About this blog … May 29, 2008

This blog has been put together as part of the assessment requirements for my Internet Communications subject.  

Post a comment if you think I’ve missed something or I’m off track … I hope you find it interesting.

 

Preparing for ‘future shock’ May 29, 2008

This post sets out some of my reflections on the likely future directions of the Internet. 

 

The speed, cost and spread of the Internet

Much of how we use the Internet in the future will be closely linked with the development of faster broadband speeds, and wider access to broadband networks.

We’ve already seen some of the impacts of the introduction of broadband networks. Faster broadband is likely to stimulate the further growth of:

• multimedia content on demand – such as video, movies and music 
• Voice over IP (VOIP) and web-based communication systems such as Skype 
• virtual spaces and online games – such as Second Life and World of Warcraft 
• more innovative use of the Internet in health care, schools and Universities – such as virtual excursions and remote lectures and distance-based learning

How faster broadband impacts on society will depend to a large extent on who gets access – will it be limited to those in large cities, and to those with the capacity to pay? The fact that access to fast broadband (or any broadband) is increasingly viewed as an individual  ‘right’ is shown in the intervention of Governments around the world as both a provider and sponsor of broadband networks.

In a nutshell, faster broadband will open up a range of options for users – some of which we may not even contemplate at the moment. Applying the ‘information ecology’ metaphor, this is a good example of how both people and technology play key roles in the evolution of the dynamic Internet ‘system’.

 

The mobile Internet

Over time, we’re increasingly likely to think of the Internet as being on our phone or other portable devices as it is on a PC. We’re already seeing how developments in mobile communication devices, such as mobile phones and PDAs, are making the Internet increasingly portable. As users, our use of the Internet will be less location-specific – we’ll be able to use many applications regardless of where we are. 

The mobile Internet is stimulating new types of applications.

• For example, Twitter is a relatively new application that is capitalising on both the mobile and PC-based Internet. (For one perspective, see What is Twitter, and is there any reason I should care?) 
• As another example, location-aware systems such as Rover are being developed that allow mobile devices to take into account a person’s GPS position. So, if someone searches for a restaurant on a PDA, it could automatically identify venues close to the person’s location.  

The mobile Internet is also likely to influence how we provide content.

• Audio and video images are likely to dominate written content, especially as bandwidth speeds increase. (A picture will be worth a thousand words …)
• Increasing use of small hand-held PDAs may mean that written content on the Internet needs to become even more concise.

 

The Internet as a social space

People will increasingly using the Internet for social interaction. Some key developments include:

• increased use of social networking tools and ‘spaces’ – particularly tools that allow group interaction, rather than ‘one-on-one’ communication
• the spread of blogs – giving individuals as authors access to a potentially massive audience
• peer-to-peer networks – allowing content to spread ‘virally’
• virtual spaces – such as online games and Second Life  
• interacting with traditional media online - for example, being able to comment on an online TV show or a newspaper article.

The Pew Internet report in 2005 on the future of the Internet concluded that the Internet will significantly increase the size of people’s social networks:

‘… This will enhance trust in society, as people have a wider range of sources from which to discover and verify information about job opportunities, personal services, common interests and products.’ (Pew Internet, p.11).

This will in turn raise issues about how people manage those networks, and perhaps who they can trust.

Privacy issues will increasingly be of concern where people use the Internet as a social space, for example through social networking sites. The ubiquity of these tools may make it difficult for people to keep track of where and what information they have posted.

Advances in search engines also mean that it’s easier to find information about people on the Internet. For example, the Pipl search engine searches the ‘deep web’ and can retrieve information about individuals that would previously have been difficult to find.

While this increased transparency may appear to do little harm, Internet users will need to make actively informed choices about what information they provide over the Internet.  

 

The question of content

Faster Internet speeds are also radically changing how people access content on the Internet.

On the positive side, Internet users are becoming more empowered as they have access to a wide range of content on demand – they get what they want, when they want it. On the negative side, the ease of downloading large files with broadband and the use of file sharing systems raise significant (and complicated) copyright issues. (See ‘Copying is theft…’).   

There is considerable debate about whether allowing people to use file-sharing systems online hurts sales or stimulates demand. For example, see Music Downloads: Pirates – or Customers?  

However, it is leading to the development of new business models, such as online music (and now TV and movie) stores like iTunes. It is also encouraging content owners to think more laterally about promoting their products. One example is Radiohead’s CD release in 2007, which initially allowed people downloading the album online to pay what they thought it was worth, rather than a set price.   

I think that ‘clever’ content owners will increasingly recognize that some people prefer to access content online, and will adopt strategies to take advantage of this. 

  

Information ecologies May 19, 2008

Task:  As you read, think about the following questions:

• how might the metaphor of an ‘ecology’ impact on the way you think about, understand or use the Internet?
• how are the concepts ‘information’ and ‘communication’ understood within the framework of an ‘information ecology’?
• why don’t we talk of a ‘communication ecology’?

Log entry: Nardi and O’Day (1999) define an information ecology as ‘as system of people, practices, values, and technolgies in a particular local environment’. The concept emphasises how people’s activities are served by how they use technology, rather than the technology itself.

The ‘information ecology’ metaphor gives a framework that emphasises the relationship between different parts of the Internet as a system, including the roles played by technology and people.

Our choice of a framework is important because it influences how we’re likely to approach issues. For example, as discussed by Merrick (on WEBCT), if we think of technologies as a tool, then may limit ourselves from thinking of them in other ways – e.g. as an extension of our ability to communicate.

Here are some examples of applying the ecology metaphor to the Internet: 

• An ecology evolves. In the case of the Internet, evolution (including change and growth) has been rapid over recent years.
• The concept of an ecology is scalable. It can be applied to small information ecologies, such as a workplace or library, or to the Internet itself.
• Ecologies are affected by external factors. For example, the falling real cost of personal computers over the past 20 years has brought about widespread access to computers and the Internet in most countries.
  • In the same vein, the development of further broadband and mobile technologies is a factor that is both external and internal and will affect the evolution of the ‘Internet ecology’.
• The concept refers to a ‘keystone species’ – in a workplace this could be a key person who can link people and technology together by communicating well (e.g. someone who champions the introduction of a new IT system).
• Parts of the system are inter-dependent – for example, if a local network goes down in a workplace, people are unlikely to be able to use their computers in the way they intend. In this case, people depend on actions from other parties to fix the system.
• Parts of the system may play multiple roles depending on their locality – for example a laptop computer may be a tool for work,  an entertainment system for playing games and music, or a device to stay in touch with friends and family.

A key feature of the information ecology metaphor is that it doesn’t place the emphasis on one part – such as technology, information or communciation.

While this metaphor does highlight the key role of communication, using the term ‘communication ecology’ would not be more appropriate, as this would emphaise the social aspects of the Internet. While social networking is increasingly important, the Internet is still primarily used for ‘passively’ sharing information (‘I post, you seek’ and vice versa).

The information ecology metaphor helps us think about using the Internet as a medium for communicating and sharing information. It makes us think of the Internet as a dynamic, evolving system where users play a key role, and where those roles and capabilities changing over time and from place to place. Ultimately, it helps us to think more broadly about our roles as users of the Internet and ’communicators’ on the Internet.

 

Evaluating the Web May 19, 2008

Task:  Work through the tutorial on Evaluating websites. Choose the best ‘source’ or site from the three you used in the last task, then evaluate it according to the tutorial.  Write an annotation for the source which could communicate to a reader both your ‘judgement’ of the site according to what you have learnt from the tutorial, and also the following information:

• the reliability and authority of the site / source / article
• the main ideas or subjects discussed in the article
• the purpose for which the site was written (this might include any apparent external interest. intellectual motivation or contextual information)

Log entry:  My annotation: 

• McBride, M. (2008). Select-all delete: Endangered Species? in Melanie McBride Online. Accessed on 24 May 2008 from http://melaniemcbride.net/2008/04/28/select-all-delete-an-endangered-species/.
  • McBride suggests that new Web 2.0 applications such as Facebook and Twitter don’t give users sufficient control over their data. In particular, she argues that these applications are easy to sign up to, but that it’s often difficult to remove all of your information when you leave. mcBride also states that most social networking sites have a clause which states that they own the content you post on their site, which raises privacy concerns.
  • According to the ‘About us’ page and a Google search, the author is a Toronto based writer and educator on technology, media and culture. McBride also works as a consultant on new media content production. 
  • The website appears to have 2 objectives – education and advocacy. The author has made various critical and thought-provoking posts over a number of years. She also acknowledges alternative views in comments posted.
  • A Technorati search found 53 reactions by ‘authority’ and a del.icio.us search also indicated a range of links to the website.
  • Overall, I found the website to be a useful source of views on our use of the Internet.  

 

Task:  Compare your final analysis and annotation with the material you saved for the last task, and think about these questions:

1. In terms of your own future use, which ‘body’ of information (ie. the original ‘snapshot’ of the site, or your own, annotated, analytical version) would be most useful to refer back to?
2. In terms of external users (i.e. if you included this site as a hyperlink or resource on a website) which body of information would best help them judge if the site was useful or of interest to them?

Log entry:  My reflections on evaluating the web:

1. For my future use, I’d prefer to keep both versions – the snapshot to remind me of the post (particularly if I’d forgotten the author, title or subject matter), and the annotated version to refer back to my analysis of the article.
   • The shorter ‘snapshot’ version is more useful for tracking down information that I may forget at a later date.
   • The longer version is a good reminder of my judgements of the article, and once recorded would save me having to do that research and analysis again. The ‘metadata’ recorded for the snapshot version doesn’t provide the same depth of analysis.
2. The usefulness for an external user would depend on the purpose of the link.
   • If the purpose of the hyperlink was to list various articles on a particular subject, without any judgement on their merit, the snapshot version would be preferable.
     • The shortness of the snapshot version is a key advantage – as discussed below under WWW standards, most Internet users prefer concise content.
   • If users are seeking links that discuss the merits of different articles and make informed judgements about their arguments and the credibility of the author, the longer annotated version would be preferred. 

 

 

Searching the Web May 19, 2008

Task:   Make sure you have a meta searching program installed, such as Copernic or Sherlock. Choose your most commonly used internet search engine and do a search with words of your choosing.

Log entry:  For this exercise, I chose terms used I’d researched for my concepts assignment - for concept # 9 ’Permanent Ephemerality’.  The terms I used were: Internet, persistence, ephemerality, permanence.

I used Google, which found around 1,050 hits (fairly small compared to a normal Google search). The first page of hits is shown below, with the first being my blog entry for the Concepts assignment! Other results are more mixed – some were references that I cited in my assignment, while others were completely off my intended topic.

  

 

Task:  Using copernicus or similar, set it up to search at least three search engines (including one that will search the ‘deep web’ and repeat exactly the same search.

Log entry:  For this task I used the Copernic Agent Basic meta-search engine. Using the same terms as the previous exercise, it returned 36 hits.  The first few were paid advertsing, and the first unpaid term was unrelated to what I was searching for.  However, it did return some interesting hits that the Google search didn’t. On the whole, however, I found it annoying having to navigate between the ‘junk’ returns and those that were relevant.

Because the exercise using Copernic didn’t appear that successful, I also tried the Turbo10 search engine, which reportedly lists searches from popular search engines and the deep web.  It returned only 9 hits, and again the first appeared to be unrelated to the seach terms. This suggests that my choice of search terms could have been further refined.

 

An interesting feature of this search engine is that it includes screen shots of the pages next to the hit description. However, this isn’t particularly useful as the screen shots are very small. In addition, the summary information for each hit is very brief and doesn’t give you sufficient information about the web page it refers to.  While it did return one additional useful reference, the low number of hits and irrelevant returns mean that I wouldn’t be inclined to use it again.

 

Task:  Read Boolean searching on the Internet.  Think about how you would best search for the following:

• the biggest number of hits relating to these key words
• information most relevant to what you ACTUALLY wanted to look for!
• information coming only from university sources

Log entry:  My strategies to refine the search terms are listed below.

• To find the biggest number of hits relating to these key words – this is the strategy I adopted initially – i.e. to list all the terms, and to look for hits for any that return these words.
• To find information most relevant to what I want to look for – following the mixed results from my previous searches, which included poetry and theatre guides, I refined my search to exclude ‘art’ and ’performance’. This reduced my Google search results from 1,050 to 31. This approach still returned many hits that were off-topic, but the lower number of hits overall meant that these were more manageable to sort through. 
• To find information only from univesity sources – I added ‘.edu’ to the search terms. While this may also able to pick up iformation from non-university sources (e.g. schools), the number is likely to be small. This strategy returned 993 hits. Interestingly, all the hits found under the second approach (excluding ‘art’ and ‘performance) were also from .edu domains.

 

Task:  Choose the best three sources found in the previous task. Using any useful software, record this information on your computer  in the way that you think will be most useful to you in terms of preparing for your assignment (that is, in terms of how easy you will find it to access, retrieve, understand, contextualise, and recall why you saved it – and with what).

• URL
• author
• instution
• blurb / summary / screen shot (this can be a direct copy of an appropriate abstract or introductory paragraph on the site: but make sure you record and reference it as such)

Log entry:  I used Google bookmarks to record the information for this exercise.

This bookmarking system allows me to save the same bookmark under multiple topics. It’s also flexible enough to allow me to record metadata of the nature referred to above, and to search for any of that information. However, it doesn’t have more advanced features that some bookmark managers have, such as including screenshots.

I find that the best feature of this bookmarking system is its portability – I can have access to my saved bookmarks on any computer that has the Google toolbar downloaded. Because I use more than one computer for my university work, this feature is invaluable and makes me more inclined to invest the effort in maintaining and managing my bookmarks. 

The Information I saved in Google bookmarks is listed below:

1. Smith, A. (2003), In Support of Long-term access, in Council on Library and Information Resources.  Accessed 24/5/08 from  http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub126/smith2.html  Extract – ‘The central question that the papers address is whether or not the infrastructure in place for preservation is appropriate to the new information environment.’  
   • Saved under Net11-Module 4-permanent ephemerality 
2. Graham, P.S. (2000), Issues in Digital Archiving, in Preservation. Accessed 24/5/08 from http://web.syr.edu/~psgraham/pgsite/pglibwork/pgtexts/digarchiv2000.html. Syracuse University Library. Extract – ‘Most libraries are now trying to provide an ever-increasing volume of scholarly electronic information to their clienteles. Research libraries have taken on the provision, organization and preservation of information with the same long-term commitment made for print materials. It is an expensive, uncharted and difficult task.’
   • Saved under Net11-Module 4-permanent ephemerality 
3. McBride, M. (2008), Select-all delete: Endangered Species? from Melabnie McBride Online. Accessed 24/5/08 from http://melaniemcbride.net/2008/04/28/select-all-delete-an-endangered-species/ First para – ‘Select-all is one of my favourite user controls. It allows me to quickly move, archive or delete large volumes of data quickly and easily. It’s also a means of defining my ownership over my content. In an increasingly undemocratic web of surveillance, abuse of power and corporate control, I believe users deserve improved control over their data.’
   • Saved under Net11-Module 4-permanent ephemerality 

 

Tools for using the web May 19, 2008

Task:  Choose at lease two unfamiliar Internet tools/plug-ins.  Experiment with the programs. Think about and reflect on the processes of downloading software/programs from the web.

Log entry:  For this exercise I downloaded Copernic Agent Basic and Bookmark Buddy.

• Copernic – I downloaded this to help with later tasks utilising meta search engines and searches of the ‘deep web’. Other features include an ability to track changes in web pages. It came as part of a package that allows for a desktop PC search.
  • This program was less intuitive to use that other well-known search engines.
  • In adition, although it’s a meta search engine, I found that the range of search engines it utilises is fairly limited.
  • Overall, there doesn’t appear to be much benefit from downloading this program compared to using an online search engine that doesn’t require downloading – unless the extra features such as desktop search were valued.
• Bookmark Buddy – I downloaded this program to assist with organising references for my Concepts assignment. This program was very quick to download. It imported my Favourites from Internet ExpIorer into my favourties and its pre-populated categories.
  • I found the importing feature a bit ‘clunky’ – I’d like to have the ability to delete some of the pre-set categories.
  • The program is also in a very small window which can’t be resized
  • Its most annoying feature is the prompt that appears every time at login asking if I want to purchase it (there’s no ‘don’t ask me again’ option).

In general, I found the process of downloading the programs was fairly straightfoward. This is particularly helped by using ‘wizards’ that complete the installation process, and if the programs are fairly small and don’t take long to download.

In general I exercise caution when downloading software from the Internet, due to viruses and sometimes unintended impacts that downloaded software may have. I find that it’s worth downloading from a reputable site, such as Tucows. Websites with independent user reviews can also be helpful.

Web 2.0 May 19, 2008

Task:  What applications or ‘services’  do you think are web 2.0 indicative? Take a look at the Internet Communications Blinklist. Think about the format and usability of a website/html written list with this same information.

Log entry:  Web 2.0 applications are ones that give ‘everyday’ Internet users simple tools to make their own web spaces. Social networking sites, blogs and video-sharing sites are good examples.

This video from Michael Wesch gives a great overview of how Web 2.0 is changing the way we use the Internet.

Web 2.0 applications offer users the chance to:

• personalise – for example, by posting their images, videos or comments
• organise their information how they want – for example, by using widgets and tags
• choose what they want to see
• move their information more easily between applications 

The key difference between the Internet Communications Blinklist and one in a html format is that it allows input from users – for example, they can rate the items listed. A standard html page tends to be static and only allows one-way communication (from the website to the user). 

While Web 2.0 applications give users more capacity to control and organise their information, they may also greatly increase the amount of information that people have to deal with. This means that users need more discernment and ability to manage that information effectively (ironically, perhaps using Web 2.0 tools).

Blogs May 19, 2008

Task:  Reflect upon what you have read about blogs. Consider various uses for blogs such as citizen journalism and personal blogging. Have you seen in your net travels any interesting uses for blogs?

Log entry:  This unit gave me my first hands-on experience of blogging, and it’s illustrated both good and potentially concerning features about blogs.

The Good:

• Blogs can be very empowering. They give people the freedom to communicate their views, images, artwork, music etc. to a massive audience in an unprecedented way.
• Because blogs can be anonymous, they provide an opportunity for people to exchange their views with others in a relatively ‘safe’ environment.
• Blogs are a tool that’s available for just about anyone with Internet access.
  • From the readers’ perspective, this broadens people’s access to information, particularly on issues that wouldn’t necessarily be covered by ‘professional’ websites.
  • Blogs by ‘everyday users’ also provide a different, often more personal, perspective to standard websites.

 The Bad:

• Used unwisely or mischeviously, blogs can be a tool that causes personal or professional damage.
  • Because of the persistent nature of blogs, a damaging post could remain indefinitely unless someone takes action to have it altered or removed. Even then, traces of the post can be difficult to completely remove, as demonstrated by the Baillieu blog story.
  • Because blogs can also be anonymous and made by people with a casual rather than a professional interest, the opportunities for recourse may be more limited.
• Related to this, blogs can raise privacy concerns. Before posting information to a blog, authors should be aware that they’re making that information widely accessible. (And that a post or image that seems innocuous now might not be in the future…)
• Many blogs are just plain boring. This doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be made, but it can make it harder for people to find the ‘good stuff’.

Uses for blogs – Blogs are used for a range of purposes, from the original notion of keeping a web log or journal, to staying in touch with friends, or promoting a person’s professional concerns.

‘Blogs’ are also increasingly being used by companies such as media organisations (perhaps to counter the effect that blogs and the Internet generally have had on the role of printed media).  Blogs help organisations to engage their customers / readers / users – for example, by posting an article and then allowing users to directly interact by providing a comment. However, this also raises the question of the distinction between a blog and a ‘normal’ website. One possible criteria is that the author of a blog should be unique and identifiable (even if anonymous), and not someone writing on behalf of a company or organisation.

FTP May 19, 2008

Task:  Try uploading your web page to your student web space in Oasis or your web space provided by your ISP using ftp.

Log entry:  I downloaded and used SmartFTP for this exercise.  Using the FTP software was fairly straightforward, but I couldn’t get my page to display properly. After checking Bulletin Board posts, I found that this was because I hadn’t set up a Curtin VPN. this took a bit of chasing around (highlighting the need for good communication between the providers of technology and the users) but once done, it all worked.

Here is the URL - http://student.curtin.edu.au/~14092965/ (only accessible at Curtin or via the Curtin VPN).

WWW Standards May 19, 2008

Task:  Make a summary of what you believe are the 5 most important ‘rules’ for writing online. Think about any differences between the articles – is the advice in the older article still current?

Log entry:  5 top rules for writing online:

1. Be aware that most people tend to scan web pages online rather than read them. Nielsen’s Alertbox suggests that web pages can be made more usable for people who scan by:
   • highlighting key text (e.g. using bold, changing the font or using explanatory text for linking URLs)
   • using bullet points or short paragraphs
   • using meaningful sub-headings
   • using an ‘inverted paragraph’ style (starting with the conclusion)
   • writing more concisely.
2. Be aware that people tend to focus more on some parts of the web page than others. For example, eye-tracking studies report that users tend to view pages in a F-shaped pattern, with more time spent viewing on the first horizontal lines and the left vertical margin. Again, this implies that writers for the web should aim to:
   • present the key points for the page upfront as a tagline or summary, or in the first few lines (the ‘inverted paragraph’ style referred to above) and
   • use meaningful headings. 
3. Consider whether your audience prefers reading pages online or printing them out and reading offline.
   • As suggested in Sarah Horton’s Web Teaching Guide, if your users like to read both online and offline you could consider providing an online version and a more comprehensive pdf version of a web page.
   • When using links, explain what the link covers so that it makes sense in a printed version link. (This also benefits visually impaired people who use screen readers.)  
4. Be aware that users tend to dislike scrolling down for information. This can be addressed by breaking up larger pages into smaller pages, each with the key messages presented at the top and links to the next page or other relevant content.
   • If you use this approach, each page should make sense on its own – it shouldn’t overly depend on information from a preceding page. This may mean that some points will need to be repeated.
5. Use links sparingly and to reinforce your key points. As links are generally highlighted, the readers’ eyes will naturally be drawn to them – so make sure that the linking text is clear, and that you briefly explain how the link complements your wedsite content.   

I think that the points made in the older article are still generally valid. As Nielsen suggests, usability guidelines change very slowly because they’re based on human nature (which also changes slowly). However, he overlooks the key point that ‘writing’ for the web is not just about words – other media, such as photos, videos and podcasts are an increasingly key part of websites. Web writers need to be aware of making sure that this content complements the written content, for example by using meaningful captions that link back to key messages for the page.

 

Task:  Visit the Copyright Website, which provides a good overview of copyright issues related to the net. Next, go the Curtin home page and find the policy documents that relate to copyright and IP in IT use. Consider these question:

• Have you used images or words on your web page or website that contravene copyright laws?
• Would you be in breach of copyright if you put the Curtin logo at the top of your web page for an assignment?

Log entry: 

Copyright protection covers original creative work, such as:

• written material (e.g. books, articles, newspapers, poetry
• images (e.g. photos, movies and artwork) 
• music (e.g. recorded works and sheet music)
• artisitic works (e.g. sculptues and paintings)

The Copyright at Curtin website provides a good overview of copyright issues for staff and students. Students are allowed a limited ‘fair use’ exemption for some kinds of copyrighted material, provided that it is for a non-commercial, educational purpose. 

In practice, it can be easy to forget that so much of the material available on the Internet is automatically subject to copyright, even where it is not accompanied by a formal copyright notice. Good practice to follow when using material that may be subject to copyright are:

• to give attribution for others’ work and
• to respect the ‘integrity of the work’ – e.g. don’t use it out of context.

These points also relate to good practice for linking – while linking to a website does not breach copyright, you should not link in a way that gives the impression that the externally linked page is part of your website.

Following some research, I conclude that it would not breach copyright to put the Curtin logo at the top of my web page for an assignment. A Quick Guide to Copyright for Curtin students states that Curtin students can ‘copy and communicate any material in which Curtin owns the copyright (except Confidential papers etc.)’. However, as the logo is a registered trademark, we would need to be mindful of the style guide for using the logo, as set out in Curtin University’s logo use procedures.