Time for Reflection

I first began this blog as a requirement for a class I’m taking called Elements of Visual Design. This is the final required post for this course. However, don’t expect this to be the end! I have plenty of things I want to discuss and the web is large enough for yet another librarian’s blog.

I started this blog on September 6th, 2007. When I began, I had no idea how my writing would change. I started out experimenting with embedded video, but only gradually did I integrate media with writing. Let’s take a look back, back into time, and review how things have changed over the past four months.

Writing

My very first blog entries read like extended essays. My paragraphs are much too long. Over time however, I begin to make use of things like typography and lists to separate out long sections. I start to provide links to relevant material. My blog “voice” becomes less stodgy and more familiar.

My favorite entry is the post on social bookmarking. My writing style is the perfect mix of scholarly and familiar. At this point I’ve achieved the style I want to use in my blog. I use images and links appropriately and remembered to keep the paragraphs short and relevant.

Another entry I’m proud of is the one on usability. This is an issue that I’m very familiar with, since this topic comes up again and again in my professional career. I enjoyed reading research on some attempt to measure usability by using Eye-Tracking studies. I need to keep abreast of new research and concepts in the field. Consequently, I was able to relate the assignment directly to an issue in my workplace. Now I just need to apply what I’ve discussed to solve the situation.

As I progress and continue to update this blog, I need to keep the lessons I’ve learned in mind. My writing should be intelligent and relevant, however, I should not forget the format. Also, it is important to consider is how people read on the web. I don’t want to bore my readers or keep them from engaging in my information because of how I crafted my blog entry. I need to take advantage of the nature of the web and include images, links and media such as embedded video.

A note on embedded video: I’ve included it at least twice in my blog, however, when viewing my blog through a reader such as bloglines, the video does not show up, although the images do. I should indicate that embedded video follows for those who follow on such readers.

Design

The blogger template I chose when I began is called Scribe. I liked the look of an old manuscript. I’m a fan of reproducing the joy of paper documents in online form. Also, I like the irony – I’m writing a blog about technology and the future, but I’m keeping in mind the history of the library, like the library at Alexandria, which contained only manuscripts.

I also liked that this template didn’t look like every other blog on blogspot. Several blogs I follow all seem to have the same design. I liked the left hand navigation, which is different from so many others I’ve seen. I resisted the temptation to make the entire background purple. As you can see from my portfolio I have a great affection for the color purple.

I modified the design in several ways from the standard Blogger template. I started out by adding a few widgets, namely del.icio.us and Twitter. I’ve been experimenting with Twitter, since it’s a new technology, but didn’t intend for it to be anything more than a simple widget to add to my sidebar to fill up the blank space. Since I started blogging and Twittering, I’ve had two people “follow” me on Twitter. I can only assume they like what they saw on my blog.

As the semester went on, I added a few more items. First I added my personal logo. Although I created two, I felt that the first one fit in better with the style of this blog. My other logo, which you can see to the right, was fun and interesting, but not quite right for this color scheme. Recently, I just added an avatar picture of myself, which you can now see under my logo.

After reporting about how much I loved Library Thing I found I was able to add a widget for that service here, so I did. I like how the widget adds some color to the blog with the book covers. It’s visually interesting, and it entices readers to click on my collection.

My biggest success was changing the way bulleted lists look. Originally lists were designated with a tiny flower, probably to match the background image. I’ve changed this image to be a little book instead, which you can see in the following list:

• start a blog
• write
• have fun!

Intellectual Concepts

I think I was most successful relating key concepts to my professional work as a librarian. That is one of my goals in taking part in this graduate program. I want to integrate these new technical skills in what I already do every day. There’s a lot of publicity with web 2.0 and libraries these days, and I like to cut through to what’s really useful.

Even when a concept wasn’t directly related to something I could apply to my work, I found it interesting for the sake of intellectual curiosity. Some of my early posts on paintings and typography may seem unrelated, but that doesn’t take into account how much these concepts actually affect my work. For example, I never paid much though to the typography of a handout I designed, or how to effectively use the space on the page. These discussions help to engage my interest and help me to do my job better.

The Future

The only thing left to discuss is where to go from here. What are the lessons I’ve learned in my four months of blogging?

• Keep it short, but relevant
• Remember to use the nature of the web: include plenty of links, and media
• Stay informed of web 2.0 trends, but don’t blindly accept the latest gadget as the best
• Respond to comments
• Constantly rethink and re-vision – both my own writing and the entire blog design

It’s been an amazing experience. I can’t believe how quickly the past four months have passed. I hope you’ve enjoyed my writing so far and that you’ll continue to tune in to see how this blog will continue to grow and change.

Collaboration, easy as 1, 2, 3...

Throughout my professional career, I’ve had to collaborate with colleagues on a variety of projects. Some of these experiences were on large committees and others were with smaller groups. I found that the Three Musketeer rule as put by out 37 signals is probably true. The smaller the group, the better the results.

How does this translate to online collaboration? Instead of a boardroom filled with people trying to hash out changes to a document or website, now collaboration can be done remotely. Employees can be on opposite sites of the globe and yet work together on documents.

This all sounds fantastic, but the road to collaboration isn’t easy. You can’t just slap a document online and expect people to be able to produce content without prior planning. In fact, planning is of utmost importance. And after planning, the next consideration is relationships. People who collaborate need to have trust in each other and be able to rely on each other to get the work done.

Recently in the graduate course I’m taking, Elements of Visual Design, we have had some unique opportunities to collaborate online. Not all of these ventures turned out perfectly, but each project taught valuable learning experiences.

Wiki
One of our first projects was to collaborate on a class wiki dedicated to specific elements of our class. Each student was responsible for a different element. Because of this, most students wrote the entirety of their own entries. Instead of collaborating on the wiki pages together, it became more like editing each other’s work. Now, this is an element of collaboration that is important, but not necessarily the intent of the assignment.

The class truly came together when one student was unable to do more than a simple outline on his/her page. I wrote the first paragraph. Then another student jumped in to add more. Then another. Together, we all finished the page. This situation turned out to have encouraged collaboration between students eager to pitch in and help out.

Writeboard
This experiment was truly more a collaboration. Unlike the wiki experience, where the setup made us merely editors of each others work, the setup of the writeboard contributed to more cooperation. The writeboard consisted of a single document, where users can see changes made by others. Unlike the wiki where a single person was responsible for the content of a page, no single person was responsible. So, students were more likely to add to the work, feeling less like they were treading on another’s territory. The resulting document has a little bit of everyone.

Forums
Online forums are another area of collaborative learning. Students can hold discussions on certain topics. At first this method was not very active in my particular class. It felt as if students were talking directly to the professor, but not each other. In this area more student/professor interaction occurred. This parallels the interaction that normally occurs in a face to face class.

However towards the end of the semester when our final shared project began, more discussion is beginning to take place in the forums. Students are sharing plans and ideas.

Online class vs face to face

One would think that an online class would foster online collaboration. It is the only way the students converse, and therefore should make sense that they would have to work together that way. However, each student reads assignments and does homework at different times and at their own pace. One might not even be aware of a posted collaborative assignment before another starts working on it.

Another disadvantage for an online class is that lack of physical connection. There is no hanging out after class to discuss how to approach a project. There is no eye contact and no way to gauge another’s interest.

This goes the same for student/professor interaction. There is no way to judge tone of voice, to see if one is getting something right. It is difficult to judge tone in electronic text.

Since students approached assignments like the wiki project on their own time, there was no discussion beforehand. As Maish Nichani, points out in Planning: Sustaining Wiki-based Collaboration Projects prior planning is key. In our eagerness to attack the wiki project, we didn’t sit down and discuss it first.

One of the advantages is that members of an online class are accustomed to using technology to communicate and create projects. Online students also need to be good at time management in order to complete the coursework. These skills are key in online collaboration.

Suggestions

Each class is different, and especially with an online class, students have their own time commitments outside of the online classroom. However, one way to address the lack of planning before a collaborative project would be to hold a real time chat beforehand. This doesn’t have to be long, and should give students enough time to brainstorm the project and parcel out duties so they could work separately.

When I took my first online course, my professor had students introduce ourselves and then required us to respond to other’s introductions. This had the side effect of having the students relate to each other on a personal level before the class began. This way, we were less afraid to speak to each other. This parallels that whole ‘hanging out after class and chatting’ situation that is difficult to recreate in an online course.


Final Thoughts

Collaboration is an important aspect of the workplace in various different industries. Working in an online setting has various pros and cons. The technology makes communication easier. It’s also easier for changes to be seen and commented on across screens instantaneously. There is no more waiting for packages or faxes to arrive and go through yet another editing process. Also, online collaboration allows members of a team to contribute to projects no matter where they are, even if they’re on the beach.

However this online collaboration breaks down if there isn’t a personal relationship between the collaborators. Add in lack of planning and then no manner of technology can help. Technology is a tool, like so many others. Users need to use this tool to help them, not let technology take over for the sake of technology.

After my experiences with this course, I am going to use one of the technologies we explored in my professional career: writeboard. However, I am going to use it in combination with face-to-face meetings with my coworker, where we will plan elements of our grant application before we set out to write our document. This way we will make the best use of the technology to serve our needs.

Usability on my mind

When designing anything: a webpage, a building or even a car, it’s important to keep usability in mind. Simply put, “usability” means ‘ease of use:’ how easy it is for your consumers to use something, remember how to use it when they come back to it, and keep the number of errors involved low.

In my field, I’m particular concerned with testing usability for online services, such as websites and electronic databases. But how can we measure how usable something is? Sure, there are a variety of testing procedures, such as Nielsen’s heuristics evaluation. This type of testing is important, however, it’s subjective and can’t be empirically measured.

There is one way to scientifically measure exactly how someone’s eye moves across a webpage, to see exactly what the person is looking at while performing web tasks. That would be through eye tracking studies.

Eye Tracking is a technology that uses a camera to measure the movements of a person’s pupil as they perform particular tasks. According to an article by Lynne Cooke in Technical Communication, there are two ways to track eye movement. The first is from a camera mounted to someone’s head, looking like some mix between an orthodontic device and a reality TV camera. This takes into account head movement as well as eye movement. The second way to track eye movement is by a device that is placed remotely. In this case, however, users must be careful to keep their heads very still.

According to the same article, the head-mounted camera method has been used to study the eye movements of pilots as they go about their tasks in the cockpit (456). These results enabled the redesign of cockpits to improve usability and ensure the reduction of human error. This is an area where usability is so important, yet is often not thought about.

What kind of information is obtained using eye-tracking studies? Software collects the data which can then be organized. According to Cooke, the data is broken down into fixations and saccades “that can be visually represented onscreen (457).”

• Fixations – how long someone looks at something
• Saccades – the eye moving from fixation to fixation
• Scanpaths – the sequential organization of the above to. The line that the eye travels.

When this kind of study is done while a person is navigating a webpage, researchers can see “how people visually progress through a page(457).” It’s implied that whatever a person is gazing at is directly linked to what they are thinking. This gives greater insight to the thought process in webpage navigation than through verbalization studies (458). In verbalization studies – where a person narrates their thought process as they work – it is not always evident where their gaze is. Also, a person can click faster than they can verbalize. Eye-tracking studies give empirical, verifiable data behind the use.

How can the above be used in web and interface design? Well, it allows designers to understand how people read online, how their eye tracks across the screen. I find Frank Spiller’s comment “The reality is that eye-tracking, while valuable, doesn't make usability testing any more powerful. It's what you do with the observations and the usability test data that counts” most apt.

Spiller points out in his blog entry that eye-tracking research must be made meaningful. He cautions users to focus on what they are trying to learn and to match what users are actually doing with the eye-tracking reports. He also states, most wisely, in response to the fact that ads in the top and left portions of a homepage received the most eye fixations that “I wouldn't recommend putting ads there. Just because they receive eye fixations doesn't mean they put a smile on the user's face.”

What this means is that eye-tracking studies alone should not exist in a vacuum. Designers must not only be aware of what users are looking at when they view their webpages, but how they react. Also, audience is very important, as are changing web trends. For example, in Cooke’s article, she states that eye-tracking studies corroborated Nielson’s supposition that people prefer text over graphics as entry points into web sites.

This study was done in 2000. Seven years later we have the web 2.0 generation, who view websites very differently than those who were studied nearly a decade ago. So the results of this study might not necessarily be applicable since users expectations of what the web is has changed.

Practical Example

In Cooke’s article, one of the findings indicate that eye movements follow a “Z” pattern. People started at the upper left corner, across to the right, “then scanned the page in small ‘z’ patterns progressing down the page…scanning…continued up the right column of the page…(460)” So the very last thing a user would look at would be the right hand column.

I’d like to relate this finding to a particular issue we were having at our library. Lexis-Nexis, an electronic database that provides access to legal materials, recently redesigned its interface. Although the page is much improved aesthetically, based on the number of issues we are finding, the usability of the new design was not well thought out.



For example, the screencap above shows the main search function of the legal resource page. A normal user scanning the page and intending to do a search, will see the sources section I’ve circled in red and stop there, thinking the drop down menu will cover all the possible sources. However, since the right hand column is the very last thing users see, according to eye-tracking studies, users will miss that in order to change the source to either case law or statutes, they need to click on the links on the very right hand side.

Also, if the user wants a specific state code, they cannot even access it from the main search screen. They need to click the sources tab and pinpoint the particular state and then return to the search screen.

I have had numerous students call asking for help in navigating the new interface. We even had a professor who was a lawyer call, unable to find the way to limit her search to NJ statutes. It took two librarians (one of whom is also a lawyer) to figure out how to change the source. And if I hadn’t attended online training on the new interface, I’m not sure I would have figured out where to go for specific state statutes.

The design fails on some of the usability principles indicated here at usability.gov:

Ease of Learning – New users to Lexis-Nexis find it difficult to quickly determine how to get the information they need.

Efficiency of use – Experienced users of Lexis-Nexis will be able to determine the steps needed, but the steps are not efficient.

Error frequency and severity – based on the number of calls and complaints we’ve received, the frequency of errors is quite high.

Subjective satisfaction – Users won’t like using the resource if they need to jump through hoops to figure out how it works.

Perhaps if the designers of the new interface had used eye-tracking studies, or even a heuristic evaluation, they might have reconsidered the placement of the Legal Searches section. If they had, it would have saved those of us at the library a lot of headaches.

Usability is an issue that impacts us all the time. It cannot be ignored. Usability testing must be conducted frequently and carefully. Otherwise designers will have created a product that cannot be used by the very people it was designed for.

---

Lynne, Cooke (2005).Eye Tracking: How It Works and How It Relates to Usability. Technical Communication. 52, 456-463.

Who are the people in your Bookmarking Network?

I first started using del.icio.us to organize my bookmarks after having lost my entire bookmarks file in a Mozilla crash. I liked being able to take my links with me anywhere, no matter what computer I was on, as long as an internet connection was available. A fellow librarian pointed me towards delicious. However, when I first started there were two elements of delicious I was unaware of – tagging and the social networking aspect of it.

Tagging is another form of folksonomy, which can be defined as a user created taxonomy. Now, as a librarian, I’m supposed to be disdainful of folksonomies. I was trained in controlled vocabulary and subject searching. However, I’ve grown quite fond of folksonomies.

Controlled vocabulary can get problematic, especially as language changes. For example, I was once doing a search for government documents on the parental advisory labels found on music albums. It was a very frustrating search because the items I needed were categorized under “record labeling.” When was the last time you walked into a music store and asked for the latest record? (note: The controlled vocabulary term is "Sound recordings -- Labeling -- United States." which is still not intuitive for most users).

In folksonomies, tags are fluid and can change as the community changes. This is much easier than hunting through the Library of Congress subject headings guide looking for the correct way to phrase a search.

Tags are also assigned by multiple people. Hundreds of people can assign a tag to a particular site. This is a better judge of the content than the way a library record is categorized – a sole cataloger assigns the subject terms, based on his or her own opinions and experiences, and then that single record gets downloaded by hundreds of different libraries. A tag assigned by many people is more likely to be the term used by the particular community.

Community is another key element in folksonomies. Library professionals, for example, could tag sites relevant to their profession with tags meaningful to them. The average person might save the same link, but use different tags. One of the nicer features of del.icio.us is that you can see how others have tagged the exact same link, and you can add or delete tags based on this information. If I find someone on delicious who has similar tastes, I can add them to my network and follow their new tags and links, and thus find information on my topic that I would not have on my own.

So the tags are only as strong as the community that’s behind it. I find them extremely useful when looking for particular genres of links, especially related to my favorite book or tv show at the time. I find other fans and see what they find interesting. It’s this social nature that makes social bookmarking so successful.

How is this useful to students and other professionals? The most important way is that it is another form of networking. Users can find other professionals in their field, other students in similar programs, and see what sites they find relevant. Users can learn from their tags, and make sure they are keeping up with the changes in the field.

I find it interesting the comment made by this blogger that “...people tag for personal, perhaps even selfish reasons. People don’t tag to help the community, they tag because it helps the tagger.”

In some respects, this is true. I assign a tag to my link that will help me find the information again. However, it has the side effect of adding to the community. Others may decide that they like my way of tagging and add my tag to their own links. My one personal choice can expand to thousands of users. The language of the tags continues to evolve.

Another blogger makes note that just because you’ve tagged an entry, that doesn’t mean you’ll be able to find it again if you have hundreds of items tagged with the same label. That’s why bundles and subheadings are so important. If folksonomies are to become the catalogs of the future, users will have to become savvy quickly. They will have to become amateur cataloging librarians, almost reinventing the wheel.

Libraries aren’t immune to the tagging phenomena. A few posts ago I spoke about my love for library thing. The service is so popular there is a library thing for libraries so libraries can enhance their catalogs.

Choosing links

What makes a link so special that I must add it to my delicious links? My main criterion is that it contains information that I want to find again. It is a place I see myself visiting again to use that information. Also, it is a site I might want to recommend to someone else. If that person has joined my network, that makes it especially easy to share.

For this particular example, I’m going to briefly discuss the links I’ve tagged with “MSPTC.” MSPTC refers to the graduate program in Professional and Technical Communication that I am currently enrolled in. I have found resources that might be useful to other students in the program.

Techwr - a technical communication community
Society for Technical Communication

• Both of these sites are important for the community they offer. Students can interact with other technical writers, learn about the profession and discuss key issues in the field.

Technical Writing - Writer's Write

• I included this site because it includes many tools emerging technical writers might find interesting, such as discussion boards, book reviews, and how to find a technical writing job.

Research-Based Web Design and Usability Guidelines

• Because web design and online communication is so important to the field, I thought I should include a link to some governmental guidelines on usability.

Usability in Website and Software Design

• Something more interesting than just the governmental guidelines. Usability is key to interaction on the web.

Tech Writer Voices: Podcasts on Technical Writing

• I am a highly visual learner, so I normally stay away from podcasts. However, since part of my goal is to enlighten others in the program, I discovered this important resource while surfing the web.

In addition to tagging the above with MSPTC, each link also has tags that are relevant to me with my own personal concerns and prejudices. However, with del.icio.us, I can see that 898 other people have bookmarked the link about usability guidelines. (Clearly I’m on the right track!) I can see how some people have tagged the same site. One person had only one tag: “webdesign” which does describe the page, but not in enough detail.

But with the tag cloud, we can see the most common tags for this resource. And the most prevalent tag is indeed “usability” followed closely by “webdesign” which is winning over “web_design” as a tag. The community prevails.

Writing for the Web

The web has changed how people read and what they expect to read online. Thus writers who hope to publish on the web need to keep their audience in mind when developing text to be read online. Writers should know how their readers view web pages - scan for information rather than use close reading, for example. Also, writers need to realize the interactive nature of the web and make use of web technologies, such as linking to outside sites and providing graphics along with text. Lastly, writers are now writing for Web 2.0 and these newer technologies are key to succeeding as a writer online.

Differences in writing for the web

• Paragraph length - Writers should stick to shorter paragraphs using plain simple language. There is no need to be verbose. Get to the point or you’ll lose your readers.
• Use visuals - Writers need to make use of relevant visuals. This includes more than just images or photos. Users now expect to see embedded video or listen to embedded audio.
• Link to relevant information - Unlike printed writing, writing on the web doesn’t exist alone on a page. Writers must link to outside content relevant to the topic. Users will expect to be able find further information on topics they are interested in.

Writing for Web 2.0

• Effective tags/labels for information organization - Bloggers need to provide relevant tags or labels for their entries. This is an extra step for writers, but it is necessary in order for information to be found again and not lost in the internet shuffle.
• Expect comments - Web 2.0 users are accustomed to talking back to writers through the comment function that is part of many blog software packages. This will make a writer’s job more interactive than ever before. Commenters can either add to the discussion, provide relevant links or can disagree wholeheartedly with the writer. It is up to the writer to figure out how much attention he or she wants to give to these comments.
• Web 2.0 applications -Writers need to be aware of the latest technologies. A blog without an RSS feed is out of touch. Writers need to keep up with other interactive web 2.0 tools such as digg, del.icio.us and sites like facebook and twitter, otherwise they’ll be left behind.

In 1997, Jakob Nielson said that users don’t read web pages. Instead, they scan pages for relevant information. His suggestions for creating scannable text include:

• highlighted keywords
• meaningful subheadings
• bulleted lists
• one idea per paragraph
• start with the conclusion
• use half the world count of conventional writing

These are good rules of thumb to keep in mind when writing for the web. But they are not the only issues to consider. The very nature of the web has changed considerably since Nielson wrote his alertbox in 1997. Writers today need to make use of web 2.0 applications, include embedded images and video, and be able to interact with their readers. This is beyond just simply linking to other web pages in one’s press release.

An example of what not to do

The State of New Jersey’s governor’s office merely posts press releases in the same format as they would go out to the print media. This fails as good web writing for a number of reasons. There are long complicated paragraphs. There are sub-headings, but they are not meaningful. There are no links to outside web pages. There are no visuals, even though photos, audio and video are apparently available through the governor’s site, but no one would know that until they scrolled all the way to the bottom of the page. This media should be incorporated directly into the press release.

On the other hand, this article from Slate does things right. It too is a lengthy article, yet the paragraphs are short and readable. There are extensive links to outside information. The graphics uses are appropriate. And it takes advantage of web 2.0 applications, allowing users to recommend the page using technology like digg and facebook.

Disadvantages

Not all of the items I’ve discussed are advantages. Sure it’s great to include embedded video and audio, but it’s not always available. Some topics cannot be distilled down to short sound-bites. And comments can turn into spam or offensive trolls. Writing for the web has its own unique set of challenges. A savvy writer needs to keep up to date with changes in technology and use them to his/her advantage.

Flash Web sites

Flash animation has been used in web sites for different purposes. It can accentuate page elements, tell a story in animated form, or present information as a video game. More rarely do we find a web page built entirely in Adobe Flash. Though usually visually stimulating when done well, entirely Flash websites have their own set of problems.

First and foremost, webpages that run entirely in Flash present accessibility and usability problems. They are often difficult to keep updated regularly due to the amount of time it takes to modify the Flash pages. Another problem with Flash web pages is that it’s difficult to point someone to specific content. For example, with one of the web pages I’m going to review today, there are several impressive student videos that I would like to show a friend. However, there is no way for me to link to the specific video. I cannot bookmark internal sites. I can only say to a friend “click on the main page, then click the second tab, then click student's work, then it’s the third video from the bottom.” This is contrary to the shared emphasis of Web 2.0. It makes it difficult to connect other users to the information.

There is no denying the artistic elements of Flash oriented webpages. The best example of this is the homepage of the Bellecour Schools of Art in France. The website is absolutely beautiful, with original artwork. The designer uses the screen like a canvas to showcase the art. Content is almost secondary.

The page is divided into three separate sections, each for a different one of the schools. Each school has it’s own color coding for the text and navigation bar that runs across the bottom of the screen. Although each school’s page uses the idea of a landscape as the background, each school has their own mascots as a theme. One uses a large robot character, who appears throughout. The other uses a futuristic city with cars and the third makes use of science-fiction-like spheres. The action is constantly moving in the background, taking your eye away from the main content and giving the user the impression that this moving content is clickable, although it is not. The page’s content appears over the background like a movie screen over the landscape. This limits the size of the content, but makes it part of the experience of using the site.

The overall effect of the design is to produce a web page that is more like a piece of art or a movie that the user experiences. When I clicked on the little cell phone/pda object in the left hand corner for more information, I was given a treat as the object grew in size and floated to the center of the screen. Then I was given a form to fill out for more information about the school. It is functional and interesting, but if I was a potential student, I have no way to print out relevant information, cut and paste important info, or bookmark specific pages for later.

The target audience for the Bellecour site is students looking for a school. It is in the school’s best interest to showcase the kind of things the students could be learning within its walls. At the same time, the website for the school is a piece of art, a beautiful site for the average web user to discover.

The colors used are on the warmer side – green, blue and orange in lighter tones. The typography is highly readable. And despite the fact that this web page has little in common with standard navigation schemes, I was able to click through and find my way through even before I discovered there was an English version of the site available.

I’d like to compare the above site with the official website of J.K. Rowling, author of the Harry Potter novels. Rowling’s official page is also done entirely in Adobe Flash. However, unlike Bellacour, she offers many different options for viewing, including a text only version as well as an accessibility enabled version. The version I am going to speak about is the standard Flash only page available in English. As per my original complaint, I can’t link you to it, I can just tell you to go here and click “Enter Site” under the British Flag.

When clicking, Rowling’s site expands the browser window automatically. There’s no need for “back” and “forward” buttons. All the navigating is done through the page. Meanwhile an eerie sound plays, wind whistling on the moors, a dog barking the background. On a light green background we are presented with the image of a cluttered desk, done in a rather cartoonish style. Clicking on different objects on the desk, such as the diary, an eraser or a even paper clip, is how we navigate through this page.

Navigating through Rowling’s site is more like playing a game than finding information. The experience changes depending on what item you click on. Clicking on the hairbrush, for example, will take you to a bulletin board, where you can click on other items. To get back to the main page, you need to find the hairbrush again. This fits into the Navigating through Rowling’s site is more like playing a game than finding information. TheHarry Potter theme of “portkeys” – objects transporting people magically to different locations. My favorite experience was found after clicking on the glasses. I was brought to a library, with books placed on a shelf. Each book was a link to a different external webpage, however by moving one marked with a question mark, I was able to find a key that opened a box, unlocking special content for me. I felt like I accomplished something and was drawn deeper in the world the web page’s design had created.

The typography used when large blocks of text are there to be read is a simple sans serif font. It is highly readable, which makes sense seeing the clutter of other images behind it. The site also likes to recreate the book effect. When clicking on her “Biography” the user is treated to a book where the pages can be turned by the click of a mouse. The typography underneath the photos and used as headers is reminiscent of handwriting, giving the users the sense that they are looking at the private memoirs of their favorite author. The text in the biography is still that simple sans serif font, which makes sense considering that many of Rowling’s fans are children who might need a simpler font to read. It’s important to note that the target audience is children. This explains the video game effect of the flash website. It is very successful and usable. Children and adults alike can use and enjoy Rowling’s site.

Rowling’s site differs from the Bellacour site in many ways. Her site is more entertaining, less focused on presenting beautiful artwork. Her navigation scheme is non-conventional. Although the site gives the impression of a cluttered desk, the items are carefully placed and arranged for the best effect. Both sites make effective use of Adobe Flash to create interesting, beautiful and usable websites targeted to their specific audiences.

Finding Web 2.0

Web 2.0 has been poked and prodded, dissected and criticized. It took Tim O'Reilly 8900 words to attempt to describe it. However, in my humble blog, I am going to focus on two key elements of Web 2.0 – Community and Information Organization. Both categories contain sub elements that describe most of the elements of Web 2.0.

The most commonly known function of Web 2.0 in the community theme is social networking. MySpace and Facebook are the most popular sites, indeed the stated function of each site is for users to meet friends and make connections, based on schools, jobs, and other common interests. Blogs also contribute to this social networking function. Users communicate through their blogs, they make note of blogs they enjoy reading. Sometimes relationships are formed between bloggers through a culture of commenting and responding to posts.

Community doesn’t just mean social networking and blogging. Users are also collaborators. In Web 2.0 this takes a number of forms. We have those who rewrite open-source code and create things like mashups. We have tagging of links and reviews in places like del.icio.us and amazon.com that make it easier for other people to find information. Users now have a stake in the way information is organized, in the way companies produce their products. Consumers become producers.

So Web 2.0 is social and collaborative. Users affect the way businesses provide services to the masses. In fact, corporations must provide this functionality, they must allow users the ability to change and adapt, to make the service function on their own terms. If they don’t, users will simply find another place to do business. So how does this impact the new way information is organized and provided in the Web 2.0 world?

With the advent of blogs and RSS feeds, information became more dynamic. Sites are continually being updated. Instead of having to check back on their favorite sites again and again, users merely have to subscribe to an RSS feed. In one easy location, a user can quickly see what has been updated. Also, they don't need to deal with information they are not interested in. They only subscribe to the content they want to read.

Content in the Web 2.0 era is made to be shared. For example, Flickr enables users to give their photos creative commons licenses, so that they may be shared across websites. As O'Reilly says in the above article, places like amazon.com or google maps may license the same data that other static sites use, but they alter and add to the information, changing it and making it more useful to their consumers.

Finally, the use of tags, labels or other folksonomies are changing the way content is organized. Instead of static subject terms determined by a group of librarians at the Library of Congress information is being marked up by the users themselves. Instead of something esoteric like: "Dogs--Behavior--New Jersey--Montclair--Anecdotes" someone could tag a photo or link "dogs" "cute" "training" or with any thing to make it easier for the people who actually deal with the data to find. In sites like del.icio.us where users tag links and share them, a link can have an extensive and complex string of tags. Users can see what tags fellow users have assigned a link and choose whether or not to use that terminology. This is a powerful change in information organization. In fact some libraries are now using tags in their own library catalogs, as you can see in this example from the East Brunswick Public Library.

The one service that really epitomizes these features of Web 2.0 is something called Library Thing. When I first joined Library Thing a few years ago, it was billed as a way to catalog one's personal book collection. It pulled from amazon.com as well as the Library of Congress to obtain records for each book. Since that time, Library Thing has evolved to partake in some of the best features of Web 2.0.

First, Library Thing is social. Users tag their books, and can see other titles other users have tagged with the same term. This is a good way to find books on the same genre or theme. Or, users can friend others with similar interests, also giving them another way to access new and interesting titles to read. Users post reviews of books, giving them ratings. And of course, there is a message board function for further discussion.

Second, Library Thing gives users advanced functionality, allowing them to use data supplied by amazon or the Library of Congress in interesting ways. It can either be used as a record of books one owns, books someone wants to read, or books recommended for a particular project. Library Thing allows users to subscribe to an RSS feed for a particular user. Once again, users access only the information they want to. They can see the books I add to my profile or just my reviews or just reviews of my books written by other users. I can incorporate my library thing on my blog, which I've done on the left hand side.

In this post on Serendipity35's blog, he talks about ways the web will change. Library Thing is certainly interactive and collaborative. It makes connections between users within its framework and also allows users to connect in other frameworks, ie by posting a widget on their blogs. There is also the chance for misuse. Who owns the book review I post on my account? Do I or does Library Thing? Library Thing can post links to my review as an example of their services and there's nothing I can do to stop it. Others can take my words and use them on their blogs or webpages, perhaps even the author of said book will snatch my words for a blurb. Who owns my work? This is a risk and something all users need to be aware of in the new web.

However, since collaboration and sharing are hallmarks of Web 2.0, perhaps the idea of copyright and ownership of words and ideas will change. Although the more users seek to distribute and share content, the more organizations like the RIAA will attempt to hold on to what they see as their intellectual property - their economic future. They will eventually need to change in order to keep up with the changes brought about by Web 2.0. There is still money to be made. Library Thing for example, offers users a paid account option, as well as the free service. Blogs with Library Thing widgets link directly to amazon.com pages, surely boosting their sales. There are still ways to make money in the Web 2.0 economy, but corporations need to do so within the new framework of free thought and ideas.