iPhone app wishlist

An iPhone/iPod touch application I’d really like to have:

Large time display, filling the screen in landscape format, showing time of day in the following format:

[selectable digits]:[hours]:[minutes]:[seconds]:[frames]

Where ‘frames’ counts 25th or 24th of a second (or 29.97th or 30th, for those in weird non-PAL countries. Doubtless Kevin will roll his eyes and explain why it’s really not that simple, etc.

With this, you velcro your iPod to a clapperboard, and you have an el-cheapo timecode slate. Lovely. Should be trivial, right?

Of course, we were doing that seven years ago

“The BBC now frequently commissions project to run online elements ahead of the broadcast date”, according to the Guardian. Hmm. I’d suspect something was amiss, only it’s quite possible that the BBC have only recently realised that this is the case. They’ve been doing it for years, of course, apparently by accident rather than intention. Which explains a lot.

Science Shack was an Adam Hart-Davis vehicle for BBC2, filmed very close to transmission in autumn 2001. Close enough, in fact, that I had a heated telephone discussion with the BBC’s tech review department following their receipt of the first programme: “You can’t send us something this close to transmission! It’s a breach of your contract!” / “It’s a requirement imposed on us by the controller of BBC2. You can tech the tape, or explain to him why there’s a 30-minute hole in tomorrow night’s schedule. Your call.” (I paraphrase. I almost certainly wasn’t that heroic at the time).

The reason for the tight turnaround was that we were intended to be incorporating feedback from the series’ website into the programmes themselves. That is: the site was to go live a few weeks before filming/transmission, and be trailed on BBC2. We’d develop ideas and solicit help from the audience, and even drag some of them along to the filming. Thus, we’d foster a community of people discussing science topics, including academics from the Open University, who’d help answer all the questions that didn’t make the cut for the TV show.

Well, that was the plan.

In the event, the website did go live before the TV show. A year before. Thanks to an almighty scheduling cock-up, it had been running for a year, been a bit of a giggle, had built a decent-size community, and shut down before production on the TV series even started. BBC Online, doubtless slightly narked that they’d done their bit and where-had-the-broadcast-muppets-been? declined to extend the site. So we were left with trying to make a TV format that contractually and practically required an integral website, but whose website was being actively torn down.

Compromises were reached and, somehow, a modicum of funding was found. Then the real bombshell – marshaling viewers’ comments and responses from the OU academics and TV production team was clearly a workflow/content management problem, and the Online team got back to us with their ideas. Implementation cost: twice our total budget. Schedule: test deployment February 2002.

This was in early September 2001, with broadcast scheduled from mid-October. Spot the snag.

In the end, the public BBC website was entirely static (!), and I lashed together an admin back-end in the then-new Geeklog, which received questions and comments and allowed a researcher we took on to work out what to do with them. The OU panel had access to parts of that, and used it to answer queries (so they could see what each other had written). When they were happy, the researcher wrote up their replies into something resembling English, and published them on the public site.

Online were aghast: this was not a robust, scalable, secure system. On the other hand, I countered, it had the benefit of extraordinary flexibility: if we wanted sweeping changes we could simply ask Jess, the researcher, to do things differently. Much of her job was crappy copy-and-paste between disconnected systems, but for the sake of a ten-week project that was an acceptable limitation.

We had another staffer on the web team, Toby: he and Jess shot photos and bits of video, and updated the site from location while we were shooting. Today, we’d say they were live-blogging the recording… but hey, this was late 2001. Movable Type wasn’t even out yet. Besides, thanks to the baroque BBC Online approvals system, the web team’s updates often took days to actually go live to the world – I think in one case the BBC2 broadcast beat them, not that this was their fault.

If this all sounds like a total farce… well, that would be about right. But from the audience perspective it wasn’t too bad, and it amused me at the time that a series based around gaffer-tape-and-string experiments should have a website built in the same sort of way. I still think the decision to replace code with a real person was crucial, and some of that sort of approach continues to inform my thinking about web systems. Too much flexibility and you can’t get anything done; too little and you can’t move if you get one tiny thing wrong in the design; in some circumstances, people are both cheaper and faster than code.

And yes, it was experiences like this that led, ultimately, to things like the ‘360 commissioning’ mantra, and the television world getting better at integrating online and broadcast production. However, I’m still not convinced the BBC is genuinely good at this beyond their work on a handful of key properties – like Doctor Who. Also, I can’t see that much has really improved from the perspective of indy producers, in that the BBC’s web platform is still rather closed. While they do have valid concerns about long-term stability, it seems there’s little scope for doing things quickly.

Right now, I’m much preferring the fleet-of-foot feel one gets from working online to the turning-a-supertanker feel of broadcast. Perhaps this is why I rail against hideous monolithic content management systems that get in the way rather than smooth the workflow? They’re too reminiscent of the broadcast world I’m trying to leave behind.

But anyway, the real joke about Science Shack was why the first series was in 2001, but the second didn’t happen until 2003. In autumn 2002 I was at a conference of science TV producers, and Science Shack’s original commissioner, by then in another rôle at the BBC, was surprised to see me there. “I’d have thought you’d be at the frantic stage right about now, if you’re going to make transmission.” I was confused, and the chap went on to explain that he’d been pleased to see Science Shack 2 appear in the advance broadcast schedules.

This was news to me. Only the previous week I’d spoken to the owner of the production company, and things were looking pretty thin for them. So former-commissioner-chap and I toddled over to current-commissioner-chap, who was also at the conference. We put the conundrum to him: could he explain the discrepancy?

He blanched.

“Oh shit!”, he exclaimed, “I commissioned the second series, but forgot to tell the production company!”

True story.

Richard Hammond’s Lab Rats

CBBC are making not one but two science series at the moment. There’s a second series of engineering show Whizz Whizz Bang Bang underway in Glasgow (about which I know nothing, other than that they’ve ditched the best thing about the first series, which was the presenter). And now they’ve announced a second show, “Richard Hammond’s Lab Rats.”

Interesting, and a somewhat major shift for CBBC’s commissioner Anne Gilchrist. Also a bit of a git for my SciCast sales pitch, frankly, but I’ll see what the results are like before getting too despondent. Besides, I’m a little nervous about the format, from what little one can glean from September Films’ website.

It’s a competition show – two teams of kids ‘performing scientific experiments using … household objects … able to repeat at home.’ The problem with such formats is that they’re not at all like normal kids’ game shows. You’re not testing physical skill (Jungle Run, Fun House), nor observation (Screen Test… not sure that’s been done since), nor, oddly, problem-solving ability (Raven). You’re testing practical knowledge.

You’re also based around challenges, and I could argue that with science it’s not the problem that’s interesting anyway, it’s the solution – with How2 the question is strangely irrelevant, you start with the answer and work backwards. But that’s another argument for another day: start thinking of suitable challenges.

I reckon they fall into two categories:

  1. Problems a reasonable proportion of children have the scientific knowledge to solve. That is – things that have been covered in school.

  2. Problems not covered in school, which children therefore mostly don’t know about.

The difficulty, of course, is that it’s challenges in the second category that have the more exciting solutions. Worse: challenges in the first category smack of ‘school,’ which is a shortcut to ‘not being remotely cool or fun,’ when you’re making after-school factual entertainment TV.

So you have a few possible routes you can go. You can stick with stuff the contestants are likely to know, and risk the audience shouting ‘boring!’ or, more likely, switching over to Nickelodeon.

Or you can brief the contestants off-camera, so they exhibit the desired behaviour. This is absolutely normal with engineering challenge formats (coughScrapheapcough), but it has to be done extremely carefully on a children’s show. With Scrapheap we’re willing to accept that the teams plain know more than we, the audience, do. As adults we’re used to that, but anyway we have Robert Llewellyn to ask the dumb questions on our behalf – he’s the audience’s proxy in Scrapheap.

With Lab Rats they’re going to have to be oh-so-careful, because it’s hard to see the audience proxy as being anything other than the contestants. Hammond is a terrific presenter and, as far as I can gather, a genuinely decent chap. I’m willing to believe that he has a good rapport with children. But he’s still the presenter, and the contestants are the people on-screen that the audience are supposed to identify with.

Which brings us back to the wheels coming off if the contestants know something the audience doesn’t think they should. It’s alienating, because you no longer feel you could be the one in the show.

(For completeness, the third option is to use part of the show to cover essential theory. But the best way of explaining the theory is to do the demo which is the subject of the competition challenge, so… you end up doing everything twice, and/or it takes forever, and/or it turns into a lesson. Ugh.)

You’ll notice that I seem to have thought this through rather a lot. Well, yes. See, there was a previous attempt to do a science/engineering challenge show with teams of kids doing experiments, interrupted by giant stunts. It was even planned as a thirty-minute show, before the early cuts were so turgid it was dropped down to twenty minutes.

It was called XperiMENTAL, it was on CBBC, and it was ruddy awful. The show’s own executive producer described it to me as ‘dreadfully rubbish,’ and we proceeded to pick apart its first two series. Informally, I was likely to produce the third, but it didn’t last that long.

The description of Lab Rats would work equally well as a description of the first series of XperiMENTAL. Yiiiiiikes?

Don’t get me wrong – I’m delighted that CBBC is at least trying to do its duty of bringing inspiring factual shows to a new generation of children. They’re the only people who can, at least via broadcast. But as ever with TV I worry that lessons from the past are not heeded, that the thinking isn’t as sophisticated as it might be, and that the resulting shows may fail.

So my real concerm is that if neither Whizz Whizz Bang Bang nor Lab Rats succeed, the BBC will again conclude that ‘kids don’t like science’ and give up for another five years.

With a bit of luck I’ll turn out to be completely wrong, and Richard Hammond will be rightly hailed as the ‘new Johnny Ball.’ If I’m right… well, at least this time we have a back-up plan.

Lab Rats is due for transmission in January.

(There’s a hair more information about it in Media Guardian. Interestingly, they don’t name a series producer. If they’re due for January they must have someone on board, surely?)

[thanks to Declan for the original BBC link.]

Of Harry and Eric

Laithwaite's_Ball

Terrific interview with Harry White of Techniquest, about science centres and informal engagement in general. Harry’s one of the old-hand caring professionals, and it shows in his fulsome replies. There are interesting parallels between his approach to hands-on exhibits, and mine to video.

I also have a little to add about Laithwaite’s levitation demo, mentioned towards the end of the article and pictured left. The late Bill Coates, in the lower right corner of the picture, told me the story that they had, in fact, turned the thing on in rehearsals (which would have been earlier in the day, or possibly the day before recording). It worked superbly, the ball thrumming up to clear the induction coil by a good few inches, and starting to rotate gently as the eddy currents did their thing.

Witnesses were called, and a growing crowd added to the general excitement. After a period of congratulation and elation, thoughts turned to bringing the ball safely down again. This was a problem, since thoughts had not turned in this direction previously. The ball was light, but might conceivably have damaged either itself or the induction coil had the coil simply been turned off.

Also, by this time, the ball was both spinning at a considerable rate and heating up to dangerous temperatures. It was, after all, the secondary in an air-core transformer.

The eventual solution involved nothing more advanced than a bunch of BBC stagehands wearing gloves, but I still love the image of delighted physicists lurching from ‘It works!’ to ‘Oh bother!’

The ball hung for years from the rafters of the Royal Institution’s Prep Lab. I never saw the induction coil, but the ball did find other uses. Most recently, to my knowledge, I used it to cast modrock hemispheres for models of the gas giant planets and the sun for Malcolm Longair’s 1990 Christmas Lectures. At one point the ball fell off its little stand, putting a palm-sized dent in the otherwise-perfect shell. I’ve never forgiven myself.

I don’t know where the ball is now. I hope it hasn’t shared the fate of many other vintage props, of being chucked during renovation work.

(Via Paul and Flossie)

MySociety! MySociety! Rah! Rah! Rah!

Like everything else MySociety does, this rocks: crowdsourced timestamping to align captures of BBC Parliament video with the Hansard record already archived and searchable at TheyWorkForYou.com.

Genius.

I’ve matched 5 clips which at time of writing makes me the 25th most-prolific stamper today. WooT!

[thanks to Jo for the link]

[update: thanks to Ben Courtney for the link correction. Idiot operator error, apologies)