Word processing accessible by everyone

Google Docs is an online productivity suite offering a word processor, spreadsheet and presentation application (Google, 2010). Despite being a web application, its functionality and user interface places it in direct competition with traditional desktop applications such as Microsoft Word and iWork.

Docs boasts many advantages over its desktop counterparts. Documents:

• are easily shared, instantly updated and can be accessed by multiple people simultaneously,
• offer added functionality through application programming interfaces such as Google Lookup and
• are backed up on many servers to ensure they are not lost.

To encourage collaboration and ease of access, all documents are searchable and uniquely addressable through a URL. Furthermore, Google Docs ensures files can be accessed from any location with an internet connection, without the need to install an application (Strickland, n.d.).

Web browsers are responsible for rendering Docs’ user interface (UI) and a majority of the heavy processing is done server-side. Most popular web browsers are supported (see below) and when cross-referenced with browser usage statistics we find that 88.3% of the world’s browsers can use Docs. HTML and Javascript is used to render the UI client-side. AJAX script creates regular links to the server instantly updating the document when it is edited (Strickland, n.d.).

Browsers Supported by Docs

	Windows XP / NT	Windows Vista	Linux (Ubuntu)	MAC OSX 10.4 +	Mac OSX 10.3.9 and below*
Google Chrome	X	X
Safari 3				X	X
Safari 4				X	X
Internet Explorer 7	X	X
Internet Explorer 8	X	X
Firefox 3.0	X	X	X	X

(Google, 2010)

Browser Usage

– These statistics are approximate. Statistics vary source to source.

2010	IE8	IE7	IE6	Firefox	Chrome	Safari	Opera
February	14.7%	11.0%	9.6%	46.5%	11.6%	3.8%	2.1%

(W3, 2010)

Docs is subject to limitations common amongst rich internet applications (RIAs). Browser, broadband speed and reliability limitations means Docs can be slower to access data and respond to user input when compared to desktop applications. File storage is limited by the allowance offered by Google (currently 1gb free). Furthermore, security concerns are often raised surrounding documents being stored online. Finally, Docs functionality is limited compared to the likes of MS Word (Strickland, n.d.).

ThinkFree is a word processer, similar to Docs. However, before using the RIA users download a java applet, this allows the application to offer greater functionality. This may be an avenue Google may need to take in the future to compete with the functionality of desktop applications (Gottipati, 2007).

Google docs and ThinkFree represent only a couple of RIAs currently on the market, with many more available or in development. Compliance with HTML5 standards will require browsers to perform tasks traditionally performed by operating systems and RIAs may replace a majority of desktop applications. This shift will see these services (applications) offer consistent interfaces and functionality, to everyone, anywhere, at anytime without the need for high powered processors or installation.

With the global movement towards RIAs is there any applications that won’t work as an RIA?

References:

Google. (2010). Welcome to Google Docs.

Retrieved 25 March, 2010 from https://www.docs.google.com/

Google. (2010). System Requirements.

Retrieved 25 March, 2010 from http://docs.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=37560

Gottipati, H. (2007). Is Java more effiecient than AJAX for advanced web apps.

Retrieved 25 March, 2010 from

http://www.oreillynet.com/onjava/blog/2007/01/is_java_more_efficient_than_aj.html

Strickland. (n.d.). How Google Docs Works.

Retrieved 25 March, 2010 from http://communication.howstuffworks.com/google-docs.htm

W3 Schools. (2010). Browser Statistics.

Retrieved 25 March, 2010 from http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

Wikipedia. (2010). Google Docs.

Retrieved 25 March, 2010 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_docs

Impact of the Google Phone Translator

Google is developing technology that will be able to translate languages around the world in real time. These technologies will make a big difference in every industry and be another leap towards globalization. Google expects to have it built within two years.

How does it work?

Google is combining their automatic system for translating text on computers (which is already being used) with their voice recognition systems found in their phone apps. Like a professional human interpreter that phone would analyze an entire phrase before translating it and providing its synthetic output.

Who will it affect?

Everyone!

Business, education and health executives and professionals will be able to communicate in their native language and easily work towards joint goals.

With the reduction in communication barriers people around the world will be able to communicate socially, even share jokes. The question has been raised whether this would help global relations or worsen them.

Kit Eaton has suggested that as if the device became ubiquitous few people would learn foreign languages. This could have a negative impact on global relations because the role that language has in connecting us to our world and shaping our how each of us think. He goes on to suggest that learning a foreign language helps us to understand a culture’s mindset. I can relate to this because when I was travelling I met some French men who struggled to communicate in English because they felt that what they were trying to say couldn’t be communicated in English. Did this mean they were thinking something that an English speak wouldn’t even think of because our language has never required us to think in this way?

It may also be important people heed the warning not to become dependent on such a device because

the consequences of mis-translation could be brutal

and I doubt the phone is able to consider customary discretions.

Which other technologies would this enable?

If such technology is successful it would not be to long before a hearing aide type product was released which could act as a personal translator for business men and travellers.

Below is an interesting article I read by a reporter who has suggested that such a product could greatly affect they way print media writes. She is concerned the art she works in could be replaced by a science.

The impact on newspapers of Google’s dream phone goes far beyond the ability of a reporter to interview almost anyone. The key issue for journalists is that the technology behind the translation software analyzes phrases, not words.
While that is much more like what the human mind does, it poses some challenges similar to those Google gave us by becoming the dominant search engine. Who of us hasn’t struggled with SEO – search engine optimization. Consider the possibility of PTO – phrase translation optimization.
Wordsmithing is near and dear to most newspaper (print or digital) journalists. Turning a phrase, however, could short-circuit your attempts at global access if it results in bewildering banter up with which no editor would tolerate.
Solution: Write for the machine. Polite jargon: Phrase translation optimisation.