Sunday, February 27, 2005
Saturday, February 26, 2005
Thursday, February 24, 2005
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
First step: Go to /system/library/application support/syncservice and then find a file in /501 called SymbianConduitDefaults.plist. Drag this file to the desktop. Now delete all the folders contained in /system/library/application support/syncservice/. They will be called things like 501, 508 etc. Second Step: Open and then quit iSync. Third Step: Open the file you just dragged to the desktop. Open it in textedit if it asks you for an application. Delete the file's contents and replace it with the following:What on earth is all that about? What happened to plug and play? Or cradles and hotsync buttons? God knows how this guy figured out what needed to be done. Apple cannot go mainsteam until two things are sorted:- (i) easy interfacing with multiple supplier devices and (ii) proper rendering and interoperation of major websites (there are still too many,e.g. HSBC online banking, Parcelforce etc that don't work properly - the business case is not there for them). Tomorrow's task is going to be to follow the instructions above and see if I can make it work. I happen to know that getting a Moto V3 to sync, even to a PC is hard though - for whatever reason they decided not to support Outlook (!!?) and so you have to export all your data to a text CSV file, reformat the fields to map to Moto standards and then import again. Doing that the other day took 6 hours for a friend! I'm all for integration, but first I want interoperability and interconnectivity. No scratch that. Actually, I don't really care about integration. I'd like interop first, we can worry about photo ipods some other time.
kBTEmptyFolderIsOkayReally kBTFilteringDestinationFolderID F 126881400.11 kBTFilteringDestinationFolderName General kNSSyncConduitFilteringContactGroupMap kNSSyncDeviceID 00-0f-de-87-3d-56 kNSSyncDeviceName LoZ kNSSyncDeviceShouldSlowSyncCalendars kNSSyncDeviceShouldSlowSyncContacts kNSSyncDeviceUseCalendars kNSSyncDeviceUseContacts kSymbianConduitModelKey P910-1 kSymbianHasDeviceSynced
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
Thursday, February 17, 2005
21. While agencies were able to provide estimates of the recurrent costs of their websites, they used different methods to calculate these costs and included a range of different items. Agencies had not conducted activity based costing of their websites. This made it difficult to compare the costs of websites against each other. The major item in most agencies’ recurrent costs of their websites was salaries for the staff responsible for managing the website. IT cost information was limited, and, where such costs were provided, most were relatively small.
22. Websites in agencies at similar stages of Internet service delivery displayed wide variations in costs. However, it was not apparent whether these differences were related to the stage of website development and/or the size of the agency, or to other factors not identified. Further, there was insufficient comparable data to determine whether cost differences were related to degrees of website efficiency and effectiveness.23. Only one agency had conducted a cost-benefit analysis to determine whether the Internet was the most effective form of delivery for their online service. No agency had calculated an expected return on investment for providing the service. Despite having information on both costs and benefits, and having outlined this as one of the principles to be used in determining whether a particular service should be provided online, other agencies did not include a cost-benefit analysis in their business casesAnd then on monitoring success
26. Three agencies had developed performance indicators for their online services. This meant that half of the agencies had not identified how the success of the program would be measured, such as by meeting estimated targets or achieving reduced costs. As well, while agencies included information on various e-government activities related to a number of their programs in their annual reports, few had reported externally on any specific performance indicators for their websites or online services.
27. ANAO considered that some agencies would have difficulty in determining appropriate performance indicators for their websites, because some of the websites’ objectives or aims were very general or not clearly specified. ANAO noted, however, that agencies were already collecting much of the information required to develop adequate indicators to assess performance.
28. Despite including evaluation plans in their business cases, most agencies had not evaluated their website redevelopments or new online services, although most planned to. Further, agencies did not generally have an integrated monitoring and evaluation policy for their Internet service delivery.And they recommend
34. ANAO suggests that to improve their management of e-government, and their measurement of the efficiency and effectiveness of Internet service delivery, agencies:
All of the changes to bold text are mine. The report includes the comments from the various agencies audited and all agree the findings and the recommendations. I think that's the first time I've ever seen that with a public audit report. Someone once said to me that the NAO (the UK equivalent of the folks that did this report) know what their report will say within 2 weeks of starting their work but negotiating the wording takes a further 18 months, which is why reports are often published so long after the event being reviewed. The work on this audit was carried out from February to May 2004 and it appears to have been published on Feb 10th 2005. Maybe it's the same in Australia?
- establish coherent arrangements for management of their websites to further their more efficient use;
- develop internal policies and guidelines for the Internet and encourage agency staff to use them;
- quantify the benefits and costs of their websites;
- consider using AGIMO’s Demand and Value Assessment Methodology to assess websites and online service delivery;
- identify the audience for their website and online services, and consult potential users about their needs;
- assess demand for the delivery of services via the Internet, and specify targets for achievements against objectives; and
- compare the performance of their websites with that of other agencies or sites, to assist in assessing whether the website is efficient and effective.
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
Friday, February 11, 2005
They [analysts] point out that FireFox’s growth is so far ‘unsustainable’. Its features were designed more for individual users. Corporates need to think twice before using Firefox because it has repeatedly been targeted by worms and viruses. That is the reason why it cannot compete with the Internet Explorer. The analysts expect that Microsoft may consider retaliating with an upgrade, but that may depend on its upgrade plans for Windows besides the development of the much awaited Longhorn operating systemI must have missed all of those worms and viruses that have hit Firefox? Maybe I should switch right away to IE? What did I miss here? Is Earthtimes (the source of this) a Microsoft-funded newsletter? Doesn't seem likely? Just sloppy journalism?
Wednesday, February 09, 2005
Tuesday, February 08, 2005
The overload was an embarrassment - especially as it was the first tax deadline to be handled by the Inland Revenue's new IT contractor, Capgemini, which took over last July.
But it was also a triumph. Although official figures are not yet available, the Inland Revenue was confident the number of people filing their returns electronically would exceed the record 1.1m achieved in 2002-03.
Impossible to argue with both of those points. Embarrassing to fall so painfully at the final hurdle, but impressive that growth should be reported as strong. Full disclosure here: I worked hard on the original implementation of SA online for the IR early in 2000 and 2001 - when the press was nothing but staggeringly negative. Mike goes on (here's the PR for me):
More significant, says Alan Mather, former head of the Cabinet Office e-delivery unit, the large number of last-minute online submissions shows that people are beginning to trust government on the web. However, this trust will not last long if government services continue to be overwhelmed byand
Resilience is expensive, but Mather says there is no alternative if people are to turn en masse to e-government. "If any of this stuff is going to make a difference, it needs to be there all the time, accessible in an instant and comprehensive with its feedback. Otherwise, why would anyone be daft enough to make the switch?"And a bit more balance, tinged with pointed humour:
Such fiascos demanded a radical solution. Government IT chiefs came up with one - henceforth, public-facing web services would be set up with no publicity. This is one reason why almost no one knows you can pay car tax online; another is the continuing delay to the MOT test database, due to go live in November.And notes that there is much to learn - but it's not as if there is no-one to learn from:
Other sites, as the Inland Revenue has discovered, will have to deal with peaks of demand. Commercial organisations have painfully discovered ways of handling such loads, for example stripping out graphics at busy times and hosting sites at shared service centres that can cope with peaks.He's right. And government has been wrong. Hiding your service so that no-one can find it is no solution. If it works with 100 people, there's no guarantee that it will work with 1,000 or 10,000 - so testing it upfront is essential (and there are all sorts of tests that need to be done). Then, if you've tested it, go for the colourful PR launch. One of the problems with finding online services in the UK remains the need to sift through 1000s of websites. Google doesn't help you find transactions so easily, it doesn't tell you whether your local council lets you handle your council tax online - it gets you to the site. You then have to dig through the interminable layers of navigation to find what it is that you need - only to find (often) that you can't do what you want. So here I go again - fewer sites, designed to handle more load, with better capability, far better thinking around user need and delivered in partnership with intermediaries and third parties so that there is a single definitive source. Easy? I wish. Important? Yes. Fixing world poverty important? Depends on your point of view - but some things you can wish for for a long time and get nothing, others you can take steps towards making happen!