Google a conçu tout un ensemble d'applications fantastiques accessibles sur tous vos appareils. Sur Mac et PC, Google Plus se connecte à Picasa, qui est le meilleur programme de stockage photo aujourd'hui disponible
Picasa est plus rapide qu'iPhoto, dispose d'un paquet d'outils de retouche simples et performants et vous permet, par la reconnaissance faciale, de trier vos photos le plus simplement du monde
Vous pouvez aussi configurer Picasa pour qu'il se synchronise à Google Plus, et à chaque fois que vous modifierez une photo sur votre ordinateur, elle sera aussi modifiée en ligne.
les avantages que google plus a par rapport a flickr
1-accessible sur tous nos appareils, mac et pc
2- se connecte a picasa
3-permet de retoucher les photos
4-peut trier les photos par la reconnaissance faciale
5-peut-être synchronis- avec picasa et tout sera modifié par le fait même en ligne
6-si on met l application sur i phone ou android la sauvegarde de la photo sera automatiquement missur google plus. par défaut elles seront publiques
un défaut= espace limité à moinsde payer. si on est un pro ça vaut la peine sinon on attend que google plus baisse ses prix
I want to convince you that many of the ways we're attempting to apply categorization to the electronic world are actually a bad fit, because we've adopted habits of mind that are left over from earlier strategies.
Yahoo is saying "We understand
better than you how the world is organized, because we are trained professionals. So if you mistakenly think
that Books and Literature are entertainment, we'll put a little flag up
so we can set you right, but to see those links, you have to 'go' to
where they 'are'."
You don't have to have
just a few links, you could have a whole lot of links.
A URL can only appear in three places.
That's the Yahoo rule.
They missed the end of this progression,
which is that, if you've got enough links, you don't need the
hierarchy anymore. There is no shelf. There is no file system. The
links alone are enough.
One reason Google was adopted so quickly when it came along is
that Google understood there is no shelf, and that there is no file
system. Google can decide what goes with what after hearing from the user, rather than trying to predict in
advance what it is you need to know.
Laisser les usagers se faire leur langage et le tagger à leur façon puis, en tant que Google, prendre cette info et l'utiliser pour créer une ''taxonomie''.
"Well, that's going to be a useful
category, we should encode that in advance."
They point to the signal loss from the fact that
users, although they use these three different labels, are talking
about the same thing.
You can also turn that list around. You can say "Here are some characteristics where ontological classification doesn't work well":
Domain
Large corpus
No formal categories
Unstable entities
Unrestricted entities
No clear edges
Participants
Uncoordinated users
Amateur users
Naive catalogers
No Authority
The other big problem is that predicting the future turns out to be hard, and yet any classification system meant to be stable over time puts the categorizer in the position of fortune teller.
Here is del.icio.us, Joshua Shachter's social bookmarking service. It's for people who are keeping track of their URLs for themselves, but who are willing to share globally a view of what they're doing, creating an aggregate view of all users' bookmarks, as well as a personal view for each user.
chouette description concrète de l'utilisation de del.icio.us!
" If you find a way to make it valuable to individuals to tag their stuff, you'll generate a lot more data about any given object than if you pay a professional to tag it once and only once.
Tags are simply labels for URLs, selected to help the user in later retrieval of those URLs. Tags have the additional effect of grouping related URLs together. There is no fixed set of categories or officially approved choices. You can use words, acronyms, numbers, whatever makes sense to you, without regard for anyone else's needs, interests, or requirements.
The chart shows a great variability in tagging strategies among the various users.
But this is what organization looks like when you turn it over to the users -- many different strategies, each of which works in its own context, but which can also be merged.
We are moving away from binary categorization -- books either are or are not entertainment
But they either had no way of reflecting that debate or they decided not to expose it to the users. What instead happened was it became an all-or-nothing categorization, "This is entertainment, this is not entertainment." We're moving away from that sort of absolute declaration, and towards being able to roll up this kind of value by observing how people handle it in practice.
What you do instead is you try to find ways that the individual sense-making can roll up to something which is of value in aggregate, but you do it without an ontological goal.
you believe that we make sense of the world, if we are, from a bunch of different points of view, applying some kind of sense to the world
''we make sens of the world together thru what's worth aggregating'' = not ontology
we're going to be able to build alternate organizational systems, systems that, like the Web itself, do a better job of letting individuals create value for one another, often without realizing it.
If you think
the movies and cinema people were going to have a fight, wait til you
get the queer politics and homosexual agenda people in the same room.
Un article de Clay Shirky qui nous donne son analyse de l'Ontologie, un point de vue intéressant sur les différentes façons de classer l'information sur le Web.