A year or so ago, for example, my son had a cold and said “my nose is deaf” – and I knew exactly what he meant. It contained just the right balance of ambiguity.* When explaining Open Badges to people I’ve found “X is kind of like Y because of Z” helpful in getting them to grasp what I mean. The more useful metaphors, similes and analogies I can find, therefore, the better.

Below are some I’ve used recently to explain Open Badges. They may or may not help you or the people you’re talking to about badges. But give them a read and tell me what you think. Oh, and the animated GIFs are just for fun!

The difference between ‘a badge’ and ‘a badge system’

Mozilla is developing the OBI – the Open Badges Infrastructure. People are free to use it to create their own badges for whatever purpose they like.

It’s a bit like a water company providing the infrastructure so that instead of having to go to a well, you can get water coming out of a tap. What you use that water for, what you mix it with, and how you share it is entirely up to you.

A different analogy might be that a badge is akin to an ‘app’ in an app store. Mozilla may produce some badges of its own, but it’s looking after the entire ‘app store’ in terms of the OBI. This metaphor breaks down for two reasons, however: there’s no one place to see all of the badges (at present) and it’s not a walled garden as many app stores are. Anyone can use badges for any purpose without reference to Mozilla. It’s an open, decentralised system and standard.

Metadata in badges

Metadata is data about data. It’s like when you tag someone in a photo on Facebook – you’re adding data about the data already in the system. In this case the data is the photograph and the metadata you’re adding is the name of an individual in the photo. The index at the back of a book is metadata as well – data about the data in the book.

One way to think about Open Badges is that they’re a bit like barcodes that can be understood by humans. Just as when you scan a barcode you get extra data such as the price of a product, so when clicking a badge you get details of what the earner had to do to get the badge, the evidence for it, etc.

The metadata is hard-coded into the Open Badge. So, just like when you make a cake, it’s made up of lots of different ingredients (the name of the badge, the identity of the badge earner, the Criteria URL, etc.). Once you’ve baked the cake or the badge, you can’t change those ingredients or get them out. That badge is unique to the individual. If you’ve baked a chocolate cake and now you want a Victoria sponge, then you’re going to have to bake another cake. Similarly, you can’t change a badge once it’s been issued.**

Badge pathways

In life, some pathways and routes definitely lead somewhere. That could be a route into employment, a journey to a holiday destination, or some other ‘place’ that you want to get to. There are almost-guaranteed ways to get to that destination, such as going to a travel agent and getting them to take care of your flight, transfers and accommodation. Likewise, completing a recognised project management qualification greatly increases the chances of being employed as a project manager.

There are other ways of getting to your holiday destination and becoming a project manager, however. You could book all of the different parts of the trip yourself. You could hitch-hike. You could use websites like Couchsurfing or Airbnb. Likewise, with the project manager position you could have learned how to manage projects on the job and have lots of experience of delivering successfully. Or, indeed, you may have transferable skills.

But there are some people for whom the journey is the destination. They don’t have a particular path in mind – or, perhaps, they’re blazing a new trail unsure of where it will lead. Being able to capture the knowledge, experience and skills they gain along the way would seem to be a useful thing to do. It surfaces the slightly meandering journey that I think we’ve all experienced during our careers. Badges can help validate these non-linear pathways.

Badge quality

Think of the last time you stayed in a hotel. Unless that was booked on your behalf, how did you end up staying where you did? Some of it may have been down to money, but what other factors were involved? There would have been the 5-star rating system which, until recently, would have been one of the only ways to ascertain the quality of a hotel. But is that the only thing you used? I bet, nine times out of ten, it was either TripAdvisor or some other social ratings/recommendation system.

The value of an Open Badge comes from at least from three different places. First, there’s the reputation of the individual or organisation that issues (or, in future, endorses) the badge. Second, there’s the (essential) Criteria URL in the badge that tells the consumer what the earner of the badge had to do to get it. And, finally, there’s the (optional) Evidence URL that shows just what the earner did with that criteria. It’s a triangulation very much akin to deciding which hotel to stay at: the star rating, a description of the facilities/amenities, and reviews from sites like TripAdvisor.

The point here is that top-down ‘quality’ systems can work, but they’re even more powerful (and can sometimes be replaced) by horizontal, peer-to-peer recommendation engines. It’s the difference between how a system should work and how it actually works.

Badge equivalency

Deciding that one thing is equivalent to another is not something that Mozilla is (at the moment, at least) concerned with.

I think of badge equivalency as being a bit like mobile phone tariffs. There’s many different plans and tariffs that it’s possible to use/sign up for as a mobile phone user. Most of them offer fairly similar combinations of talktime minutes, SMS messages and 3G data. Some, however, may offer 4G data. Even if there are differences between providers, it’s still possible to weigh up what’s best for you. What you decide to be ‘equivalent’ might not be the same as what someone else believes to be so. It depends upon context.

There will potentially be many different providers of similar badges. The value of the badge will be ascertained by employers and other people providing opportunities by comparing those badges against the others available. Credentials are always used for a purpose, after all. Eventually, some kind of ‘BadgeRank’ algorithm (similar to Google’s ‘PageRank’) may help both earners and employers find the most relevant badges in their industry.

Badge backpacks

Badges are hosted in a badge backpack and then displayed across the Web. It’s similar to videos being stored on YouTube or Vimeo and being embedded on many different websites. Likewise, you can make them private or public. The difference here is that, once we’ve got federated badge backpacks, you will get to choose where your ‘videos’ (badges) are hosted as well as where they’re embedded.

Some of these work better than others. I’d very much appreciate feedback as well as any analogies you’ve used successfully!

* More about different types of ambiguity in this paper that I (co-)wrote.

** So, technically, we are thinking very carefully about badge revocation but we don’t want people reaching into people’s badge backpacks willy-nilly and changing them. There possibly will be a ‘nuclear’ option for revocation, however – such as when you’ve accidentally awarded a PhD-level badge to a six year-old…

Image CC BY-NC-SA howard.hall

Are Open Badges ‘transferable’?

It depends what you mean. Open Badges are issued with a learner’s individual identifier ‘baked’ into it. So if you try and take my badge and put it in your backpack, it’s not going to work. It’ll be rejected.

If, on the other hand, you talking about the ‘portability’ of badges then, absolutely, that’s exactly what we’re aiming for. Multiple badge backpacks, a completely open and decentralised system, and learner sovereignty. The learner earns badges from issuers and then chooses where to host and display them.

Why is Mozilla interested in creating a system for credentialing learning?

We’re a non-profit that believes in the Web. We believe that it’s a fantastic platform for innovation – but only if it’s open, democratic and built upon standards. Because learning today happens anywhere, including on the Web, we want a credentialing system that can bypass the ‘gatekeepers’ to learning. We want better ways to credential experiences, knowledge, interest and skills.

Are all Open Badges public?

What happens if I invest time in Open Badges and then Mozilla pull the plug?

We’re a non-profit who work (radically) in the open alongside the community. The OBI is a Mozilla product, but it’s more of a model where we’re the lead developers and advocates than having something than can be ‘pulled’. We’re committed to OBI for the long-haul, but even if we were all on several planes that crashed the Open Source community could still develop the infrastructure.

How can Mozilla maintain the quality of Open Badges?

‘Quality’ is an interesting word. Another variation of this question is How can Mozilla guarantee equivalency between badges? The short answer is, of course, that we can’t. That’s because we’re the ones developing the technical standard, but not those that are developing all of the badges within the ecosystem.

The OBI is a platform for innovation. We’ve already seen many high-quality badges that have been produced by lots of different organisations. But, of course, there will be poor badges. The value of the badge doesn’t come through how difficult it is to issue them, but upon the rigour of what you have to do to get them, and the evidence they point to. That’s within the metadata in the badge itself.

CC BY Kyle Bowen

One of the newer metadata fields that’s available within the OBI is a field that allows you to enter the URL of which standard you’re aligning to. So whether it’s a badge that aligns with the Common Core or the Web Literacy standard, there’s something you can point to as a common reference point. The ‘endorsement’ functionality that we’re working upon could then allow organisations to endorse certain badges as being good/valid representations of that standard.

What’s the quickest way of getting started issuing Open Badges?

There’s broadly three ways to start issuing badges. The first is to use a third-party badge issuing platform such as badg.us, forallbadges or openbadges.me. This is the easiest, but the URLs in the metadata of the badge point towards that third-party platform over which you have no control.

The second way to issue badges is to use a plugin for a popular Content Management System or learning platform such as WordPress, Drupal or Moodle. Doing this means that you don’t have to do any coding but the URLs in the Open Badges point back to your domain.

The third way is the most complex and involves being (or hiring) a developer and using Mozilla’s onboarding documentation to build your own badge issuing platform or plugin. Apparently it’s not that hard, but I haven’t tried it.

What happens when there’s millions of Open Badges in the ecosystem and everyone has thousands of them?

Well, first of all that will be awesome! The great thing about Open Badges is that the learner is always in control. That means you can choose which badges to display for what purpose. So, if you want to show all of your gamer and photography badges on Facebook and your professional badges on your online portfolio, you can.

The other thing to remember is that an Open Badge does not stand alone, but is part of a wider ecosystem of value. One of the best ways of imagining this is through badge-based learning pathways. In the same way that you collect cheeses/pies in Trivial Pursuit, so badges can work together to unlock a larger, meta-level badge. Once you’ve unlocked your competency-level badge, it would point back to the five skill-level badges of which it’s comprised.

How can we trust an Open Badge? How do I know someone hasn’t just bought one?

Both very good questions. A combination of the Criteria URL and the Evidence URL should help with this, I think. The (compulsory) Criteria URL states what the earner had to do in order to be issued the badge, and the (optional, but to my mind very important) Evidence URL points to work done in order to get the badge. This is anything that can be displayed on the Web – images, text, videos, etc.

Do people buy qualifications now? Of course they do. Will people attempt to (and sometimes be successful in purchasing) Open Badges? Almost definitely. But the difference between traditional qualifications and credentials, and Open Badges is that the latter leave a breadcrumb trail of evidence. My Great Uncle built his entire adult life on a the claim that he attended Oxford University. After his death we found this to be false. That wouldn’t really have been possible in a badge-based system. He would have been found out very quickly!

Why are Open Badges any more than stickers? Aren’t they just extrinsic motivators?

As stated above, the value of an Open Badge comes through the metadata contained. Learning design is the hard part of creating an ecosystem of badges; it’s the 90% of the iceberg you don’t see. So, of course Open Badges can be used to extrinsically motivate. But, like all credentialing systems, if designed well then they can also promote intrinsic motivation.*

*My rejection of intrinsic/extrinsic motivation as a binary will have to wait for another blog post…

How can issuers ensure their badges are taken as seriously as possible by institutions/employers?

An Open Badge is a metadata-infused credential. Whether badges are taken seriously depends on how trustworthy, relevant and useful they are to others. That’s a function of the reputation of the badge issuer but also on the rigour of the Criteria URL. What did the individual have to do to get the badge? Was that worth doing? Is there an Evidence URL pointing to what that individual actually did?

It’s a fact of life that people like (and trust) good-looking things so it’s worth spending some time on the visual design of the badge. But that’s the tip of the iceberg: it’s the learning design, the partnerships and the thinking through how individuals can ‘level up’ that’s important. DigitalMe have a great CC-licensed badge canvas resource to help you think through some of these things.

Finally, it’s worth having a useful way to display badges to institutions and employers. Purdue University, for example, have an iPad app that students can use to show their badges at interview. Badges can also be displayed on pretty much any kind of website, including e-portfolios and wikis.

Why would I want an Open Badge instead of a degree?

This is the $64,000 question, but one that misses the point in the short term. Often when a new technology comes along we think in terms of either/or. In practice, however, it’s more and/and/and. How can we use Open Badges to credential those things that we think are important but we don’t currently have a way of capturing? How can we make credentialing more granular? How can we make learning more personalised through badge-based ‘playlists’ or ‘pathways’? These are the questions which interest us a lot more than ‘Can X replace Y?’

Have you got any more questions? Ask away below! (or on Twitter / Facebook / Google+) If I get enough I’ll probably do another one of these in a few weeks’ time.

Header image CC BY Bilal Kamoon

http://mzl.la/weblitstd

We’ll be launching a ‘beta’ version in June which will be flesh out the competency-level grid and descriptors that make up this tentative first release.

The best way of thinking about the grid is as the areas that we think it’s important to pay attention to when teaching others how to read, write and participate on the Web.

I’d like to thank those who have been involved in this (ongoing) process and I’m very much looking forward to hearing further feedback, which you can give in several ways:

1. In the comments below
2. Using this feedback form
3. On the weekly community calls

Please do feel share to share the URL at top of this post with your networks. It would be good to get as many eyes on this as possible.

Competency-level grid

Competency descriptors

EXPLORING
Navigating the Web

• Navigation – using software tools to browse the Web
• Web Mechanics – understanding the Web ecosystem
• Credibility – critically evaluating information found on the Web
• Search – locating information, people and resources via the Web
• Security – keeping systems, identities, and content safe

BUILDING
Creating for the Web

• Composing for the Web – creating content (including text, images, audio and video) making use of Web technologies such as hyperlinks
• Remixing – using existing (openly-licensed) content to create something new or modified
• HTML – reading and writing HyperText Markup Language using the building blocks of the Web
• CSS – reading, writing, testing and applying Cascading Style Sheets to change the visual appearance of HTML
• Design & accessibility – creating universally effective communications through digital artifacts</li>
• Coding/scripting – creating interactive experiences through digital artifacts for the Web
• Infrastructure – understanding the Internet stack and how to host your own data

CONNECTING
Participating on the Web

• Sharing & Collaborating – providing access to digital artifacts, understanding data ownership and jointly curating or creating content
• Community participation – getting involved in Web communities, understanding and respecting online norms and practices
• Privacy – working with intellectual property, examining and understanding the consequences of sharing data online
• Open practices – championing, creating, and protecting the Web as a platform for democratic, universally accessible innovation

On Monday it’s the last Web Literacy standard community call before the soft launch of the draft Web Literacy standard on April 26th. If that sounds tentative, it is! We want as much feedback from as wide a range of people and organisations as possible on the road towards v1.0 at the Mozilla Festival in late October 2013.

Below you’ll find the overview grid, the descriptors for each competency, and a diagram of the ‘stack’ of where this competency grid fits into the whole picture. We’ll have new, much better versions of these diagrams in due course – these are just my mockups!

The descriptors still need some work so that’s what we’ll be focusing in on at Monday’s call.

Exploring

• Web Fundamentals – Understanding and using the Web ecosystem
• Search – Locating information, people and resources
• Security – Keeping your identity, system and network safe
• Credibility – Assessing the trustworthiness of online sources of information or activities.

Building

• Composing for the Web – Composing ‘texts’ using hyperlinks and other affordances of the Web
• Remixing – Using existing openly-licensed content to create something new or modified.
• HTML- Understanding HyperText Markup Language, how to read and write the building blocks of the Web, and use it to create digital artifacts
• CSS – Understanding Cascading Style Sheets, how to read and write them and use them in different ways to style the building blocks of the Web
• Coding/scripting – Animating and providing services for the Web
• Design & accessibility – Developing competencies required to build web pages that promote efficient use of content and ease the acquisition of content provided
• Infrastructure – Understanding the Internet stack and hosting your own data

Connecting

• Sharing & Collaborating – Working and playing with others to create value through curating and creating content
• Community participation – Taking part in online communities taking into account netiquette
• Privacy – Taking steps to understand and decide how much data to share online
• Open practices – Championing, creating, and protecting the Open Web

To clarify, in the above diagram:

• We’re referring to the categories as strands
• Competencies are groups of skills from the same area
• The meta-level elements (which we’ll perhaps call literacies) are made up of competencies from different strands

Feedback is very welcome, either here or on the community calls.

The grid below is one that I came up early on Saturday morning after conversations with my colleagues and after reflecting upon last week’s discussion.

Changes:

• Visual size of the elements (in attempt to show potential dependencies/conceptual ‘size’ of the competencies)
• Added an iterated version of the community-created strand descriptors
• Moved ‘Remixing’ to the Connecting strand as it seemed to fit better there
• Changed ‘Coding/Scripting’ to ‘JavaScript’
• Changed ‘Participating in Web Communities’ to ‘Community Participation’ to make it less wordy
• Changed ‘Sharing via social networks’ to just ‘Sharing’ (to make it less specific)
• Changed ‘Security/Encryption’ to just ‘Security’ and moved it to the Exploring strand to make it more distinct from ‘Privacy’
• Merged ‘Web design’ with ‘Accessibiility’

Comments welcome! It would be great if you could make it to our weekly calls.

Just a quick one to ensure the latest version of the Web Literacy standard competency grid is always here on my blog:

Comments welcome! If we can agree on this then we need to get cracking with the descriptors for the strands and the competencies.

Our calls are now on Mondays at 8am PT / 11am ET / 4pm BST. All welcome! Details on the Mozilla wiki.

TL;DR: Mozilla is looking for organizations to ‘align’ with and playtest/iterate on the draft version of our open learning standard for Web Literacy. By aligning we mean (ideally) creating Open Badges which reference specific parts of the standard.

A couple of days ago I proposed a new ‘straw man’ for Mozilla’s discussions with the community  around a new, open learning standard for Web Literacy. I’ve explained why we need a ‘standard’ at all in this meta-post.

The draft version of the Web Literacy standard will launch on April 26th. We’re looking for organizations big or small, formal or informal, progressive or conservative to align with the standard. But what does that mean, exactly? Well, we’d like organizations to issue Open Badges based upon specific skills and competencies making up the standard.

As a former teacher, I’m well aware that when something new comes along the most likely thing that happens is that it gets absorbed into the existing status quo. And that’s for a variety of reasons – some good (people being crazy busy), some bad (political interference). One of the main reason I joined Mozilla to work on Open Badges is because I recognised that changing how we credential learning changes the way we assess learning. And if we can change assessment we can change learning experiences for the better.

So while you can absolutely use the draft Web Literacy standard as yet another thing to inform your curriculum or learning activities, that’s not really the point of it. The aim isn’t to just create another silo, another worthy ‘example’ of how you might define Web Literacy, but to work with the community to co-create something that is iterative but more or less canonical.

And the reason we’d like you to use Open Badges to align? It isn’t particularly because Mozilla’s building the Open Badges Infrastructure (OBI). No, it’s because metadata-infused credentials like badges help ‘jailbreak’ the way we usually do things in education. The technologies we use are not value-neutral but come with inbuilt tendencies (or ‘affordances’). The OBI tends towards openness and freedom, putting the learner in control and reducing the number of silos we have.

In practice, this will look a bit like the Common Core standards website. They won’t be as prescriptive nor as content-heavy, but the structure will be similar: a unique URL for each part of the standard. This URL can be entered into the new Open Badges metadata field showing that the badge is aligned with a particular part of the Web Literacy standard.

But won’t that lead to a free-for-all? Won’t that mean that anyone and everyone can create learning activities and curricula based upon the Web Literacy standard? Won’t that just lead to chaos and confusion? Well, perhaps. But I’d strongly recommend you read my colleague Erin Knight’s white paper on An Open and Distributed System for Badge Validation.

Does this sound like something you might be interested in? Come to our weekly calls! Get in touch! (doug <at> mozillafoundation <dot> org)

Upcoming community calls:

• Thursday 4th April (today!)
• Monday 8th April
• Monday 15th April
• Monday 22nd April

You can subscribe to the calendar to remind you, or bookmark this page on the Mozilla wiki!

Image CC BY-NC stephen schiller

Over the last couple of months we at Mozilla have been hosting community calls in an attempt to come to a consensus around a new, open learning standard for Web Literacy. This is a contested area, for many of the reasons I point out in my yet-to-be-published paper on different types of ambiguity.

The reasons for us wanting to create a ‘standard’ for Web Literacy are outlined in this meta-post back in February. Since then we’ve had wide-ranging discussions, both on our weekly calls and on the Mozilla Webmaker list about what to include and, more recently, how to present the whole thing.

What I find fascinating is the importance of context when it comes to this work. This Web Literacy standard needs to to be flexible enough to apply to learners of all ages and stages and in contexts other than those with which we are most familiar. In short, it needs to be productively ambiguous. What do I mean by that? I mean it needs to be flexible enough to work in almost any context, yet be coherent enough to actually be worthwhile.

With that in mind, I want to present a ‘straw man’ which might serve us better than the previous grid:

Of course, the real fun comes when we get down to nailing down the competencies in each of the boxes. That’s this week’s call.

Do join us if you can for the weekly calls. The more eyes on this the better before we launch the draft version on April 26th!

I’m at the DML Conference 2013 this week where, I’m delighted to say, Mozilla is launching version 1.0 of the Open Badges Infrastructure (OBI). Given how long I’ve been banging on about badges this may seem surprising, but it just goes to show the extent to which Mozilla works in the open with the community!

You should check out the newly-redesigned website and badge backpack (note new URL for latter now it’s out of beta!)

I don’t usually do this, but I believe the text below put together by our new Communications Director Erica Sackin  puts things way better than I could:

Open Badges is a new online standard to recognize and verify learning. A digital badge is an online representation of a skill you’ve earned. Open Badges take that concept one step further, and allow you to verify your skills, interests and achievements through a credible organization. And because the system is based on an open standard, you can combine multiple badges from different issuers to tell the complete story of your achievements — both online and off. Display your badges wherever you want them on the web, and share them for employment, education or lifelong learning.

Ten things to know about Open Badges:

1. Mozilla Open Badges is not proprietary — it’s free software and an open technical standard. That means any organization can create, issue and verify digital badges, and any user can earn, manage and display these badges all across the web.
2. Open Badges knits your skills together. Whether they’re issued by one organization or many, badges can build upon each other, joining together to tell the full story of your skills and achievement.
3. With Open Badges, every badge is full of information. Each one has important data built in that links back to the issuer, the criteria it was issued under and evidence verifying the credential — a feature unique to Open Badges.
4. Open Badges lets you take your badges everywhere. Users have an easy and comprehensive way to collect their badges in a backpack, and display their skills and achievements on social networking profiles, job sites, their websites and more.
5. Individuals can earn badges from multiple sources, both online and offline, and manage and share them using the Open Badges backpack. Today, we’re launching with the Mozilla backpack — other organizations will be able to use Open Badges to make their own backpacks later this year.
6. Open Badges make it easy to get recognition for the things you learn, both online and off. Open Badges includes a shared standard for recognizing your skills and achievements — and lets you count them towards an education, a job or lifelong learning.
7. Open Badges make it easy to give recognition for the things you teach. Anyone who meets the standards can award badges for skills or learning.
8. Open Badges make it easy to display your verified badges across the web. Earn badges from anywhere, then share them wherever you want—on social networking profiles, job sites or on your website.
9. Open Badges make it easy to verify skills. Employers, organizations and schools can explore the data behind every badge issued using Mozilla Open Badges to verify individuals’ skills and competencies.
10. Open Badges is free, open to anyone to use and part of Mozilla’s non-profit mission. Open Badges is designed, built and backed by a broad community of contributors, such as NASA, Smithsonian, Intel, the Girl Scouts, and more. The open source model means that improvements made by one partner can benefit everyone, from bug fixes to new features.

Do feel free to ask me any questions in the comments below!

TL;DR version: Mozilla is working on a new, open learning standard for Web Literacy. We’ve got weekly community calls and a blog to help us come to a consensus on what we need and what such a standard will look like. Our first target is the Mozilla Festival in October where we hope to have organisations that have aligned with the standard, as well as some Mozilla-devised learning activities, assessments, widgets, pathways and badges available.

Working in a distributed way at Mozilla is an interesting experience. We, of course, have strategies and roadmaps and an element of top down decision-making, but by and large there’s a great deal of consensus-making that goes on. Over the next few months we’re going to be learning on that experience to engage the community in coming up with a new, open learning standard for Web Literacy. If you’re unsure why we need such a standard, you might like to check out some of my previous posts on the topic.

If you’re at all familiar with how formal, technical standards are constructed then you’ll be aware that it’s often a multi-year process with much to-ing and fro-ing. While that’s absolutely necessary for a technical of standard, we’re hoping to foreshorten the process significantly in our attempt to define a learning standard for Web Literacy. Essentially, what we need is something that works well enough for those who would like to align with it. We can (and indeed, should) iterate as the Web evolves.

While I’m unwilling to put hard and fast dates on the following, these are the four steps we believe the community needs to work through in the medium-term to get to an alpha version of the standard:

• Outcomes: What are our desired outcomes (and audiences)?
• Categories: Are our current 4 categories enough?
• Assessing & Sharing: How do we scale this standard?
• Building: Here’s the framework—what should we add or remove?

What I can say is that to have time for testing, for organisations to have time to think about how they will align, and for Mozilla to build the learning activities, assessments, widgets, pathways and badges we’re planning to build, then we need to get a consensus around this pretty quickly. Happily, the work that we’ve done previously seems to be a good base for this discussion. And so it should be – that framework was itself created after interviewing with a number of smart people and some research into the literature.

I’m very much looking forward to what Mozilla can create with the community over the next few months. If you’re interested in this work, may I suggest that you follow the new Web Literacy standard blog and, if possible, join our weekly calls? You’d be very welcome and you need no qualifications (other than an interest in the area) to get involved!

Image CC BY-NC sandcastlematt