Here we come / We’re Gerry and the Holograms / There are now 16 of me / And before I was one man

Gerry and the Hologram / Gerry and the Hologram

Lasers, lights and rods of glass / Appear to make me round / That is to say all 16 of me / ’Cause I’m Gerry and the Hologram / Gerry and the Hologram

Did I say 16 of me? / I’m sorry, we’re only one [two three four] / The others are just fragments / Called Gerry and the Hologram

Gerry and the Hologram / Gerry and the Hologram

The commentary about the fate of Flash seems never-ending; but it was amped up this week by Adobe\'s announcement that it\'s killing Flash-on-mobile. Some is thoughtful, much merely crowing. But there\'s one common thread: it concerns a mythical single product called \"Flash\".

There is no such product.

Let\'s set out the basics. There is a language, ActionScript 3: it\'s a hybrid of Java and JavaScript, and much less painful than JavaScript. You can use Adobe software (such as Flash Professional, a paid-for product intended for designers, and Flex SDK, a free command-line compiler) to write code in AS3. This code runs either under Flash Player (a browser plugin). It can also be compiled into more-or-less-standalone apps for mobile (iOS and Android) or desktop, using a technology called AIR.

Both AIR and Flash Player supply the same API to AS3, for graphics, networking and the like. There\'s also a free UI/forms framework, Flex, itself written in AS3.

Out of all this, there\'s only one area where Adobe makes money: the paid-for authoring tools. This is, after all, Adobe\'s core business. But they don\'t have to sink money into a player for Photoshop, for Illustrator, even for InDesign (unless you count Reader). Flash Player is a cost, and a significant one.

As HTML5 advances, it\'s becoming clear that Flash retains two strengths. One is hardcore pixel-mashing, particularly for games... particularly for 3D games. (In Adobe\'s words, \"high definition entertainment experiences\".) Most of the advances in Flash Player 10 and 11 are dedicated to this.

The other is Flex. Flex is an easy, if occasionally exasperating, way to build form-driven \'Rich Internet Applications\'. It\'s full-featured, it speaks XML nicely, and it\'s internationalised. The Flex framework, too, is being actively developed.

So we have the curious situation where one runtime (Flash Player) is used for both performance-critical 3D games and enterprise-level data-driven webapps.

The two are likely to suffer very different fates.

Games are moving out of the browser. Mobile apps are the new gaming platform, and one where AIR is making serious inroads - not least as the best-placed platform for deploying the same code to iOS and Android apps.

Meanwhile RIAs, or webapps, or whatever you want to call them, no longer need Flash Player. Improved browser feature sets (loosely HTML5) are more than capable of doing what, five years ago, required Flash Player.

Adobe\'s latest announcement signals the eventual demise of Flash Player - not the death of Flash.

Adobe is too frustratingly erratic a company for any \'predictions\' to be worthwhile. So let\'s call this a mere \'guess\' instead:

In a few years, people will still be writing apps in ActionScript 3. Some will be compiled, via AIR, to iOS and Android apps: this is principally the games market. That\'s a dead cert. Less certain, but still likely in my view, is that other apps based on Flex will be compiled down to JavaScript and deployed in the browser. Meanwhile, Adobe continues to make the same money from authoring tools - but without the cost of a desktop player.

Inspired by shutup.css, I'm now using a custom stylesheet to hide comments on all Guardian articles. Just one line of CSS makes the whole site bearable.

Installing it on Safari is trivial:

1. Download the stylesheet
2. Save it somewhere
3. In Safari, select it in Preferences > Advanced > Style sheet

And that's it. It's simple in Opera (my new favourite browser for non-speedy connections), too. In Firefox I think you could use Stylish.

Let me show you a great way to get more people using the train.

Let’s say railway timetable and live running information was available under an open data licence. Anyone could download it, anyone could use it.

Ok, sounds a bit abstruse. So let’s ask: if you were a developer, what would you do with this data?

1. Google could integrate the data into Google Transit, so when people asked for driving directions on Google Maps, they’d find out how easy it is to use the train instead. WIN.

2. CycleStreets could mash it up with OpenStreetMap’s excellent cycle route data, so you could easily plan a journey from any point to any point by bike and train. No need for the car. WIN.

3. Designers could make a lovely animation of trains running around the place. Animations are cool. If more people think trains are cool, more people will catch the train. WIN.

4. Walking route websites could use the data to encourage station-to-station walks on little rural branch lines which don’t have many trains per day. If people can be reassured the walk will get them to the train at the right time, they’ll be less likely to drive the car all over the sensitive National Park “just in case”. WIN.

5. iPhone or Android developers could create a super app that figures that your train is running a bit late, and magically replans all your connections for you, telling you where you need to change and what platform to head to. If train delays are less traumatic, people will be more likely to use the train. WIN.

6. Another super mobile app idea: let people record how busy the train they’re on is. So you could use the app to record “I’m on the 17.22 from Paddington and I can’t find anywhere to sit”. All these reports would be aggregated (‘crowdsourcing’), mashed up against the timetable, and fed into a journey-planner - which could then offer you an “Avoid busy trains” tickbox. Which would be fantastic for both passengers and for the train companies who want to spread the load out. WIN.

7. Companies could put little “get here by train” widgets on the “contact us” page on their website. Business travel by train is good. You can work on the train. You can’t work in the car. WIN.

8. Village websites could integrate the live departure board onto their main page. (I’d love to do this with the Charlbury website.) That way, people who were about to hop into the car could see there’s a train in a few minutes, and get that instead. And bleary-eyed people like my little sister, who gets the 6am train every morning, could have an extra 10 minutes’ toast-eating if it was running late. WIN.

9. Rail passengers’ websites could keep track of punctuality for particular trains. That way, if a grumpy petrolhead boss says “you’re not getting the train any more, it’s always late”, you could point and say “actually, it runs to time almost every day”. Or if one train does always run late, you could plan your journey around it. WIN.

10. Journey-planning websites could specialise in particular users. A website for older passengers might avoid changing trains where there’s lots of stairs (e.g. Birmingham New Street) and suggest easier ones (e.g. Wolverhampton) instead. Or one for people like me who walk too fast could offer five-minute connections instead of ten-minute ones. WIN.

These are just ten ideas off the top of my head. But the beauty of releasing data openly is that thousands of people have their own ten ideas. They will build them. Thousands of people x ten ideas x WIN = lots more people using the train, not the car.

And that’s why train companies should release their timetable and train running information as free, open data. At present they sell the data. That’s short-sighted. The small income they get from selling it would be greatly outweighed by all this WIN leading to more people buying train tickets. To say nothing of the environmental benefits...

The Government has already made encouraging noises, but nothing’s happened yet. But, happy day, the Office of Rail Regulation has a consultation out on “giving passengers the information they need to plan and make journeys”. It doesn’t say the data will be released openly. It should.

Here's what I've written in response. It would be lovely if ORR saw a blinding flash of enlightenment as a result, but it’s pretty unlikely to come if just one person writes to them. So if you like this, if you think there might be more ideas - you might even have ten yourself - then write to tell them.

You can do this by e-mailing abigail.grenfell@orr.gsi.gov.uk. The deadline is Monday 20th June. There are lots of specifics in the consultation document, and you should read them if you can. But it all comes down to this, from near the start of the document: “how the industry provides information, including what obligations operators have to meet their customers' needs, and whether there are any gaps that should be filled”.

I think the best way to get these gaps filled is to release the data openly, so anyone can fill them. If you agree, write and tell them.

Photo by Tom at flickr.com, CC-BY-NC-SA.

These are a few outline thoughts after a brief skim through. I'll update them as and when I find more in the document.

First of all: this is a huge step forward from LTP2. LTP2 prioritised cycling and walking in Oxford, but largely ignored it in the rest of the county. LTP3 is much more balanced and begins to envisage both the creation of good cycle networks in the other main towns (Banbury, Witney etc.), and rural routes for utility and leisure purposes.

Everything comes with the mammoth caveat "there is no money", of course. But then there's been no money allocated to cycling outside Oxford for the past five years anyway. The suggestion here is that when there is some money, some of it'll be spent outside Oxford. Right at the start of the Rural Areas section, we have as one of the three principal priorities:

"Develop and increase cycling and walking for local journeys, recreation and health"

w00t o/

On slightly technical matters: The philosophy on designing cycle routes is promising but a little confused. The plan is admirably honest that the "dual network" approach (make main roads cycle-friendly, provide alternative quiet routes) hasn't worked as well as it should. Trying to make the Botley Road cycle-friendly is still a bit like putting lipstick on a pig. Quiet routes, when seen as a second-choice alternative rather than the primary provision, can often end up slow and winding. The NCN often suffers from this in non-cycle-friendly towns.

Instead, it says "future development will emphasise developing safe, direct, attractive, and well-signed routes which can cater for the majority of cyclists". Which is good, especially if "cyclists" is read as "future cyclists" rather than merely "existing cyclists".

I am nervous, though, about the suggestion that "this could follow a hierarchy that gives preference to on-road provision for cyclists". The "hierarchy of provision" is a one-sided idea dreamt up by hardcore road cyclists. Roadies are, of course, entitled to their road space. But "preference" implies "we'll try on-road first, and then if it doesn't work, we'll look at something else". On-road doesn't work for everyone. If it did, we'd have Netherlands/Copenhagen/whatever levels of cycling. We don't.

Anyway, enough on that. There are some good specifics in here: let's make sure they're acted on. (Especially in Banbury, but that's another story.)

The second part which I'm enormously pleased with is the Rural Areas section. The draft plan (published in the autumn) was very skimpy on rural transport issues. We put in a joint response from Charlbury Cycling Group, Sustainable Charlbury, and Charlbury Town Council to say "we think it needs to be a bit more meaty than this". And, greatly to OCC's credit, it is.

One of the things we pointed out was "OCC is never going to have enough resources to rewrite transport in every little village, so let communities do it" (all very Big Society). And that's in there: "Where rural communities develop community-based proposals for improving access to services, we will consider and support viable plans that are consistent with wider transport policy." Excellent.

Also: "Where resources for road or junction improvements are available, the design will reflect the potential for walking, cycling, horse riding and bus use in that location, and not just consider the needs of motorised traffic." And better still: "We will continue to support... the introduction of 20mph zones in settlements, where appropriate."

Finally: "If resources allow we will develop rural cycle routes: these would take the form of signed routes on less busy roads, usually connected to the National Cycle Network or other existing cycle routes. In appropriate cases we will consider converting rights of way to cycle use, particularly where this will provide access to basic services or transport opportunities."

There is no money. But, perhaps, when there is, LTP3 finally gives permission for the money to be spent on good stuff.