Reflections on NET 11 in 2008...

Mirror, mirror?

We are very fortunate to be at a time in the internet’s ‘life cycle’, where we have the benefit of hindsight and can learn from the mistakes and challenges of the past (eg Goffer, Microsoft vs Netscape, Napster, Kazaa) and we can see a very bright future for communicating (Facebook, You Tube, Digg, del.icio.us, My space).

Web 2.0, ( 3.0...etc) and the semantic web will be fascinating developments in the next 5 years – will students studying Second Life in 10 years think that it’s naff? (remember how we feel about Blinkenlights and its Star Wars version now!), what will the first (developed world) generations to grow up with computers and the internet as normal seek and develop? How will the access gap to information for the populous of developing nations narrow in the years ahead?

How will society develop its communications in response to the internet? Which according to Vint Cerf, is "...a reflection of our society and that mirror is going to be reflecting what we see," (Ward,2004)

I have learned much about the emphemerality of the web, seen first-hand how active communication generates identity awareness (Go Owen!), discovered what metadata actually is, tried to shed light on and diminish the invisibility of difference and keep up with fast data and the paradox of the world wide web, become more aware of the rules of netiquette and attempted to make my communications more effective by combining technical and communicative competence (Allen, n.d.). Reflected on why a traditional library is so very different from the web, had a peek into the deep web and found whole new worlds of resources.

I’ve new and older technologies and put them into practise - eg blogged for the first time and created a very fundamental web page using html, gained an appreciation of the ‘pioneers’ of internet technology and applauded the geeks who invented because they required it , as Tim Berners-Lee states "A lot of ideas,...were developed by geeks who needed them...and I use ‘geek’ as a term of high praise..."(Farndale, 2008).

I am not sure that I am yet an 'advanced internet user', however, throughout this course I have developed even more of a fascination for the internet and its possibilities which, fortunately for us, all, are only limited by the human imagination.

Enjoy the future!

Cheers from Lulu : )

References

Allen, M. et al, n.d. Internet Communications Concepts Document (WebCT, Net 11 Studies) Retrieved 6 June, 2008, from http://webct.curtin.edu.au/SCRIPT/305033_b/scripts/serve_home

Farndale, N. (2008, June 21).World Wide Wizard. The Sydney Morning Herald. Good Weekend p. 50.

Ward, M. (2004). What the net did next.
Retrieved August 28, 2008, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3292043.stm

Module 5 Information ecologies

A definition of 'ecology'.

The New Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought defines human ecology as “ the attempt to link the structure and organization of a human community to interactions with its localized environment.” (1999, p.247).

The use of the metaphor of an ‘ecology’ impacts the way I think about, understand or use the Internet as it makes me regard an information ecology as developing, ever changing entity where even small, initial changes can have a radical impact on the entire. It gives a biological slant, and I think of this ecology as an existing, growing (and demising) entity.

The most intriguing “key elements of a biological ecology that can be applied to thinking about technologies [are that ]:

it contains a diversity of roles for the people and functions for the tools
there is a co-evolution over time -- new technologies arrive and are assimilated, and peoples roles develop and change;”(Nardi & O’Day, 1999)

A diversity of roles means that users are able (at different times) to perform a variety of roles (eg consumer, contributor, innovator, lurker, or a combination of these roles.

Tools may have many functions and users may develop new uses for existing tools (eg peer to peer and social media).

In terms of how this will affect how I use the internet; if I need to retain or capture information, this definition has prompted me to take pains to ensure that I remove the information from the environment into an environment that I can control (eg files, printouts or folders on my PC and backed up).

In its nature, an information ecology is more ephemeral than previously thought and it is dangerous to assume that information that is present today will necessarily be available tomorrow; information is being constantly changed -
“maintained and changed in the constant reshaping through the exposure to new information in everyday life”. (Stalder, 1997).

The concept ‘information’ within the framework of an ‘information ecology’ is understood as a resource or commodity by Capurro (1990) “information no longer has primarily the function of a public good,...but has also become a commodity with a corresponding exchange value”.(Capurro, 1990) and according to Stalder (1997), “basic element of the ecology”.

Information can change, adapt and become new information, “information flows can change their direction and quality instantaneously, a characteristic greatly accelerated by electronic media” (Stalder, 1997).

The concept ‘Communication’ within the framework of an ‘information ecology’ is understood as a component part of the information ecology - information seems to be the higher ranked entity and not as a resource like information is - “Information...is only a resource as long as it is timely”. (Stalder, 1997).

Capurro (1990) states that “Modern information technology plays a major role in the process of shaping not only the ways we communicate but also all aspects of our individual and social life”, so the way we communicate (information) is influenced by technology.

We don’t talk of a ‘communication ecology’ because in the context of information ecology, information is a larger concept than communication – we communication information , so communication is operative in this sense.

Stalder,(1997) speaks of information being the basic element of the information ecology and communication as a process of this ecology. As more emphasis is placed on information, rather than communication (as per the above) the term information ecology has come into practise. Communicating is too specific a term this is why we speak of an information rather than a communication ecology.
Information is seen as something to “communicate among people” (Stalder, 1997).


References

Bullock, A and Trombley, S (Eds.).1999. The New Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought (3rd ed). London: HarperCollinsPublishers.

Capurro, R. (1989, 23-25 August).Towards an Information Ecology. Contribution to the NORDINFO International seminar "Information and Quality", Royal School of Librarianship, Copenhagen, Proceedings: I. Wormell ed.: Information Quality. Definitions and Dimensions. London, Taylor Graham 1990, p. 122-139.

Nardi, B. & O’Day, V. (1999). Information Ecologies: Using Technology with Heart USA. MIT Press.

Stalder, F. (1997). Information Ecology A position paper (version 1.0) McLuhan Program in Culture and Technology, FIS, UofT, 1997.

Module 4 Task - Future use reflections

Future seeker

Depending on the context, for future use, I would generally use the annotations/reviews/notes I have written on a source to refer back to, to decide if further review was required – eg would it fit my requirements at the time?

If I decided that the source (site, article, paper etc) was worthy of a further look, I would (initially) go to my del.icio.us site to see the original I had captured (or the printout of the article which I have also used as a tag on del.icio.us).

Developing a ‘library’ of abstracts or annotations is a valuable resource – not only for this unit but for future units. Having a review in your own words makes it much quicker to sift through the data one has collected.

The original ‘snapshot’ of the site is useful for recoding info such as URL, date (for ‘currency’ judgements), but does not take into consideration the context that I need the information (or the key words or tags that I will use to remember it.

In the Information and attention concept, Goldhaber states that successful websites “are those which capture and hold the increasingly distracted attention of Internet users amidst a swirling mass of informational options.” (Allen, n.d.)

I would add to this that it’s not only websites need to capture and hold our attention, but on a micro level, information or data. When you try to remember where you’ve stored something, additional cues (such as a robust filing system, or tags, are very useful to aid retrieval.

There is much merit in developing a Personal Unifying Taxonomy (PUT). “A PUT is essentially a classification scheme customized to the life of its owner. It reflects various activities, people and areas of interest in a person’s life — past, present and future.” (Jones, 2004).

Even when trying to retrieve information that I have bookmarked and tagged within the past month, I have found that I have had to add to or edit the existing tags in order to make them more searchable, so I hope that they will make more sense to my ‘future seeking’ self, eg ‘print’ to signify that I have a printout of the information, the title of the article in the tags (as I have found that I am searching via this currently) and on further reflection, will mostly likely include ‘11’ as a cue that I originally bookmarked the info during this unit. After reading about PUTs, a recent aim is to develop one of my own.


For external users, the original ‘snapshot’ of information would probably best help them judge if the site was useful or of interest to them, as, it is highly likely that they will have a very different requirements, agendas, opinions or world view to me. What I may find fascinating, they may find dull, what I find very useful, they may find useless.

A ‘neutral’ opinion (such as an abstract) would be most useful, where an annotation or review would be helpful from a peer or social aspect (eg for other people studying Net11 or similar units), to aid research and evaluation – eg if most of the annotations or opinions of a source were very negative, this would likely encourage me to move on to other sources (I would still investigate though - as everyone is entitled to their own opinion!).


References

Allen, M. et al, n.d. Internet Communications Concepts Document (WebCT, Net 11 Studies) Retrieved 6 June, 2008, from http://webct.curtin.edu.au/SCRIPT/305033_b/scripts/serve_home

Jones, W. (2004) Finders, keepers? The present and future perfect in support of personal information management. First Monday [Online], Volume 9 Number 3.
Retrieved July 28, 2008, from http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue9_3/jones/

Conceptual Research & Reflection Project

Concept 2: Your audience’s use of communication

"Many effective email practices depend on understanding how the audience for your messages will use the information you are sending them., or more precisely,how you wish them to use it. (‘Use’ here includes many different things). This concept is quite different from thinking about what you are telling your audience: it requires you to think about what the recipients of email will do with that mail

• Will they file it away for
  future reference?
• Will they respond immediately?
• Will they act upon the
  information if required?
• Will they be passing the message or parts of it
  onto others?

To be effective, you need to signal to your audience what you would like them to do; you need to help them to understand your intentions and expectations. Informational exchange consists in the content of messages but also the uses (intended or unintended) to which the information is put. Thinking about how audiences use Internet information is also very important for website designers; but, since most people are websit users, we can also usefully extend the concept to include the processes that we need to consider when we use websites. Furthermore, all communication involves the development of both messages and intentions of use, which can run counter to, or differently from, received messages and received uses.” (Allen, n.d)

You need to understand your audience (or at least be able to empathise with them) to effectively communicate.

The tone, language used, the time that the email is set to arrive in your inbox, all communicate what you want your audience to do with the communication. “You need to convince your target audience to take action by showing them why it’s in their best interest to do so” (Email Marketing Guide Part 2, 2008).

This can be achieved by using correct tone and language that your target audience will understand: eg a teenager will respond to a different style of language than a ‘corporate citizen’ or pensioner.

Many factors affect how your audience will use the communication:

• the type of email, social or business
• if the recipient has a way of organising their information for future retrieval
• the use of filters
• is the email for information only or is some kind of action required?

“Users spend 51 seconds reading the average (email) newsletter. The layout and writing both need superb usability to survive in the high-pressure environment of a crowded inbox.” (Email Newsletter Usability, n.d)

The use of the communication is also related to ‘metadata’ – eg if you are cc’d, bcc’d you will probably ‘react’ differently than if you were a direct recipient of the email.

How do you communicate what you want the recipient to do most effectively to particular audiences? Who else is a stakeholder in your communications and are their expectations of the result of the communications the same as yours?

Another factor that will affect the use of communications is the relationship between the sender and recipient.

Is your expectation of the relationship you have with the email recipient the same as the recipient’s? They may see you as just ‘another correspondent’, spam, another email from the boss asking you to do something, or wow an email from ‘Company X’!

Not only considering what they will potentially do with the email (file, respond, act upon or pass on) (Allen, n.d), but measuring what your audience can do for example open, read, unsubscribe, select links from within, forward to another email address (or many) will help you craft messages to your recipient. “tracking key statistics can...help you catch trends and make recommendations for future online marketing campaigns” (Email Marketing Guide Part 1, 2008).

When you understand how your audience behaves, and what works well, you can refine or adapt your communication to achieve your goals, for example, increase the ‘click through’ rate.

You need to be very sure of the key messages you want to get across.

For effective email and online communications practises, there are factors such as: For email marketing; - a call to action must be specific, compelling and easily understood, select this link to get our latest deal, “you have only a moment to gain the recipient’s attention.... The important thing is clarity” (Email Marketing Guide Part 2, 2008).

Your call to action does not have to be words - it could be an image or button to select.

For personal or social email; if you want the message to stay confidential or if you want it forwarded to others – you need to specify this in your email.

For corporate email; information can be used as both an internal or external communications channel “Email is one of a website's most powerful tools for strengthening customer service and increasing users' confidence and trust in the site.” (Neilsen, 2003).

Regardless of the type of email you send, you need to ensure that your audience will want to continue to receive communications from you; “By creating a message that is targeted and on topic, readers will find value in your communications...” (Designing and Coding HTML Emails, 2007).

If your email communication ‘survives’ the journey to one’s inbox and is read, it faces other challenges, for, as Jones (2004) states: “In the ideal world, we
have the right information at the right time, in the right place, in the right
form…. The reality is otherwise.” Keeping and acting on the information in
emails can be difficult, as reinforced by Brown (2004):

“Email is hard to sort into a strict taxonomy because:

• Most messages could live in more than one category.
• Personal and business priorities may shift several times a year, rendering email taxonomies obsolete.”

A communicator’s best chance of having their email used effectively (both on receipt and for future use) is making it as easy to use (eg read, respond, store or manipulate) as possible.

Annotated sites and resources

1.

Use it

http://www.useit.com/

Jacob Neilsen is widely recognized as a ‘guru of usability’ (as described by Financial Times, New York Times, CNN), Jakob Nielsen holds a Ph.D. in human-computer interaction. His website ‘useit.com’ practices what it preaches, in that it is a highly usable site.

The site regularly publishes articles, news alerts, conducts conferences worldwide and has videos and books backed by practical user research. Much of the original content (which dates back to 1995), has been updated or revised to include more recent research.

The site is written in accessible language and is even cited in the Net 11 course curriculum about writing for the web (task 3). It is a site that I regularly access and have seen quoted by other sites.

2.

Finders, keepers?

http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue9_3/jones/

Jones, W. (2004) Finders, keepers? The present and future perfect in support of personal information management. First Monday [Online], Volume 9 Number 3. Retrieved July 28, 2008, from http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue9_3/jones/
William Jones, an associate research professor in the Information School at the University of Washington, encapsulates the problem of personal information management and offers potential solutions.

This very well researched, peer-reviewed journal article discusses the decisions users must make (and also the mistakes) concerning personal information management (PIM), issues about PIM. Jones offers a fascinating view of how a person can organise their communications, given that they may have many different ways of communicating (including social and or business), different scenarios for ‘future perfect visions’ concerning personal information management decisions.

Concept 7: Netiquette

“An overwhelming and many-facted(sic) aspect of using email and similar asynchronous communication systems over the Internet is 'Netiquette'. Netiquette describes 'good' and 'bad' conduct in online communication (amongst other forms of Internet use). But what is important about Netiquette is the concept that there are these 'agreed' rules of what is good and bad.

Understanding why and now netiquette operates is more than just learning those rules (for, indeed, there are numerous differences and disagreements about the 'rules'). Rather, one must gain from a reading of 'netiquette' a sense that users must themselves contribute to the proper functioning of the Internet as a communication system: that no-one is in 'charge' of the net and we all must exercise an ethic of maintenance, taking responsibility for doing it 'right'. Moreover, what defines 'right' most of all is : 'how would I feel if this action I am about to take was done to me, instead of by me?' and, as a test of whether you are implementing 'right' properly, ask yourself "if I assume the recipient of my messages is less experienced than me, will they learn something 'good' or 'bad' from what I am doing?'

Good communication practice on the Internet is not something one 'learns', but something one 'practices' so as to teach others, less familiar than yourself, how it is done.

Good communication practice on the Internet is not something one 'learns', but something one 'practices' so as to teach others, less familiar than yourself, how it is done.

Netiquette seems to apply almost entirely to communication: email, online chat, and so on. Perhaps this fact suggests a difference between the kind of info-communication practice involved in website creation and use and that involving direct communication lines. The difference is that, in the latter case, the immediacy of the communication, the sense of ‘back and forth’ means that damaging practices cannot be as easily ignored. We feel, in personal communication (as opposed to the more indirect ‘reading and website’ form of communication), that bad netiquette really does waste our time and affect us. A poorly designed website doesn’t do more than prompt us to move on to the next one.” (Allen, n.d)

Netiquette is more than being ‘polite’ or ‘having good manners’ on the internet.

By experiencing others’ behaviour online and learning how to act, contribute and participate as others do, users can make up the rules and “contribute to the proper functioning of the internet”.(Allen, n.d).

Netiquette is a social or ‘viral’ way of communicating an unofficial set of rules - where people’s interactions affect others, who then take on what they have experienced (and if they feel that it is acceptable, worthy or cool), pass it on to others through their own behaviours. People like to feel included and they can do this by following rules.

Valauskas (1996) states that “Internet communities have evolved, over time, to create their own processes for self-regulation and tolerance”. There are many online guides and books one can access to ensure that one doesn’t cause major offence to other users during online communications.

“Rule 1. Remember the human. Never forget that the person reading your mail or posting is, indeed, a person, with feelings that can be hurt.” (Shea.V., 1994 p.32). Chat room and email sign-up pages (eg Yahoo) and even our welcome to Net 11 Studies have guides for netiquette:

“We need to adhere to some ground-rules concerning the kinds of messages we post – what is often referred to as ‘netiquette’.” (No author, personal communication from Curtin, Welcome to Net 11 studies).

This is to make users aware of what is expected of them when entering what may be a new environment, or becoming accultured online.

Using empathy seems to be a good way of judging what is correct/acceptable as there are no ‘definitive’ rules; “'how would I feel if this action I am about to take was done to me, instead of by me?'” (Allen, n.d).

As users of internet and online communications, “we understand...our role as members of a digital community, in terms of a handful of fellow network travelers.” Valauskas (1996). This is a good analogy as thoughtful or courteous travellers take the time to find out about a culture they are about to enter.

Schwalbe and Shipley suggest (as cited in Nord, 2008) ”Before you set finger to the keyboard, ask yourself one question (and don’t write until you get the answer): What is my relationship to the person I’m writing? Then, make sure your word choice is appropriate.”

Nord (2008) states that “Email’s power is that it’s easy to send and can be distributed widely and instantaneously. As such, its natural state tends towards informality, and we tend to work with it quickly and at times thoughtlessly”. A faux pas using email may seem like a minor mistake, but once the ‘send’ button is pressed, the damage is potentially done.

Communications online versus real life

Online, you can simultaneously conduct multiple conversations (via several different media) at once without appearing rude. This would not only be difficult, but considered rude in the real world. Your interlocutors’ expectations of the ‘conversation’ are different, depending on the channel of the communication.

Hugh Mackay, a prominent social commentator, believes that not only online etiquette is being affected, but ‘offline’ or real life manners are evolving, in part, due to “the proliferation of new technologies such as instant messaging and online networking sites” and this has resulted in an “increasingly fragmented society of subcultures-each with their own sets of rules and customs”. (Selinger-Morris, 2008).

With regards to manners, how does the virtual world mirror real life? - because they are very different spaces.

“Cyberspace contains many different cultures, which some writers have called "virtual communities." Each of these communities has its own rules and customs.” (Shea,1994, p. 20).

Newer ‘social situations’ call for new rules of interaction eg ‘Furries’ are a type of MUD that are not human – how does one approach non-human interactions?

There are bots that ‘simulate’ or pretend to be human (is this deceit?) do you interact with a robot as you would a person? Do they ‘deserve’ to be treated differently?

Acceptable behaviours are the key to successful interactions (these behaviours may not be the same as real life) eg no flying around the dinner table!

In order for the internet community to continue and flourish we (as internet users) need to guide newer and future users.

Annotated sites and resources

1.

Netiquette.

Shea, V (1994) Netiquette. Albion.com, United States. Retrieved July 28, 2008 from Intute database.

http://www.intute.ac.uk/socialsciences/cgi-bin/fullrecord.pl?handle=sosig988195417-18634

The book “Netiquette” was written by Virginia Shea (dubbed the ‘network manners guru’ by the San Jose Mercury News). First published in 1994, the online version of the first ‘network etiquette’ publication has been widely adapted online. Intute states ‘that some of the information is out of date’, indeed some of the terminology is quaint (eg ‘cybernauts’), but much of the content - particularly the core rules of netiquette - still rings true.

Shea covers business, social and legal aspects of netiquette and refers to using email and discussion groups. This is a well-researched book, with some helpful and still-relevant supporting notes, for example, explaining the origin of ‘CC’ (which would be useful for many a Generation Y individual) with an online and print bibliography for further research.

2.

Lex Networkia, Understanding the Internet Community.

Valauskas, E.J., (1996, July 8) Lex Networkia, Understanding the Internet Community. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Library Association, New York. Retrieved 1 August, 2008, from http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue4/valauskas/

Written by the principal, Internet Mechanics, and board member of Directors of the Library and Information Technology Association (LITA), two years after the publication of “Netiquette”, this (peer-reviewed) paper develops some of the concepts outlined in “Netiquette” and reinforces there is no single authority of the internet; it is the responsibility of internet citizens.

The article outlines how social behaviour, protocols and codes of conduct have evolved as both products of collective experiences and responses to threats internet communities.

A vision for the future (ironically),is taken from 11th, 12th centuries, where a governing system for markets over several countries and language barriers was developed (called Lex mercantilia)it is suggested that, via the various forms of netiquette we have an informal Lex Networkia.

Concept 8: The invisibility of difference

“When you meet someone who you can see is hearing impaired, you tend to compensate (sometimes too much) for the mismatch between your 'communicative systems' – speech and hearing on both parts. But if you cannot see that the person you are emailing is using a low resolution, slow older computer running a simple ASCII text email program, then you tend to forget that there are such users out there and do not compensate. There are many differences between computers and computer users, but we tend to forget them when, positioned in front of our own computers, we are able to communicate rapidly and - apparently – effectively across time and distance.

One can see this effect most clearly in some websites that have been developed by people with more powerful / different computers to others. Screen sizes and resolutions, for example, differ widely between Macintoshes and PCs and the effect can sometimes be seen in websites that require too large a screen or assume too small a screen as the only possibility

The daily practice of electronic communication is shaped by over-familiarity with one's own computer system, and a tendency to assume that – as with much more established forms of communication – everyone is operating within compatible and similar systems. When in doubt, seek to communicate in ways that are readable and effective for all users, regardless of their particular systems.

All forms of Internet communication are affected, to some degree, by the invisibility of difference. While, at base, the protocols that run the Internet are (and must be) identical, their specific implementation in programs can vary widely. This variation is, however, very hard to see: hence, the ‘invisibility’ of difference. Fundamentally, we need to recognise that Internet communication can trap users into seeing no further than their own monitor, almost as if they are communicating by speaking to a mirror. Certainly, in online relationships, it appears easier for people to see what they want to see (rather than what they ought to see) displayed on their screen. Advanced Internet users are mindful of the way in which communications lose some or much of their original context and appear on their screens ‘as if’ they are coming from the user themselves, rather than the person with whom they are communicating.” (Allen, n.d)


People think that what they have in front of them on screen is what everyone else has and makes no compensation for any possible differences. (Allen, n.d) It is arrogant to assume this.

To be a most effective communicator, and to ensure that the maximum audience receives your communication as you intended it, you need to use the ‘lowest common denominator’. This could be as simple as offering your emails in text and HTML, designing a web page for an 800 x 600 screen.

At work, my website is bound by a Government Website Style Directive. This is a very prescriptive document, which “is intended to create a consistent and user-friendly experience by standardising key elements to assist the public to easily obtaining information they need fast.” (NSW Government Website Style Directive, 2007). This ensures our website can be reached and utilised by the widest possible audience.

Any good design (including web pages) is scaleable and can use the lowest common denominator as a base. “seek to communicate in ways that are readable and effective for all users”. (Allen, n.d).

Many professional communicators (eg marketers) would not give much thought to this concept, in the mistaken belief that what works on their systems is ‘standard’. Even adding the text ‘view in HTML’ in an email can make a difference to the recipient. Many marketing or commercial emails (eg newsletters) have a link back to a website where the email is also published, to enable a recipient to view the email if they cannot read the email from their inbox.

Effectiveness can be seen in the use of protocols of machines to ‘communicate’ and there is a requirement for humans to behave in the same way. “The email arena, however, is currently facing the same lack of support for web standards in email clients once exhibited by browsers.” (Wyner, 2007).

Clear, effective online communications are required as the effectiveness of your communication can be damaged (or destroyed), if people cannot access or understand your message, they will not be able to act upon it in the way you want them to.

WC3 attempts to address these differences by recommending best practice for all users, particularly with regard to accessibility for users with a disability, with its Web Accessibility initiative.

Interestingly, “Web accessibility also benefits people without disabilities” and “ a key principle of Web accessibility is designing Web sites and software that are flexible to meet different user needs, preferences, and situations.” (Introduction to Web Accessibility, 2005).

Making your communications accessible can be as simple as using text links that make sense when read out of context. For example, avoid "click here." (Quick Tips to Make Accessible Web Sites, 2001). Simple, logical and applicable to all situations.

Even subtle details can effect communications – down to the font style you use.“… font will only display if your visitor has that font installed on their computer.” (Barta, n.d) When writing HTML code, you can “hedge your bets a little by specifying more than one font.” (Barta, n.d) You can acknowledge and accommodate differences in computer set-ups.

Another caution from Barta (n.d) to novice web page designers is to check page design at other resolutions as “Your carefully crafted layout might fall apart at other resolutions.”

Backwards compatibility is another way that communicators can ensure that their message is being received as it is intended- for example its best to save a PDF into a format that can be read by all earlier versions of PDF, even if you are using the latest version (currently in the 9s).

Communicators can make the mistake of concentrating on the message content (including measurement and call to action), the words, language and tone, without really empathising with their audience - how a subscriber to their email list would feel if they could not read a message (and could therefore not participate), could not select a link back to the website or access/read a PDF document.

They don’t really think about the mechanism of the communication and that this actually forms part of the communication (metadata).How you send the message can say a lot about you as a communicator and your company.

By becoming aware of the differences, “It’s important to remember when developing...every email client is different” (Designing and Coding HTML Emails, 2007) you can give your communication the best chance of being read, understood and actioned in the way you intend.

Annotated sites and resources

1.

The World Wide Web Consortium

http://www.w3.org/

Retrieved 24 July, 2008, from http://www.w3.org/

WC3 was founded by Tim Berners-Lee the inventor of the internet.This site is a global collaborative effort and its aim are to “To lead the World Wide Web to its full potential by developing protocols and guidelines that ensure long-term growth for the Web.” It is unbiased as it has no political affiliations.

It is a valuable resources, and in its global spirit, it is able to be translated into many languages. The consortium (as of 24 July) has 425 members including the CSIRO, Australian Government Information Management Office (AGIMO),British Broadcasting Corporation, IBM Corporation and many universities including the University of Oxford – a diverse and credible collection of institutions.
Many authors contribute to this website. The website is regularly revised and updated. The intended audience of this website is specialized - those who are interested in making effective contributions to the WWW. Much content is very easy to access and not written too technically so as to be alienating.
Information contained on this site appears to be valid and well researched, and covers topics extensively. The content is organized logically and is easy to read and find articles of specific interest.


2.

eROI

http://www.eroi.com/ Retrieved 28 July, 2008 from http://www.eroi.com/

This *is* a commercial site [however, given that so much email traffic is commercial, I think this is justified resource to include on this topic]. Much information is freely available and regularly updated with latest research. Via membership, downloads of material such as email and online marketing guides and studies are accessible. The website audience includes professionals interested in improving or creating effective electronic communications. The site and PDF downloads are written in accessible language and is not jargon rich.

eROI produce quarterly email usage studies. I’ve found the site over the years to be full of consistent, usable advice for example it calls for consistency in html use and in these ways, contributes to an ‘even playing field’ for online communications.


Concept 9: Permanent ephemerality

“It's been said that the flow of electrons to a phosphorised screen (much like the one on which you are reading this now, assuming you have not printed it on paper) provides an illusion of impermanence, even though - as demonstrated
mainly in legal cases – electronic information is actually very hard to eliminate from computer systems (especially those involving networks). Hence,electronic communication is marked by an uneasy tension between its permanence
and its ephemerality. Electronic communication (especially email) is likened to a cross between the written and oral forms with which we are most familiar and which tend to mark out our practical perspectives on what is ephemeral and what
is permanent. While true in part, this perspective ignores the fact that electronic communication's similarity or otherwise to written or oral communication is dependent on the perspective of the users.

Advanced Internet users do not confuse the electronically generated 'ephemerality' of their communication with a real emphemerality: they take seriously the requirement to communicate with clear vision of the consequences of what they are doing.

Web ephemerality is equally prominent, but works in reverse:
websites that appear permanent, fixed, solid have a tendency of disappearing,
changing or otherwise blurring back into the endless stream of pixels and electronic signals of the Internet. While communication appears ephemeral, butis not; websites appear certain, but are indeed often ephemeral. Perhaps this
suggests that Internet users need to emphasise the use of communication more than information-seeking.” (Allen, n.d)

The illusion of impermanence and permanence (Allen, n.d)

“But what does it mean-‘ ephemeral’?”...it means ‘which is in danger of speedy disappearance.’” (Saint-Exupery, 1945,p.52).

This is one paradox of the world wide web; as people deal with large volumes of information and content, they process this information and, to avoid being completely overwhelmed by information overload, they move onto the next thing that catches their attention (or, they may be multi-tasking – reading emails and simultaneously conducting multiple conversations via chat, etc.).

This leads to users paying less attention and can be more susceptible to assuming that what was there yesterday will be there tomorrow…

The ‘illusion of permanence is ‘Dependent on the perspective of users’ (Allen, n.d) but is also influenced by their experience, comfort level and expertise using the web and its available communication channels.

Some forms of electronic communication such as chat, are instantaneous and reinforce the ‘illusion of impermanence’. In the many conversations that I have had with my Net 11 course mates, I do not have a record of them (and presume that they have not recorded them either) what would we do with them apart from specifically reference them for a task? – do I own the words that I have typed to an online ‘friend’ in June this year and ‘where’ are they now?

I think that most people would have a chat, take any pertinent information away ‘mentally’ eg ‘so and so’s birthday next week’ or ‘meet John at the Opera Bar’ and then not give a further thought to the nature of the communication, nor what has happened to it. Perhaps what we should be asking is it stored anywhere? Can I retrieve it ? ...how would I do so...?

How do you make people aware that information is not ‘permanent’? What happens when you no longer want/need an email address or Second Life character (or any other avatar?).

“Websites are the opposite as they appear certain but are often ephemeral” (Allen n.d.). We’ve all come across a '404 error’ page not found – and if you’ve not previously copied or saved the information you need, (subject to copyright of course ; ) – it’s gone! Some of these error messages are helpful and suggest other ways you may find information, for example checking your spelling, using a site map or an A-z index.

Ideally, Nielsen (1998) suggests, “all error messages must be:

• written in plain language that is easy to understand for non-technical users and that does not imply that the mistake is the user's fault
• precise in specifying exactly what was done wrong (that is, not be generic or vague)
• constructive in suggesting steps the user can take to correct the problem”.
  

The website archive.org has a search tool named the Wayback Machine, where you can “Browse through 85 billion web pages archived from 1996 to a few months ago” (Wayback machine, n.d.). I decided to try to retrieve a page that our Net 11 course, (module 4) had said was no longer online. I found it! Some content management systems have an auto-archive facility (such as mysource) to ensure content can be protected and stored.

But it’s not only communication types that are subject to this paradox; this illusion can also happen to software “Netscape Navigator became a victim of antitrust behaviours ... empires can disappear in one click” (Sen, 2008)

For people to truly understand that communications and information are ‘in danger of speedy disappearance’, they need to comprehend not only what their needs are for the communication at the time of receipt, but also have a concept of how it may be used in future. This will help them to judge what is required and to engage the many tools available to them; filters and folders in email clients, bookmarking, storage and regular backup, to effectively manage their information (by this I mean communications, content etc).

People’s use of communication will continue to adapt as more and more people use the web and more applications and tools become available for them to access, discover, store, retrieve, manipulate information.

Measures to counter ephemerality include archiving of web sites and other online materials, via sites such as the Internet Archive and ‘web harvesting’ which is defined as “ the automated capture of web published material” (Glen, 2007).

Web harvesting, currently being developed in government and political arenas could also be used commercially, to retain website content. Decisions and policies about how much and how often to capture and preserve information would need to be made to effectively manage www content for future generations.

Annotated sites and resources

1.

Web-at-Risk

Glenn, V.D (2007) Preserving Government and Political Information: The Web–at–Risk ProjectFirst Monday. Retrieved July 28, 2008, from http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue12_7/glenn/index.html

This peer-reviewed article gives an overview of what web harvesting is and the kinds of applications it could be used for, its potential to capture and preserve ‘born–digital information’. Glenn, the Government Documents Librarian at the University of Alabama Libraries, provides balanced comments on why would one wish to use these capabilities, the issues involved , including permissions and copyright, limitations of harvesting ( eg in some kinds of databases).
Several resources, tools and services are referenced for further research. This is a very interesting article as it hints on future promise to retain information that could have previously disappeared.

2.

The Internet Archive

http://www.archive.org/about/about.php Retrieved via Intute database, August 4, 2008.

Note: Intute states that “Concerned that the ephemeral nature of the World Wide Web robs history of important documents, the Internet Archive attempts to capture and catalogue sites and preserve them for posterity.”

The Internet Archive is a non-profit organization, founded to build an Internet library. It’s a good example of an accessible (or social website archive. Using the Wayback machine (the site’s term for search) a user can access web pages, collected since 1996, to look for previously removed or deleted content. This is an unbiased site, in that it does not ‘edit’ what it archives.

This archive does not claim to be all encompassing or gives any guarantees for its accuracy, however, it does allow a ‘regular user’ to easily find information or content that has been deleted from other sources.

References

Allen, M. et al, n.d. Internet Communications Concepts Document (WebCT, Net 11 Studies) Retrieved 6 June, 2008, from http://webct.curtin.edu.au/SCRIPT/305033_b/scripts/serve_home

Barta, J. (n.d) So,you want to make a Web Page!
Retrieved 13 July, 2008, from
http://www.pagetutor.com/html_tutor/lesson04.html
and
Retrieved July 20, 2008, from http://www.pagetutor.com/html_tutor/lesson18.html

Brown, D. (2004) The Information Architecture of Email. Retrieved July 24, 2008, from http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/the_information_architecture_of_email

Glenn, V.D, (2007) Preserving Government and Political Information: The Web–at–Risk Project First Monday. Retrieved July 28, 2008, from http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue12_7/glenn/index.html

Jones, W. (2004) Finders, keepers? The present and future perfect in support of personal information management. First Monday [Online], Volume 9 Number 3.
Retrieved July 28, 2008, from http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue9_3/jones/
Nielsen, J. (2003). Confirmation Email, Automated Customer Service Email, and Transactional Messages Retrieved July 28, 2008, from http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20031208.html

Neilsen, J. (1998). Improving the Dreaded 404 Error Message. Retrieved July 24, 2008, from http://www.useit.com/alertbox/404_improvement.html

Nord, Y. (2008). Minding Your Ps And Qs.Book Review of Send: The Essential Guide to Email for Office and Home. Retrieved July 24, 2008, from http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/minding-your-ps-and

Saint-Exupery, A. (1945) The Little Prince. London: Egmont Books Limited.

Selinger-Morris, S. (2008, July 31) Oops, I did it again, Sydney Morning Herald, Essential, p.6,7.

Sen, P. (executive producer) (2008, July 7) Download:the True Story of the Internet. Episode Browser Wars [Television broadcast] Australia:Foxtel.

Shea, V (1994) Netiquette. Albion.com, United States. Retrieved July 28, 2008 from Intute database. http://www.intute.ac.uk/socialsciences/cgi-bin/fullrecord.pl?handle=sosig988195417-18634

Valauskas, E.J., (1996, July 8) Lex Networkia, Understanding the Internet Community. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Library Association, New York. Retrieved 1 August ,2008, from
http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue4/valauskas/

Wyner, M. (2007)Web standards: a must for html email. Retrieved 24 July, 2008, from http://www.w3.org/2007/05/html-mail/html-email-standards


*****
Designing and Coding HTML Emails. (2007) Retrieved 24 July, 2008, from http://www.eroi.com/online-marketing-resource-center/resource-center/
(select email guides)

Email Marketing Guide Part 1, (2008)
Retrieved 24 July, 2008, from
http://www.eroi.com/online-marketing-resource-center/resource-center/(select email guides)

Email Marketing Guide Part 2 (2008)
Retrieved 24 July, 2008, from
http://www.eroi.com/online-marketing-resource-center/resource-center/
(select email guides)

Email Newsletter Usability:165 Design Guidelines for Newsletter Subscription, Content, Account Maintenance, and RSS News Feeds Based on Usability Studies (n.d). Retrieved July 28, 2008, from http://www.nngroup.com/reports/newsletters/

Introduction to Web Accessibility. (2005). Retrieved 24 July, 2008, from http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/accessibility.php

NSW Government Website Style Directive. (2007). Retrieved 24 July, 2008, from http://www.gcio.nsw.gov.au/library/guidelines/corporate-services

Quick Tips to Make Accessible Web Sites. (2001) Retrieved 24 July, 2008, from http://www.w3.org/WAI/quicktips/Overview.php

The Wayback Machine (n.d.) Retrieved July 24, 2008, from http://www.archive.org/web/web.php

end of post : )

Module 4 Task - Annotation

Take this note Miss Moneypenny

I reviewed my sources and decided to write this annotation on 'Lex Networkia, Understanding the Internet Community', from the peer-reviewed online journal First Monday (I initially discovered First Monday via searching Intute database).

A challenge for writing annotations for the concept assignment is knowing that they are only able to be 100 words. This means information about the subjects discussed and the purpose need to be condensed; so inclusion of a source in itself is a positive evaluation of the reliability and authority of the site/source on the particular subject.

My annotation:
Written by the principal, Internet Mechanics, and board member of Directors of the Library and Information Technology Association (LITA), two years after the publication of “Netiquette”, this (peer-reviewed) article develops some of the concepts outlined in “Netiquette” and reinforces there is no single authority of the internet; it is the responsibility of internet citizens.
The article outlines how social behaviour, protocols and codes of conduct have evolved as both products of collective experiences and responses to threats internet communities.

A vision for the future (ironically),is taken from 11th, 12th centuries, where a governing system for markets over several countries and language barriers was developed (called Lex mercantilia)it is suggested that, via the various forms of netiquette we have an informal Lex Networkia.

*****

I have also included the abstract on the paper from First Monday:

“Much of the legal effort regarding the Internet and cyberspace occurs with little regard for the communities that will be most affected by new regulations and treaties. The Internet communities have evolved, over time, to create their own processes for self-regulation and tolerance. Legislative experiments that fail to take into account the nature of the Internet communities and the Internet itself are fundamentally counter-productive.”

...which was a contributing reason to why I selected this source over others I had found.

References

Valauskas, E.J., (1996, July 8) Lex Networkia, Understanding the Internet Community. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Library Association, New York. Retrieved 1 August, 2008, from http://www.firstmonday.dk

http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue4/valauskas/

Module 4 Task Organising Search Information

Golden Re-treival

Three of the best sources I found for my Netiquette concept were:

1. Shea, V (1994) Netiquette. Albion.com, United States. Retrieved July 28, 2008 from Intute database. http://www.intute.ac.uk/socialsciences/cgi-bin/fullrecord.pl?handle=sosig988195417-18634

2. Lex Networkia, Understanding the Internet Community. Valauskas, E.J., (1996, July 8) Lex Networkia, Understanding the Internet Community. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Library Association, New York. Retrieved 1 August, 2008, from http://www.firstmonday.dk http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue4/valauskas/

3. Nord, Y. (2008). Minding Your Ps And Qs.Book Review of Send: The Essential Guide to Email for Office and Home
Retrieved July 24, 2008 from http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/minding-your-ps-and

I recorded this information in several ways:

• I bookmarked these sources using deli.cio.us and used very specific tags to jog my memory for future reference.(I have found the more tags I use, the easier it is to find again).


• I also printed out the article from First Monday (twofold reasons; 1. So I could read it on the train and 2. so I had a copy I could mark up and keep)
  I also referenced the sources for my Concepts assignment, taking care to record the specific URLs.


• I did not take screenshots at the time of discovery (as I don’t think this is an effective way to capture details about these particular resources).

For my uni courses, I have developed a folder system and for NET 11, keep an electronic folder (which I back up regularly) for each of the Module task sets and assignments (drafts and finals), so have saved this information in these.

I also keep a real folder for printouts and collected reference sources; magazine or newspaper articles, or printouts of peer-reviewed journals. In this way, I can use multiple ways of finding the information, as I may need to access information in different contexts (eg read on the train, quote for an assignment, re-confirm a fact).

I used tools and software such as del.icio.us, Copernic, Google and directories such as Intute, Librarians Internet Index to search for information.

Module 4 Task Boolean Search

NOT AND OR

My previously used search term key word (netiquette) does not really apply itself to this kind of search, so I added another term - behaviour.

As the web can search so much ‘deeper’ than anything before it, a comparison to a library is accurate only to a certain degree.
I can see that by utilising the search engines and directories available there is a whole new world beyond Google!

I found the Boolean logic very interesting and wish I had known about it years ago! My searches from now on will take on a different slant.

To gain the biggest number of hits relating to these key words I would use the 'or' operator, eg search terms netiquette and behaviour (as the "more terms or concepts we combine in a search with OR logic, the more records we will retrieve." (Boolean Searching on the Internet, 2008).

For information most relevant to what I actually wanted to look for, I would use the 'not' operator, as "the NOT logic excludes records from your search results." (Boolean Searching on the Internet, 2008), but I would use it with caution.


For information coming only from university sources, I would look at known sources such as the Curtin university database Gecko, also Academic Directories such as Academic Info or Infomine.

Search terms used Google

Netiquette OR behaviour

Results 1 - 10 of about 86,300,000 for Netiquette OR behaviour. (0.16 seconds)


Netiquette AND behaviour

Results 1 - 10 of about 95,500 for Netiquette AND behaviour. (0.13 seconds)

I also searched these terms using Dogpile, Intute and Librarians Internet Index.

References

Boolean Searching on the Internet. (2008). Retrieved 20 August, 2008, from http://www.internettutorials.net/boolean.html