Archive for August, 2007

Off to Oz-IA

Oz-IA is Australia’s Information Architecture conference.

I got to present at Oz-IA last year with my colleague and friend Stephen Hall. It was great to meet a lot of other Information Architects, Knowledge Managers and interested people from Australia and around the world.

Oz-IA is on again on 21-22 September. Eric Scheid, the coordinator, has asked participants to spread the good word with the following link:
Oz-IA/2007 - Sydney, September 22nd/23rd 2007

If you would like to spread the word as well, please use this code:

<a href=”http://www.oz-ia.org/2007/” title=”Oz-IA/2007 - Sydney, September 22nd/23rd 2007″><img src=”http://www.oz-ia.org/2007/images/logo_ozia2007.jpg” border=”0″ alt=”Oz-IA/2007 - Sydney, September 22nd/23rd 2007″ width=”150″ height=”150″ /></a> 

Apart from the warm and fuzzy feeling you will get in spreading the word, Eric is giving away a free pass to someone who promotes the conference.

Ever applied for a job through Monster.com?

I know I have.

I’m worried about the implications of their security breach, and if you have applied for a job through Monster.com, you should be worried too. It’s not every web-based service provider that can claim to have exposed the personal details of 1.6 million people to identity thieves.

Australia’s Big Brother Laws: Protection or Wowserism?

I’m no big fan of Big Brother - although I have watched it in the past.

Senator Helen Coonan, Minister for Communication, Information Technology and the Arts released a set of guidelines for reality TV on Friday 24 August. The key recommendations are:

Recommendation 1 : That a clause be included in the Code that prohibits the broadcast of material presenting participants in reality television programs in a highly demeaning or exploitative manner. This provision should be supported by an advisory note to the Code that provides guidance to program producers on the interpretation of this provision.

Recommendation 2 :That the complaints handling procedures in the Code be enhanced to expedite the process for handling complaints, and increase viewers’ awareness of the process as follows:

  • licensees accept electronic complaints via their website, and take steps to promote this process;
  • a licensee is to report to ACMA within three days of observing any significant spikes in viewer complaints about a Code matter regarding a particular reality television program, to alert ACMA, as the regulator, to emerging issues of concern; and
  • Free TV Australia Limited (Free TV) to provide ACMA with a monthly report on Code complaints, containing sufficient detail to enable ACMA to analyse complaints trends on an ongoing and timely basis.

Recommendation 3 : That the Television Classification Guidelines for MA-classified material set out in Appendix 4 of the Code be amended to clarify the limit of material permitted at the MA classification level, by:

  • including specific advice in relation to ‘sexual references’ at the MA level; and
  • including ‘cumulative intensity’ as an element to be considered in classifying material at the MA level.

In addition to these recommendations, ACMA proposes to undertake the following actions, which include:

  • undertake analysis of the additional complaints data supplied by Free TV in accordance with Recommendation 2, monitor complaints trends for both reality television and other forms of programming and publish information on these trends periodically.
  • if a commercial television licensee plans to broadcast an MA-classified reality television program, seek voluntary undertakings (similar to those given to ACMA by Network Ten for the 2006 series of Big Brother Adults Only) in relation to that program. ACMA would monitor the broadcast of such a program, including the adoption as part of the undertakings of a streamlined investigations process to enable timely consideration of any issues arising from the program.

I have to wonder if this is more about election-driven favors for those who prefer their TV without ’shower scenes’ than protecting Australians from being demeaned. We’ve had a whole year to think about the misdemeanors of the 2006 season - why now, with an election in the wind? Is it because what amounted to criminal sexual assault took place on the show, and three or four hundred people saw it? Or is it because there are significant voter minorities in key seats who do not want nudity and frank discussion of sexual behaviour on mainstream TV?

To be fair, I grant that the current Government will have this criticism leveled at every single initiative that they take at this charged time.

I am pleased to announce…

…that my partner Helen and I are now engaged.

Taking Steve’s advice on announcements, I put off making any sort of public announcement until we’d covered off the family announcements. These are now (mostly) done so we can now talk about it…

Most of my blog friends are on Facebook now - I announced it there first (a couple of minutes ago). If I didn’t get to tell you in person first, please do not be insulted - it has been a busy time, and I know I have not got to everyone that I would have liked to.

When we’ve gotten over the immediate rush of excitement there will be a party and the announcement of a date and all that good stuff.

Blog/Life:Announcements and precedence

A question for you, my friends and reading public: hypothetically, if you had a piece of major news, would you tell non-blog-reading family and friends prior to making any reference to it on your blog? We’re talking major life event stuff here (hypothetically).

I should be most grateful for your thoughts.

Gender in the workplace: Penelope Trunk and I agree (mostly)

I wrote about a sensitive topic in Gender in the workplace: On Confrontation and Flirtation - that of dating co-workers:

Flirtation is an easier line to draw in the sand: any unwelcome advance is unlawful harrassment. For myself as a consultant, clients are off-limits. This is an easy call to make. For the last year-and-a-half I’ve worked on a client site where there are thousands of employees - anecdotally 80% women - and if that reduces my dating pool, then so be it.

With colleagues, I tend to agree with Tim Bray - within the geek community we spend a lot of time in work and afterwork - accordingly, there are fewer opportunities than previously available to find a partner. Gloria infers that women never want to date anyone else in the office, so everyone should forget about office romances - and while this is usually a good practice, I believe that it is incorrect to say that it never happens. It’s still possible, just not easy or practical. That said, as always, any approach to a potential love interest should be done with decorum, tact, and respect - otherwise it is predatory, and wrong, regardless of where the approach takes place or your gender/orientation. Gloria’s example of the married middle-aged man hitting on the 17 year old woman is a prize example of wrongness - but to extrapolate this to the premise that all women are always offended by more than professional interest in the office is taking it a little too far.

Penelope Trunk wrote this today in her own blog:

Date coworkers.
I can see how 40 years ago, when it was still legal to ask a woman what her husband thought of her career, it would’ve been bad to date coworkers. Back then, women felt powerless in the workplace.

But today, young women feel they have equal power to men. And they aren’t deluding themselves — women and men receive equal pay in business until they have children (after which woman are penalized for having kids more than men are). So men and women approach dating at work as equals.

The bigger issue here is that if you’re working 40 hours a week, you’re more likely to meet the people you want to date when you’re at the office. If you tell yourself that all men at work are off-limits, you put yourself at a huge disadvantage.

And if you want to have children, you need to make getting married a higher priority than your career. This isn’t some radical statement — it’s backed by a lot of research, not the least of which is that you can’t tell your biological clock to wait while you refuse to date all the men you come in contact with.

So the adage to not date men you work with is totally antiquated. It assumes that women aren’t equal to men, can push back childbearing indefinitely, and should put their career ahead of getting married. All of these are bad assumptions.

I’m not sure that I agree entirely, but it is interesting that she puts it so directly. Time will tell if this is a general change in perception - or perhaps it is misplaced nostalgia on her (and my) part for the “My goodness, Miss Simpkins, without your glasses you are beautiful!” good old (bad old) days of 1960s movie office romance cliches in a world where our real relationships may not be all that we could hope for.

PS: My goodness, Penelope - who do you know that only works 40 hours a week? :)

Throw away your television?

Craig Childs talks about the advantages of giving up TV on LifeHack. He suggests YouTube as a substitute.

There are days when I could go one better and just give up television altogether. Then I compromise, and think about the movies I watch once in a blue moon. And the odd interesting documentary. This slow backsliding progresses until I’m watching Home and Away. Peh :)

What would you be doing with your life if you lived without TV?