annotation transcriber export no timecode

#Annotation transcriber export no timecode update#
#Annotation transcriber export no timecode software#

#Annotation transcriber export no timecode software#

To do so would miss the importance of having the humanities researchers leading the process and also risks missing the scale of the deterrent factor in taking software designed for other purposes and using it in new ways. An uncharitable reviewer could accuse them of reinventing the wheel (again). They collaborated with software designers to help build and test the software so that it ‘worked for them’. (2010) describe the history of the development of a piece of software called ‘Stories Matter’.

The two articles here illustrate the two poles. Web searches do not succeed in making the connection.įor almost as long as humanities and social science computing has existed there have been debates about whether we would be best served by developing our own tools to answer subject specific problems or adapt exiting tools and use them creatively in ways not intended by their designers to support our work. People from different disciplinary backgrounds have arrived at the same problem set but are discussing it in different ways with different vocabularies, and proceed, perhaps without knowing, certainly without acknowledging the alternatives. does not seem to have overcome ghetto–isation or silo–isation.

Second, is a reflection that indexing by search engines, the use of tagging, semantic ontologies, etc. There are good reasons for welcoming a multiplicity of approaches to the same problem set (even in a time of cuts and financial restraint). These are, first that concerns about reinventing the wheel can be overstated. Reading them both has provoked two quite separate conclusions which I will discuss in turn. This article was sparked by the coincidence, and it was first drafted in December 2010.

#Annotation transcriber export no timecode update#

“Using NVivo audio–coding: Practical, sensorial and epistemological considerations,” Social Research Update (SRU), issue 60 (Autumn 2010), at. Megan Wainwright and Andrew Russell, 2010. The FQS Web site section for the article “how to cite this item” gives the date as 2010.Ģ. NB on the Web site this is dated January 2011 but it was made available late 2010, and announced in the ‘ Newsletter November 2010’, late in November 2010. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, volume 12, number 1, Article 1, at. “Stories Matter: Conceptual challenges in the development of oral history database building software”. Erin Jessee, Stacey Zembrzycki, and Steven High, 2010. So it is with discussions about the qualitative indexing of time–based media (sound and video recordings): two articles have been published on the same topic in late 2010.ġ. There’s an old joke among commuters that you spend a long time waiting for a bus then two come along together. Web searches and the absence of an overview Reinventing the wheel: Competition and duplication/functions or tasks This failure leaves a continuing role for human agents, such as subject specialists and librarians, to see connections and make complete comparison lists of what is available for end users. Suggestions are made as to why search engines are not picking up on this. The lack of synoptic overview of different applications approaching the same topic is noted. They enable real comparison to be made and different styles may suit different categories of user. Issues of overlap and duplication are discussed as a positive boon. In this article I survey different approaches to the indexing of time based media (sound and video recordings) in response to two articles published in December 2010. You can't build a car with just one wheel (why duplication may not be such a bad thing), and some limitations of Internet search/retrieval