<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Digital Britain: the Cameron edition</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/03/digital-britain-the-cameron-edition/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/03/digital-britain-the-cameron-edition/</link>
	<description>Left Foot Forward is a political blog for progressives. We provide evidence-based analysis on British politics, news and policy developments.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 22:58:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ged Carroll</title>
		<link>http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/03/digital-britain-the-cameron-edition/comment-page-1/#comment-10607</link>
		<dc:creator>Ged Carroll</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Mar 2010 00:05:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.leftfootforward.org/?p=9762#comment-10607</guid>
		<description>Hi Richard,

Thanks for dropping by and reading the post. I didn&#039;t say that they did pledge open source, but their phrase open standard can be open to interpretation. In my wishlist would like to see OSS and creative commons in there. 

Re HTML part of the problem historically has been the lack adherence to standards by imposing &#039;super standards&#039; which is the reason why for instance banking used to be hard to impossible to do without Internet Explorer. 

I agree with your point on flexible training, however the challenge is also to ensure that this is of a sufficiently high standard. However I don&#039;t think that skills alone will solve the issues, a better strategy and architecture is required. 

At the moment most e-government related services provide an abomination of a user experience written in a lexicon that means nothing to the end user.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Richard,</p>
<p>Thanks for dropping by and reading the post. I didn&#8217;t say that they did pledge open source, but their phrase open standard can be open to interpretation. In my wishlist would like to see OSS and creative commons in there. </p>
<p>Re HTML part of the problem historically has been the lack adherence to standards by imposing &#8216;super standards&#8217; which is the reason why for instance banking used to be hard to impossible to do without Internet Explorer. </p>
<p>I agree with your point on flexible training, however the challenge is also to ensure that this is of a sufficiently high standard. However I don&#8217;t think that skills alone will solve the issues, a better strategy and architecture is required. </p>
<p>At the moment most e-government related services provide an abomination of a user experience written in a lexicon that means nothing to the end user.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard Blogger</title>
		<link>http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/03/digital-britain-the-cameron-edition/comment-page-1/#comment-10593</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard Blogger</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Mar 2010 19:48:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.leftfootforward.org/?p=9762#comment-10593</guid>
		<description>&quot;The manifesto talks about being committed to open standards in IT, but it would be good to get a better understanding of what this means as it can be a broad church. Ideally, this would include a commitment to open source software, creative commons licences and the support of platforms beyond Microsoft software.&quot;

I didn&#039;t interpret it like that. They &lt;i&gt;do not&lt;/i&gt; give a pledge to open source. The only give a pledge to &lt;i&gt;open standards&lt;/i&gt;. There is a huge difference. Open standards are the reason that people are reading this blog now, HTTP (the protocol to access the web page) and HTML (the markup language that formats the page) are all open standards. Basically All the Tories are saying is that they will make sure that government projects are implemented like projects in the commercial sector. Nothing new. 

As someone who has spent 20 years in software development, the section on government IT reads like it was written by someone who has just graduated in CS: it has the buzzwords but no bright innovations to indicate that they have any experience.

What is missing, and vital, is the commitment to more flexible training. We are far too wedded to the idea of doing 1, 2 or 3 year courses, when we really need 1 week, 2 week or 3 month courses. In most software projects the developers are highly skilled, but they need a top-up in a particular area, that is where short courses come in. 

Short courses are also needed for people to re-train. How many people can afford the fees for a 1 or 2 year course (or worse, taking the time off paying their mortgage)? Short courses will enable people to be re-skilled quickly.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;The manifesto talks about being committed to open standards in IT, but it would be good to get a better understanding of what this means as it can be a broad church. Ideally, this would include a commitment to open source software, creative commons licences and the support of platforms beyond Microsoft software.&#8221;</p>
<p>I didn&#8217;t interpret it like that. They <i>do not</i> give a pledge to open source. The only give a pledge to <i>open standards</i>. There is a huge difference. Open standards are the reason that people are reading this blog now, HTTP (the protocol to access the web page) and HTML (the markup language that formats the page) are all open standards. Basically All the Tories are saying is that they will make sure that government projects are implemented like projects in the commercial sector. Nothing new. </p>
<p>As someone who has spent 20 years in software development, the section on government IT reads like it was written by someone who has just graduated in CS: it has the buzzwords but no bright innovations to indicate that they have any experience.</p>
<p>What is missing, and vital, is the commitment to more flexible training. We are far too wedded to the idea of doing 1, 2 or 3 year courses, when we really need 1 week, 2 week or 3 month courses. In most software projects the developers are highly skilled, but they need a top-up in a particular area, that is where short courses come in. </p>
<p>Short courses are also needed for people to re-train. How many people can afford the fees for a 1 or 2 year course (or worse, taking the time off paying their mortgage)? Short courses will enable people to be re-skilled quickly.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: renaissance chambara &#124; Ged Carroll - Conservative technology manifesto analysed over at Left Foot Forward</title>
		<link>http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/03/digital-britain-the-cameron-edition/comment-page-1/#comment-10490</link>
		<dc:creator>renaissance chambara &#124; Ged Carroll - Conservative technology manifesto analysed over at Left Foot Forward</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 20:38:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.leftfootforward.org/?p=9762#comment-10490</guid>
		<description>[...] I spent a bit of this afternoon getting to grips with the just-published Conservative technology manifesto. This also meant having a read of James Dyson’s report Ingenious Britain: Making the UK the leading high tech exporter in Europe as this is referenced to, and borrowed from by the manifesto. The results of this quick download are over at Left Foot Forward. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] I spent a bit of this afternoon getting to grips with the just-published Conservative technology manifesto. This also meant having a read of James Dyson’s report Ingenious Britain: Making the UK the leading high tech exporter in Europe as this is referenced to, and borrowed from by the manifesto. The results of this quick download are over at Left Foot Forward. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ruder Finn UK</title>
		<link>http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/03/digital-britain-the-cameron-edition/comment-page-1/#comment-10458</link>
		<dc:creator>Ruder Finn UK</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:32:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.leftfootforward.org/?p=9762#comment-10458</guid>
		<description>&lt;span class=&quot;topsy_trackback_comment&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;topsy_twitter_username&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;topsy_trackback_content&quot;&gt;RT @r_c: RT @leftfootfwd: Digital Britain: the Cameron edition: http://bit.ly/dv6mZc - Analysis of Tory IT plans by @r_c of @ruderfinnuk&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span class="topsy_trackback_comment"><span class="topsy_twitter_username"><span class="topsy_trackback_content">RT @r_c: RT @leftfootfwd: Digital Britain: the Cameron edition: <a href="http://bit.ly/dv6mZc" rel="nofollow">http://bit.ly/dv6mZc</a> &#8211; Analysis of Tory IT plans by @r_c of @ruderfinnuk</span></span></span></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

