113 Matching Annotations
  1. Dec 2018
    1. A small blog neighborhood hiding in plain sight.

      An even smaller neighborhood are the folks lurking in an annotation over your post, since they're disconnected from the comment roll below. Possibly an integration opportunity?

    1. Close to half of all Hypothesis annotations are private notes

      Given that the default behavior in Hypothesis is to post publicly, a ~50% opt-out rate seems like a pretty strong signal. I'd be curious to know what the opt-out rate would be if publishing defaulted to private notes rather than public annotations.

    2. The benefits of reading out aloud ... and dictating into speech-to-text app ...

    1. Where’s my next dashboard? I imagine a next-gen reader that brings me the open web and my social circles in a way that helps me attend to and manage all the flow. There are apps for that, a nice example being FlowReader, which has been around since 2013. I try these things hopefully but so far none has stuck.

      I'm currently hoping that the next wave of social readers based on Microsub and which also support Micropub will be a major part of the answer.

    2. Where’s my Net dashboard?

      Interestingly, I came to this post in my feed reader while randomly looking for something I could use as an example in something I was writing about feed readers!!!

    3. “Who do I report this to?” Everyone.

      A brilliant ending!

    4. It’s not just that the silos can shut down their feeds. It’s that we allowed ourselves to get herded into them in the first place.
  2. Nov 2018
    1. I made a screencast to show how I was using del.icio.us’ tag renaming feature to reorganize my own classification system,

      I love del.icio.us bookmarks, that I used to catalog my web surfings, classify and share them. Upon its demise I went for Keep with good Web & Android client but without easy public sharing. Could hypothes.is be used as I did use del.icio.us?

  3. Aug 2018
    1. Ideally the citation’s target (if 404) could also be retrieved, e.g. from Wayback, and used to anchor the annotations.

      Right. Time I revisit this idea: "Robust Hyperlinks"

  4. Jul 2018
    1. My goal is to show that you needn’t be a hotshot web developer to create a custom annotation-powered app. If the pattern embodied by this demo app is of interest to you, and if you’re at all familiar with basic web programming, you should be able to cook up your own implementations of the pattern pretty easily.

      could be fun

  5. Apr 2018
    1. Here’s a picture of what’s happening in and around the above-mentioned DigiPo page:

      Transclusion of annotations, as footnotes, by way of direct links.

  6. Mar 2018
    1. Open web annotation of audio and video

    2. This selection tool has nothing intrinsically to do with annotation. It’s job is to make your job easier when you are constructing a link to an audio or video segment.

      I'm reminded of a JavaScript tool written by Aaron Parecki that automatically adds a start fragment to the URL of his page when the audio on the page is paused. He's documented it here: https://indieweb.org/media_fragment

    3. (If I were Virginia Eubanks I might want to capture the pull quote myself, and display it on my book page for visitors who aren’t seeing it through the Hypothesis lens.)

      Of course, how would she know that the annotation exists? Here's another example of where adding webmentions to Hypothesis for notifications could be useful, particularly when they're more widely supported. I've outlined some of the details here in the past: http://boffosocko.com/2016/04/07/webmentions-for-improving-annotation-and-preventing-bullying-on-the-web/

  7. Jan 2018
    1. Jon, this is certainly an awesome and interesting way to target audio on the web, which can be tremendously useful.

      Given what you've got here, I suspect that you may be unaware of the W3C spec for media fragments which may make portions of what you're attempting to do a bit easier (and also much more standardized). The spec is relatively broadly supported by most browsers, so it immediately makes things a tad easier from a plumbing perspective.

      Some people will be somewhat familiar with the targeting technique as it's similar to the one used by YouTube which lets users hot link to specific portions of video on their platform.

      To summarize the concept, on most audio and video files one can add a #t=XXX the the end of a URL where XXX is the number in seconds into the file where one wants to start. One can target stretches of audio similarly with the pattern #t=XXX,YYY where XXX is the start and YYY is the stop time for the fragment, again in seconds.

      As an example I can use it to specifically target the audio  on a particular standalone audio file like so:

      https://media.martymcgui.re/70/d5/f1/77/975194c74454dc7a3ef71586bf98612a94bcb5685f7e7d3ca60dc183.mp3#t=269

      With some clever JavaScript, one can go a step further and implement this at the level of targeting audio/video as embedded on a particular page which may contain a wealth of additional (potentially necessary) context. As an example of this, we can look at the audio above in its original context as part of a podcast using the same type of time fragment notation:

      https://martymcgui.re/2017/10/29/163907/#t=269

      As an added bonus, on this particular page with audio, you'll notice that you can play the audio and if you pause it, the page URL in your browser should automatically refresh to indicate the particular audio timestamp for that particular position! Thus in your particular early example it makes things far easier to bookmark, save, or even share!

      For use within Hypothesis, I suspect that one could use this same type of system to directly annotate the original audio file on the original page by using this scheme, potentially by using such JavaScript within the browser plugin for Hypothesis.

      It would be nice if the user could queue up the particular audio segment and press pause, and then annotate the audio portion of the page using such a targeting segment. Then one could potentially share a specific URL for their annotation (in typical Hypothesis fashion) that not only targets the original page with the embedded audio, but it could also have that audio queued up to the correct portion (potentially with a page refresh to reset the audio depending on the annotation.)

      The nice part is that the audio can be annotated within the page on which it originally lived rather than on some alternate page on the web that requires removing the context and causing potential context collapse. It also means one doesn't have to host an intermediate page to have the whole thing work.

      For more information on the idea, take a peek at the IndieWeb's page on audio fragments which includes a few examples of people using it in the wild as well as a link to the JavaScript sample for doing the targeting within the page itself.

      I'm curious if the scheme may make putting all the smaller loose pieces together even easier, particularly for use within Hypothesis? and while keeping more of the original context in which the audio was found?

      I also suspect that these types of standards could be used to annotate audio in much the same way that the SoundCloud service handles their audio annotations, though in a much more open way. One would simply need to add on some additional UI to make the annotations on such audio present differently.

      Just for fun, this type of sub-targeting on web pages also works visually for text as well with the concept of fragmention. As an example of this, I can target this specific paragraph with this link http://boffosocko.com/2018/01/07/reply-to-annotating-web-audio-by-jon-udell/#Just+for+fun, and a snippet of JavaScript on the page creates a yellow highlighting effect as well.

  8. Oct 2017
    1. AT&T has a habit of pushing unlimited data plans for an extra $5 per month -- without telling you that the deal will remove your tethering ability, for which they now want an additional $30 per month.

  9. Sep 2017
    1. Grains of sand are inert physical objects. They just lie around

      against the inherent laziness of sand

    2. whoever holds the bucket has the coins

      great metaphor, but calls to mind the Piss Boy in Mel Brooks' History of the World, Part I

  10. Aug 2017
  11. Jul 2017
    1. These corrections are now available to train a next-gen entity recognizer. Iterating through that kind of feedback loop will be a powerful way to mine the implicit data that’s woven into the scientific literature and make it explicit.

      hypothes.is use case value

  12. Jun 2017
    1. The whole point of the newly-minted web annotation standard is to enable an ecosystem of interoperable annotation clients and servers, analogous to comparable ecosystems of email and web clients and servers.

      I think one of the ideas I'm struggling with here. Is web annotation just about research, or to advance conversation on the web? I sense this is part of decentralization too (thus, an ecosystem), but where does it fit?

  13. May 2017
  14. Feb 2017
    1. When the segment of interest is a selection in a textual resource, one kind of selector captures the selection and its surrounding text. Another captures the position of the selection (“starts at the 347th character, ends at the 364th”). Still another captures its location in a web page (“contained in the 2nd list item in the first list in the seventh paragraph”). For reasons of both speed and reliability, Hypothesis uses all three selectors when it attaches (“anchors”) an annotation to a selection.

      This is useful for users concerned about changing content--should probably be articulated somewhere on the h site.

    2. To enable this magic, an app that people can use to annotate regions in web pages is necessary but not sufficient. You also need an API-accessible service that enables computers to create and retrieve annotations. Even more fundamentally, you need an open web standard that defines how apps and services work not only with atomic resources named and located by URLs, but also segments of interest within them.

      Requirements to make this vision fully functional. Lays the foundation for the type of granular provenance that we're envisioning for next generation scholarship.

    3. segments of interest

      So I guess I'll have to start using this term instead of "nugget" :)

    4. The summarization script collects all the Hypothesis direct links on the page, gathers the annotations, extracts the URLs and quotes, injects them into the Footnotes section of the page, and rewrites the links to point to corresponding footnotes.

      Really cool.

    5. When you follow the link Hypothesis takes you to the page, scrolls to the passage, and highlights it. That’s a powerful interactive experience!

      This is a powerful differentiator from Comments.

    6. Even so, URLs address only a small part of a larger infinity of resources: words and phrases in texts, regions within images, segments of audio and video. Web annotation enables us to address that larger infinity.

      This is so important to understand.

    7. That’s a powerful interactive experience!

      Love it!

    8. That entanglement makes it harder to provide tools that support the tasks individually. If you can annotate segments of interest, though, you can disentangle the tasks, tool them separately, build the book more efficiently, and ensure others can more cleanly repurpose your work.

      The vision here seems more of a set of tools that can be integrated into various platforms rather than a single platform with a set of features. In this way, it's very similar to the idea behind EDUCAUSE's NGDLE initiative--or even Canvas's LTI-based app store.

    9. The web of URL-addressable resources is infinitely large. Even so, URLs address only a small part of a larger infinity of resources: words and phrases in texts, regions within images, segments of audio and video. Web annotation enables us to address that larger infinity.

      This.

  15. Jan 2017
    1. The app I’ve written is a thin layer of glue between two components: Canvas and Hypothes.is. LTI defines how they interact, and I’d be lying if I said it was easy to figure out to get our app to launch inside Canvas and respond back to it. But I didn’t need to be an HTTP, HTML, CSS, JavaScript, or Python wizard to get the job done. And that’s fortunate because I’m not one. I just know enough about these technologies to be able to build basic web apps, much like ones I was able to build 20 years ago when the web first became a software platform. The magic for me was always about what simple web apps can do when connected to the networked flow of information among people and computers. My Canvas experience reminded me that we can still tap into that magic.
  16. Nov 2016
  17. Oct 2016
  18. Sep 2016
    1. I’ve found Canvas to be less draconian than I’d been led to expect. More broadly, the LMS ecosystem that’s emerged — based on a standard called Learning Tools Interoperability (LTI), now supported by all the LMS systems — led me to an insight about how the same approach could help unify the emerging ecosystem of annotation systems. Even more broadly, all this has prompted me to reflect on how the modern web platform is both more standardized and more balkanized than ever before.

      ...

      The app I’ve written is a thin layer of glue between two components: Canvas and Hypothes.is. LTI defines how they interact, and I’d be lying if I said it was easy to figure out to get our app to launch inside Canvas and respond back to it. But I didn’t need to be an HTTP, HTML, CSS, JavaScript, or Python wizard to get the job done.

    2. “What’s the LTI of annotation?”

      When I dabbled in the webpage parsing space, for a project that allowed researchers to undertake content analysis of student web content. Reliably parsing the content, such as identifying each whole comment on a page was the difficult issue. I'm not of Hypothesis ability in this area, as I've just signed up to make this annotation, but if you've solved that problem then I can imagine a whole range of interesting apps might be created as plugins for hypothesis.

  19. Jun 2016
    1. If the RRID is well-formed, and if the lookup found the right record, a human validator tags it a valid RRID — one that can now be associated mechanically with occurrences of the same resource in other contexts. If the RRID is not well-formed, or if the lookup fails to find the right record, a human validator tags the annotation as an exception and can discuss with others how to handle it. If an RRID is just missing, the validator notes that with another kind of exception tag.

      Sounds a lot like the way reference managers work. In many cases, people keep the invalid or badly-formed results.

    2. It’s a human/machine partnership that works as follows.

      Sounds like there’s been a bit of a move towards partnership, recently. But much discourse on automation is about the complete exclusion of human intervention.

    3. “papers are the only scientific artifacts that are guaranteed to be preserved.”

      Under the current mode of action.

    4. produce schema-aware writing tools that everyone can use to add new documents to a nascent semantic web

      That dream does live on. Since Vannevar’s 1945 article on the Memex, we’ve been dreaming of such tools. Our current tools are quite far from that dream.

    5. Annotation can help us weave that web of linked data.

      This pithy statement brings together all sorts of previous annotations. Would be neat to map them.

    6. We pretend that tech innovation races along at breakneck speed. But sometimes it sputters until conditions are right.
    1. the acts of writerly attention, focus, and cooperation

      Thinking back on that flurry of activity a year ago, that's what most engaged me too.

  20. Apr 2016
    1. The machines will need training wheels and the guidance of human minds and hands.

      The ways humans decide to make meaningful connections between sources are important to me. I want to know who is connecting content and what those connections look like.

    2. Using annotations layered on top of them, we can begin to make better use of the documents that exist today, while helping us more clearly envision tomorrow’s web of linked data.

      Linking documents and then examining those connections feels more powerful than making copies of documents a la Caulfield's federated wiki.

    3. a web where the implicit connections among documents become explicit.

      Could this be the next version of searching the web; searching connections rather than content? Mining links between content.

    4. In 1968 Doug Engelbart showed a hypertext system that could link to regions within documents. I

      I love the YouTube videos of his demos. I was only recently made aware of them and was blown away by how many of their ideas are now realities.

    5. as the next incarnation of web comments.

      As the next incarnation of web searching?

    6. But this idea of a humans and machines working together

      Love the work machines can do, but I think I will always value the connections that people, and individuals, establish among each other.

    1. It is easy to allow technology to replace memorization and other skills. We should be mindful of what we allow it to replace. Martin Luther King had a large store of writings memorized -- and it served him well when he wrote the Letter from a Birmingham Jail.

      We need more tools that will aid skill development instead of replacing useful skills. Spaced repetition software to assist memorization is one example. Phrase-by-phrase music training programs are another. The same ideas can be applied to memorization of text.

    1. will be hearing from me

      Very much looking forward to this!

    2. I’ve long imagined a standards-based annotation layer for the web

      Me too @jon! Good luck to you!

      PS it seems like it'd be a very small step from open annotation to allowing somebody to produce a chunk of original content (that is not a reference to anything else). Then we're done :)

      :bowtie:

    1. Jon Udell on productive social discourse.

      changeable minds<br> What’s something you believed deeply, for a long time, and then changed your mind about?

      David Gray's Liminal Thinking points out that we all have beliefs that are built on hidden foundations. We need to carefully examine our own beliefs and their origins. And we need to avoid judgment as we consider the beliefs of others and their origins.

      Wael Ghonim asks us to design social media that encourages civility, thoughtfulness, and open minds rather than self-promotion, click-bait, and echo chambers.

    1. It was hard to pull together the sources for this and correlate them. I spent a lot of time refinding table 14 in article foo, for example.

      Doing it over again today I'd get a ton of mileage out of Hypothesis annotation.

    1. Scott owns the blog, Amy’s a sharecropper on it.

      I've been thinking about this metaphor, and about comments on blogs vs. blogs linking to blogs. In some ways this is another part of the Wikipedia vs. Federated Wiki question. I say "vs." because the alternatives do become binary at some point in the conversation. But back to the owning vs. sharecropping: in terms of web presence, maybe; in terms of discourse and rhetoric and the ways call and response differ, maybe not. I'll keep thinking. And I'm grateful for the heads-up that Hypothes.is is at last up and running!

    1. Beavers are great for water conservation: they create ponds by damming creeks, and they also dig to make them deeper.

      We could be collecting the rain water that flows off our roofs (and also elsewhere), but very few people do -- at least not in the US.

    1. Here’s the URL of annotations tagged wikipedia: https://hypothes.is/stream?q=tag:%27wikipedia%27 (Actually that doesn’t seem to work yet, but I’d love to see this become a next-gen delicious with all the taggy goodness.)

      I would love to see a worthy successor to delicious. Is hypothesis it?

    2. Annotating via via

    3. Pagenote

    4. One thing I held on to during fedwiki was that it wasn’t intended to be wikipedia, and to me that meant it wasn’t intended to produce articles so much as to sustain and connect ideas in formation that might find their way into article-like things on other platforms.
    5. Interestingly, it uses multiple methods to locate the annotation within the cited page: absolute character count, text to search for, and XPath notation.

      That's done to accommodate sites who's DOM changes either over time or during user interaction (single page apps, etc).

      This blog post explains the current approach and thinking behind it in Hypothes.is: https://hypothes.is/blog/fuzzy-anchoring/

    1. <link rel=”canonical” href=”https://hypothes.is/blog/synchronizing-annotations-between-local-and-remote-pdfs/”&gt;

      @judell I only mentioned you on twitter because this is where I found out about this feature, which would be useful for making archival copies.

    2. Adventures in annotation
    1. a news site

      Is it? (News Genius, that is.)

    2. I’ve read a lot of Margaret Atwood but maybe not the origins of that paraphrase, from where do you draw it?
    3. it seems more as if mine are appearing on your site

      Really glad this is stated. Many comments on #TateGate are blaming Ella Dawson for her flawed perception. As “blaming the victim” is an unbelievably common occurrence in issues of domestic violence and sexually transmitted infections, there’s something quite bitter about the whole situation.

    4. negotiate where and how annotations are displayed

      Daydream alert! Not that it’s necessarily the best solution or the only one. But it’s much easier to start building appropriate tools when the door is open to difficult ideas like negotiation than closing down discussion right away by claiming that nothing can be done besides a variant of the current system.

    5. Both parties negotiate a zone of ambiguity between what’s on my site and what’s on your site.

      Negotiation is a complex process.

    6. POSSE encourages me to comment on your site by writing a post on my site and notifying yours about it.

      The notion that everyone (who matters) now has the equivalent of a printing press is an interesting part of the scriptocentric worldview.

    7. choose to invite Hypothesis annotators by embedding our client.

      And even setting things up so that thoughtful commentary is specifically encouraged. The tool may be part of it but the key difference, in my own personal experience, is about the first few interactions. When @RemiHolden invites annotations to his blogposts about annotations, he does so in the context of a burgeoning community of practice around open annotations for pedagogy. Much closer to the climate science case and, interestingly, quite close to the very memos and Requests for Comments at the origin of the Internet.

    8. legal

      Which jurisdiction?

    9. Publishers

      Again, it might be useful to distinguish the layers involved in the “publication” process. Including the climate scientists cited and quoted in the story. The journalist writing the story. The photographer providing a vivid depiction of the effects of climate change. Advertisers paying for the news site’s survival with advertorial about somewhat more “Earth-friendly” SUVs. Uncredited sources for the story. The mega-corporation behind the news site and all its affiliates… There’s copyright, moral rights to the image, reputations of everyone involved, etc.

    10. Is it both legal and ethical

      And socially appropriate, and productive, and fun…

    11. The nexus of stakeholders includes publishers, readers, and annotators

      Useful list. Would make sense to spend some time discussing differences between individual content creators and major outlets since the discussion at Hypothesis seems to hinge on the “speaking truth to power” ideal. Technically, Automattic might be the publisher in Ella Dawson’s case. But she’s the one receiving the grief from people working for or with Genius Media Group.

    12. Blog comments appeared

      Blog rings disappeared as commercial entities started using comment sections for their own purposes.

    13. a community of early bloggers

      A small group of people with a vision. That might be the start of many a narrative, especially in the US, but there’s a difficult and complex transition to a much more diverse world where a shared sense of belonging is hard to maintain.

    14. The blogosphere grew.

      And diversified in the process, authority shifted.

    15. the tension between wanting to own our words and wanting to share them with the world.

      This is so well-crystallized. I wonder if "ownership" is less about protection, though, and more about the space to be heard. If ownership in open digital spaces has something to do with communication, then I wonder how it might be compromised by closing down communication channels. How is ownership of a blog post different than ownership of a physical house (for example)? People don't need an invitation to come into your blog, and the expectation of the blog is that you will impact your readers...that you will have readers. There is no expectation that you will have guests into your home, ever...not if you don't want to. Anyway, I appreciate tools like the LMS (in education) that carve out private or protected online spaces for collaboration, or ePortfolio platforms like Mahara that offer students spaces to store and protect their work privately. But on the open web, what does "ownership" mean? (Related note, Robin: define the "open web.")

    16. here
    17. What if instead a site could opt out, and then if people wanted to comment on it, that site would be ‘cloned’ to a different URL?

      I think this probably creates a copyright issue.

      Also, who would do the cloning, where would it be hosted. This would essentially fork content, and perhaps result in an even greater loss of control? What happens if the blogger wants to update the master, how do they update the copy?

    18. I don’t know.

      So refreshing to hear actors in the scene allowing for deeper learning!

    19. Web annotation seems less ambiguous

      At least, it boils down ambiguity to straightforward specs.

    20. accept my contribution or not.
    21. I am just reflecting on the tension between wanting to own our words and wanting to share them with the world.

      Especially tricky when the tension involves raising awareness of sexual issues while maintaining your sanity.

    22. We at Hypothesis are soliciting a range of views on this thicket of thorny issues

      Very commendable, especially the acknowledgment that it’s not merely a complicated issue of legal and ethical concerns in the United States of America’s news organisations.

    23. groups self-moderate annotations

      There’s a whole chapter on this, to be written (and annotated). A key point, which is most often discussed by social scientists than by literary scholars or engineers, is that “groups” differ wildly in their shape, size, internal diversity, dynamics, growth, structures, etc.

    24. And there are still more variables.

      One might even say that it’s a complex situation, not merely a complicated one, since these “variables” interact with one another in unpredictable ways. Through time.

    25. a browser extension that users install and activate

      On a page-by-page basis or sticking for a whole session?

    26. Readers who don’t care what the scientists think don’t have to view the annotations.

      In the “speaking truth to power” model, this affordance is an issue.

    27. Readers who value the scientists’ assessment can opt in to view their annotations.

      This type of opt-in requires a prior understanding of “what’s out there”. Current systems, including Hypothesis, are quite far from allowing this type of granularity. If one browses to a CBC page about pipeline projects and enables Hypothesis on that page to see what climate scientists have to say about it, the only way it could work is if all climate scientists annotating the page belonged to the same group and the reader had already specifically restricted annotations to come from that group. In the Genius case, she’s more likely to see snarky gifs than thoughtful exegesis from climate scientists. In Canada, the situation would have been worse just a few months ago, as many scientists were muzzled.

    28. visible to anyone who acquires the tool needed to view it

      In some cases, this annotation layer is visible without this page-by-page opt-in.

    29. The scientists believe they are providing a public service.

      As part of their job, many scientists have a responsibility to inform the public and science attracts people who share this sense of duty. Yet, oftentimes, scientists remain in such hermetic modes of discourse that their words aren’t understand by “the general population” (which includes a lot of brilliant people from other spheres of expertise).

    30. climate scientists team up

      Two key features of this case: experts in a field share a lot in advance and teaming up is quite different from the fluid world of social interactions (cf. Tuckman). In other words, this case is about “likeminded people” who may disagree on a lot of things and be quite different on a personal level but have a common “code”, in the linguistic sense. The early Internet was like that, the early Web was like that, and early blogging was pretty much like that.

    31. successfully challenged

      That sets a rather high bar for dissent.

    32. Publishers decide how they want readers to see their pages, but readers can decide differently.

      It’s often useful to distinguish content creators from publishers, as Doug Schepers does.

    33. some of us who are building web annotation tools

      A small group of people picking up where others have left off. There have been many attempts at building annotation systems. Something interesting about the current is the map of connections between those who are trying to build new tools, based on an emerging standard. For one thing, it tends to be heavily rooted in the United States despite the fact that the Web and the Net as a whole are much less US-centric than before.

    34. Twitter and Facebook appeared.

      In radically different contexts, these two services came upon a rather busy scene. We frequently discuss these two, as though they started the movement to converge towards this form of “social media”. The focus on “personal branding” is a big part of the narrative.

    35. In 2001

      Right after the bubble burst, blogging became an important outlet for geeks who had more time on their hands.

    36. Google killed the dominant blog reader.

      Many professional bloggers lost traffic and looked for other ways to gain it back.

    37. The quality of discourse on Radio UserLand was, for a while, like nothing I’ve experienced before or since.

      Sounds nostalgic but it’s very difficult to compare the current context with that one in part because the changes intervening in the meantime have been complex. Jenny Cool and Howard Rheingold may have neat insight on other contexts, pre-UserLand.

    38. Things stayed civil because the system aligned incentives correctly.

      Sounds like there were many other reasons that most Internet-based initiatives stayed civil in their early days. Some of them have to do with human diversity.

  21. May 2015
    1. They’re not all dead yet
    2. Should there be a Safari-specific extension that redirects to the proxy? A system-wide Share extension that Chrome could also use? Both?

      Advice from someone who's done this would be most appreciated!