I've become very interested in the "Universal Canvas", a term popularized by Microsoft and subsequently analyzed by Jon Udell. First of all, here are two definitions of the Universal Canvas:
a) From a Microsoft White Paper dated June 2000, entitled Microsoft .NET: Realizing the Next Generation Internet:
"The universal canvas builds upon XML schema to transform the Internet from a read-only environment into a read/write platform, enabling users to interactively create, browse, edit, annotate and analyze information."
b) Jon Udell's definition, from his June 2001 article entitled The universal canvas:
"...a surface on which we view, but also create and edit, words and tables and charts and pictures."
Udell also wrote a follow-up article in August 2001. Recently he's begun to write further on the subject - describing some tools and methods to produce structured, semantic web writing. In particular see his OSCOM keynote.
But lets go back to the beginning, or at least the beginning of when the term 'Universal Canvas' started to be bandied about by Microsoft as part of its .NET push. The 2000 white paper I referred to above described how "Microsoft .NET will take computing and communications far beyond the one-way Web to a rich, collaborative, interactive environment". The web browser was seen as a key component to this vision. In 2000 the web browser was only a "glorified read-only dumb terminal", but Microsoft's goal was to provide a "unified browsing, editing and authoring environment".
However fast forward to 2003 and the web browser is less prevalant in the .NET vision. So what's the focal point for the Universal Canvas now? Well a clue or two was given in a 2002 InfoWorld interview with Microsoft exec Jeff Raikes. He explained the universal canvas means the ability to have "data structures...converge around XML". He said that it "...really revolves around getting to that data structure layer." And when it comes to data, Microsoft has a whole range of Office products that collect and record it. Plus Microsoft's Office products - for example Word and Excel - are all now XML-ized. They can all convert their data into the XML format (although some conversions are uglier than others). Add to this Microsoft's new Office product, InfoPath, which is touted as an XML-based forms tool for writing and editing. And you can see that, rather than the universal canvas being built around the web browser, it is now an Office concept...at least for Microsoft.
The universal canvas is at the heart of what the two-way web is, and what it will become. For that reason I will continue to explore the concept over the coming weeks...
Asterisk: "...the one thing every Web professional needs, regardless of their main job function, be that IA, Design, Development, what-have-you is adaptability. You know, the ability to wing it."
In New Zealand we have a similar concept called No. 8 Wire mentality, or "kiwi ingenuity" - based on the architypal New Zealand farmer who can invent or fix anything with a trusty piece of no. 8 gauge fencing wire!
It also reminds me of the Web's "View Source" principle. To see how a webpage was created, wanna-be developers can click on "View Source" in their web browser, copy and paste the code into their own editing environment, and modify it to create something new. In other words, adapt an existing thing to your own unique requirements.
Hmmm, back to the kiwi connection. Recently New Zealand celebrated the 50th anniversary of Sir Edmund Hillary's ascent of Mt Everest. In a tv interview this year, Hillary spoke about some characteristics that he identifies with as a person and as a New Zealander: determination, innovation, competitiveness, and being "not smooth" (in terms of suaveness). Sir Edmund's advice to young people today: learn from older people, look at what they achieved, build on that, and "do your own thing". Adapt and create.
RWW Word of the Day: triangulation
Dave Winer (via Denise Howell's weblog): "...Question about journalism always having to be the sophisticated big stuff? Dave says know (sic), importance of triangulation, getting news on an event from many sources."
Ever listen to The Velvet Underground's 9 minute live version of 'What goes on', from their 1969 Live album Volume 1? The first couple of minutes feature Lou Reed singing verse and chorus. The rest of the song is an extended instrumental and this is where it gets interesting. Each of the 4 instruments has a unique voice, but by collaborating and feeding off one another they produce a sum greater than the parts. There are two rhythm guitars counterpointing each other, an organ noodling - sometimes pushing melody, sometimes following - and a metronomic drumbeat holding it all together.
You can listen to each melodic line - isolate one of the guitars, hum along with the organ, nod your head to the drum beat, urge along with the other guitar. But the beauty, the real music in all this, is the combination - the collaboration - of these instruments, into a glorious harmony....a musical web.
That's a roundabout way of introducing a topic that caught my attention today - generalism vs specialisation, particularly in the field of web technology. I'm a web generalist - in that I don't specialise in programming, or web design, or information architecture, or website management, etc. I do all those things and more, mainly because I get bored if I try to specialise in one thing. Or as a collegue described me today - "you get things done". But still I like to think I have a particular talent for writing and analysis, which are specialist skills.
The truth is, being a web generalist is neither fashionable nor glamourous. Jeffrey Zeldman didn't get where he is today without specialising in one field of web technology (design). But I take heart in a couple of articles I found on the Web today. Ross Mayfield wote a weblog entry a few months ago on the topic of generalism vs specialisation, in response to a post by Azeem Azhar, who picked up the theme from an essay by Paul Saffo written 14 years ago.
Ross puts it nicely: "Convergence of disciplines is where real innovation and discovery occurs." ...like how I experience the Velvet Underground song I mentioned above - substitute "disciplines" for "instruments" :-)
Azeem wrote: "The specialists provide deep insight into specific issues (basically, they teach me), the generalists give a great, evolving overview of the system. They provide new ways of visualising and presenting problems. They provide the narrative. The combination works."
There is a two-way web angle to this. Weblogs in particular have made it easy and fun for individuals to write to the Web. Now collaborative tools are beginning to come into play to enhance weblogs - for example the k-collector tool makes it easy to create and share topics. This is all bringing about convergence of writing and ideas on the Web, and new and interesting things are happening because of it.
ps I knew there was a way to mention The Velvet Underground in my weblog. Hope I haven't broken any blogging rules ;-)
I read with interest Jon Udell's OSCOM keynote slides. The main subject is how to write the web "in a rich way" - and by "rich" he means semantic. Udell talks about there being a lack of easy-to-use XML writing tools for the Web. Weblog tools are user-friendly and they are the killer app for web writing, but they lack the ability to create structured XML information. Content Management Systems on the other hand have become bloated with features, making it difficult for non-technical people to use them.
Udell suggests that simple doses of metadata, added consistently to common markup such as titles or class attributes, will help weblogs and CMSs alike bring semantic structure to Web writing.
I did a search around the Web on this topic. There seems to be some confusing terminology out there. Firstly regarding rich text editors - the word "rich" in these products refers to presentational markup. For example: bold, italics, underline, bullet, indent, font type. These products basically emulate what popular word-processing software does. Similarly when Macromedia talk about a Rich Internet Application, they mean a Flash-based browser application. I believe when Udell talks about writing "rich" Web content, he is talking about adding structure and meaning.
Writing to the Web is what weblogs and CMSs are all about. Being able to add metadata to Web content, without having to handcode XML or feed a CMS monster, is the holy grail for these tools. As a Davenet from 2000 stated: "...simplicity is the single biggest thing that's in the way of the Web as an easy writing environment". RSS2.0 is a good example of a simple and easy to understand XML format, which still has rich functionality. We need the same simplicity and richness in the tools we use to write to the Web.
I've installed the W3C web browser/editor, Amaya, onto my PC. I've only just begun to test it. But with all this talk about Microsoft abandoning its IE browser, it may pay to actively look at alternative browsers. This article at freshmeat.net has a good write-up on lightweight browsers, including Amaya.
