A school information feeding system is defined as the A school information feeding system is needed to maintain the high efficiency for staff in school to renew their information on the Internet regularly so as to save time for enhancing working efficiency and acts as a bridge between school and parents who are not often able to come to school and want to know what their children do and behave in school. Besides, people who are interested in our school can browse our website to seek more information. As school is a platform for students to perform themselves, we need to keep in touch to enhance their sense of belongings towards school. Internet is undoubtedly one of the best ways, since they are more likely to surf Internet during their leisure time. And, more importantly, the system is useful for students to check the events and notification of school in case of losing the information and cannot get it from school. We hope that the system not only can enhance the sense of belongings to them but also learn how to DIY (Do It Yourself) There is a great deal information needing to be renewed. We classify them as below: 1. Notifications 2. Extra-curricular activities schedule 3. Open events student can take part in 4. News of school 5. Homework checking list of each class 6. Photos of past events 7. 8. 9. 10. Up till now, + How can users get the information they want effectively? There are different ways of presenting the information commonly by schools nowadays. Type 1 : Sorting the information according to different user types. For instance, teachers, parents & pupils. Type 2: Sorting the information according to Type 3: Sorting the information according to the renewing date

Type 4: Searching The Internet technology required to make those mechanisms practical A: B: hyperlink C: user-login system D: dynamic web page E: database library F: trendy file format on the Internet G: search of information H: list and table I: tagging A: first impression a, b, Style Sheet Rollover c, Rollover d, e, Global/top-level/persistent/primary navigation GUI Jakob Nielsen users look straight at the content and ignore the navigation areas

CSS o o Flash o o o o o o o Flash HTML Flash Flashplayer sitemap script ?

Javascript CGI

o o o CSS XML Flash

Icon o o o o o Flash alt table CSS

o o o

o o o Flash Web Design from Scratch The Brain's strengths Matching shapes Seeing patterns Focusing on the important; ignoring the unimportant High-speed problem solving

Tab-stop navigation Logo

Pull-Down Menu Breadcrumb trail

Menu-tree navigation

Index navigation Yahoo

Search Google ASK.com

Experience Design

navigation

navigation Flash

browser search engine search engine search ALT not sharp enough to catch usersattention browser A) Image map navigation

takes a long time to find the hyperlink search engine * navigationB)

image map search engine Flash

Flash Player

B hyperlink

HyperlinkFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents[hide]

1 Embedded link

1.1 Hot area

2 Inline link 3 Random accessed 4 Hardware accessed 5 Hyperlinks in various technologies

5.1 Hyperlinks in HTML 5.2 XLink: Hyperlinks in XML 5.3 Hyperlinks in other technologies

6 How hyperlinks work in HTML

6.1 Link behavior in web browsers

7 History of the hyperlink 8 Legal issues 9 Cultural customs/beliefs 10 See also 11 References 12 External links

A hyperlink, is a reference or navigation element in a document to another section of the same document or to another document that may be on a (different) website.

An embedded link is a link embedded in an object such as hyper text or a hot area. Example: The first word of this sentence is an example of an embedded link. out the need for embedding the content. The remote content may be accessed with or without the user selecting the link. Inline links may display specific parts of the content (e.g. thumbnail, low resolution preview, cropped sections, magnified sections, description text, etc.) and access other parts or the full content when needed, as is the case with print publishing software. This allows for smaller file sizes and quicker response to changes when the full linked content is not needed, as is the case when rearranging a page layout. [edit]

Hyperlinks in various technologiesHyperlinks in HTML

[edit]

Links are specified in HTML using the (anchor) elements. [edit]

Hyperlinks in other technologies

Hyperlinks are used in e-mails, Text editors, PDF documents, word processing documents, spreadsheets, Apple's HyperCard and many other places. [edit]

How hyperlinks work in HTML

A link has two ends, called anchors, and a direction. The link starts at the source anchor and points to the destination anchor. A link from one domain to another is said to be outbound from its source anchor and inbound to its target. The most common destination anchor is a URL used in the World Wide Web. This can refer to a document, e.g. a webpage, or other

resource, or to a position in a webpage. The latter is achieved by means of a HTML element with a "name" or "id" attribute at that position of the HTML document. The URL of the position is the URL of the webpage with "#attribute name" appended this is a fragment identifier. [edit]

Link behavior in web browsers

A web browser usually displays a hyperlink in some distinguishing way, e.g. in a different colour, font or style. The behaviour and style of links can be specified using the Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) language. The HTML code contains some or all of the five main characteristics of a link:

link destination ("href" pointing to a URL) link label link title link target link class or link id

It uses the HTML element "a" with the attribute "href" (HREF is an acronym for Hypertext REFerence) and optionally also the attributes "title", "target", and "class" or "id":link label

Example: To embed a link into a Page, blogpost, or comment, it may take this form:Wikipedia

Thus, the complex link string is reduced to, [Wikipedia]. This contributes to a clean, easy to read text or document. When the cursor hovers over a link, depending on the browser and/or graphical user interface, some informative text about the link can be shown:

It pops up, not in a regular window, but in a special hover box, which disappears when the cursor is moved away (sometimes it disappears anyway after a few seconds, and reappears when the cursor is moved away and back). Mozilla Firefox, IE, Opera, and many other web browsers all shows the URL. In addition, the URL is commonly shown in the status bar.

Normally, a link will open in the current frame or window, but sites that use frames and multiple windows for navigation can add a special "target" attribute to specify where the link will be loaded. Windows can be named upon creation, and that identifier can be used to refer to it later in the browsing session. If no current window exists with that name, a new window will be created using the ID. Creation of new windows is probably the most common use of the "target" attribute. In order to prevent accidental reuse of a window, the special window names "_blank" and "_new" are usually available, and will always cause a new window to be created. It is especially common to see this type of link when one large website links to an external page. The intention in that case is to ensure that the person browsing is aware that there is no endorsement of the site being linked to by the site that was linked from. However, the attribute is sometimes overused and can sometimes cause many windows to be created even while browsing a single site.

Another special page name is "_top", which causes any frames in the current window to be cleared away so that browsing can continue in the full window. Previous page next page IE Hyperlink

()

Hyper Text

( )

C: user-login system

Authorization Database Security Administrator Confidentiality IntegrityAvailability Discretionary Access Control DAC Mandatory Access Control MAC Role-based Access Control RBAC Object Sandhu Role-based Access Control RBACRBAC PolicySecurity Administrator

Sandhu RBAC UserRoleAuthorizationSession * Link AttributeUser Role Activation Session 2007 3 19 eClasshttp://eclass.scs.edu.hk/ ( 238E) p + s2003288 p2003288

D: dynamic web page

HTML PHP

DHTML DHTML DHTML DHTML DHTML HTML HTML DHTML DHTML HTML 4.0 HTML 4.0 HTML 4.0 script CSS CSSCascading Style Sheets W3C World Wide Web Consortium HTML HTML Script CSS HTML CSS Script DHTML HTML CSS HTML CSS 1.0 2.0 CSS 1.0 4.0 IE Netscape CSS 2.0 IE 5 4.0 IE Netscape script window.navigator Microsoft Netscape W3C Document Object Model; DOM Script script DHTML DHTML script Script Netscape script JavaScript; IE JavaScript JScript VBScript HTML Script IE Netscape JavaScript Script DHTML HTML

CSS Script DHTML

DHTML = HTML + + CSS + Script DHTML DHTML CSS HTML Script CSS Script CSS HTML XY CSS Z DHTML 4.0 IE Netscape W3C IE Netscape IE DHTML Script Script IE CSS Script Web Web IE Data Binding

We b IE5 DHTML W3C IE5 IE Web IE5 HTML HTML HTML Application; HTA HTML HTML HTML HTML DHTML

E: database library Web Web IE Data Binding

F: trendy file format on the Internet 1.pdf

MS Office Word Word Excel PowerPoint Notebook

MS Office Word

DOS Windows Arial Unicode MS Arial Unicode MS

Office Office Office LinuxMacOS

PostScript Adobe Acrobat Portable Document Format, PDF

DynaDoc *.WDL Google

PDF ----PDFCreator

PDF Windows/Linux/MacOS

Adobe Acrobat PDF PDF PDFCreator PDF ReDirect CutePDF Writer PrimoPDF

PDF

PDF PDF PDF

PDF

PDF HTML

PDF

office PDF

E-mail

MIME

.bmp

image/bmp

Windows

Microsoft Windows

.iff .ilbm

?

Interchange file format / Interleave bitmap

Amiga ILBM IFF

.tiff, .tif

image/tiff

.png

image/png

GIF GIF

.gif

image/gif

256

.jpeg .jpg

image/jpeg

.mng

video/x-mng Multiple-image Network Graphics

PNG JPEG GIF GIF

.xpm

image/x-xpm

UNIX X Windows System ASCII

.psd

?

Photoshop

Photoshop

.psp

?

Paint Shop Pro

Paint Shop Pro Photoshop .psd

.xcf

?

eXperimental Computing Facility

GIMP ImageMagick

.pcx

image/pcx

PCX ZSoft Paint

RLE, Run-Length Encode 1 8 24

.ppm

?

Portable Pixmap Format

?

?

OpenEXR

high dynamic range imaging Industrial Light and Magic

[]

MIME

.ps

application/postscript

PostScript

Adobe Postscript stackbased

.eps

?

Encapsulated PostScript

PostScript

.pdf

application/pdf

PostScript Adobe Acrobat Reader Adobe eBook Reader

.ai

application/illustrator

Adobe Illustrator Adobe Illustrator Document

.fh

?

Macromedia Freehand Document

Macromedia Freehand

.swf

application/x-shockwave-flash Flash

Flash

SWF SWF Macromedia Flash

.fla

?

Flash Source File

Shockwave Flash Macromedia Flash

.svg

image/svg+xml

Scalable Vector XML Graphics World Wide Web Consortium

.wmf

image/x-wmf

Windows

.dxf

image/vnd.dxf

ASCII Drawing Interchange

CAD ASCII

.cgm

image/cgm

ISO 1990 (:svg)

JPEG Joint Photographic Experts Group JPEG JPEG jpg jpe JPEG JPEG GIF JPEG JPEG JPEG JPEG 85%

2.audio MP3 MP3 Motion Picture Experts Groups layer 3 WAV Windows CD WAV 10MB MP3 11 1 4 44 MB MP3 4 4 MB 650MB 600 MP3 MP3 CD 10 CD MP3

AVI: avi Microsoft audio video interdynamicAVI 10 V2.0 1996 AVI AVI *.avi

MPEG :MPEG(Moving Picture Experts Group) MPEG-4 Layer()1(mux) 14(mpg) 15(avc) MPEG MPEG 3GP 3G :dat(MPEG-2 VCD) vob(MPEG-4 DVD) mpg/mpeg 3gp/3g2

Matroska 16 Matroska Media Matroska MPEG mkv

Real Video Real Media(RM) RealNetworks Real Video Real Audio

RM, RMVB rm/rmvb QuickTime Movie QuickTime 1998 2 11 , IS0 QuickTime MPEG-4 QT mov Ogg Media OGMOgg Media File OGM

WMVWindows Media Video ASFAdvanced Systems Format ASF WMV :wmv/asfwmvhd MOD JVC

G. search of information

H: list and table I: tagging (tags) Flickr wedding peter taipei 150 Tagging 5/27/2006 9:57 pm Blogger blogspot.com WordPress blog tagging WordPress category sidebar blogs blog sidebar tagging Web Web 1.0 HTML Google AltaVista

Google Google Google Web 2.0 tagging tagging Web 2.0 Flickr del.cio.usTagging folksonomy folk Taxonomy Flickr del.cio.us blog Technorati tags Flickr Buzznet WordPressTypePad tagging blog RSS/Atom feeds blogs HTML Technorati Amazon video YouTube tagging Yahoo David Filo Web Netscape DMOZ (Open Directory Project) Web taxonomy Web 2.0 Web 1.0 tagging tagging Web 2.0 Google requests Google Web 2.0 soundex Google J2EE Sun, BEA, IBM

clustering [] .NET Microsoft, Windows, COM Google Ross Mayfield (Flickr, Technorati) Tagging BEA BEAWorld Graffiti tagging Tagging Web 2.0 blog wiki Tagging Web 2.0

FolksonomyFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaIt has been suggested that this article or section be merged with Collaborative tagging. (Discuss) Some statements in this article may be misleading.Please help clarify this article. Suggestions may be on the talk page.

Folksonomy (also known as collaborative tagging , social classification, social indexing, social tagging, and other names) is the practice and method of collaboratively creating and managing tags to annotate and categorize content. In contrast to traditional subject indexing, metadata is not only generated by experts but also by creators and consumers of the content. Usually, freely chosen keywords are used instead of a controlled vocabulary.[1] Folksonomies became popular on the Web around 2004 with social software applications such as social bookmarking or annotating photographs. Websites that support tagging and the principle of folksonomy are referred to in the context of Web 2.0 because participation

is very easy and tagging data is used in new ways to find information. For example, tag clouds are frequently used to visualize the most used tags of a folksonomy. The term folksonomy is also used to denote only the set of tags that are created in social tagging. Typically, folksonomies are Internet-based, although they are also used in other contexts. Folksonomic tagging is intended to make a body of information increasingly easy to search, discover, and navigate over time. A well-developed folksonomy is ideally accessible as a shared vocabulary that is both originated by, and familiar to, its primary users. Two widely cited examples of websites using folksonomic tagging are Flickr and del.icio.us, although it has been suggested that Flickr is not a good example of folksonomy.[2] See the external links below for numerous examples. As folksonomies develop in Internet-mediated social environments, users can (generally) discover who created a given folksonomy tag, and see the other tags that this person created. In this way, folksonomy users often discover the tag sets of another user who tends to interpret and tag content in a way that makes sense to them. The result is often an immediate and rewarding gain in the user's capacity to find related content (a practice known as "pivot browsing"). Part of the appeal of folksonomy is its inherent subversiveness: when faced with the choice of the search tools that Web sites provide, folksonomies can be seen as a rejection of the search engine status quo in favor of tools that are created by the community. Folksonomy creation and searching tools are not part of the underlying World Wide Web protocols. Folksonomies arise in Web-based communities where provisions are made at the site level for creating and using tags. These communities are established to enable Web users to label and share user-generated content, such as photographs, or to collaboratively label existing content, such as Web sites, books, works in the scientific and scholarly literatures, and blog entries.Contents

[hide]

1 Practical evaluation

2 Origin

3 Folksonomy and the Semantic Web

4 In the enterprise

5 Folksonomy and top-down taxonomies

5.1 Compromise with top-down taxonomies

6 Notes and references

7 See also

8 External links

[edit]

Practical evaluation

Folksonomy is criticized because its lack of terminological control causes it to be more likely to produce unreliable and inconsistent results. If tags are freely chosen (instead of taken from a given vocabulary), synonyms (multiple tags for the same concept), homonymy (same tag used with different meaning), and polysemy (same tag with multiple related meanings) are likely to arise, thus lowering the efficiency of content indexing and searching.[3] Other reasons for inaccurate or irrelevant tags (also called meta noise) are the lack of stemming (normalization of word inflections) and the heterogeneity of users and contexts. For the purposes of workflow, metadata tags need to be defined in a formal way at the time of scripting or programming. If tags are informally defined, continually changing, and ungoverned, then it will be impossible to

use the metadata so constructed to automate workflow and business process. Idiosyncratic folksonomic classification, although considered beneficial by some, is viewed by others as a distinct limitation. People with similar methods of classifying things may act to reinforce each other's biases and pre-existing viewpoints. Folksonomies are routinely generated by people who may have spent a great deal of time interacting with the content they tag. This level of interaction may impair objectivity or perspective to properly describe content in relation to items they are not as familiar with or know nothing about. For example, items tagged as "Web 2.0" represent a dizzying array of seemingly inconsistent and contradictory resources.[4] The lack of a hierarchical or systematic structure for the tagging system makes the terms relevant to what they are describing, but often fails to show their relevancy or relationship to other objects of the same or similar type. [edit]

Origin

The term folksonomy is generally attributed to Thomas Vander Wal.[5] It is a portmanteau of the words folk (or folks) and taxonomy that specifically refers to subject indexing systems created within Internet communities. Folksonomy has little to do with taxonomythe latter refers to an ontological, hierarchical way of categorizing, while folksonomy establishes categories (each tag is a category) that are theoretically "equal" to each other (i.e., there is no hierarchy, or parent-child relation between different tags). The "-nomy" part, which both terms share, comes from the greek "nomia" and means "management". Therefore folksonomy could be loosely translated as "peoples management". Early attempts and experiments include the World Wide Web Consortium's Annotea project with user-generated tags in 2002.[6] According to Vander Wal, a folksonomy is "tagging that works". Folksonomy should be furthermore distinguished from folk taxonomy, a cultural practice that has been widely documented in anthropological work.

Folk taxonomies are culturally supplied, intergenerationally transmitted, and relatively stable classification systems that people in a given culture use to make sense of the entire world around them (not just the Internet).[7] [edit]

Folksonomy and the Semantic Web

Folksonomy may hold the key to developing a Semantic Web, in which every Web page contains machine-readable metadata that describes its content.[8] Such metadata would dramatically improve the precision (the percentage of relevant documents) in search engine retrieval lists.[9] However, it is difficult to see how the large and varied community of Web page authors could be persuaded to add metadata to their pages in a consistent, reliable way; web authors who wish to do so experience high entry costs because metadata systems are time-consuming to learn and use.[10] For this reason, few Web authors make use of the simple Dublin Core metadata standard, even though the use of Dublin Core meta-tags could increase their pages' prominence in search engine retrieval lists.[11] In contrast to more formalized, top-down classifications using controlled vocabularies, folksonomy is a distributed classification system with low entry costs.[12] [edit]

In the enterpriseThis section does not cite any references or sources.Please improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. (August 2007)

Since folksonomies are user-generated and therefore inexpensive to implement, advocates of folksonomy believe that it provides a useful lowcost alternative to more traditional, institutionally supported taxonomies or controlled vocabularies. An employee-generated folksonomy could therefore be seen as an "emergent enterprise taxonomy".[13] Some folksonomy advocates believe that it is useful in facilitating workplace democracy and the distribution of management tasks among people actually doing the work.

However, workplace democracy is also seen as a utopian concept at odds with the governing reality of the enterprise, the majority of which exist and thrive as hierarchically-structured corporations not especially aligned to democratically informed governance and decision-making. Also, as a distribution method, the folksonomy may, indeed, facilitate workflow, but it does not guarantee that the information worker will tag and, then, tag consistently, in an unbiased way, and without intentional malice directed at the enterprise. [edit]

Folksonomy and top-down taxonomies

Commentators and information architects have contrasted the hierarchical approach of top-down taxonomies with the folksonomy approach. The former approach is prevalent and represented by many practical examples. One such example is Yahoo! one of the earliest general directories for content on the Web. Yahoo! and other similar sites organized and presented links under a fixed hierarchy. This approach imposed one set of tags and one sort order, although hyperlinking enabled at least a limited ability to traverse distant nodes in the hierarchy based on related subject matter. Clay Shirky is one commentator who has offered explanations for why this approach is limited.[14] [edit]

Compromise with top-down taxonomies

It is possible that the differences between taxonomies and folksonomies have been overestimated.[15] A possible solution to the shortcomings of folksonomies and controlled vocabulary is a collabulary, which can be conceptualized as a compromise between the two: a team of classification experts collaborates with content consumers to create rich, but more systematic content tagging systems. A collabulary arises much the way a folksonomy does, but it is developed in a spirit of collaboration with experts in the field. The result is a system that combines the benefits of folksonomies low entry costs, a rich vocabulary that is broadly shared and comprehensible by the user base, and the capacity to respond quickly

to language change without the errors that inevitably arise in naive, unsupervised folksonomies. The ability to group tags, e.g., del.icio.us's "bundles", provides one way for taxonomists to work with an underlying folksonomy. This allows structure to be added without the need for direct collaboration between classification experts and content consumers. Another possible solution is a taxonomy-directed-folksonomy, which relies on the user interfaces to suggest tags from a formal taxonomy, but allows many users to use their own tags.Tagging TagTaggingTag Keyword IndexingTagging Tagging Tagging AnalysisClassificationAnalysis-Paralysis Sinha, 2005 Del.icio.usSchachter 4050 22 Tagging Social Tagging Social TaggingSocialTagging Email Jones, Dumais, & Bruce, 2002Tagging http://ideant.typepad.com/ideant/2006/01/what_is_social_.html Web2.0

Social Tagging

2. Social Tagging Social Tagging Tagging

Blog Tagging Object Context Trant & Wyman, 2006Blog Social Tagging Del.icio.usCiteULike Flickr TaggingTagging Marlow, Naaman, & boyd, 2006 SemanticPragmatic Social Tagging YouTube Technorati CiteUlike Hammond, et al., 2005Tagging Web2.0 __