I JUST GOT A SSHRC GRANT FOR MY MASTER'S RESEARCH!!!
While the grant is a decent amount of money, the tuition at Royal Roads is extremely high (on par with MBA programs here). But it will help me devote myself fulltime to my studies and research. This means I'll be wrapping up my job as a web producer in a few months and instead focusing on my new career as an Internet researcher.
SSHRC, which stands for Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, gives research grants to students and universities. I submitted my proposal to them to study website accessibility.
Here's is some background material on the issue of website accessibility and what I hope to research:
Website accessibility encompasses many groups in Canada, the visually impaired, including those with low to no vision, are particularly limited by existing barriers, due to website code that either prevents or causes problems using adaptive technology. The needs of the visually impaired can often be accommodated easily through adjustments to the website code, such as by providing options for different font sizes or alternative text for images.
Even though the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), the governing body for web standards, published website accessibility standards as far back as 1999, many websites in Canada are still not accessible to the visually impaired. The standards set forth by the W3C form the basis of defining website accessibility, as they are the most widely accepted standards by both the Web and visually-impaired communities. The ramifications of website accessibility affect both the website owners, whether a business owner or shareholders, as well as the website users, in this case those with visual disabilities.
My study will focus on the people who have the authority and the access to enact and maintain the changes for accessibility; these individuals range from programmers and developers to business managers and leads. I have not found any research, however, focusing on why many Canadian website managers, that is those who have the authority over websites, have not made their websites accessible.
I have previously blogged about some of the difficulties in making a website accessible that I have encountered, not least of which are the confusing and at times impossible criteria set forth by the W3C and a lack of fully adequate educational material for website developers on this issue. This spurred me on to research the topic more and I have found this is an area in definite need of further investigation.
If you know of some good information on this topic or are a website producer/manager/developer or have any thoughts on the issue, please help me out.
Friday, April 18, 2008
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Harnessing the Power of a Brainstorm
A frequent occurrence in many workplaces is for a group of employees to gather in a room and free-flow ideas on a specific topic. Developed by Osborn in 1953, brainstorming flourishes in workplaces, despite research that found individuals working alone are more effective. Alternatively, collective brainstorming via a computer, known as electronic brainstorming (EBS), has been shown to be more effective. While it is possible that the novelty of the technology and the desire of participants to please the testers can account for some of these gains, the difference found was quite dramatic, particularly as group size increased. Connolly found the main improvement was the lessening of production blocking; the real life (RL) constraint of only one person able to speak at a time does not apply in EBS. EBS can thus be seen offer greater productivity than RL brainstorming.
Production blocking is not the only brainstorming liability, as evaluation apprehension (not fully participating due to fear of being judged) and loafing/freeriding (not fully participating due to perceived low reward or allowing others to do the work) are possible factors. For example, EBS allows anonymous participation and Connolly did find this increased performance. Furthermore, it is possible that the individual act of sitting in front of a computer to do EBS encourages otherwise free-loaders to participate.
Electronic brainstorming does not make sense for all situations. Anonymous EBS would probably not make sense in situations where receiving monetary or reputational credit is a determining influence. If businesses have goals other than idea generation, EBS can be inferior, as Dennis found in a study that showed “if you want to build a good team, strengthen the relationships and allow for opportunities for mentoring and individual growth, verbal discussion is better [than EBS]” (Vlahakis). If the goal is number and quality of ideas, however, Dennis concludes EBS is more advantageous.
These improvements results from EBS lessening production blocking. Given that RL brainstorming sessions have a finite time and are constrained by the ability of only one person able to speak at a time, RL brainstorming suffers from the fact that some participants will not be able to fully contribute. Moreover, in the time when participants wait for their turn to participate, participants may forget ideas or lose focus. RL brainstorming also suffers from participants having to listen to someone else, which may distract from their own contributions or derail possible lines of thought. RL brainstorming can be sidetracked by overbearing participants or by a group fixation on a limited number of topics. EBS removes these limitations. By each participant working individually on a computer but participating collectively, not only is there no down time, but many distractions are removed and participates can pursue ideas that inspire them and disregard those that do not.
Connolly found not only is EBS more effective, but gains are more pronounced with more participants. Compared to RL, adding participants would increase production blocks, whereas EBS does scale up. With more participants not only does this increase overall output, there is a greater statistical likelihood of recruiting more effective people. RL sessions are, by necessity, often smaller; this limits participation to a smaller range of types of people. By enabling larger numbers more diverse types of participants from a larger cross-section of an organization can participate and have the opportunity to add their unique perspective and ideas . The RL production blocks of space and time constraints also do not apply to EBS, as sessions can be available remotely or, through asynchronous methods, at user-determined times.
Despite the popularity of RL brainstorming, researchers had largely discounted its productivity. Now with the advent of EBS, the key limitation of brainstorming, production blocking, can be significantly lessened thus allowing for the optimal and intended free-flow of ideas.
More info:
Connelly, T. (1997). Electronic brainstorming: Science meets technology in the group meeting room. In S. Kiesler (Ed.), Culture of the Internet.
Vlahakis, G. E-brainstorming? Retrieved April 1, 2008, from http://www.homepages.indiana.edu/082004/text/technology.shtml
Production blocking is not the only brainstorming liability, as evaluation apprehension (not fully participating due to fear of being judged) and loafing/freeriding (not fully participating due to perceived low reward or allowing others to do the work) are possible factors. For example, EBS allows anonymous participation and Connolly did find this increased performance. Furthermore, it is possible that the individual act of sitting in front of a computer to do EBS encourages otherwise free-loaders to participate.
Electronic brainstorming does not make sense for all situations. Anonymous EBS would probably not make sense in situations where receiving monetary or reputational credit is a determining influence. If businesses have goals other than idea generation, EBS can be inferior, as Dennis found in a study that showed “if you want to build a good team, strengthen the relationships and allow for opportunities for mentoring and individual growth, verbal discussion is better [than EBS]” (Vlahakis). If the goal is number and quality of ideas, however, Dennis concludes EBS is more advantageous.
These improvements results from EBS lessening production blocking. Given that RL brainstorming sessions have a finite time and are constrained by the ability of only one person able to speak at a time, RL brainstorming suffers from the fact that some participants will not be able to fully contribute. Moreover, in the time when participants wait for their turn to participate, participants may forget ideas or lose focus. RL brainstorming also suffers from participants having to listen to someone else, which may distract from their own contributions or derail possible lines of thought. RL brainstorming can be sidetracked by overbearing participants or by a group fixation on a limited number of topics. EBS removes these limitations. By each participant working individually on a computer but participating collectively, not only is there no down time, but many distractions are removed and participates can pursue ideas that inspire them and disregard those that do not.
Connolly found not only is EBS more effective, but gains are more pronounced with more participants. Compared to RL, adding participants would increase production blocks, whereas EBS does scale up. With more participants not only does this increase overall output, there is a greater statistical likelihood of recruiting more effective people. RL sessions are, by necessity, often smaller; this limits participation to a smaller range of types of people. By enabling larger numbers more diverse types of participants from a larger cross-section of an organization can participate and have the opportunity to add their unique perspective and ideas . The RL production blocks of space and time constraints also do not apply to EBS, as sessions can be available remotely or, through asynchronous methods, at user-determined times.
Despite the popularity of RL brainstorming, researchers had largely discounted its productivity. Now with the advent of EBS, the key limitation of brainstorming, production blocking, can be significantly lessened thus allowing for the optimal and intended free-flow of ideas.
More info:
Connelly, T. (1997). Electronic brainstorming: Science meets technology in the group meeting room. In S. Kiesler (Ed.), Culture of the Internet.
Vlahakis, G. E-brainstorming? Retrieved April 1, 2008, from http://www.homepages.indiana.edu/082004/text/technology.shtml
Monday, April 07, 2008
I'm Divided on the War for Net Neutrality
The issue of Net neutrality has been heating up lately in Canada with ISPs filing a motion with CRTC against Bell. Wikipedia offers a rather nebulous definition of Net Neutrality but I think most people are using the term to refer to the practice of slowing down or blocking certain types of Internet traffic to home users.
The discussion here revolves around some larger ISPs and backbone providers wanting to slow down or block certain types of Internet traffic, usually this is users downloading huge files (video and/or audio usually). However, some people are worried about where this might lead.
This is an issue I care very deeply about, but unlike others my take is more mixed.
First, the Internet was not designed for telephone calls (VOIP), broadcasting long videos (or any videos), or for downloading of software, music and movies. If these activities continue to grow, they will break the Net. As far as I have heard the techies have not come up with a viable way to address this, so it's a huge problem that's getting worse every day.
I'm a regular Net user. I don't download large files. I don't watch long videos. Nor do I use VOIP. So why should I pay the same amount for my Net connection as these bandwidth hogs? Why should they be allowed to degrade my Net connection speed? There are people who illegally download movies and software day and night. So I have no problem whatsoever with the ISPs charging more for users of these types of Net activities or for even slowing their connection down.
What I do hate is the idea that large ISPs, could be allowed to have their own content, or their partners' content, download faster to their customers or slowing down content from everyone else. Or worse, if the ISPs one day started charging websites for "premium" connectivity. All this works to destroy a fundamental principle of the Internet, universal access. The source of content should not be allowed to affect how fast it can be accessed.
I also hate the type of content filtering that China and Saudi Arabia does, but that's another story. Unlike some, I'm not worried that slowing down service or charging more for some Net services (eg. VOIP, watching or downloading movies) will lead to censorship. I don't have a problem drawing a line. The Net cannot continue to have more and more traffic added to it and not degrade for everyone.
The website, Neutrality.ca gives news and more information on the issue and specifics to Canada.
The discussion here revolves around some larger ISPs and backbone providers wanting to slow down or block certain types of Internet traffic, usually this is users downloading huge files (video and/or audio usually). However, some people are worried about where this might lead.
This is an issue I care very deeply about, but unlike others my take is more mixed.
First, the Internet was not designed for telephone calls (VOIP), broadcasting long videos (or any videos), or for downloading of software, music and movies. If these activities continue to grow, they will break the Net. As far as I have heard the techies have not come up with a viable way to address this, so it's a huge problem that's getting worse every day.
I'm a regular Net user. I don't download large files. I don't watch long videos. Nor do I use VOIP. So why should I pay the same amount for my Net connection as these bandwidth hogs? Why should they be allowed to degrade my Net connection speed? There are people who illegally download movies and software day and night. So I have no problem whatsoever with the ISPs charging more for users of these types of Net activities or for even slowing their connection down.
What I do hate is the idea that large ISPs, could be allowed to have their own content, or their partners' content, download faster to their customers or slowing down content from everyone else. Or worse, if the ISPs one day started charging websites for "premium" connectivity. All this works to destroy a fundamental principle of the Internet, universal access. The source of content should not be allowed to affect how fast it can be accessed.
I also hate the type of content filtering that China and Saudi Arabia does, but that's another story. Unlike some, I'm not worried that slowing down service or charging more for some Net services (eg. VOIP, watching or downloading movies) will lead to censorship. I don't have a problem drawing a line. The Net cannot continue to have more and more traffic added to it and not degrade for everyone.
The website, Neutrality.ca gives news and more information on the issue and specifics to Canada.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Getting a Handle on Usernames
Online usernames differ from real life names considerably. Three key differences can be seen between online and real life names: names are required for all social participation, users choose their own names, and users can easily change names. These differences entail significant ramifications for identity perception and development.
In our offline society everyone has a name, although these names are not used in all contexts. It is possible to have social interactions and relationships in real life without knowing someone’s name - such as friendly banter with the coffee shop cashier. Appearance is arguably the most important identity-discerning factor in offline interactions, whereas online it can often be one’s username. In many online environments usernames are not only required to join, but one’s name is constantly visible to other participants. In text-only environments, such as chats and MUDs, using a name becomes the only way to specifically address a message to another user. Even users in graphical online spaces, where avatars and proxemics are fully capable of indicating the target of messages, often use names in messages.
Being given a name is a hallmark of real life identity formation – and it is an act where one is powerless. In contrast, online life typically begins when users choose their own name, thus forging their own identities. Real life names are a reflection of one’s parents, culture, and socio-economic group; online users are free of these constraints and can choose names inspired by literature, pop-culture, mythology, or character qualities. Real life Marys and Johns are replaced by more evocative Merlin, Blackwinter, chupchups, and Satan. While my username is often just my name, glen farrelly, usernames can offer anonymity. The anonymity of usernames with no ties to offline identities permits the adoption of new personae that safely permits exploration of identity issues with little chance of repercussions.
Users may wish to change their online identities. In most online services name changes are quick, simple, and free, whereas changing one’s name in the real world is a time-consuming, legal process that is rarely used (except with marriage). Online users may change their name to start a new persona, to work through new issues, to present a new facet of their personality, or to remove baggage amassed with prior persona. The freedom to easily change one’s name is key to facilitating an environment with little social risk to one’s actions. While this has both positive and negative outcomes, it does allow users to explore aspects of their identity. The chance to start over again with a new name and resulting new identity is readily available.
Names in real life may reveal qualities of one’s background, but do not afford much opportunity for using one’s name to develop identity. The easy adoption of online identities via choice of usernames appears to have the potential of encouraging people to break free from some of the cultural and gender baggage forced upon them by their real names and fosters positive identity development.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Rehabilitating a killer app: How Gmail & Outlook help address email’s shortcomings
While email is often called the killer application of the Internet, it is not without flaws, leading a researcher to declare: “E-mail is a serial-killer application! It is seriously overloaded and has been co-opted to manage a variety of tasks that it was not originally meant to support” (Ducheneaut & Bellotti, 2001, p.37). In a seminal study by Whittaker and Sidner, they found email was “overloaded” by three user functions it was not designed for: task management, personal archiving, and conversations (Kiesler, 1997, p.278). This critique of email is applicable today. However, a critical examination of functionality currently available in Microsoft Outlook and Google’s Gmail demonstrates that these applications offer innovative ways to address these critiques.
Task management refers to the ability of reminding a user of outstanding tasks, recalling related details, and tracking progress and deadlines (Kiesler, 1997, p.278). Whittaker and Sidner found that a crowded inbox makes task management difficult, yet users were reluctant to file or delete messages to alleviate this issue. They proposed that email software should allow the flagging of actionable messages (Kiesler, 1997, p.292) and permit users to set reminders. In a comparison between Outlook and Gmail, Outlook surpasses Gmail in this regard. Gmail allows users to flag messages by clicking on a star icon or colour-code incoming messages based on user-specified filters, not only does this help visually prioritize messages, thus allowing users to keep messages in their inbox, but draw attention to those needing follow-up. Outlook takes this functionality further - allowing messages to not only be flagged, but also permitting users to specify a due date and seamlessly integrates with a calendar and specific task management application.
Email’s second problematic area is personal archiving, which Whittaker and Sidner state is “cognitively difficult” (Kiesler, 1997, p.285). While some users studied kept all messages in their inbox or only periodically filed, this resulted in inboxes so full that retrieval became difficult. They recommended full-text search and automatic message threading. While both Gmail and Outlook offer full-text search, only Gmail makes archiving less cognitively challenging. Gmail, by giving a large amount of free storage space and by offering prominent one-touch “Archive” functionality, allows users to park messages that can be retrieved easily by clicking “All Messages”. Additionally, Gmail offers users the choice to “label” and thus group emails by one or more terms. This improves archiving by allowing users to store a message in multiple places. However, if too many labels are applied, message retrieval could be complicated.
The final issue regarding user functionality itemized by Whittaker and Sidner is conversations. Conversations may involve many overlapping multi-person, multi-topic messages that can be difficult to follow. Whittaker and Sidner cite the lack of convention in including message context; this has been addressed by Outlook and Gmail by defaulting to include a message’s history when replying or forwarding. Again, Gmail goes further by offering the ability to “file an entire thread, but leave a representative message from that thread in the inbox” (Kiesler, 1997, p.292). Gmail does this by automatically grouping messages on the same thread into one message in the inbox. Thus not only is inbox clutter reduced, but conversations can be more easily followed.
Despite this retrofitting of email applications to accommodate actual usage, I believe ingrained user behaviour will be hard to change. Users will still likely struggle with overloaded email. Users can look to Gmail and Outlook for assistance – two email programs that finally address the problems identified by Whittaker and Sidner in 1996. While Gmail is free and generally outperforms Outlook in the above functions, Outlook might be more useful to business users for its close integration with calendar and task management applications.
References
Ducheneaut, N., & and Bellotti, V. (2001). E-mail as habitat: An exploration of embedded personal information management. Interactions, 8(5), 30-38. New York, N.Y.: ACM.
Whittaker, S., & Sidner, C. (1997b). Email overload: Exploring personal information management of email. In S. Kiesler (Ed.), Culture of the Internet (pp. 277-295). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Task management refers to the ability of reminding a user of outstanding tasks, recalling related details, and tracking progress and deadlines (Kiesler, 1997, p.278). Whittaker and Sidner found that a crowded inbox makes task management difficult, yet users were reluctant to file or delete messages to alleviate this issue. They proposed that email software should allow the flagging of actionable messages (Kiesler, 1997, p.292) and permit users to set reminders. In a comparison between Outlook and Gmail, Outlook surpasses Gmail in this regard. Gmail allows users to flag messages by clicking on a star icon or colour-code incoming messages based on user-specified filters, not only does this help visually prioritize messages, thus allowing users to keep messages in their inbox, but draw attention to those needing follow-up. Outlook takes this functionality further - allowing messages to not only be flagged, but also permitting users to specify a due date and seamlessly integrates with a calendar and specific task management application.
Email’s second problematic area is personal archiving, which Whittaker and Sidner state is “cognitively difficult” (Kiesler, 1997, p.285). While some users studied kept all messages in their inbox or only periodically filed, this resulted in inboxes so full that retrieval became difficult. They recommended full-text search and automatic message threading. While both Gmail and Outlook offer full-text search, only Gmail makes archiving less cognitively challenging. Gmail, by giving a large amount of free storage space and by offering prominent one-touch “Archive” functionality, allows users to park messages that can be retrieved easily by clicking “All Messages”. Additionally, Gmail offers users the choice to “label” and thus group emails by one or more terms. This improves archiving by allowing users to store a message in multiple places. However, if too many labels are applied, message retrieval could be complicated.
The final issue regarding user functionality itemized by Whittaker and Sidner is conversations. Conversations may involve many overlapping multi-person, multi-topic messages that can be difficult to follow. Whittaker and Sidner cite the lack of convention in including message context; this has been addressed by Outlook and Gmail by defaulting to include a message’s history when replying or forwarding. Again, Gmail goes further by offering the ability to “file an entire thread, but leave a representative message from that thread in the inbox” (Kiesler, 1997, p.292). Gmail does this by automatically grouping messages on the same thread into one message in the inbox. Thus not only is inbox clutter reduced, but conversations can be more easily followed.
Despite this retrofitting of email applications to accommodate actual usage, I believe ingrained user behaviour will be hard to change. Users will still likely struggle with overloaded email. Users can look to Gmail and Outlook for assistance – two email programs that finally address the problems identified by Whittaker and Sidner in 1996. While Gmail is free and generally outperforms Outlook in the above functions, Outlook might be more useful to business users for its close integration with calendar and task management applications.
References
Ducheneaut, N., & and Bellotti, V. (2001). E-mail as habitat: An exploration of embedded personal information management. Interactions, 8(5), 30-38. New York, N.Y.: ACM.
Whittaker, S., & Sidner, C. (1997b). Email overload: Exploring personal information management of email. In S. Kiesler (Ed.), Culture of the Internet (pp. 277-295). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Friday, March 07, 2008
Are Web Publishers Obsolete?
As it is the Friday before March break and with yet another winter onslaught hitting Toronto, my office was deserted today. Naturally, as one of the few souls remaining, I passed some time chatting with co-workers.
My cubicle-mate, mentioned that he had perfected a Dreamweaver template that now made it incredibly easy for almost anyone to publish online. I have only dabbled with Dreamweaver templates, but I do love how they have editable and uneditable regions, so that those using templates can't accidentally bring down an entire site by changing one simple line of code. I also like, as I saw from my colleague's template, how Dreamweaver can make it easy to add or subtract designated editable regions.
Dreamweaver’s WYSIWYG features already made most web formatting quite easy and combined with a good template, web publishing can indeed be very easy now.
This led me to question whether or not there is a role in large to medium sized organizations for dedicated web publishers?
I define a web publisher as a specialist who takes pre-authored content, formats and adjusts it for the medium, and posts it online. Can content authors using Dreamweaver templates now post directly to the web without the need for a web publisher's intervention? Or can web publisher's now act merely as tester/reviewer?
I do think training content creators to use Dreamweaver’s publishing tools would be easily achievable, that is assuming they have the desire and time to do so.
I don’t believe that online formatting is the stumbling block for online publishing. From my experience, the problem still is writing material that is appropriate for online media. While it seems like every journalist and corporate communicator has now taken a course on web-friendly writing, I still find that many people don’t really get it, or their print bias is too-deeply ingrained, or they just don’t have the time or inclination to really understand online publishing. Making website text effective and appropriate is not just doing the maxims sold as simple solutions, that is write shorter, chunk up you copy, use bullets, don't go more than one screen.
While some of these points are true, there are times when doing the opposite is better. And there are other ways that web publishers can help format, organize, and rewrite copy if necessary, to make it more effective and medium appropriate. These take time to learn and it is here that I think web publishers will continue to offer value to organizations.
So to answer my own question, I’d say that updates to existing online material or simple changes can be done with minimal, possibly no involvement from a web publisher. But new material or substantial changes, call in your pro.
My cubicle-mate, mentioned that he had perfected a Dreamweaver template that now made it incredibly easy for almost anyone to publish online. I have only dabbled with Dreamweaver templates, but I do love how they have editable and uneditable regions, so that those using templates can't accidentally bring down an entire site by changing one simple line of code. I also like, as I saw from my colleague's template, how Dreamweaver can make it easy to add or subtract designated editable regions.
Dreamweaver’s WYSIWYG features already made most web formatting quite easy and combined with a good template, web publishing can indeed be very easy now.
This led me to question whether or not there is a role in large to medium sized organizations for dedicated web publishers?
I define a web publisher as a specialist who takes pre-authored content, formats and adjusts it for the medium, and posts it online. Can content authors using Dreamweaver templates now post directly to the web without the need for a web publisher's intervention? Or can web publisher's now act merely as tester/reviewer?
I do think training content creators to use Dreamweaver’s publishing tools would be easily achievable, that is assuming they have the desire and time to do so.
I don’t believe that online formatting is the stumbling block for online publishing. From my experience, the problem still is writing material that is appropriate for online media. While it seems like every journalist and corporate communicator has now taken a course on web-friendly writing, I still find that many people don’t really get it, or their print bias is too-deeply ingrained, or they just don’t have the time or inclination to really understand online publishing. Making website text effective and appropriate is not just doing the maxims sold as simple solutions, that is write shorter, chunk up you copy, use bullets, don't go more than one screen.
While some of these points are true, there are times when doing the opposite is better. And there are other ways that web publishers can help format, organize, and rewrite copy if necessary, to make it more effective and medium appropriate. These take time to learn and it is here that I think web publishers will continue to offer value to organizations.
So to answer my own question, I’d say that updates to existing online material or simple changes can be done with minimal, possibly no involvement from a web publisher. But new material or substantial changes, call in your pro.
Monday, March 03, 2008
User Tagging Effective Aid for Online Searching
Due to an ever-growing abundance of online information, there is increasing difficulty in finding useful information. Currently, most web data is coded to instruct browsers to display data, without regard for meaning. By adding metadata to denote what data means, search engines can offer more useful results. While there are limitations with metadata approaches, user tagging appears to offer the greatest potential for improving online searching.
Metadata can be split into two main types: 1) tagging – the act of appending keywords to web resources (e.g. del.icio.us, Flickr, StumbleUpon), and 2) semantic web data – coding conventions to describe the data (e.g. RDF and microformats). Metadata can be added by, or in conjunction with, four groups: 1) creators, 2) programmers, 3) information specialists, 4) users. Metadata is useful for retrieving resources already found, (e.g. del.icio.us’ use of tagging), or for filtering of content to read pertinent areas. Yet, it is the use of metadata, specifically tagging by users, to aid searching that offers the most potential.
The leading hurdle for semantic web data is its highly technical nature, which limits use primarily to advanced web developers. Two XML/XHMTL solutions, RDF or microformats, are too advanced for many web developers, let alone lay web users. As a veteran web developer, I found the syntax of both to be intimidating. Until web-authoring software simplifies adding semantic data, it will remain a good idea left largely unimplemented.
There are essentially two limitations with the use of metadata by information specialists. For one, there is far too much web content to address. Yahoo, for example, abandoned a manual process as too time-consuming and costly. Secondly, while information specialists are good at classifying resources based on official schema or taxonomies, which work well in smaller environments such as an intranet, their work may not necessarily address the needs and lexicon of users in a wider community.
Tagging by content creators also faces the limitation that the creators do not fully know users’ needs and lexicon, even though they know the content well. In addition, tagging by content creators offers the opportunity for abuse – both intentional and unintentional. Unintentional abuse can derive from ignorance of standards, lack of accurate self-appraisal, or cultural or language differences. Abuse can also be intentional, as typified by spammers and phishers who use false metadata to lure people to their sites.
Tagging by content users offers the most potential for web searchers. Group tagging draws on the theory of the wisdom of crowds, wherein collective action by a diverse group results in better information than even specialists could provide. When a resource is tagged by a sufficient array of users, it overcomes minor discrepancies and represents what the resource actually means to most users. Users know the terms they associate with a resource and can use their own words to identify it; they are not apt to misidentify for selfish gain. Also, most tagging services are free, and they are quick and easy to use, compared to semantic web data.
Tagging services are not yet standard offerings in browsers and require time to learn, which may be why these services lack widespread adoption. However, as more and more users tag web resources, this situation will improve and will offer even more aid to web searchers.
Metadata can be split into two main types: 1) tagging – the act of appending keywords to web resources (e.g. del.icio.us, Flickr, StumbleUpon), and 2) semantic web data – coding conventions to describe the data (e.g. RDF and microformats). Metadata can be added by, or in conjunction with, four groups: 1) creators, 2) programmers, 3) information specialists, 4) users. Metadata is useful for retrieving resources already found, (e.g. del.icio.us’ use of tagging), or for filtering of content to read pertinent areas. Yet, it is the use of metadata, specifically tagging by users, to aid searching that offers the most potential.
The leading hurdle for semantic web data is its highly technical nature, which limits use primarily to advanced web developers. Two XML/XHMTL solutions, RDF or microformats, are too advanced for many web developers, let alone lay web users. As a veteran web developer, I found the syntax of both to be intimidating. Until web-authoring software simplifies adding semantic data, it will remain a good idea left largely unimplemented.
There are essentially two limitations with the use of metadata by information specialists. For one, there is far too much web content to address. Yahoo, for example, abandoned a manual process as too time-consuming and costly. Secondly, while information specialists are good at classifying resources based on official schema or taxonomies, which work well in smaller environments such as an intranet, their work may not necessarily address the needs and lexicon of users in a wider community.
Tagging by content creators also faces the limitation that the creators do not fully know users’ needs and lexicon, even though they know the content well. In addition, tagging by content creators offers the opportunity for abuse – both intentional and unintentional. Unintentional abuse can derive from ignorance of standards, lack of accurate self-appraisal, or cultural or language differences. Abuse can also be intentional, as typified by spammers and phishers who use false metadata to lure people to their sites.
Tagging by content users offers the most potential for web searchers. Group tagging draws on the theory of the wisdom of crowds, wherein collective action by a diverse group results in better information than even specialists could provide. When a resource is tagged by a sufficient array of users, it overcomes minor discrepancies and represents what the resource actually means to most users. Users know the terms they associate with a resource and can use their own words to identify it; they are not apt to misidentify for selfish gain. Also, most tagging services are free, and they are quick and easy to use, compared to semantic web data.
Tagging services are not yet standard offerings in browsers and require time to learn, which may be why these services lack widespread adoption. However, as more and more users tag web resources, this situation will improve and will offer even more aid to web searchers.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)