Population Statistic: Read. React. Repeat.
Friday, June 12, 2021

By way of a eulogy for today’s official death of analog-signal television in the U.S., here’s a sight that we’ll presumably not see again: The dreaded white-noise TV screen.

Who can hear and see that hateful electronic crackling and not cringe? As bad as the skull-piercing morning alarm clock. It triggers a reflex action in me: I have to shut it down ASAP.

The blue screen of death that now signifies digital TV outage just doesn’t inspire the same raw emotion. It just sits there, blithely displaying a lack of activity. At least the old small-screen snowstorm had activity to it, coming at you like some doomsday beast, or the entryway to the gates of hell — “hell” being a protracted timespan with (gasp) nothing to watch.

by Costa Tsiokos, Fri 06/12/2021 01:34:26 PM
Category: TV, Tech
| Permalink | Trackback | Feedback


I’ve hardly got the inside track on the latest new media nomenclature, so maybe I’m wrong about this. Still, I asked it on Twitter and I’ll ask it here again:

just me, or has “content managment system” definition gotten so loose that something like MS Word can be considered a CMS?

I’m exaggerating about Word, but not by much. Lately, during confabs with people of varying levels of tech-savviness, I’ve come across some pretty wide interpretation of just what is, and isn’t, a content management system. That’s to be expected, given the term’s built-in nebulousness:

The term “content management” takes the prize for vacuity. “Content” means “some sort of information”, and “management” in this context means “doing something with it”. So a “content management system” is a system for doing something to some sort of information. That description fits most programs. In most cases, that term really refers to a system for updating pages on a website. For that, we recommend the term “website revision system” (WRS).

“Website revision system” is hopelessly technospeak, so forget that. And I don’t know that a CMS has to be limited to Web publishing — what about private intranets and even group-produced offline publications?

As it is, most blogging software is grouped under the CMS umbrella. That used to be wince-worthy among IT folks, mainly because early blogware didn’t include a hierarchical user/approval structure, which they consider to be the heart of the “management” part. Now, though, just about any installable blogging software — WordPress, Movable Type, etc. — has this capability baked in. So for all practical purposes, robust blogging software these days does, indeed, qualify as CMS.

But other things floating around as content management are more of a stretch. For instance, Brainshark is a popular corporate communications tool, basically for delivering gussied-up Powerpoint presentations in a Web-trackable method. It’s certainly set up for collaborative work. But in no way is it a CMS. I don’t think Brainshark touts itself as such; but somehow, in some business circles, it’s been lumped into the CMS pile.

I have a feeling that as the term gains traction, it’ll be mis-applied to all manner of programs and services. Eventually it’ll lose meaning altogether. I guess at that point, we’ll be left to fend for ourselves, in a dis-content mis-management non-system…

by Costa Tsiokos, Fri 06/12/2021 10:53:10 AM
Category: Business, Internet, Tech
| Permalink | Trackback | Feedback (2)