PictoBrowser and distributed embedding

PictoBrowser has a nearly nifty alternative Flash slideshow creature that lets you embed slideshows of things like Flickr sets in posts. The idea is cool (I’m suprised there aren’t more like it), although the particular slideshow doesn’t allow for any useful customization and is a bit awkward to navigate if you have a large set of images. The browser is fixed at 500 pixels wide, for example, that that’s just a hair wider than really sits gracefully in this blog layout. I can hack their code to make their Flash thing only 400 pixels wide, but that cuts off the rightmost 100 pixels of my pictures, which isn’t cool. So too big it will be, I guess.

Above is a slideshow of my 50 most “interesting” photos on Flickr, as determined by their mysterious algorithmic special sauce.

What’s potentially really cool about this, though, is their distribution mechanism. If you want to make a slide show of your own, you can just click the “INFO” link on the bottom right of the slide show, and right there you’ll be able to make and preview your own shows, and get the HTML necessary to embed them in your own stuff. You never need to visit their site or Flickr or anything else – it all happens right here.

One could argue that ease of embedding is an increasingly key feature of web toys. I’ll bet, for example, that it certainly hasn’t hurt YouTube that they make it so easy to embed videos in your own stuff instead of requiring people to come to their site. It’s mildly annoying that Flickr only provides you with embedding HTML for you own images, and not for other people’s, even when those people have made the images “bloggable” and/or provided CreativeCommons licenses for them.

Via a del.icio.us link from mitten.

Related posts

And maybe librarians can start pasting ads in books?

Christina's Strip Mall by t-squared

TechCrunch shares the disturbing news that some bright bulb has developed software that allows ISPs to insert ads into web pages as they pass through the ISPs servers. The user is then unable to tell the difference between ads that are “supposed” to be there (and presumably benefit the creator of the content they’re perusing) and ads inserted by their ISP without the knowledge or consent of the author(s) of the web pages in question. Quoting TechCrunch:

As a content creator I’m horrified that any page I create could be plastered with advertisements I don’t approve of as I’m sure many others will be as well. There are probably copyright issues as well in terms of hijacking original works for profit. We can only hope that this evil form of advertising does not spread beyond Texas.

This blog, for example, is free of ads so far, and is likely to remain so for the foreseeable future. We simply don’t get enough traffic to warrant such things. You, however, might be seeing it with ads that I know nothing about, which put no money in my pocket, and without you being aware that I didn’t put them there.

Ugly as this is, the extreme case is truly horrifying. Potentially every server that passes along your HTML packets could be inserting ads and otherwise altering or rearranging content. We could reach a point where the page viewed bears almost no resemblance to the page served, totally undermining any and all efforts to introduce some reasonable design principles to this intarweb thing. (Not to mention all the privacy and censorship issues that would naturally arise.)

As useful as I find blogs like TechCrunch and Pharyngula, for example, both are already horribly blighted by oceans of ads, many of which blink, move, wiggle, and jump in ways that make me want to beat someone publicly. And those ads are placed there by the people that run (or at least manage) those sites, who have a vested interest in not making their web pages so awful people just won’t go there. ISPs will have no such compunction because they’ll pollute everything equally, so their only real risk is annoying their users so much that they switch ISPs (not always an easy option) or simply stop going on-line (which would take a lot of annoying).

I suspect, however, that encryption could do a lot to solve this problem. I haven’t thought through the details, but I suspect that encrypting all web pages using something like https would make it impossible for ISPs to insert their ads because they’d no longer have access to the raw HTML. It would cause an increase in the amount of traffic on-line (encrypted information is almost always larger than its raw, unencrypted form), but I suspect this would be nothing compared to all the traffic generated by YouTube. And I’m betting nearly everyone would gladly wait a tiny fraction of a second longer for their page to download and decrypt if it kept it free of all this ISP spam. What would be nasty is if encryption schemes ran contrary to the powerful monitoring urges of governments; it would really suck to drown in spam just so Big Brother can keep an eye on what crazy music I’m listening to on-line.

No tag for this post.

Related posts