[Embedded video below]
[Embedded video above]
[Embedded video below]
[Embedded video above]
So, we had just decided that we should encourage people to tweet about the Webcast using a hashtag and we jumped online to announce it…and discovered Nikki Dettmar had beaten us to it by a few minutes.
GMTA, Nikki. 🙂
Anyway, it has been a lot of fun reading the tweets and I’m so grateful to those who participated for providing such useful, fun, fast feedback.
Some tweets I found interesting:
BerrymanD Great content today. Would recommend that, in the future, we skip the history lesson and go directly to the current content. #mlamobile
Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:00:38 +0000 – tweet id 5837056058 – 552
Donna, I could not disagree more. The history provides context showing that technological change isn’t new, but is happening faster and faster. Without context, we’d just be talking about this week’s information instead of shedding a little light on longer-term trends. Also, Max rules and I learned a whole lot from his history lesson.
Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:57:48 +0000 – tweet id 5836982620 – 540
I think of it as more analogous to “Windows vs. Linux.”
bohyunkim App development requires a web developer, says Rothman. Excellent point – mobilization requires resources + staff. #mlamobile
Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:55:54 +0000 – tweet id 5836934904 – 532
App development requires, I believe, a developer. Simple iPhone-optimized Web sites seem within the reach of people who are already comfortable with XHTML and CSS …and those people aren’t necessarily programmers/developers.
jopomojo #mlamobile nice image of Google’s modus operandi: throw it against the wall and see if it sticks. Was that Rothman who said that?
Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:52:21 +0000 – tweet id 5836846201 – 518
Nope. That was Bart. Bart was, I believe, the most consistently funny presenter.
Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:48:18 +0000 – tweet id 5836744716 – 503
Well, I’m more accustomed to being asked to STOP talking about the stuff that interests me…so this was a nice change of pace.
Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:44:47 +0000 – tweet id 5836655564 – 490
I don’t think I agree. The Google mobile conversion tool isn’t an emulator that shows you what a page will look like on a mobile browser. Its purpose is to take pages that are NOT mobile-friendly and present them in such a way that they are easier to view in a mobile browser.
greeneyed_ives Does anyone have current patrons using PubGet? Especially practicing clinicians? Curious if it as popular as Rothman says. #mlamobile
Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:04:55 +0000 – tweet id 5835687873 – 338
Did I say PubGet was popular? I don’t think it is yet…but I don’t understand why not. Besides, PubGet is only REALLY useful to patrons if their library implements it. It is free and and easy to try- why not get in touch with the folks at PubGet, set it up, and see if patrons like it? If you’d like an introduction to Ian at PubGet, let me know. He seems an awfully sharp, very nice guy who really likes libraries and librarians.
gabinator says @davidlrothman says Palm Pre’s problem is poor marketing #mlamobile
Wed, 18 Nov 2009 19:41:35 +0000 – tweet id 5835110236 – 214
Well, that’s one of its problems. iPhone marketing is everywhere and excellent. The marketing pushes for the T-Mobile MyTouch and the Verizon Droid have been strong. The other important problem Palm has with the Pre is that it is the only device using its operating system…so development for it is going to be pretty limited.
Other dangling queries:
Someone asked about an Android phone called the “Hero.”
HTC makes a phone called the “Hero” which runs on Android 1.5 and a user interface that HTC made themselves. It looks purty.
Another viewer emailed to ask: “What are the health risks in using these devices?”
Dependency? Max, Emily, and Bart seem a little addicted to their iPhones. Maybe accidents caused by walking and texting? [PubMed search]
Any other questions you feel haven’t been answered yet?
Leave a comment here and we’ll try to answer it.
Still to come:
More behind-the-scenes photos and video.
So we’re in Chicago getting ready for the Webcast tomorrow.
We just figured out that we want people to be able to submit questions or discuss the Webcast on Twitter, so use the hashtag #mlamobile to do so.
-David, Bart, Max, and Emily
(Nikki set up an archive for these tweets at Twapper Keeper.)
Got a call from Tom Richardson at the NEJM (who I saw play with the Bearded Pigs at MLA 2008!).
According to Tom, NEJM has no arrangement with Clinical Reader and did not license their content to Clinical Reader. So it appears that Clinical Reader is again violating copyright.
So, Clinical Reader shows video content from the NEJM, including a video on chest tube insertion (yeah, the same one I blogged about a ways back).
I thought this was odd.
After all, if you go to the NEJM’s home for this video, it clearly says one needs a subscription to view the content.
So I decided to look around for any notes from either organization that would indicate Clinical Reader is using this video content with permission. Didn’t find it. Also didn’t find any published terms under which NEJM offered to license it.
My curiosity piqued, I decided to poke around more to see if anyone else was showing NEJMs content. Sure enough, somebody with a subscription to NEJM downloaded a decent copy and posted it on Vimeo:
It has been viewed there over 1,600 times.
Note to Vimeo: This violates terms of service. The user who uploaded it did not own it (as should be fairly obvious by the title cards). As much as I enjoy free access to high quality video, this belongs to NEJM, not this user. The video should at least be taken down from your servers.
Anyway, Vimeo allows users to download videos in .flv format. I downloaded that .flv with no problem…so now Vimeo is serving as a distribution channel for others who would like unlicensed copies. I wonder if perhaps that is how Clinical Reader got a copy to show from their site.
I’d be interested to hear from the NEJM and Clinical Reader: Was this content licensed to Clinical Reader? If so, why is the video quality so much poorer than in the original at the NEJM’s site OR the Vimeo copy?
If not, why isn’t the NEJM interested that their content is being stolen?
I mean…if I didn’t sweat pesky things like copyright, I think I could build an AMAZING portal for health information…made of other people’s content.
Clinical Reader’s FAQ says:
Clinical Reader respects all copyrights and legal restrictions on content and access. Clinical Reader cannot give a user access to articles to which the user does not already have access to copyright-restricted content. For example, if a user does not have access to a research article in the BMJ (either through an individual subscription or through the user´s institution), Clinical Reader will not be able to show the item in full.
Huh. I don’t have access to NEJM from here at home. But I can still view its content in Clinical Reader.
…and there’s a RapidShare link on this blog.