostly of uncomfortable constipated stares for Edward and Bella to fall in love on the silver screen, I (pun intended) read into them what I already knew from the book, filling in the grand canyon-sized gaps in the storyline.

Well, this happened again today. Dear John, by Nicholas Sparks.

Sidebar: If at this point you are thinking you’re reading the thoughts of an intellectual midget due to my   selection in books, please don’t judge me by my cover. I am completely capable of understanding and appreciating fine literature (I’ve even been forced to do so on several occasions), but where’s the fun in that? Books to me are like reality TV, but slightly more respectable. I like to “veg out” to them. I get emotionally caught up in them, and I love it.  The end.

That’s when the lightbulb turned on. I knew while watching the movie that it wasn’t great, yet all the while I was enraptured by it, nearly in tears in portions that weren’t really all that sad.

The summation of my thoughts on this whole scenario is this: You can’t un-ring a bell. I can’t read a book and remove what I know about it from the movie. But, as books are always longer and more detailed than their cinematic counterparts, perhaps it would be better to see the movie then add information to my experience of the story by reading the book. Yes, I am going against everything I was raised to believe, not to mention the snobbery of bookworms everywhere. With no preconceived notions or character attachment I will walk into a theater to see a movie and then read the book. I dare you to do it too.

Mission Statement: I would love to be the type of person whose creativity was so clearly organized I could keep a common theme present throughout this blog, but I doubt that I will be. So maybe I should have goals rather than a mission statement. Okay, goals…I’d like my entries to be honest, funny, not hurtful to anyone (at least not anyone that will read this), and poignant. There will likely be several entries that brake one or all of these rules (no wait, goals), but if there was no challenge I wouldn’t need goals, would I?

In countries with little to no internet access economies suffer greatly; they have no way to compete on the international stage where the internet and technology are immense economic tools. The developed world utilizes the internet to facilitate everything from stock trading, organization, vocational placement, basic communication, and so much more. In essence, the digital divide is keeping impoverished countries poor, wealthy countries rich, and making it impossible for people not connected to develop the skills needed in today’s business world.

One Laptop Per Child is a non-profit organization dedicated  to giving computers to children around the developing world. In their words, “To provide children around the world with new opportunities to explore, experiment and express themselves.”

Some may argue that children in 3rd world countries don’t need laptops, they should instead first better develop reading, writing, and educational infrastructure. Of course that’s important, but when that is done they’ll be at the same level developed countries were in the 1960′s. The point is to have children (who will eventually be productive adults) educated and active in modern technologies. Why shouldn’t they be able to set their goals just as high as American children? With the tools they will learn through ownership and use of a computer this generation of children in the developing world could make real change for their countries, and bring them to a competitive level with the developed world. The OLPC made this point well on their website: “Moreover, experience strongly suggests that an incremental increase of ‘more of the same’—building schools, hiring teachers, buying books and equipment—is a laudable but insufficient response to the problem of bringing true learning possibilities to the vast numbers of children in the developing world.”

Why should you care?

More developed countries will mean less violence (it is common for local violence to be a problem in developing nations); more competition in the market which can result in better, cheaper goods; more options in the market, and higher human rights standards. In developed countries there is less likely to be as much disease and starvation, which is better for the world as a whole. Also, overpopulation is most rampant in developing nations, so if these countries were brought into the developing world population issues (and therefore issues of space, environment) would be less paramount.

I am confident that OLPC is a great start in the closing of the global digital divide; and lets face it, no one else is even trying. No organization is perfect, and there are of course flaws in their product. However, with continued contribution and collaboration from nations such as ours, these flaws can be improved, and the organization can start to give out laptops at a rate that will truly make a difference.

References:

One Laptop Per Child.  Retrieved on March 13, 2008 from

http://laptop.org/en/index.shtml

Digital divide. (2008, March 13). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 01:13, March 14, 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_divide&oldid=197899661

Vonage is available in my area, and costs 24.99/mo plus $9.99 (after rebates) for initial hardware costs. They do have an option for me to keep my old number, but I wasn’t able to check availability because I don’t have a home phone number to check.

With speakeasy I was unable to get anywhere. I entered my address and zip code, and their system said they didn’t match, or were unable to find my zip code (same thing after multiple tries.) Speakeasy also seems to be more geared toward business and internet access than home VoIP.

Vonage was very simple and easy, and were definitely geared toward residential phones. On their website it was very easy to find the information I needed. Speakeasy on the other hand didn’t even really advertise Home VoIP, and the link to find a quote was toward the bottom of the page in smaller print. It seemed to me a simple reflection of who their target customer is; Speakeasy advertises for T1 monthly internet service at 279.99/mo on their homepage, clearly not something most families would have at home.

I don’t think I would be convinced to buy anytime in the near future because i am simply not in need of an alternate phone (one other than my cell.) When I’m older and have a family I could understand the need for one, but if the 911 issue wasn’t solved I probably would opt for a POTS phone for safety.

I would expect that these industries would continue to utilize VoIP technology. In the article it stated that companies like AT&T and T-mobile are already making headway, and obviously are regulating it somehow. One way in which I expect that regulation to change is charging for minutes used. With the development of VoIP it will become harder and harder for phone companies to justify charging for “long-distance” calls also. After all, what is long distance to the internet? Some major cell phone providers are already offering plans that have unlimited calling and data. While these are expensive and sometimes aren’t really unlimited, it’s a step toward flat rate unlimited calling. Also, many phone companies offer unlimited national long distance, but not international. I think that will come eventually.

Although the evolution of telephone has taken much longer, like the internet it started out expensive and regulated by minutes used (remember AOL anyone?) and over time it got cheaper, faster, more reliable, and competing companies were able to drive the price and regulation down. The same will happen with cable and phone I’m sure, as it is already happening. As the article mentioned, Vonage and Skype are making real progress in the market, and with such lower prices than the major providers they will probably continue to do so.

Questions:

Why would you use or not use VoIP?

What other markets could you see the internet revolutionizing?

What do you think is the biggest deterant from using VoIP?

My experience with the sites I evaluated today was quite different from the previous two; these news sites were from much smaller cities and had MUCH less technology than the ones from our first week. The second site I evaluated, The Omaha World Herald, had almost nothing the questionnaire asked for. No blogs, RSS feeds, user comments, or sharing abilities. Clearly I think that they should start using at least those aspects.

I thought both sites could cut down on their amount and “flashy-ness” of advertisements.

The best of all four sites I evaluated was The Denver Post.  However, that wasn’t at all surprising to me, since it was by far the biggest city represented by any of the websites. It was well laid out, utilized media well, not cluttered, very social, and easy to use.

It’s been a very eye-opening experience for me; I don’t often use smaller or local news sites, and I’ve learned the benefits and frustrations. In smaller towns to social friendliness of the site can be more important since people are likely to really value each other’s opinions, and actually know each other. Also, from experience I also know that in small towns the fastest way news sometimes travels is word of mouth.

Cyberspace seems to be very accessable to as a public space. Libraries and schools almost all have internet acess available, and it is utilized by different genders and races equally. However, as I learned in the second reading that accessability is not so equal when we leave the public sector. It worries me that being educated is a large indicator that a child (or person) will have internet at home, because those who are teying to place themselves into that category are going to have a hard time keeping up. More universal access made possible by some of the tachnologies we learned about could be a solution.

Questions:

How would your life be different if you had/didn’t have internet access at home?

What other public spaces should provide internet access?

What technologies could diminish the digital divide?

I chose to examine the candidate websites of Hillary Clinton and Mike Huckabee. I found these specific candidates to be of interest because neither of them are the current front-runner for their party candidacy and both are in a struggling, trying to stay in the race. I thought it would be interesting to see the similarities and differences in how these candidates in the same position but from different parties would run their websites.
Right from the beginning I had a major issue with Hillary Clinton’s website. When I entered the web address for her site I was taken to a “splash” or introduction page asking me to sign up “as a supporter.” The only information presented on that page are boxes for first name, last name, zip code and email; at the bottom in smaller print is the link to “skip signup and go to HillaryClinton.com.” Mike Huckabee’s home page also solicited support, but the signup box was a small portion of the page, and navigation links for the site were present at the top of his initial page. Once past Hillary’s splash page, both candidates have similar home pages, although Clinton’s offers more navigation options.
It’s clear that the main goal of both the websites is to garner votes, money, and volunteers.
What’s most striking to me in comparing these two sites is the immense similarity in their site layout. Although the content is different, from the top navigation bar on both sites you will find a Biography page, a Newsroom page, Blog page, a page listing issues important to the candidate, and most striking – the very last link on the right of the main navigation bar of both pages is a contrasting color (actually both red) link that says “Contribute.”
After further examination I did start to see some key differences. The most used color for headlines, text, navigation bars, links, etc., on Mike Huckaebee’s page is red. Hillary’s is overwhelmingly blue. Not exactly a surprise since those are the colors that generally represent their party on election maps (red states, blue states).
Hillary Clinton’s page offers a Spanish language page, with the link to that page very visible at the top of her page, written in Spanish. Mike Huckabee offers no alternative languages.
Also, Clinton’s page dedicates a box to the March 4th primary states, and Mike’s doesn’t. Perhaps that is a reflection of the close delegate count Hillary still holds against her rival in the Democratic party, and the mathematical impossibility of Huckabee winning enough delegates to get his party’s nomination.
In one of our assigned readings by Kathy Gill, “The Race of the Web Sites 2004″, she found that generally democrats were ahead of republicans with their website user-friendliness and use of media. Because of this I was surprised to find that Mike Huckabee’s site offered RSS feeds and Hillary Clinton’s did not.
However, Huckabee’s home page was more cluttered, with 19 video archive links and thumbnails on the homepage. Both candidates have links to recent news articles relevant to (and usually in support of) their campaigns. However, on Hillary’s page a small picture is displayed next to the title of the article, which helps the user to easily determine the topic and not get lost in a sea of text. On Huckabee’s page more than 10 article titles with links are on his front page, all in the same size and color text, and in the same area of the page, which was less interactive and boring.
My overall evaluation of these sites is that they are both very professional, easy to navigate, advertisment-free, obviously made by skilled web designers, and updated frequently. It is a clear indication that on both sides of the isle, the internet is now a vital tool in running a presidential campaign. Hillary has a slight advantage over Huckabee in the design of her site, with her homepage being less cluttered and slightly more visually stimulating.

References

“The Race of the Web Sites 2004″ from  ACM Interactions  by Kathy Gill (November-December 2004)  Retrieved February 25th, 2008 from

http://faculty.washington.edu/kegill/pub/gill_ACM_2004.pdf

Hillary for President. Retrieved on February 25, 2008 from

http://hillaryclinton.com/

Mike Huckabee for President. Retrieved on February 25, 2008 from

http://mikehuckabee.com/

My first newspaper’s website, the Denver Post, was a breeze. Every link was where it was suggested to look, and it utilized every multimedia option asked about.

The second site wasn’t quite as easy. In fact, it was even hard to find. I googled the name given on the spreadsheet, and the link for “Cleveland Plain Dealer” took me to their business site (plaindealer.com), NOT the site that reflected their online news content. Only after reading a letter from a staff member posted on the page did I figure out the right site was www.cleveland.com — not what I would have guessed. Had I actually been looking for the site for news and not an assignment, I would have quickly moved to the next news source and never would have read the letter. Once I got to the site information was relatively easy to find, although the site was cluttered with ads. Not my favorite.