53 Matching Annotations
  1. Jan 2019
    1. very difficult to track and may not involve a visible trace of usage that we can measure

      Unless, for example, annotation was baked into the platforms, and offered any reader the opportunity to collaboratively discuss.

  2. Jun 2018
    1. Guide to highlight colors Yellow–general highlights and highlights which don’t fit under another category below Orange–Vocabulary word; interesting and/or rare word Green–Reference to read Blue–Interesting Quote Gray–Typography Problem Red–Example to work through
  3. Nov 2017
    1. But if they are learning how to build on the Web they probably need to know something about becoming findable (or unfindable) on the Web. And by extension they need to understand how the power behind that findability is impacting the course of human history. 12 months ago if I had said that, some people would have rolled their eyes at me, but I think it’s safe to say that in the last 9 months we’ve all realized just how powerful algorithms are in shaping the outcomes of our culture.

      This is a pretty useful example of a paragraph with subtext, don’t you think? Could easily imagine future readers and annotators coming to this passage and scratching their heads for a minute while looking at the date. What happened nine months before June 2017? Living outside the US, it took me a few seconds to guess it (and my guess may be wrong). Of course, Martha was “playing for the audience” (though DoOO is having an impact outside the US). There’s indeed a shared understanding that events in the political arena may be relevant in our work on digital literacies.

    1. if cross-format identifiers like DOIs are used, annotations made in one format (eg, EPUB) can be seen in the same document published in other formats (eg, HTML, PDF) and in other locations.

      Whaa..? This sounds seriously hard. But remarkably clever.

    1. We know that there are few sticky security and implementation issues

      Which is probably why @judell’s tate doesn’t show up in Chrome on my system and there’s weirdness with the scrolling once we accept to load unsafe scripts.

    1. Wiley (and a cluster of other OER advocates) insist that creators must use a CC-by license, allowing commercial use, if they want their work to be considered open.

      Ha! So that’s where the comment about Rory McGreal should come in.

    1. Students often lose access to their materials at the end of the semester Students also often lose access to their own work as well, in the form of highlights, notes, and other annotations

      Hence the need for #OpenAnnotation to pair up with some of the other opens. Hypothes.is people are doing their part, but still.

    1. Link suggestions don’t even have to live in a separate meta box.

      Years ago, link suggestions were pretty high on my wishlist for WP. Did notice early implementations of this feature but haven’t used the improved version. It does sound like the current version is pretty useful and can lead to something interesting. Might also work well with annotations, come to think of it.

  4. Mar 2017
  5. Sep 2016
    1. Research: Student data are used to conduct empirical studies designed primarily to advance knowledge in the field, though with the potential to influence institutional practices and interventions. Application: Student data are used to inform changes in institutional practices, programs, or policies, in order to improve student learning and support. Representation: Student data are used to report on the educational experiences and achievements of students to internal and external audiences, in ways that are more extensive and nuanced than the traditional transcript.

      Ha! The Chronicle’s summary framed these categories somewhat differently. Interesting. To me, the “application” part is really about student retention. But maybe that’s a bit of a cynical reading, based on an over-emphasis in the Learning Analytics sphere towards teleological, linear, and insular models of learning. Then, the “representation” part sounds closer to UDL than to learner-driven microcredentials. Both approaches are really interesting and chances are that the report brings them together. Finally, the Chronicle made it sound as though the research implied here were less directed. The mention that it has “the potential to influence institutional practices and interventions” may be strategic, as applied research meant to influence “decision-makers” is more likely to sway them than the type of exploratory research we so badly need.

  6. Aug 2016
  7. Jul 2016
    1. The remix should be thought of as a method of quotation, citation and commentary; as a form of pastiche, parody or homage; as a means of picking our way through the media-saturated labyrinth in which we find ourselves; a vital expression of our living culture in a confused and confusing time.

      Sounds like a description of Shepazu’s Annotation Architecture. Web Annotation Architecture

  8. Jun 2016
    1. I think it would be easier/better if Hypothes.is both accepted and sent webmentions.

      Cool thing is. Udell and the gang are pretty open to suggestions, it sounds like. At the same time, it’s quite possible that webmentions wouldn’t fit in their overall vision of the tool.

    1. Diigo’s Refocus Back to Annotation

      Had missed this announcement. The annotation scene has this interesting ambivalence between being old and new, forward-looking and somewhat nostalgic. Wish Diigo were forward-looking enough to get into Open Annotations.

  9. Apr 2016
    1. A who’s who of open pedagogy scholars and web annotation advocates joined, too, including Maha Bali, Robin DeRosa, Jamila Siddiqui, Joe Dillon, Jeremy Dean, Alexandre Enkerli, and Roy Kamada.

      Flattery will lead us nowhere… But it’s still a warm and fuzzy feeling to be in such illustrious company.

    1. Web Annotations

      Obvious case for h. Imagine the possibilities of linked open data used in annotating presentations which would be part of scholarly books along with all the necessary material? The mind wanders…

    1. The editor of News Genius joined in with snarky and hostile comments.

      Funny how frequently this terms comes up, when talking about Genius. The difference between annotation platforms is significantly a matter of usage. Usage of Genius has a lot to do with snarky comments made by “the smart kid at the back of the class”. My perception of Hypothesis is that it’s much more oriented towards diversifying voices. But that has less to do with technical features of the platform than with the community adopting it.

    1. DoyleOwl

      Just got in touch with @DoyleOwl. Neat approach to annotation. My sense is that Genius can have a useful effect similar to that of those programmes using basketball to keep kids off the streets.

    2. one of the annotations is simply a link to a Google search for a phrase that’s been used.

      Glad this was mentioned. To the Eric Raymonds of this world, such a response sounds “perfectly legitimate”. But it’s precisely what can differentiate communities and make one more welcoming than the other. Case in point: Arduino-related forums, in contrast with the Raspberry Pi community. Was looking for information about building a device to track knee movement. Noticed that “goniometer” was the technical term for that kind of device, measuring an angle (say, in physiotherapy). Ended up on this page, where someone had asked a legitimate question about Arduino and goniometers. First, the question:

      Trying to make a goniometer using imu (gy-85). Hoe do I aquire data from the imu using the arduino? How do I code the data acquisition? Are there any tutorials avaible online? Thanks =)

      Maybe it wouldn’t pass the Raymond test for “smart questions”, but it’s easy to understand and a straight answer could help others (e.g., me).

      Now, the answer:

      For me, google found 87,000,000 hits for gy-85. I wonder why it failed for you.

      Wow. Just, wow.

      Then, on the key part of the question (the goniometer):

      No idea what that is or why I should have to google it for you.

      While this one aborted Q&A is enough to put somebody off Arduino forever, it’s just an example among many. Like Stack Overflow, Quora, and geek hideouts, Arduino-related forums are filled with these kinds of snarky comments about #LMGTFY.

      Contrast this with the Raspberry Pi. Liz Upton said it best in a recent interview (ca. 25:30):

      People find it difficult to remember that sometimes when somebody comes along… and appears to be “not thinking very hard”, it could well be because they’re ten years old.

      And we understand (from the context and such) that it’s about appearance (not about “not thinking clearly”). It’s also not really about age.

      So, imagine this scenario. You’re teacher a class, seminar, workshop… Someone asks a question about using data from a device to make it into a goniometer. What’s the most appropriate strategy? Sure, you might ask the person to look for some of that information online. But there are ways to do so which are much more effective than the offputting ’tude behind #LMGTFY. Assuming they do search for that kind of information, you might want to help them dig through the massive results to find something usable, which is a remarkably difficult task which is misunderstood by someone who answer questions about goniometers without knowing the least thing about them.

      The situation also applies to the notion that a question which has already been asked isn’t a legitimate question. A teacher adopting this notion would probably have a very difficult time teaching anyone who’s not in extremely narrow a field. (Those teachers do exist, but they complain bitterly about their job.)

      Further, the same logic applies to the pedantry of correcting others. Despite the fact that English-speakers’ language ideology allows for a lot of non-normative speech, the kind of online #WordRage which leads to the creation of “language police” bots is more than a mere annoyance. Notice the name of this Twitter account (and the profile of the account which “liked” this tweet).

      Lots of insight from @BiellaColeman on people who do things “for the lulz”. Her work is becoming increasingly relevant to thoughtful dialogue on annotations.

    3. “The annotations I have seen are often more snark than substance,”

      Same experience, even in the Genius guidelines. The tool’s affordances (and name) revolve around snark. In the abstract, there’s nothing wrong with that. We need spaces for people to have fun, even if it’s at the expense of others. But the startup is based on a very specific idea of what constitutes useful commentary. That idea is closer to pedantry, snark, intellectual bullying, and animated gifs than on respectful exchange.

    1. spark even more discussion.

      That part never worked. But maybe these annotations will? That’d be neat.

    2. Academia, academic models, academic publishing, academics, arrogance, blog comments, Blogging, books, cluefulness, comment-fishing, commenting, constructivism, critical thinking, cultural capital, education systems, ethnocentrism, friends, hegemony, humanism, informal learning, intellectual property, intellectualism, journalism, knowledge, knowledge management, knowledge people, language ideology, language sciences, linguistic anthropology, linkfest, literature, Mali, mass media, media, mediascape, online publishing, opinions, participatory culture, performance, product and process, radio, rants, readership, relativism, respect, schools, shameless plug, social capital, social change, social networking, social networks, social publishing, sophistication, writing

      It may annoy many, but overtagging can be playful.

  10. Mar 2016
    1. see you in the margins!

      We’re here! We’re always here. You can hide us, but we’re in your webpages, annotating away. Obligatory LOLcat

    2. somewhere between close reading and distributed commentary

      In my wishlist to Jon Udell (still in draft), these two modes can be separate phases with Hypothesis. But in reverse order. First pass is the distributed commentary about the whole piece, similar to social bookmarking and potentially affording a very cursory look (or even just a glance at a headline). It says: “Hey, please read this and tell me what you think!” The second pass could be the deep reading, with one’s personal comments visible, but not influenced by other comments. Then comes the “fun part”, which is also a form of distributed commentary, but is much more conversational. “Distributed” might not be as appropriate, though. At least in computer lingo.

    3. more democratic pathway

      This one remains to be demonstrated. As we keep saying, exclusion may be passive but inclusion is by definition active. Open annotations may not sound so exclusive for those who appropriated it as a technology, the same way literacies are often taken for granted. But we often tend to take “democratization” as a given.

    4. Unlike the commenting feature of a blog

      Despite an important continuity.

  11. Feb 2016
    1. Educators

      Just got to think about our roles, in view of annotation. Using “curation” as a term for collecting URLs sounds like usurping the title of “curator”. But there’s something to be said about the role involved. From the whole “guide on the side” angle to the issue with finding appropriate resources based on a wealth of expertise.

  12. Jan 2016
  13. Dec 2015
    1. With SmartBooks, students can see the important content highlighted

      Like an algorithmic version of Hypothesis? Is McGraw-Hill part of the Coalition? Looks like it isn’t. Is it a “for us or against us” situation?

    1. Oops! Started annotating the Forbes version but this one might be better (no preload). Wish I could transfer my annotations from one version to the other…

    1. personal note taking, peer review, copy editing, post publication discussion, journal clubs, classroom uses, automated classification, deep linking

      Useful list, almost a roadmap or set of scenarios. The last two might be especially intriguing, in view of the Semantic Web.

    1. Anyone can say Anything

      The “Open World Assumption” is central to this post and to the actual shift in paradigm when it comes to moving from documents to data. People/institutions have an alleged interest in protecting the way their assets are described. Even libraries. The Open World Assumption makes it sound quite chaotic, to some ears. And claims that machine learning will solve everything tend not to help the unconvinced too much. Something to note is that this ability to say something about a third party’s resource connects really well with Web annotations (which do more than “add metadata” to those resources) and with the fact that no-cost access to some item of content isn’t the end of the openness.

  14. Nov 2015
    1. If you write a post and I write a post on my own blog referring to yours, my blog post also “is a response to” your blog post.

      Chain of attribution, as @Shepazu would have it.

    1. The future of news is still about journalism? We can annotate any content. This piece makes it sound as though journalism should become even more controlling.

  15. Oct 2015
    1. As they are distinguishable documents too, annotations can even be annotated themselves.

      Tell that to Genius! Image Description

  16. Sep 2015
    1. (If this intrigues you, check out Hypothes.is, a socially-conscious annotation service you can use today).
  17. Jul 2015