A would-be Gen Y worker speaks out

The Centre for Information Leadership at City University London has put forward its first challenge paper, which looks at whether information and business leaders are prepared for the entry of Generation Y into the workplace.
The paper, entitled "Responding to the Millennial Generation", looks at Generation Y in contrast to its predecessors and highlights the level of individuality and the entrepreneurial spirit of 'digital natives'.
IWR asked intern Jack Phillipps to take a look
As a member of Generation Y myself studying for a university degree and entering the workplace in a year's time I would say I can judge pretty well whether the paper has any validity or is talking utter rubbish. There are several things about this generation that make it completely different from those that have preceded it; the root of these differences is that millennials are the first generation that never been without a computer or a mobile phone to hand.
I myself could not imagine living without the internet, mobile phones and text messaging; they make our lives so much more convenient but while previous generations appreciate the difference between before and after, to Generation Y they have a permanence similar to that of the sun and the moon.
A study in the US found millenials were comfortable with using technology and found novel ways of using it not originally envisaged by the designers; this is Darwinism at its most contemporary. Some other findings were that there was more ethnic diversity, the tendency to sleep with their mobile phones under their pillows and despite a high proportion of unemployment there was confidence about finding a decent job in the future. Another discovery that will surprise no one was the preoccupation with social networking sites, the 21st century form of gossiping.
The white paper makes a number of observations, some valid and others I would disagree with:
• Apart from medicine, the law and the civil service businesses will not be able to give a young twenty something employment for life, it's just not feasible. So Generation Y has naturally adapted to this changing job environment and if they are to stay ahead of the game the larger employers must keep up or they will stagnate.
• No doubt generation Y's individuality will change the expectations they have in relation to the work-life balance; the older generations' ideas of a template for how to use technologies will eventually be outstripped by the millenials who will find other options when present ones bore them.
However there are a few points I would dispute:
• Generation Y needs support in going beyond the initial Google search and weighing evidence from authoritative sources; this claim seems to completely ignore a good number of universities which are making their courses increasingly relevant by showing how to adapt their courses to the job market. The weighing of evidence from authoritative sources is an essential part of my own university degree and I'm sure this cannot be particular to me and my circle of university friends.
• They prefer to deal with folksonomies and tend to rely on cognitive authority. Again, this claim can be viewed as weak because I know from personal experience that university academics spend hours of their time drumming into their students the danger of relying on unreliable sources, so that when we enter a search term into Google we should not select the first site on the list, usually Wikipedia, which academics hate for the fact that anyone and everyone deems themselves an expert in something or other.
This White Paper is an interesting piece which is particularly relevant at the moment with the number of university applicants increasing every year and the economic downturn threatening the job market. While I would say there are flaws in the argument put forward it is a good place to start.

Microsoft must realise that Internet is a different ball game

Microsoft's slipping browser market share is a telling statement that when it comes to the web, it is fast information exploration and easy content navigation that matters over brand name, technological grasp of the provider or its market dominance.
From January 2010, Microsoft started offering Windows users in Europe a choice among different web browsers, thus widening consumer choice for browsers. Its decision followed European Commission's "Statement of Objection" sent to the company in 2009.
EC's statement outlined concerns about Microsoft abusing its dominant position in the market by tying Internet Explorer to Windows PC operating system, the software giant has agreed to allow computer manufacturers and users the possibility to turn Internet Explorer off.
Fast forward five months and the browser survey by Net Applications, a US-based web apps and measurement company revealed that for the first time Microsoft's web browser application - Internet Explorer (IE) is rapidly losing market share, currently retaining less that 60% of the total browser market.
At its peak in 2003, Microsoft held as much as 95% of the market share. But it is not all thanks to the EC's anti-trust charges against Microsoft that turned the browser market upside down. IE was being dethroned since it peaked seven years ago owing to users' experience, information, experimentation and a quest for a better browser with more functions. It also lost popularity because of rapid adoption of mobile computing devices with each service provider offering their own IE tool. This includes Opera Mini for smartphones, Blackberry Browser and Apple's Safari for iPhone
As it stands today, Microsoft's Internet Explorer is at 59.95%, followed by Mozilla's Firefox at 24.59&, then Google's Chrome at 6.73%, Apple's Safari at 4.72% and Opera at 2.3%. IE is losing market share even in the UK but holds 70% of the market, according to research firm Nielsen.
User awareness of browsers have been on the rise for more than five years now where research shows that under 20s install a different web browser form IE even before exploring it. Users of Opera and Mozilla Firefox quote lack of capabilities, lack of speed, intuitiveness and performance on IE.
So where did Microsoft go wrong? Firstly it was playing catch up by introducing tab features and others. It missed out on the big open-source movement where professionals were ditching proprietary softwares and browsers for free, open source browsers.
Experts also point out that Microsoft kept IE tied down to operating system for far too long. As operating systems evolve slower than browsers, it crippled IE's ability to evolve faster. The browser was found to be unsecured by several users and there were more plugins released for Firefox browser. Other browsers scored over IE for better standard codings, speed, security and HTML5 support.
Just like other battles on the web world, the browser battle too might shift its axis once again. Until then, let's see what Microsoft's promising version 9 of IE has to offer.

Picking and choosing

You may remember at the beginning of April a row broke out over science and politics. This row was re-ignited today [22 April] when the UK Drug Policy Commission and the think-tank Demos released a research report saying it was time to rethink drug control laws. The Commission/Demos work will refocus attention on the resignations earlier this month of a number of experts from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. They quit in protest over the way that ministers ignored the scientific advice and instead were accused of playing politics by pledging to ban mepherdone and therefore could be seen to be 'acting tough' in the run-up to the election.
A couple of weeks later and drugs were forgotten as airports across Europe were shut because of the Icelandic volcanic ash cloud which drifted over the continent. This time British ministers were in trouble from airlines and opposition politicians who accused them of dithering over lifting the ban. UK airports remained closed for a day longer than others in Europe. Planes were flying again following the creation of new guidelines by the UK's Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) raising the threshold of ash density in the atmosphere at which flying is deemed safe from zero to 0.002 grams per meter cubed per hour. It said new data collected from test flights and additional analysis from manufacturers over the past few days had "helped to validate a new standard that is now being adopted across Europe."
But the advice received by government and its response to that advice has been questioned. The government says safety was paramount but it is now facing claims for compensation from an angry and already financially-weak airline industry.
Decisions over both mepherdone and volcanic ash were taken using information and political judgement, and both were subject to hard lobbying by self-interested parties. It seems politicians can expect to be damned when they do listen to scientific advice and damned when they ignore it. While scientists are fallible, perhaps we all need to recognise that listening to the information-based expert advice has to be the best route on all occasions.

Digital Economy Act is a far cry from Digital Britain vision

Chalking out legislation for the internet and safeguarding interests of the consumers, providers and other stakeholders on the web is a tricky business. Just as no one anticipated decades ago how the internet would unfold, it is difficult to formulate today, the legal framework for the internet.
Even as we continue to marvel at the potential of the internet and collaborative web tools for information, communication and day-to-day business, the government has passed the Digital Economy Bill into a law this month that will regulate the areas of digital media in the UK.
The Digital Economy Act has received the Royal Assent this week and will commence in June 2010. It aims at tackling issues such as copyright infringement, electronic publications, functions and powers of Ofcom and orphan works among others. But it fails to acknowledge that amid the web 2.0 revolution, consumers themselves have become distributors of information and it is increasingly difficult to distinguish between the state, the market and the users in the world of internet.
Among other unpopular measures, the act proposes strict rules for illegal file sharers such as a temporary suspension of internet connections for repeated copyright infringement following warnings from their ISPs (internet service providers). It also proposes giving the secretary of state power to update copyright law without parliamentary assent.
Separately, library expertss think proposed amendments to the orphan works Clause 42 (works with no known owner) pose one of the greatest barriers to mass digitisation of content by the UK's leading national institutions.
The Bill itself was accused of poor legislation and as posing a danger to the society by experts because it could have a significant impact for online activity that are currently poorly understood.
Critics called for more time for public debate and consideration over the issues raised in the Bill and for a more measured approach just as it was approved by the House of Lords a month ago.
We surely need a legal framework for digital activities and we surely need to safeguard business interests of those adversely affected by rampant piracy on the internet. But a hasty third reading of the Bill and enacting it as a law hurriedly before the general elections is dangerous and threatens to restrict the opportunities on the web.
The Act should uphold the principles stated in the Digital Britain report that promises digital inclusion, faster broadband, greater transparency, empowering citizens with internet access and most importantly power and right of information to all.
What we need is a law made judiciously, prudently and after carefully assessing and discussing the impact of the web. The last thing we need now is a regressive, bureaucratic and short-sighted law governing our web practices.
A legislation in the digital arena must follow a measured approach because if a decision backfires it will affect significantly not just what is at stake now but also what is at stake in the future.

China's information potential is too delicious to resist. Even for Google

Turns out that Google is now diverting Chinese users' search through Hong Kong is a telling statement of how lucrative the Chinese search industry is and how reluctant the internet giant is to close its business prospects here.
In the middle of January 2010, the internet giant said it was considering pulling its operations out of China after it alleged that it was a victim of a "sophisticated and targeted" cyber attack originating from the country.
At that time Google said on its blog that the cyber attack which targeted information on Chinese human rights activists, resulted in a loss of its intellectual property. And China responded saying foreign internet companies may do business there "according to the law".
However, immediately reacting to the alleged attack, Google threatened to leave Chinese market completely and experts said its competitors including Microsoft and China's local search giant Baidu.com are set to benefit from Google's back-out plan.
Perhaps Google imagined other American technology companies including Microsoft to follow suit but as that did not happen on a mass scale, Google has sought a perfectly legal way of diverting traffic to its servers in Hong Kong.
Its latest plan comes just days after advertisers wanted clarity on Google's business plans in China.
When Google launched in China in 2006, it agreed to abide by China's regulations and to operate a censored site. Besides the company abides by the rules in different countries within the EU too where it operates.
That's why Google's decision seems to be far from being a true stand against Chinese censorship but instead a smart and legal move to hook on to China's vast potential of internet users by adopting a middle ground. It demonstrates Google's aspiration of having its cake and eating it too. An information business decision one can only empathise with.
--
On a different note altogether, can't wait to see how Britons reacts to News Corporation's plan of erecting a pay-wall this June on the digital version of UK national daily The Times and sister publication The Sunday Times. Under this move, readers will have to pay £1 for a day's access and £2 for a week's access to Times newspaper online.

IWR is now on Twitter

You can follow Information World Review at Twitter.com/iwronline.
Follow us, update us and share information with us on every industry detail that fascinates you, surprises you or even leaves your head scratching for more information.

Twitter's ad plans bold but boring

It is no surprise that Twitter is considering to introduce advertising into its service. But why has it adopted the traditional model of advertising - an umbrella model affecting all of its half a million users?
In 2009, just three years since its launch, Twitter was valued at $1bn (£630m). Even before it had made any substantial revenue strategy, it was close to securing $100m funding from a consortium of investors. We knew advertising plans would soon follow.
The micro-blogging site has started addressing the issues that stopped it from accessing advertising revenue which is derived out of data on its site. The company's tweet said it is developing its own tools to provide features on the site that are currently provided by third party desktop clients.
Third party services include features such as geolocations- crucial to advertising and is now offered by service providers such as Tweetdeck, Seesmic Desktop and Echofon .
Twitter has decided to go down the Google way of displaying ads with its search results and not by incorporating them into actual feeds. This means for instance if you do a search on laptops, it would feature Sony or Dell deals ads. The adverts will follow general Twitter principle of 140 characters.
What is surprising is its choice of traditional advertising model. Before securing funding, in May last year, the site said banner advertising was not of interest. Later on, it said it was open to advertising.
While, it is a relief to know that the actual feeds would be free of ads as of now, it is likely that its investors could put further pressure on the site to generate more revenue through banners, user feed-based ads and even meaning-based behaviour-targeted ads. What worked for Google may not work for Twitter- people used Google primarily for search hence, its advertising on search was spot on.
It could have subjected advertising to specific product enquiry tweets. It could have accessed revenue from large businesses by allowing them to post their updates- for instance a Lufthansa tweet that a London-Frankfurt flight is delayed. Followers get their information and Lufthansa communicates effectively but pays a price. Or even a product inquiry tweet by a user asking whether Virgin is better or Sky? There can be a million ways rather than going down the Google lane.
The beauty of Twitter was its neutrality and the ability to post data real time using mobile devices. The popularity and use of the site was so overwhelming that the US has allowed army troops to use the feature and it is now used by corporations and businesses for corporate communications, e-learning through social web and even raising help for natural disasters.
Move towards traditional advertising may have come a bit too soon even before the service is fully explored and exploited. Some enterprises and sensitive groups are likely to back out while it is mulling advertising plans and Twitter for information's sake would be a thing of past.
-Archana Venkatraman