New medium
Sean Dodson's article on interactive TV (Online, April 5) was interesting and informative, but I have a few comments that might be useful to your readers.
The article points out that there is much confusion on what interactive TV actually is. I totally agree that iTV would not be a compelling proposition if reduced to a cut-down version of the web. Reaching the masses with a purged and edited internet is definitely not what iTV is about, although you might be forgiven for thinking so in the current marketplace.
The consideration that internet browsing from a couch is not easy is also valid: the TV medium is not ideal for hypertext (which is what the world wide web is delivering at the moment). What people want from TV is far more compelling and entertaining content that can be delivered through hypertext.
I believe that iTV should be very different then a subset of the web or even an unlikely mirror of it, but rather a whole new way to access and experience rich-media content, services and information for a very wide audience.
Content providers and platform operators will have to think of what viewers and users really want from this technology, rather then offering a poorly repackaged version of what exists on other media.
For the user, the TV in iTV is far more important then the i. The company I work for - which was mentioned in the article as an indicator of the bad health of the industry - has been aware of this for some time, and has acquired and built specialist expertise in both TV and iTV. This, incidentally, is an area of growth and investment, not affected at all by the recent redundancies - in fact, quite the contrary.
Finally, I do not believe that iTV will spell the end of an era where users can go where they want. On the contrary, I see the future of interactive media, all platforms considered, as a place where diversity of purpose, interest and behaviour will be not only possible, but considerably more empowered then in the current media space.
Federico Gaggio
federico.gaggio@razorfish.co.uk
Sold on iTV
Sean Dodson is right, I guess, to suggest that the verdict on interactive TV is still out.
As someone who has relied on the net for more years than I care to admit, I have been pleasantly surprised by the Telewest active digital system. News, entertainment, shopping, etc, are all there, with new services seemingly added each time I have a look at the system.
The thing that strikes me most is that many of the e-commerce/e-shopping services that I use regularly on the web are probably accessed more easily on interactive TV. While, for the moment at least, research-type web work will certainly remain the preserve of the computer/web axis, I can see myself using interactive TV to book holidays and travel and to buy electrical goods.
Although only a few months old, the service is clearly reliable and useful.
Andy Howell
Net needs
"The best websites are constantly evolving, with new content being added to keep readers coming back for more."
Why is this still held to be such a truism in the world of the web?
I only want the websites I read to be constantly changing if that's the point of the site. I want websites to be appropriate to their purpose. So if that means nothing ever changes on the site from the day it first goes live then great! I like http://bahn. hafas.de because it does exactly what it has always done (deliver European train timetables) in the same way for the last five years. Fantastic!
People come back to websites for more because they get something they want. I was once working as an account handler for what was a well-known web development company creating a website for a well-known insurance company. Part of the proposal (which included online quotations that, at the time, could not be processed online and involved people, photocopying and the Royal Mail) was to provide some games to make people come back to the site. Eh? If I want an insurance quote, I want an insurance quote. If it's better than the competition I might use them again if they do other kinds of cover, otherwise I wouldn't go back to the site for another year. If I wanted to play a game then I'd probably just get out the PlayStation.
Ruth Gates
No alternative
Richard Hill (Feedback, April 5) proposed Napigator as the holy grail for those bereft of Napster. Alas it seems someone on high is aware of this, and whenever I try to connect with one of the Napigator servers, I get the message: "The server is full - 1000 connections". As for other palliatives to Napster withdrawal symptoms, winMX often does not connect at all , and Gnutella/ Bearshare is said to be virus-bound. Indeed, when I attempted to run it on my PC, I observed some very strange happenings.
So it would seem Napster is irreplaceable ... unless, of course, you know better.
Barry Shaw
Refund rights Alan Waters (Feedback, April 5) has found that Apple OS X doesn't give proper internet access, and he wants his money back, which is sensible. But then he writes: "Strictly speaking, only unopened software can be returned and refunded", which is nonsense. If Mr Waters bought a program which doesn't work properly, he's entitled to his money back - and compensation for any quantifiable loss as a result. The vendor cannot impose arbitrary conditions (eg, that the pack must not have been opened). Software is no different from any other consumer product. If it doesn't do what it's supposed to do, you can demand a refund and compensation. And if the vendors refuse, sue them in the county court!
Dermod Quirke
