Walk Me Thru

What’s Wrong with Me?

2010-01-28T23:57:00.004-05:00

This is a question that’s been bothering me for some time. Not a day goes by when it’s not glaringly obvious that people just aren’t comfortable with “me”. Why are so many people avoiding “me”? I wanted to know.

Me, Myself, and I

Pronouns are lovely little devices, easily replacing nouns that could be long and cumbersome to repeat with short little generic replacement words. The first person pronoun refers to the speaker and takes on the nominative form (“I”), the objective form (“me”), the possessive form (“my” or “mine”), and the reflexive form (“myself”). For some reason, many people object to the objective form.

First, I’d like to present a brief refresher on which is which: The nominative pronoun is the actor. “I read a book.” “I fed the cat.” The objective pronoun is on the receiving end of an action. “She saw me.” “Grandmom gave me an apple.” The possessive pronoun, well, possesses stuff. “The money is mine.” “It’s my life!” And the reflexive pronoun is in the objective position but always refers back to the subject. “I really embarrassed myself.” “I gave myself a treat.”

It’s All About Me

People seem to do just about anything to avoid the using “me” as the object of a sentence. The substitutions seem to vary based on whether the object is part of a coordination (two or more objects are linked by “and”) or stands alone. “Myself” often substitutes for “me” in both coordinate objects AND alone.

Just the other night, I was watching a DVD of the old Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour from the mid-sixties. Every time Tom Smothers spoke about himself and his brother, he would say “my brother and myself.” (My Microsoft Word spell-check just put a squiggly line under “myself” to let me know it’s wrong.) I see the coordinate of another person (“Charlie and myself”) occasionally in business communications, as well. However, I am more likely to see it all by its lonesome in business communications. “Send the information to myself as soon as possible.”

Why is this wrong? It’s wrong because a reflexive pronoun is supposed to refer back to the subject. In the example “Send the information to myself as soon as possible”, the inferred subject (the action taker) is “you.” The reflexive pronoun for “you” is “yourself.” The subject for the reflexive pronoun “myself” is “I.” But many U.S. English speakers have turned “myself” into an objective pronoun…and, at times, a nominative pronoun.

In business communications, I am more likely to see “I” in coordination with another noun (or pronoun). “Tell her and I if we should attend the meeting.” “Refer the customer to either Nancy or I.” In this case, the nominative form of the first person replaces the objective form. You would not say “Refer the customer to I.” Or “Tell I if we should attend the meeting.” For most of us, this would never sound right.

Makes me cringe!

To me, the only correct word to use in any of the above cases is the short and simple “me.”

Finding Me

I went looking for answers as to why this is so common. Did I find them? No. There’s a good bit of conjecture, though. Most commenters on the Internet (both professionals and Facebook fans of a certain grammar page) seem to believe, and I tend to agree, that a lot of people think “me” is too direct and even vulgar. “I” and “myself” seem proper and formal. That’s why people think nothing of saying “It’s me!” – when “It’s I!” is actually the “correct” form – but have difficulty saying “When you have completed the report, give it to your manager and me.” It’s hard to know for sure, however. Who is willing to approach friends, co-workers, or strangers and ask “Why are you using incorrect grammar?”

On my search I did discover that this whole issue is actually very sensitive and wrought with controversy. Who knew? I thought it was pretty straightforward: grammar rules are grammar rules and that’s that. Boy, was I wrong!

They’re Fighting Over Me

There are two camps in the grammar world: prescriptive grammarians and descriptive grammarians.

Prescriptive grammarians prescribe to a certain set of grammar rules that are inflexible. Failure to follow the rules results in grammatical errors and some strong “tsk, tsks.” According to Bradford R. Connatser in his article “Reconsidering Some Prescriptive Rules of Grammar and Composition” (Technical Communications – Volume 51, Number 2, May 2004, pages 264-275), many of these rules were imposed by 18th and 19th grammarians who were trained in classical Latin; these grammarians were attempting to apply the rules of Latin grammar to English.

Prescriptive grammarians, typically linguists, claim these rules may be attempts to fit square pegs into round holes. Rodney Huddleston and Geoffrey K. Pullum in their book “The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language” (2002 – Cambridge University Press) argue that these rules are arbitrary and a matter of the writer’s preferences and prejudices. They claim that the grammar in use by the majority of people, not the prescribed 18th and 19th century “Latinization” of our language, is the most relevant grammar. Specifically, in the case of using “I” instead of “me”, the authors challenge the logic behind saying “if the object is ‘me’ when the object is alone, then the object must be ‘me’ when the object is not alone.” They say that the coordination might change the object so the pronoun is different. They present the case where you would say “I don’t know if you’re eligible” but you would not say “I don’t know if she and you’re eligible.” The logic of what’s good for the single pronoun is good for the pronoun in a coordination of pronouns doesn’t work here.

Connatser calls this grammar that people use in their everyday speech and, often, writing “organic grammar.” It’s the grammar we internalized as we learned how to speak. He believes it’s “hard-wired.” And it informs how we read. If what’s written on the paper or screen conflicts in form with the organic grammar in our heads, it triggers warning bells that there is something wrong with the text.

Tell Me What to Do!

The practical dilemma for any writer, particularly any non-fiction writer, is to decide what to do. Do you use prescriptive grammar that might be out of step with how your reader talks and processes her language? Or do you use the organic language of your reader so that he feels comfortable with the content?

Connatser points out that errors in text can be distracting and impact the credibility of your content. I’ve personally experienced this many times. As I see more and more errors in a text – grammatical, spelling, or even formatting – I tend to discount the author as sloppy, ill-prepared, and potentially uninformed. I am likely to question the accuracy of the content. He suggests knowing your audience and using grammar rules (whether prescriptive or organic) that will make the reading experience comfortable and easy to process for that audience. If your audience includes people with varying levels of education and inclination toward prescriptive grammar, this is a real challenge.

Personally, I will stick to the prescriptive rules for the first person pronouns “I”, “me”, and “myself.” Dangling participles and split infinitives? Well, that’s another story.

Required Reading for Dinosaurs

2009-12-13T23:48:00.010-05:00

Hey, T-Rex! Over here! I have a few things I’d like you to read. Set up a lounge chair next to the primordial pool. Grab a pitcher of iced tea. Make yourself comfortable. Just a few hours of your time.

Whether you’re ready or not, it’s time to evolve. Your industry depends on it. Your future depends on it. These ideas will help you make progress and avoid the tar pit.

Drucker

Peter F. Drucker predicted in “The Coming of the New Organization” printed in the Harvard Business Review (January-February 1988) that the typical large business of this decade will be flatter – have fewer levels of management – and have no more than a third of the managers. I see you shiver at the idea, T-Rex. What will you do without all of those people between the CEO and the “front-line” workers? Where will the management’s status come from? How will workers be motivated to do better if there’s no place to go? Who will make sure things get done?

As business changes, particularly in the West, our work world is evolving from production oriented to information based. Information based organizations require more specialists and knowledge workers. Whereas, in the past, knowledge was held by the people at the top of the organization and the workers just did what they were told, today most of the knowledge is with the workers who tend to direct themselves and require much less supervision or assistance. Many layers of management are no longer necessary, create redundancies, and impede communication. According to Drucker, these managers “…neither make decisions nor lead.”

I think that’s a very important statement. These middle managers “…neither make decisions nor lead.” They merely pass information from higher levels of management to those below them and then from the bottom back up again.

Information in the current “command-and-control” version of organizational management is used for control. Managing this or that. In the information based organization, information must be extracted from data and that requires specialists. Lots of them. In Ducker’s vision, corporations will work much more like an orchestra: a conductor at the head and musicians, all specialists, working together and following the conductor’s lead. The conductor could be the CEO but is more likely to be a department or division head; the department will be a training ground and a “home base” for specialists. Specialists will, instead, work in cross-functional task forces or groups, usually led by a member of the group instead of a manager.

In order to make this successful, everyone has to be working from the same “score” or set of instructions. Everyone needs to hear the same clearly stated, common objectives. The leaders provide this direction. All members of the team in Drucker’s organization have responsibility for sharing information and requesting the information they need. While we often concentrate on what we need to tell others (reporting on activities or what we discovered), knowledge workers must consider what information we need to make our contributions.

To help you out T-Rex, Drucker lists four requirements to help you create a successful, information-based organization without the thick layer of middle managers:

Develop rewards, recognition, and career opportunities for specialists. As a knowledge worker myself, I can’t tell you how important this is. I enjoy what I do, but in order for me to make more money, to secure more benefits, and to gain public recognition for my contributions (which is much more important than many people will admit), I have to be promoted to a managerial role. That most probably means abandoning what I enjoy doing most and, quite frankly, what I do best; for that, both the organization and I lose. And, if you fail to recognize my contribution? Well, T-Rex, you’ll eventually lose me and the investment you made in me over the years.
Create a unified vision. If you look closely at many organizations, they have conflicting visions originating from different business units and control groups. A unified message is necessary to ensure everyone is on the same track and to avoid struggles within task forces over the ultimate goals.
Devise the management structure for an organization of tasks forces. These should be self-governing units that foster pride and professionalism. To motivate and inspire specialists, the organization might consider rotating them periodically into new specialties (if that’s reasonable for the industry).
Ensure the supply, preparation, and testing of top management people. I know what you’re thinking, T-Rex. “If I don’t have middle managers, who do I groom for senior level positions?” First, in the current world, I know you’re taking a lot of senior managers from outside of the organization. You can’t fool me. You’re not just fishing in your own pond. But, just in case you’re being straight with me, Drucker suggests that these people can come from leaders who emerge in the task forces, the small pool of managers remaining in the organization, managers from smaller organizations, and business schools (who will need to refocus their curriculum based on the changing organizational structure).

Buzzanell

You’re going to love this one, too, T-Rex. Patrice M. Buzzanell writes in “Gaining a Voice: Feminist Organizational Communication Theorizing,” published in Management Communication Quarterly (May 1994 – Volume 7, Number 4), about a feminist approach to organizational management. First, you need to recognize and accept that the modern business organization is established on a patriarchal philosophy of hierarchy and competition. It’s a male dominated world where stereotypically male behavior is rewarded – unless it’s displayed by a woman – and stereotypically female behavior is criticized or dismissed as ineffectual.

While there is no one feminist approach, there are some common values. First, feminism promotes cooperation over competition. Competition fosters distrust, lower self-esteem, neglect of personal relationships, and health problems. Competitive organizations promote exclusion, particularly of women through negative myths about professional women. In these organizations, it is often unclear how one advances; the “rules and routes” are rarely divulged. The reliance on extrinsic rewards (e.g., money and promotions) inhibits development encouraged by curiosity, reliance on individual competence, and learning.

The cooperative, feminist environment values commitment, relationships, and interdependence. Consensus processes are used to negotiate decisions; the processes have minimal rules, create little, if any, differentiation between members, and motivate based on the value of the results in terms of positive feelings, satisfaction of human needs, etc., instead of advancement up the corporate ladder. The organization recognizes the “human” side of women’s contributions to the workplace, such as conflict resolution, providing encouragement, and acting as a sounding board, as valuable and even essential to the organization. And it values a work-life balance.

Second, feminism promotes integrative thinking over linear, cause-effect thinking. Linear thinking assumes that there is one best way of doing things. It ignores possible alternatives. Diversity must be managed instead of explored. “Effective” managers embodied traditionally masculine traits such as independence, rationality, self-confidence, and easy decision-making. However, women who exhibit these traits are often criticized. Integrative thinking emphasizes the possibility of alternative, viewpoints, approaches and outcomes. It also looks for dependency on input from others.

Finally, feminism promotes connectedness over autonomy. Stereotypical male goals are recognition as individuals through action, work, and status and exclusion of emotion from the concepts of truth and fairness. The feminist approach values nurturing and relationships.

Kim and Mauborgne

W. Chan Kim and Renée Mauborgne, in “Blue Ocean Strategy,” published in the Harvard Business Review (October 2004), suggest that successful organizations are the ones who create new markets, not join and out-compete existing markets. That does not necessarily mean you have to come up with a brand new product, T-Rex. But it does mean offering a different value proposition to the customer. For example, Kim and Mauborgne cite Ford’s introduction of the Model-T as a “blue ocean” strategy. Ford did not invent the car. But they did make the car affordable to the masses. Before the Model-T, cars were custom made by teams of workers who took weeks to build one car. Ford developed the process and parts that alllowed a group of workers to build a car in less than a week.

“Red ocean” strategies involve competing in existing markets and focus on beating the competition. They attempt to exploit existing demand and typically sacrifice value for low-cost or vice versa. Red ocean organizations align their systems and activities with choosing between differentiation and low cost. They are deemed “red” because of the blood from the battle or competition discoloring the ocean water.

“Blue ocean” strategies create uncontested markets, making competition irrelevant. They create and capture new demand; newcomers or imitators don’t fare as well because the innovators captured the market first. These organizations don’t sacrifice value for low-cost or vice versa. Blue ocean organizations align their activities to pursue both differentiation and low cost. They are deemed “blue” because the water is clear since there’s no battle and resulting blood.

Innovation, T-Rex, is part of the recipe for success.

Taylor

James R. Taylor, in “The Other Side of Rationality: Socially Distributed Cognition” published in the Management Communication Quarterly (November 1999, Volume 13, Number 2), suggests that there are two types of organizational knowledge: practical and discursive. Discursive knowledge is knowledge that an individual can convey in explicit language. It’s the kind of stuff you write in instructions or reports. Practical knowledge is the information you know but take for granted. You don’t normally include it in instructions. For instance, if you tell someone to complete a form, you normally don’t include instructions such as the need to pick up the pencil, what side of the pencil (the lead or the eraser) to apply to the paper, etc. For organizational information, the practical information is probably more sophisticated than that but it does include information that the worker takes for granted.

James reminds us that (1) most human accomplishments are the results of collaborative efforts and (2) “thinking and acting are two sides of a single coin” (what we know influences what we do and we learn from what we do). Individuals bring to a work group their individual knowledge which contributes to the collective knowledge, both practical and discursive. No one individual knows the whole of what the group knows together, mostly because of the practical knowledge that is “hidden” because it’s undisclosed and assumed.

To know what the whole group knows collectively would require someone to give it a voice, by documenting it. Even though these elements are not disclosed, they are essential to the organization. To successfully document what the organization knows, there must be four elements: “Community”, “Opinion”, “Representation”, and “Voice of Society.” “Community” is the people who make up the organization. “Opinion” is each individual’s discursive interpretation of the organization’s cumulative practical and discursive knowledge. “Representation” is the reformulation of “Opinion” as he or she understands it by a manager or other person authorized to speak on behalf of the organization. “Voice of Society” is the person or persons who express what the organization knows AND has the authority to do so. This is usually senior management. In order for the system to work, the Voice of Society must communicate the Representation TO the Community and the Community must validate it as true based on what they know. And, if more than one Voice of Society expresses Representations that differ, confusion and debate will follow.

To summarize for you, T-Rex, more is accomplished by combining resources with diverse knowledge (like the task forces in Drucker’s model and the collaborative work in Buzzanell’s). And, senior management must communicate the interpretation of what the organization knows or is setting out to do and have the recognized moral authority (through both appointment and validation of the message by the employees based on their experience and knowledge) to do so.

Weick

Karl E. Weick, in “The Collapse of Sensemaking in Organizations: The Mann Gulch Disaster” published in the Administrative Science Quarterly (1983, Volume 38), applies the disintegration of the team structure of a group of firefighters battling a wildfire in the 1940s to similar problems within other teams and organizations.

The story and evaluation is fascinating and much too long to summarize here. (The link above provides the entire article.) In short, Weick spells out what it takes to destroy a team or organization:

Thrust people into unfamiliar roles, leave some key roles unfilled, make the task more ambiguous, discredit the role system, and make all of these changes in a context in which small events can combine into something monstrous. Faced with similar conditions, organizations that seem much sturdier can also come crashing down much like Icarus who overreached his competence as he flew toward the sun and also perished because of fire.

In order to make an organization more resilient, Weick suggests the organization must provide for the following in all levels, management and workers:

Improvisation and bricolage (the ability to create order out of chaos): Individuals and groups should be trained to improve and solve problems with the tools (including knowledge) that are available to them. Creativity needs to be encouraged; creativity under pressure is learned through practice so that it becomes natural to think of alternative solutions.
Virtual role systems: Group members need to understand the roles of others in their group so they can visualize and recreate those roles in their minds. This information can help guide individuals in their own actions. And individuals need to continually assess the situation and look for the potential dangers or pitfalls and exits. “Never get into anything without making sure you have a way out.”
The attitude of wisdom: The more we learn about something, the more questions and uncertainties arise. We discover that it’s more complex than we thought. Wisdom is knowing that you are knowledgeable about something but don’t know everything. Having too much confidence in your knowledge can stifle learning and creativity. Not having enough confidence can be paralyzing and prevent progress.
Respectful interaction: This requires trust – respecting reports from others; one must be willing to base beliefs and actions on those reports. One must report information honestly; others must be able to trust one’s observations so they can come to valid beliefs. And one must have self-respect and respect one’s own perceptions and beliefs; those perceptions and beliefs should be integrated with reports from others without deprecating them or one’s own. This includes “vertical” interactions as well as “lateral.”

Evolving

Okay. There you are, T-Rex. The forumla for success. There are some common ideas in the articles summarized above:

Collaboration
Lack of or short hierarchy
Open, respectful communication
Sharing of knowledge
Innovation

These ideas, implemented with honesty and commitment, should help an organization survive in the information economy.

So, T-Rex, how about trading in that pyramid you acquired along the way…you know, the one with the sound-proof rooms, glass ceilings, and secret passageways…the one with the droves of workers at the bottom level and layer upon layer of management up to the point…for a low-rise, energy efficient structure with an open floor plan, windows that let in sunshine and fresh air, and easily marked stairways and elevators to move up and down freely and easily?

Survey Says…

2009-12-13T01:57:00.002-05:00

Surveys and the resulting statistics have always fascinated me. I loved my probability and statistics class in high school. My part-time job as a telephone market research interviewer in my senior year of high school introduced me to survey design including the concept of closed ended and open ended questions. We learned to prompt (“any other reasons you like this product?”) and probe (“how does it ‘work well’?”).

While my college education included classes in statistics and social research, I never took it any further…until this past October when I administered my very own survey.

Tell Me What You Think

I’ve been thinking about this for a few years now. My class in Communication Theory and Social Research prompted me to take the plunge. It was exciting to finally go through with it.

For the past 18 years, I’ve been involved in (some years, like this year, consumed by) running a fund raising event for a local animal shelter. We call it a “Bucket Auction” but it’s also known as a “Chinese Auction”, “Tricky Tray”, or “Penny Auction.” The event does reasonably well but we’ve hit a plateau in how much we raise. Even with gradual increases in admission and charging for previously free refreshments, there’s been no real increase in the proceeds.

Overall, it’s an impressive event. There are hundreds of prizes and we regularly attract participants from over an hour from the event venue. But, I’ve wondered if we what our participants think. Is there something we can do better? What do they think we do well already?

So, I developed a very short survey to assess how people feel. All of the information appeared on the front and back of a 4 by 6 index card. To encourage people to participate, we offered a drawing for a $25 gift card. The following images are the front and back of the card that was inserted in each participant’s program.

Front of Survey Card
(Click on image to enlarge.)

Back of Survey Card

(Click on image to enlarge.)

I attempted to assess the following:

How the participant found out about the event. This will help us in the future to focus our efforts on the most effective way to promote the event.
Whether or not the participant knew about the event website/blog and Facebook site. These were new efforts this year to create some excitement about the event.
What participants thought of the prices charged for admission, different ticket levels, and refreshments. I used a Likert-type scale to determine if the prices were too low, just right, or too high. (Remember, I had limited space.)
Whether or not they intend to return next year.
The most and least popular prizes. (A quick visual survey gave me some indication but it’s always good to ask.)
What improvements participants would like to see in the prize selection.

Of course, we also took the opportunity to get names and addresses to add the individuals to our mailing (paper and electronic) lists.

Our Exit Polls Show…

Based on a count of the cards compared to the tickets sold at the door, nearly 100% of participants submitted a card. However, not everyone responded to the questions. Some just wrote their names and put the cards in the box. Unfortunately, I’ve not had time to evaluate the results. (Manually inputting over 250 cards of information is quite time consuming.) This is on my list as a winter break project. But I can discuss a few issues.

A cursory review of the results (flipping through the cards) shows that we are generally on-track with these participants. They think the prices are reasonable. A few people made suggestions for improvements, but not a lot.

What’s Going On?

So, why aren’t we making more money, even after raising prices, if nearly everyone is happy? Well, this year there is the big “E” word – the ECONOMY. It could be that people have their limits when they walk in the door and they stick with them.

Another observation from the event itself is the perceived socio-economic status of our participants. I did not request income or other demographic information in the questionnaire but general appearances would have me belief that most of the participants are from lower-middle class households.

What would be interesting is to survey people who did not attend, particularly those with more disposable income. Why don’t they attend? Is it the venue – a high school cafeteria with hard benches attached to the tables? Is it the quality or value of the prizes? Is it a perception of the event as “lower class” or not socially acceptable? How can we get the bigger spenders to come out? Will that cause us to lose our “regulars”?

So What Does That Mean?

When you hear or read about reports from surveys, there are often words or phrases they throw around that typically don’t mean much to most people. The three most common are standard deviation, margin of error, and statistically significant.

The standard deviation is the average distance of set of scores is from the “mean” or average. When the standard deviation is a smaller number, most of the scores are close to the average. There’s very little diversity or variability in the responses. When the standard deviation is a larger number, the scores are fairly well spread out. This represents more diversity or variability in the responses.

Because surveys generally do not include 100% of a population being studied, researchers usually attempt to acquire results from a representative sample of the population. Researchers seek to achieve results within a 95% confidence interval – they can be 95% confident that the sample represents the entire population. The margin of error tells us how much variance from the resulting percentage we can expect in the total population. So, if the margin of error is 3 points and our result is 45, that means the result in the total population is between 42 and 48. The larger the standard deviation, the wider the range of possible scores.

Results are statistically significant if there is less than 5% chance that the results occurred randomly.

So, stayed tuned for the results from my survey. Let’s hope with we have statistically significant results with small margins of error and standard deviations.

Grapevine or Lifeline?

2009-12-12T11:14:00.004-05:00

A few weeks ago, I attended a book signing by one of my favorite authors, Rita Mae Brown. She spent over an hour before the signing entertaining and informing us with her ideas about life and, particularly, non-human animals. Her new book, Animal Magnetism, is a memoir of her life with animals.

In comparing us with our non-human kin, Ms. Brown addressed the issue of language and why humans are the only species with a very sophisticated verbal communication system. Her theory is that language developed as a survival mechanism. Verbalization improved our efforts in cooperative hunting. Those noises evolved into words to provide more precise instructions, feedback, and alerts. She suggests it was language that made us so successful as a species.

This piqued my interest because I was learning about Sandra J. Ball-Rokeach’s Media System Dependency (MSD) theory. Her theory was, in part, influenced by Tamotsu Shibutani's theory that rumor is, as Ralph L. Rosnow and Eric K. Foster summarized it, “…a collective, problem-solving interaction that is sustained by a combination of anxiety, uncertainty, and credulity.” Our desire is to resolve ambiguities, especially about our well-being. To do this, we turn to our information sources. The media, in its many forms, can often provide us with the information we need to understand what is going on and clear up ambiguities. In many ways, we can be dependent on it.

This all hit me at a very personal level. You see, I work for a large (global…maybe even intergalactic) financial services company. Our organization has been in a state of turmoil for at least four years. The mortgage and American auto industry collapses have turned our world upside down. Thousands laid off, as many as three helpings of TARP funds, and what seem to be daily changes in management and structure have left those of us lucky enough to have jobs nauseous from the ride, dazed, and confused. How does this relate to MSD? Communication networks.

Feeding Our Heads

Ball-Rokeach’s theory looks at the nature of society, human motivation, power, the media system, and the relationships between individuals, interpersonal networks, the media, and the nature of the power of the media. Society is an organism comprised of interdependent parts. That organism is understood by the relationship between those parts. Our organization - the company for which I work - is also an organism comprised of different levels of employees from clerks to executives, various departments, and networks of employees that may cross departments and positions on the corporate ladder. The media in our organization is comprised of corporate communications, human resources, senior management, and other groups who disseminate official communications.

According to MSD, motivation is part of human nature; humans strive to survive and grow. This includes achieving understanding (social and self), orientation (interaction and action), and play goals (social and solitary). In our corporate world, our survival is equated to whether or not we continue to be employed. For most of us, the job is a necessity to survive in the rest of the world: money to pay for food, clothing, shelter, heat, medical care. It’s needed to ensure our basic needs of sustenance. But we also have less tangible needs that, still, are important to us like understanding where we are positioned in the structure (like a wolf in the pack or a chimpanzee in the tribe) and what our role is in the group. Work also provides some level of social interaction and satisfaction. Or, at least one hopes it does since we spend so much time there.

Information is a source of power as it is needed to attain goals such as survival and maintaining social structure. In modern society, media is an important generator and purveyor of information. No where is that true more than in an organization. While job specific information or knowledge does not endow one with power, detailed knowledge of what is happening within and to the company usually does. Not only does it give one the tools to make decisions on what one should be doing and where one should be situated at any given time, it also gives one the information to know when to fight and when to flee.

Media relies on organizations and other social structures for information and an audience in order to gain influence. It derives its power by maintaining control over information resources that individuals, groups, and society as a whole need to achieve their goals. It’s true that in an organization the greatest powers are the ability of management to hire and fire and, of course, the paycheck. But it also controls its employees by the dissemination or suppression of information.

While the media may be powerful, individuals do not always rely on the media for information. Instead, they may refer to other individuals in their interpersonal network (peers, family, experts such as doctors) or community groups (such as schools, social activist groups). In the work world, it's the networks are comprised primarily of co-workers and, to a lesser degree, other industry contacts. Much of this depends on the individual’s goals, the credibility of the sources of information, and the availability of media sources, among other variables. And it’s that “availability of media sources” that, in my world, has been problematic.

Trying to Find Our Way in the Dark

The most recent example that impacted me directly was a departmental restructuring. Months ago, we were told that several departments with similar responsibilities would be merged into one. News would be forthcoming. Until then, it was business as usual. Months passed with only intermittent information. Information on the plans was very vague. Changes occurred around us without explanation.

Meanwhile, rumors of our parent company declaring bankruptcy or eliminating the business units we supported resurfaced over and over again. Management’s advice: keep your head down and do your best work. Ignore the rumors.

Artificial Lighting

What management failed to recognize was that our human nature is to see the lack of information as a threat to our survival and growth. So, what did employees do? We sought out information to resolve our ambiguities. Some relied on updates from on-line financial news sites like http://www.bloomberg.com/. Others obtained information from people outside of the organization. But, for most of us, it was the daily, sometimes hourly, conversations with one another. Sharing e-mails that hinted at who was going to be in charge. Reporting on meetings where someone “slipped” and revealed information that was not intended for public disclosure. Monitoring the comings and goings of certain managers between sites. Speculating on who might end up where. And what, if any, positions would be eliminated.

While some of the discussions may have created unnecessary anxiety, it made us feel slightly more empowered to have just a little more information than we did from our own sources. The discussions also helped us prepare for the worse and to consider our alternatives should we lose our jobs or find ourselves in situations that would make us unhappy.

A Little Bit of Sunlight

So, what finally happened? Well, they did eventually announce the restructuring of our department. We now feel more empowered because at least we have the information – now correct information – we need to make good decisions about our own futures. Knowledge is, afterall, power.

The status of the organization as a whole and the business units we support is still unknown. Recent announcements of offices closing or reducing staff along with comments from our new CEO have not been encouraging. Bloomberg will continue to see lots of hits from our servers for the foreseeable future.

That Was My Intention

2009-12-11T23:29:00.002-05:00

They say that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. I intended many months ago to maintain a regular presence here. You see what happened with that!

Intentions are interesting. It’s hard to know if they will ever lead to actions. Often times, they just sit there, waiting to be used. You might intend to thank someone for a kindness or exercise every day or read the newest best seller. But those intentions don’t mean a lot unless you act on them.

Can you tell if someone is likely to act on their intentions? According to Martin Fishbein and Icek Aizen you might not be able to tell by just looking at someone but it’s likely you can tell by their attitudes and beliefs. Fishbein and Aizen’s Theory of Planned Behavior, or TpB, states that human action is guided by three considerations: behavioral beliefs, normative beliefs, and control beliefs.

Naughty or Nice

Can TpB predict “naughty or nice” behavior prior to Christmas? Let’s take a look at the three predictors:

Behavioral beliefs involve the likely outcomes of behavior and the evaluations of these outcomes. A child may believe that if he is good, he’ll get lots of toys from Santa; if he’s bad, he’ll get nothing or coal. (However, if the child’s a natural artist, a lump of coal might provide hours of fun. Find that mark!)
Normative beliefs involve beliefs about what others expect and how motivated the individual is to comply with those expectations. A child might ask himself when presented with an opportunity to torment his little sister without his parents catching him “What will Santa think if he sees me? He’ll probably be angry.” Whether or not he leaves his sister alone will depend a lot on how much fun he thinks he might actually have making her miserable compared to how much he thinks he might lose in Christmas loot. Which motivates him more? The immediate fun or the toys at risk?
Control beliefs involve the presence (perceived or actual) of factors that may facilitate or impede the individual’s performance of the behavior and the perceived power of these factors. How much control does the child have over his behavior or over what his parents might have told Santa? Can he really convince Santa to bring him what he wants if he’s good? Or does Santa leave good gifts on a whim and leave underwear more often than not?

Typically, if the child really believes he’ll get more toys by being good, that Santa is really swayed by good behavior and that it’s better to have toys than to make his little sister cry, and that he has the power to convince Santa to bring him the toys he wants (despite his parent’s possible objections), the more likely he is intend to be “nice” instead of “naughty” and to actually follow through on those intentions.

Attitude Adjustments

Intervention to change attitudes and behavior can be directed to any of the determinants: attitudes, subjective norms, or perceptions of behavioral control. For the child waiting for Christmas, we would want to target determinants that indicate the need for significant change. If attitudes toward the behavior are positive, then attempts to improve attitudes will have little effect. If the child believes he’ll get the same amount of presents whether he’s naughty or nice, we’d want to try to change that perception.

Then we can attack the strength of the belief or the scale the values of the beliefs. In this case, we’d need to turn the belief completely around to attack the strength. Or, we can introduce new beliefs. This might mean introducing the idea that the dog is Santa’s spy so, even if his parents aren’t around, the dog could thwart his efforts to secure lots of Christmas goodies.

The most important factor, though, is that the individual must be capable on carrying out the desired behaviors. For some children, this is a matter of self-control. And there are those who have little or none. They are fighting a losing battle over “naughty” versus “nice.”

Reading Minds

So, how do you determine intentions and likelihood of action? Aizen recommends a questionnaire that measures how often the subject participates in the behavior as well as predictor variables including intention, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control. The responses to the questions are ratings along a bi-polar scale, usually of seven rankings with terms like “strongly agree…strongly disagree”, “harmful…beneficial”, "unpleasant…enjoyable", and “extremely likely…..extremely unlikely”. Belief composites can be compiled from the data and can be used to predict behavior.

While it’s unlikely we’ll get the child to fill out or even understand the questionnaire, we can use this method to evaluate to evaluate likely behavior for any number of things from adoption of technology to use of condoms to making commitments to pets. Understanding motivation to act can point us in the right direction to influence either changes in attitudes (and, we hope, behavior) or introduce new beliefs.

Now, if we can just figure out how to more effectively promote “nice” over “naughty.”

It's Been HOW Long?

2009-05-20T11:14:00.003-04:00

Five months sure flies by fast. My intentions were good. I did not want to contribute yet another lonely, orphaned blog to the blogesphere. At the very least, I wanted to wrap it up nicely - provide some closure - instead of stopping abruptly.

Honestly, I've yearned to get back to this since my last post. I drafted so many entries in my mind. What happened? Life. Life got in the way. Further explanation would just bore (or compromise national security).

What kept me on track before were class assignments. Without them, I was left to my own devices...which don't work very well under some - ahem, sorry, most - circumstances! But there is still so much to talk about:

The changes to my e-portfolio web banner and the site overall.
What I've learned about how writing and technology has impacted the way we think.
That "gimp" is more than trim on upholstered furniture!
How to be "heard" in the literal sense on the web via podcasts.
Techniques for modifying photos.
Cyborgs, "post human" humans, and video games.

So, no promises or commitments here for longevity or regularity. We'll take it a day (or, more realistically, a week) at a time and hope things work out. But I do promise to not walk away forever without saying "adieu".

Testing - One-Two-Three...

2008-12-13T22:52:00.024-05:00

Wow! I've been blogging for over three months now. It's been quite a journey. I never anticipated that it would evolve into something that feels so natural.

In my senior year of high school, my English teacher, Mr. Pross, required our class to keep a journal. How I HATED that assignment! I would have gladly written a research paper every week to avoid writing a journal. I guess back then I viewed it as a "dear diary" type thing. The teen years are pretty difficult times as it is and my family life was in a bit of turmoil so I guess the vulnerability of exposing myself in writing was a bit too much for me. For some reason, I held on to some of those entries - maybe it was all of them. (I did as few as I could get away with!) I came across them a year or so ago. The writing was evasive. Anyone could tell I was not comfortable documenting my life, thoughts, or feelings.

It's been exactly 30 years since that class. And here I am writing a blog and considering starting another. While this is certainly not a journal - at least not in the same respect as what I was writing in 1978 - I certainly have come a long way in documenting my thoughts. In fact, looking back over the past three months, I see a lot of progress since September.

Aim, Shoot, Score!

As I state in the banner above, the purpose of this blog is to explore technical communications. I have spent much of the last three months learning and talking about design. From examining websites geared toward different ages and corporate blogs to reviewing specific elements of design such as typography (September 23rd and October 6th), audience analysis, and usability analysis to attempting to understand Web 2.0, I have learned so much.

It's one thing to just read about topics; you can hope that you retain the information when it's needed. It's another to measure your comprehension by redefining it and putting it into use. Sitting down, looking for and at examples, and writing about them moves me forward. Actually practicing what I've learned helps me meet my goal that I set back in my blog of September 23rd - to create visually appealing pages.

I have a way to go but I'm progressing.

Yes, It IS Something Personal

When I started out this blog, I was all business...straight to the point. No self exposure. You could have assumed certain things about me. (My entry about corporate blogs where I compare McDonald's blog to PETA's blog might have led you to assume a certain bias toward one organization over the other.) But it would have been purely conjecture.

There's been quite a shift since then. My most recent blogs have been fairly personal. Some might say a little too expository. Sometimes, though, information is more meaningful if we can relate it to our own experiences. And personal stories can help illustrate the importance of a method - as I discussed in my entry about usability - or how advances or changes can impact how we approach problems - as I discussed in my entry about Web 2.0.

Relax...

When I look back at my first entries, they were stiff, business like. I believe...and I hope it comes across to others...that I've relaxed some. These entries have become a little more conversational, a little less "instructional".

That's a leap for me. As it was back in high school, I'm much more comfortable with the research paper type writing. After all, at least half of my professional career has been spent writing policies and procedures. Not exactly sitting in the living room with friends type language. I have to admit that I am finally enjoying the freedom of writing informative material in friendly, personal manner. This has been a very positive experience that I intend to continue and, as I mentioned, possibly expand. (Gardening with native plants...I could learn and talk about that for a very long time.)

Moving to Missouri

"Show me". Hmmm. I'm still working on that. Maybe if I move to the "Show me" state. Actually, I have been working on adding more visual elements to my entries. There are challenges. First, importing graphics into Blogger and formatting so the entry looks nice is not especially easy. Well, at least not for me. In addition, I often fail to see the opportunities to illustrate certain ideas.

I hope that I have exhibited that I have some grasp of visual design. My redesign of this site is one example. As are my attempts at creating print ads. I'll be picking up another design class in January. I'm looking forward to it. The class I participated in this fall was fun and interesting. I can only hope to learn more and further develop my skills.

Where Am I Going?

I hope that, in another three months, I will be prepared to look back and see further progress in my writing and my design skills. I also hope to be able to say I've accomplished each of the "to-do" list tasks I've identified so far. Having it in writing certainly helps to keep my feet to the fire.

Stay tuned.

Ready for Madison Avenue?

2008-12-11T18:31:00.012-05:00

When I was in high school, I entertained the idea of a career in art. So many of us at that age have unrealistic opinions of our talents, strengths, and, yes, even weaknesses. Fortunately, I came to realize - before applying to art school - that I had neither the talent nor the discipline for that life.

One of the eye-openers was a class in advertising and commercial design. While I generally earned "A"s in the "fine art" classes, the graphic art course was much more challenging. I could no longer get away with fuzzy edges of my drawings and I had to deal with the preciseness of lettering. This was in the 70s so everything was done by hand.

So, when I was presented with an opportunity to participate in the development of a marketing campaign for a new company, I decided to give the challenges of advertising and commercial design another shot in the digital world.

My approach to this project included:

Creating a proposal for the campaign.
Understanding the company and the audience for the ads.
Developing a theme for the message.
Creating a design.

Getting to Know You

The company's name is kr3c. They're a "think tank" or venture capital group headquartered in Princeton, New Jersey. The first step in this project was understanding the company. What were they planning to do? What problems or initiatives did they intend to work on? Where were they getting their funding? And what did they want to accomplish with their campaign?

kr3c will be working with government and private industry to develop solutions and innovations in technology and industry. Pinning down exactly what they will be working on was not an easy process. Their interests are diverse: from clean energy to screenless computers to education initiatives. The common elements seem to be creative solutions and change. Unlike many of the "think tanks" we hear about on news reports, there appears to be no interest in making public policy or promoting particular agendas.

Funding will be acquired through private investors, grants from foundations, and fees for services - the sale of the "ideas". The purposes of the ad campaign include attracting investors as well as promoting awareness and soliciting clients.

What's It All About?

Designing ads for a concept is a lot more difficult than designing ads for tangible products like clothing, food, or appliances. Tangible products visually speak for themselves. You can dress them up, put them in a certain context to give them "personality". But they can also stand alone and still tell you what they're about.

Concepts are harder to express visually. Since I was working on the print ads, I found this to be pretty tricky. I could go with the "infomercial" type ad. You know the kind. It says "Advertisement" at the top but it resembles an article in the magazine. They must work for some things; there are so many of them. And they certainly would be informative. However, it did not seem like the correct approach.

So, I needed a theme. I decided to focus on change by:

Finding the answers to pressing issues; and
Shaping the future.

I Can See It Now

Before designing the ads, I did a little research.

First, I had to consider design elements. Things like:

Layout
Proportion
Color
Typeface

Fortunately, I've been studying design lately so I had easy access to elementary information. One little piece I picked up was the "Rule of Thirds". With the Rule of Thirds, you take the space you're working with and divide it into three equal rows and three equal columns. Important elements should appear on two to four of the intersections of the lines creating the columns and rows.

Colors were determined in part by the marketing team's selection of a logo and the colors of the logos. (One standard logo and one for "green" initiatives. I chose to only use the standard logo but separated out a leaf graphic from the green logo for one ad.)

For layout and typeface, I did a lot of research by leafing through financial magazines and newspapers. The client wanted two magazine ads, two newspaper ads, and two web banners so the layouts, and even the content, would be significantly different.

What I found was a large number of ads with a top-heavy graphic - usually a photo - with a short message and a web link underneath. There were also a number of text ads but they all (but the infomercial variety) had limited, clear text. Newspaper ads were simple, usually text of various sizes. Web banners, due to their size, had limited information with small graphics.

The following are the results:

Magazine Ad

Newspaper Ad

Newspaper Ad

Web Banners

Is It Easier The Second Time Around?

I've been asking myself if this was easier than it was back in high school. As far as coming up with ideas and text. A little but not much. Having more life experience, I guess I have more ways to say things than I did back then but finding the ideas is still hard.

As for creating the end product, I have to say "absolutely". I can't say I'm any more creative than I was back then or that I've acquired any talent I didn't have at 17. Creating material on a computer, though, makes all the difference in the world. Having tools to line up images, create straight lines, and create the lettering for me. Wow!

Work with Me!

2008-12-01T20:28:00.012-05:00

There are a few things I need to disclose about myself before continuing:

On the Myers-Briggs Personality Type inventory, I am an "INTP" with a very strong emphasis on the "I" which stands for "introverted". I didn't need a test to tell me that. My kindergarten teacher remarked on my report card "Yvonne likes to work on her own." Little has changed since then. This is not a popular thing to admit in a world where, both professionally and academically, collaboration and teamwork are highly valued. Don't get me wrong. I'm a team player and do "play" well with others. Only a few people would call me difficult (and they're mostly family). I can both follow direction and lead. But I'm just much more comfortable (and, admittedly, happier) when I can execute projects on my own.
I love democracy and, in particular, the First Amendment to the Constitution. I abhor censorship. In fact, back in the early 90s I had a second job in a bookstore. The very socially conservative store manager refused to display some particularly controversial titles ("American Psycho" by Bret Easton Ellis and Madonna's racy pictorial essay) even though corporate sent them to us in our weekly shipment. We were under direction to keep them behind the counter and decline to sell them. Despite my personal feelings about the merits of the novel's story or Madonna's artistic integrity, I risked being fired and sold the books. A little stand in the big scheme of things but a stand none-the-less.
I do not believe that it takes a degree or formal education to be knowledgeable or to read and interpret scientific or academic material. In fact, I know plenty of people with lots of schooling who I feel know or understand very little and vice versa.

With those disclosures out of the way, I think I'd like to say something about on-line collaboration and, in particular, "wikis".
How Many Design Students Does It Take to Make a Wiki?
I alluded to this a few entries ago - October 29th to be exact. The whole idea of the democratization of knowledge and "expertise" bothers me a bit. I wonder what impact it will have on our culture. Aside from the possibility that it could provide a new spin on the "how many - insert here - does it take to replace a light bulb?" jokes. Had I been better prepared, I would have sought out articles on this. (The articles on the possible effects, not the jokes.) I'm sure they're there. But I think I'd rather rely here on my own recent experiences with this relatively new phenomenon.
Last month I worked on two projects simultaneously that involved wikis. For one, I was given the task of entering the world of Wikipedia - probably the most popular wiki - to either edit or create an entry. The other project involved working with fellow design students on creating a wiki on the elements of design.
Little Fish in a Big Sea
Entering Wikipedia was a bit intimidating. First, there appear to be all of these rules about style, content, format. Unfortunately, I found their "help" pages extremely difficult to use and confusing. (I needed a book but didn't discover until later that one was available.) Once I got past that, determining what to edit or add was a very daunting process. There are I don't know how many entries on Wikipedia and I don't really feel I qualify as an expert on anything in particular. After a lot of deliberation and failed attempts to find a topic I could add value to, I chose to add a new entry - one on "pediatric spaying and neutering" of puppies and kittens(spay/neuter is performed on puppies and kittens as young as 6 weeks old and up to the standard age of 4 to 6 months old). Of course, a new entry appealed to the INTP in me!
Okay. I am not a vet nor do I play one on TV. However, I do have some knowledge and experience that your average animal lover does not. I served as the vice president of a non-profit animal shelter in South Jersey for 6 years in the 90s. That shelter has a spay/neuter clinic. And, as it happens, they were testing out "early" spay/neuter in the clinic when I was on their board. When it came to instituting a policy regarding this practice, I felt it was my responsibility to understand the pros and cons before voting on it and did some research - mostly reading the little bit of scientific literature that was available and talking to the clinic manager. Over the years since then, it's a topic I've followed with interest. As luck might have it, pediatric spay/neuter was not addressed on Wikipedia.
In preparation, I spent many hours researching the topic and seeking out balanced articles supported by reputable studies. I wrote the article, struggled through the cumbersome posting process, and, voila, "published" an article on Wikipedia. It was no easy feat. And, in all honesty, I felt very much like an impostor doing it. Who was I, a person who was not especially good at biology and who was not a veterinarian, to post this kind of material for all of the world to read? I was careful with my research but...was I the appropriate person to do this?
Well, my concerns about the legitimacy of my claims to expertise all vanished the next day when, to my shock and dismay, my page had vanished. It seems that one of the self-imposed editors (or maybe an officially appointed monitor - who knows since it all appears to be anonymous) had "redirected" my article to one simply titled "Neutering". The result of "redirecting" is that the content disappears from public view. I had seen this other article. It was, I thought, long and included information beyond the dog and cat topic of my interest. It seemed to me to be a disservice to both the information already there and the information I intended to provide to combine them on one entry. Apparently, the anonymous "redundancy police" did not take the time to review both posts to see how the new post had distinct information. Had they read it, they might have just moved it to the "Neutering" entry.
I panicked. Not only had I put a lot of time into this project, I had a grade for a class riding on the fact that I actually did something. Plus, I felt by this point that I did have something important to say. Through some trial and error (again, the instructions were not particularly helpful to me), I discovered that I could undo the "redirect" - so I did. And I added a comment imploring the would be "editors" to allow the entry to remain and pointed out the distinctions in the content. To my relief, the posting is still there. You can view it at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pediatric_spaying. I'm hoping that on my winter break from school I can return to complete the information requested by the "style police".
While this dispute was resolved civilly, I'm not sure all are. That's inferred in some of the guidelines about resolving disagreements. Rules seem to be applied inconsistently. For instance, one classmate posted an informational piece about his real estate business. It was deleted as a purely "commercial" post. But another person in class modified a post about an AT&T or Motorola product that, to me, appeared to be blatantly commercial.
Like political democracy, it appears that informational democracy can get messy. I wonder how very unpopular topics are handled. How far can you go...really? And who has the final say on what's a legitimate post and what is not? Is every piece fact-checked by someone? And is the fact-checker qualified to make the call?
In my classes, Wikipedia entries are often used to provide definitions or examples of terms. I'm certain my professors know a good, accurate post when they see one so I'm not questioning their judgement. But what about the person who is looking on her own and just searching for enlightenment? Since posts are anonymous, how do we know we're not buying snake oil when we use the entries? I get a queasy feeling about the possibility of students - particularly elementary and high school students - using the entries as sources for research papers. How can a user be certain he's not using the equivalent of an op-ed piece as a research source? Sure, anyone can post on the Internet. Just go to Google Sites and create a free web page. You can say whatever you want and present it as fact. In fact, that was an exercise in one class - to determine the legitimacy of information posted to appear as factual information. My concern is, though, that the organization and formality of Wikipedia implies a certain level of trustworthiness. It looks and feels institutionalized. Official.
I still can't get past the question of who is the final arbiter in this process. I worry about the tyranny of the majority. One of my favorite movie lines is from "Men in Black". Tommy Lee Jones' character says to Will Smith's character:

1500 years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was flat. And 15 minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow.

Those new ideas are often squelched when they are unpopular. How many unique ideas have been or will be deleted from Wikipedia because the majority feel they're unsupported or inaccurate?
Let's Get Together
My other class took on a less visible but equally challenging project - creating a wiki in Wikispaces. Our task was to each take an element of design and create an original page to define and illustrate it. I found the Wikispaces tool much easier to use than Wikipedia. And knowing that some unknown person would not come along and delete everything was comforting. But I will say that it was challenging.
After posting our initial pages, our goal was for each of us to provide at least one edit to each of the other students' pages. Some of the pages were exceptional. It was difficult to find ways to improve the material. I felt I was being intrusive. On the other hand, some pages seemed to have incomplete or inaccurate information. They were easier to update. Some of the errors were not obvious. Had I not felt compelled to look further to outside sources (the INTP in me), I would not have known for sure. And at least one "enhancement" made after I was done my edits (and after the site was locked for grading) was, to my dismay, inaccurate. A sample of an analogous color scheme was used as an example of a complementary color scheme. In fact, after looking back at it, the complementary color chart seems to be incorrect as well!
Many great edits were made to my original page. I had a difficult topic with very little available information in the on-line tutorials and articles. "Format and Orientation". Not as sexy as "color" or "proportion". While I felt I made a good start, the class critiques were a little more...critical. This is where putting the ego aside is useful.
I do believe that the pages overall were improved by the collaborative efforts. The page I started is a good example. However, knowing the errors I found, I am leery of the accuracy of some of the material. Questions remain. Did the authors use good sources? Did they understand the information well enough to interpret it? That brings me back to the impostor complex I had with my Wikipedia experience. Do we know what we don't know? Are we fully aware of our lack of understanding of certain concepts or our misinterpretation of them? From some of the material, I don't think we do. It makes me wonder what I may have misstated on the Wikipedia entry. Or in the design entry for that matter.
As for who had the final say in what was correct on our project, it seems to have been the last person to edit a page. Is that a good way to approach a wiki or other collaborative effort in, say, a business environment? Or do you have one person with responsibility for ensuring accuracy, completeness, and compliance with standards?
Now What?
So, now that I've expressed my anxieties about these collaborative efforts, what do we do about it? Are these reasons to turn our backs on wikis? Do we censor those without credentials from talking like experts in a public forum that could be mistaken for a reputable source of information? Or do we, maybe, encourage the inclusion of disclaimers - more obvious, bold disclaimers - that the material is from "common folk - just like us"? Maybe we encourage revelation of the authors and their credentials - if they have any.
It could be argued that there's no real risk here. Anyone can write a book with inaccurate information. Publish a newsletter. Create a video. Write a memo. These items can provide misinformation, lies, half-truths. Sure they can. But it's a whole lot harder (costlier...more time consuming) to get those thing out and circulated. My little article or my class' wiki project could be seen by billions of people in an instant at no or little cost. There's a lot of power in that. And, as Spiderman learned, "With great power comes great responsibility."

Please Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood

2008-11-30T22:53:00.018-05:00

There's nothing more frustrating than trying to use documentation that you just don't understand. I'm going through that experience right now. My S.O. ("significant other") is having computer problems. A few months ago, his 4 year old computer crashed. Apparently, despite active virus protection software, it acquired some fatal disease that caused the desktop unit to look for a laptop battery. It is still not functional. As a stopgap measure, I loaned him my 6 year old computer that I had replaced recently before starting school in September. In all the time I had that old PC, I only had minor problems with it last spring when it started running painfully slow. I had it "tuned up" and, from then on, it worked like new. After only 3 months, however, he is having problems with it.

Diagnosis for the computer's demise: Teenagers!

He has two boys: 16 and 17. Despite warnings, they continue to visit sites and download material that they've been warned against accessing. They deny it but my S.O. continues to get suggestive invitations from young attractive women that point to the contrary. The latest dilemma is that the system does not recognize or cannot find Windows. So, I got my hands on a CD to reload Windows XP. Because I cannot access Windows to run it from the Start menu, I have to install it in the DOS environment - and it's been a long time since I've had to do something like that. Amazingly, I've remembered a lot but, regretfully, not enough. I visited the Microsoft website and the instructions are just plain useless to me. I searched the web further and nothing seems to help. So I am now off to talk to my friends on the help desk for assistance.

In the meantime, I'd like to say to Microsoft: "Invest is some better user readability testing. Not just with the techies - do some testing with folks like me. Or, better yet, people like my S.O. who don't even know what "underscore" is on the keyboard. All sorts of people are using computers these days and would like to be able to fix problems on their own. Work with us, will ya'?!?"

Do You Read Me?

I know of what I speak! For a good part of my career in mortgage banking, I've been responsible for creating user documentation - primarily policies and procedures along with some systems documentation and job aids. I learned along the way that not everyone thinks the way I do or learns the way I do. What to me is perfectly logical and clear can be convoluted or even gibberish to another person.

If the reader cannot understand and use the documentation, it's worthless. As individuals conveying complicated information to people who have to actually take action using that information, we must remember that we are writing for others, not for ourselves. Unfortunately, not everyone who writes manuals or explanatory material understands that.

How do we determine that our documentation is readable? That it can be understood by our intended audience? We need to test it!

Testing...1-2-3...Testing...

How do you test documentation for readability?

Well, there are several different ways and your best bet is to utilize a combination of them to achieve optimal results.

Things you want to look for in your testing:

Ease of learning - How quickly can the user understand what she reads? Does she have to read and re-read several times to get it?
Efficiency of use - How quickly can the user apply the material learned?
Memorability - Once the user understands how to apply the information, can he remember it or does he have to frequently return to the documentation for a refresher?
Minimizing errors - Does the user grasp the material or does the user consistently make errors even after reading the material?
User satisfaction - Does the user feel that the documentation is easy to understand and helpful?

Doing the Math

There are mathematical formulas for testing readability of documents. There are the Flesch Readability Scale, the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Grade Level, and the Gunning Fog Index which use elements in text such as the average length of sentences and the average number of syllables in the words to determine how hard a document is to understand.

These tests can be done manually but that is no longer necessary. Software is available to test your content. In fact, you can test for both Flesch scores in Microsoft Word.

Click on Tools.
Select Spelling and Grammar.
Click on Options.
Under "Grammar", select "Show readability statistics."

When you complete your document, run Spell Check. After Word has completed the spelling and grammar checks, a dialog box will provide a report that looks like this. A score of "65" or higher for Readability is considered "plain language". The desirable grade level depends on your audience.

While these tests are good starting points to make your documentation more accessible, they do not measure things like whether or not:

You've effectively communicated the information;
The information is well organized;
The format is user-friendly and the text is legible; or
The content is appropriate to the users.

For that, you need to work with real, live people - representative users.

Tell Me What's On Your Mind

All of the mathematical equations in the world will not ensure that your user documentation is worth the paper or computer screen it's written on. In order to test that, you need to consult with actual users.

Select a representative pool of users. There may be many types of people using your documentation. Think about it. Ask around. Who needs the information?

In my world, I was primarily writing for people who took loan applications, processed loan applications, and prepared loan closing documents. But I quickly found that it didn't stop there. I also had state and federal regulatory agencies looking at the documentation to ensure we were giving our employees adequate and appropriate direction. Our legal department had an interest in it to support our position in litigation and customer complaints. Other internal departments, like Accounting, Loan Servicing, and Underwriting consulted it to understand processes and opportunities for improvement. So, it was necessary to consider all of these areas when documenting policies and procedures.

Ask your sample users to document their findings. They should consider various aspects including:

Is the information accurate, complete, and appropriate?
Does it flow and match what happens (or should happen) in the real world?
Is the information presented in a logical order?
Are the graphics appropriate, necessary, and consistent with the policies, rules, and processes?
Would more graphic examples enhance the material or should some graphics be removed?
Is the layout easy to use and pleasing to look at?
Is the typeface legible? Does it need to be larger or smaller?
Can desired information be located quickly?
Is the language appropriate? Are there too many hard words or is the information too simplified for even a new employee? Are sentences too long or too short?
Are there cultural, gender, or class biases?

Testers must be reminded to be critical and honest. And you, as the documenter, need to put ego aside. Don't argue over feedback. It can be tough to have someone criticize your work and tell you they don't like or understand your material. Taking a few steps back and looking at it from the user's perspective can help. Taking user suggestions will improve your documentation. Like I said, if they can't use it, it's not worth a thing.

Going back to the criteria under "Testing..." above, it may be useful to test your users' comprehension. Monitoring performance in the real world can also measure the effectiveness of the documentation.

It's Getting There That Counts

In the long-run, the goal is to create thorough, user-friendly, useful documentation. Your users will be happier. They'll also be more productive and efficient. (No more spending hours trying to figure out how to do it right!) Better documentation supports training and reduces the need for continued follow-up training. It also reduces calls to help desk or support teams and time taken by supervisors and managers to provide individual instruction.

And it will mean that your documentation will be used and valued. I was surprised when I found out just how many people in my organization used and valued the manual I created in my last position. A lot of the success had to do with the fact that I listened to my testers. I didn't always like everything they had to say but they were most often right. I handed over the documentation to others 5 years ago. It's surprising how little has changed. It was slightly reformatted but not so significantly as to be markedly distinguishable from the original. And most of the text remains the same. Better still, people still refer to it and actively use it.

I take a good bit of pride in that!

I Get By with a Little Help from My Tools

2008-11-26T22:10:00.020-05:00

There is a risk that I might never see the sunshine again. I just discovered the "tablets" that attach to a computer to help the user create and manipulate graphics. They have a pad that works like a drawing board and an inkless pen that's really just another kind of mouse. Between the software that can morph my photos into "paintings" and the freestyle drawing and "painting" capabilities with the pen, I'm in heaven.

I sought out this tool as a practical matter. I wanted to create some personalized banners and other graphics for my blog, websites, and various documentation projects. Using a regular mouse to "paint" was, well, like serving soup with a bridal veil. It was just a plain mess! On top of the visual aspect, my repetitive stress injuries flared up like a bonfire. I see the purchase as an investment in my sanity and physical well-being.

It comes at a very good time, too. This new device is a great distraction from my job concerns. You see, I work for a financial arm of one of the big three American automakers...and we have not had a good week. In addition to worrying about just having a job, I have to apologize for the cluelessness of the people at the top of my food chain. It's embarrassing, actually. I walk around with dark glasses, a scarf, and a trench coat in hopes that no one will recognize me.

It's not like I didn't try to counsel them early on. For years, whenever they posted an announcement on our company intranet about one of the new overpriced, gas-guzzling, ozone depleting, carbon-spewing monstrosities in their line-up, I would post in our discussion forum a request for more compact cars with high mileage...an American version of the Prius, Honda Civic hybrid, or, dear heart be still, the Insight with 50+ miles per gallon. Their response would be a short blurb about the company investing in fuel cell technology...something that certainly won't be viable in the near future.

And I identified a need for a reality check when the CEO visited our small corporate offices in Pennsylvania a few years ago. As we saw co-workers going through the first of what turned out to be many lay-offs, this gentleman talked to us about the need to purchase the company's vehicles. He regaled us with a story about how his kids were just turning driving age. With all of the new cars he was buying to satisfy their transportation needs, he was running out of room and trying desperately to purchase his neighbor's property for the garage space. We were to empathize with him. I notified my managers of the necessity to provide this manager with some sensitivity training. Apparently, no one in Detroit received my message.

So, I immerse myself in things that keep me off of www.bloomberg.com and the Wall Street Journal site and from fretting over things I cannot control. These distractions include seeking out new opportunities and learning new skills.

Notice Anything Different?

First order of business was to redesign my blog. This blog was my very first attempt at blogging. When I set it up, I used a Blogger template and made a few changes that were facilitated by the functions in the Layout and Settings options. It was okay. I liked the green but I felt restricted by the template.

Let's compare. Here's a shot of the site on the first day:

While you can see what it looks like now, it will probably look different months from now. So here is a shot of the current view:

It's Not Just About My Opposable Thumbs

I started the redesign with a Blogger template (one called "Stretch Denim"). But the template was not quite the look I wanted.

To take it further meant learning how to use new tools. As I discussed above, I acquired a "tablet" to work on graphics. The tablet came with Adobe Photoshop Elements 6.0 and Corel Painter Essentials 4.0. Lightweight tools, I'm sure, for serious graphic artists but these are good beginnings for me.

For the banner, I created a rectangle and filled it with a gradient palette offered in Photoshop. The photograph is from a trip to Casa Loma in Toronto this past summer. Some cropping along with contrast, saturation, and highlighting adjustments in Photoshop gave it a new life to symbolize traveling a path - walking through a process, an experience, life in general.

The other tool I'm excited about is html - Hypertext Markup Language. When I talk to my S.O. ("significant other") about it, he looks at me sideways and tells me that my enthusiasm for html is further evidence that I am not cool and have no hope of ever being cool. But I don't care. Because, with practice and some more time working on my design sensibilities, I can use html to make my web material look great. While I could make a lot of the changes I wanted using the Blogger check boxes, there were some that I could not.

For instance, take a look at the statement in the banner. The heading is an ivory color while the mission is a dark blue. Blogger defaults to making both sets of text the same color. By adding just a little bit of html code, I was able to assign a different color to the mission.

I also had issues with the margin of the text in the banner. Blogger doesn't provide any tools to adjust margins. The text appeared over the image when I first added the banner. A couple of changes to the html code and I had this lovely left margin politely off to the side of the image.

Keeping It Clean

Other aspects of my redesign involved removing excess color. I've decided, after a lot of critical review of web sites and blogs, that I much prefer light or white backgrounds for text. Bold color is good when the site consists of primarily graphics. But a heavily text populated blog like mine needs more light colors. Plus, the big green margins on either side of the old design took up too much space and made each blog entry seem interminably long.

I kept the typeface simple - substituting Verdana for a serif font throughout the body but using Georgia for the top header to make it stand out. I may substitute another color for the green I used for visited links and dates. It could be a little hard to see.

I'd Like to Thank My ...

I received some very helpful direction from my design professor and classmates at NJIT but not everyone has access to them. (Too bad for you!) I also got a lot of useful information from:

The wonderful tutorial that came with my tablet (a Wacom Bamboo Fun tablet). I was surprised at how helpful and thorough it was.
A book called "Sams Teach Yourself HTML in 10 Minutes". It was amazingly helpful and broke out the lessons in easy to manage chunks. It has a prime spot next to my computer now.

For now, I'll look for some vitamin D fortified soy milk and force myself to take a walk a few times a week. Now that this door is open, I'm in real danger of becoming a hermit.

What Am I Supposed to Do About This...?

2008-11-20T20:18:00.013-05:00

Possums are stubborn creatures. Most animals caught in a humane trap want nothing more than to get out and run when you open the door. Possums are not so eager. In fact, I've had to lift a trap, turn it upside down, and shake it until the little guy loses his grip on the metal mesh-like sides and tumbles to the ground. I'm not sure why they're reluctant to leave. It could be they somehow feel safer there. Or it could be that they figure there was food there so it must be a good place to hang out until more food arrives. Kind of like the reverse of an automat - instead of pulling the food out of a box, you walk into the box and wait for the food to be put in.

Catching wild animals like possums and raccoons is one of the risks of trapping feral or free roaming cats. I've caught my share over the years. It's a little unnerving the first few times. What do you do? Fortunately, I knew a few wildlife rehabilitators and only had to make a couple of calls to get rational and safe instructions. But most people don't have those resources or know where to start. In fact, most people who want to help stray cats don't know where or how to begin.

So, a few months ago, a friend approached me about developing resources for people who want to do something about the feral or stray cats in their midst. After doing some research and pulling together some materials, I started a website - kind of a "do it yourself" guide for people new to this world.

Why a Website?I decided to use a website for a few reasons:

The material can be accessed immediately...provided the person looking for help has computer and Internet access.
There's no postage or printing expense to get the information to the people in need of it.
The information can be updated quickly and without the waste of tossing outdated printed materials.
Audio-video material can be provided at a much lower cost than sending out video cassettes, Cds, or DVDs.
We can always print out material for people who don't have Internet access.

I see two main drawbacks to using a website:

We lose the personal contact that we would otherwise have if they had to ask us directly for the information. Sometimes it is useful to talk to people to prevent them from undertaking unnecessary or ill-advised actions.
It can be difficult to effectively format extensive, detailed material for web use, especially for older users. I believe this is the reason that so many paper manuals still pop up in the workplace. More on formatting below.

Getting Started

There are actually a lot of sites out there with information on helping cats. Most are focused on "TNR" or trap-neuter-return. They link to either national groups or groups in geographic areas outside of ours for support. While I don't want to reinvent the wheel, I think we can improve on the available material with better visuals and formatting; in addition, we're providing links to resources local to our area and information beyond TNR. After all, not all cats in need are feral.

What I've posted so far is very basic. Just a start, really. No useful visuals - yet. And the formatting could use improvement. My plan is to approach the design as a technical writer, making it easier for visitors to find the material they need and understand it. While I develop the site, I need to keep these five things in mind:

Audience
Components
Meaningful descriptions
Effective visuals
Format and organization

Audience

Who is my audience? What will they do with this information? How detailed do we need to get? And what type of language should we use?

It's essential to determine these things before starting out. Typically the person writing instructions has experience and knows the process. But how familiar is the reader with the process, tools, or terms often used by experienced people? Can I use words like "feral" and terms like "TNR"? Can I just say "set the trap" without explaining what a humane trap is, where to get one, or how to set it up?

I've already determined that I'm writing for people who haven't done this before. Sure, we might get visitors who know the routine and are just looking for the local resources. But our primary intent is to have a site to which we can direct people looking for help. They will use this site to help them make decisions and take actions to help the cats. We'll have to take time and explain the difference between "feral" and "stray" and how to make those determinations. Instructions will need to be thorough and detailed. "Set the trap" won't cut it. We'll need to take time to explain what a humane trap is, what the parts are, and how to set it. We will concentrate a lot on detail and concise language.

Components

In a technical document that accompanies a tool or appliance, components refer to the structural components - or actual physical parts - and functional components- or tasks and operations in the use of the tool or appliance. The audience determines what components you describe and how you describe them.

Components on my website consist of the tools used to help cats and the processes - with a heavy emphasis on processes. Step one - assess the situation. Step two - prepare to trap the cat. And so on. Because our visitors are inexperienced, we will - eventually - describe the steps in detail. Alley Cat Allies does a good job of this on their site:

Click on image to view text.

Meaningful Descriptions

Language used must be verifiable and precise as well as appropriate for the audience. Use of carefully chosen accurate terms and figurative illustrations help make the information meaningful to the reader. Defining the audience, as described above, guides the author.

In the examples I provided under Audience, I will want to define the term "feral"- probably with a link to a pop-up definition - because many of our visitors will not know what distinguishes a feral cat from a stray cat. Parts of the trap, such as the trip plate, will be described. For instance:

The trip plate is the flat, rectangular metal piece on the floor of the trap at the opposite end from the trap door. When the trap is set, the trip plate is elevated just slightly at an angle. When the cat steps on the trip plate, he pushes it down pulling on the lever which releases the trap door.

Again, we will need a lot of detail with plain language to make this site useful.

Visuals

Visuals can make nearly any instructional material so much more meaningful than words alone. They can show the reader what an object looks like inside and out, in its entirety or just part of it. They can be used to clarify descriptions, show relationships in size or proportion, illustrate relationships, or demonstrate hard to describe concepts. Photographs, diagrams, illustrations, charts, models, and videos can all be used to support the text.

This is where many of the sites I visited (my own included) fall short. Too few illustrations. While the Feral Cat Coalition's website provides some wonderful information, it's all text:

Click on image to view text.

Others, like mine again, include lovely pictures of cats. Some even have photos of cats in traps like Cat Snip:

Click on image to view text.

While Alley Cat Allies' site has very few visuals with the text, they do have a couple of slide shows and one very useful video:

Click on arrow to view video.

I will add illustrations of traps, photographs, and, I hope, video to supplement the text on our site.

Format and Organization

Instructional information is typically provided in some kind of sequence based on the needs and expectations of the audience. It can be organized in:

Spatial order - where components are located in relation to one another; describes appearance and structure. An example might be a description of the different components of a humane trap.

Chronological order - a sequence of events in time; describes steps in order of when they are performed. This could be something high level like

"Step one: Assess situation. Step two: Plan to trap. Step three: Set trap."

or something more detailed like

"Step one: Push lever in front of trap door and squeeze against door. Step two: While still squeezing, lift trap door so it is flush with the top of the trap."

Priority order - describes components in order of importance. On our site, this might be characteristics for determining that a cat is feral.

How to present information on-line is challenging. Too many sites treat the screen as if it is a paper page. Organizing instructional material on the web so that it is easy to read as well as easy to access can be difficult. Clicking from one page to another to access next steps can annoy users. However, pages with a lot of text are visually unappealing, can take a long time to load (especially if there are a lot of graphics and the visitor has an older computer), and make specific information difficult to find.

I'm a fan of Information Mapping, also called Structured Writing, in my paper documentation. Attempting to adapt that format to web delivery (without the expensive training) has been on my to-do list for some time. In the meantime, I will seek out well-structured "how-to" sites.

Another option is to provide high-level information on the site with links to more detailed documents in .pdf or .doc format. This may be useful but could prove problematic for visitors without the appropriate software. Some users don't know how to find or download the necessary tools to open these attachments; others may be wary about downloading anything for fear of viruses.

Next Steps

So, the to-do list gets longer. While I know our audience, I need to concentrate on:

Providing more information overall.
Descriptive, concise language appropriate for my audience - including definitions.
Adding meaningful graphics.
Ensuring that I use the appropriate order for each description.
Creating downloadable documents.
Formatting the site so it is easy to use.
And, lest I forget, adding instructions on dealing with those darn possums when they won't leave the trap!

Lots to do. But, it's for the cats so I can't complain.

Just Having a Little Fun

2008-11-05T21:38:00.008-05:00

"Some people have too much time on their hands."

Working in the grown-up - read "stodgy" - world of banking, I can guaranty I'll hear that from at least one person when someone passes around a clever, but unproductive, little virtual toy. You know what I mean. The little file or web link that, when you open it up, a rabbit sings or appropriately placed clicks allow you to hit an elf over the head with mallet. Or it could be something that just opens up and looks pretty with sudden bursts of color that morph into different flowers or psychedelic swirls.

Note to employer: Of course, I would never use company resources to circulate that nonsense.

It makes me sad to hear those remarks. I worry about those people. Is it that they just can't have fun? Are they oblivious to the creativity, thought, and skills that are involved in these designs? Or are they just jealous of the people out there who have the creativity and, yes, the time to create these little marvels?

The Biggest Toy Store

When it comes to finding these morsels of entertainment, the Internet is like a huge toy store. Flash websites are like the toys from FAO Schwarz - pricey and desirable. "Flash" is short for Adobe Flash, the tool used to create them.

Some Flash sites are strictly for entertainment. Others are used for commercial purposes. Either can be equally fun or enjoyable.

And, no, Flash isn't used strictly for the entertaining stuff. I'm sure there are many mind-numbingly boring Flash sites out there. But what fun is it to talk about them?

I was recently introduced to some samples of the entertaining or interesting variety. I had a hard time picking a favorite but I think I have to go with this Converse site at: http://www.converserussia.ru/.

Do Not Adjust Your Set

With all of the samples to choose from, why this one? Terry Gilliam. The visuals remind me of his animation from Monty Python's Flying Circus. I love Gilliam's animation. But why does it work?

Images - The images are interesting. The whole bizarre collage effect of unrelated images pasted together gives the viewer something to look at. There's a quirky sense of humor - the Russian doll with the mismatched male basketball players' legs, the vine with the megaphone, the basketball player with the winged fur hat (or is that an afro?).

Animation - While this site has fewer moving parts than some of the other sites, it still provides interest. The constantly moving images are minimal and not terribly distracting. For the viewer who moves the cursor around a bit and tries clicking here and there, there are some surprises. I particularly like the wire connecting the large high-tops.

Color - With collaged images, there are so many mistakes you can make with color. Florescents with earth tones just don't work. The designer(s) at this site kept the colors muted, with more earthy tones overall. They give the feel that all of the pieces are old. It pulls the disparate pieces together.

Sound - The music is interesting and sounds like it was pieced together just like the images. If it starts to get on your nerves, there's a little icon you can click on to turn it off.

Text - There's minimal text - most of it's part of the design. Or, I think it is. A lot of it's in Russian and I'm not bilingual so...

Format and Layout - The images just go slightly beyond the limits of your computer screen. But that's part of the animation. As you move the cursor to the edge that is out of sight, the screen appears to move left or right, up or down.

More Fun...for Those with Too Much Time on Their Hands

I liked these other sites, too:

www.foratthastargerallt.se/kampanj/ - For horse lovers! Gorgeous!

http://lab.mathieu-badimon.com/ - Entertaining but not a high addiction risk.

www.mono-1.com/monoface/main.html - Warning: Can be very addictive!

The Times, They Are a'Changin'

2008-10-29T23:38:00.008-04:00

October 19, 1987. The Stock Market crashed. The housing market slowed. Six months later, I was laid off from my job with a major mortgage lender. I almost instantly found another mortgage position, 400 miles or so away in Connecticut. So, I left my life-long home in South Jersey and relocated to central Connecticut.

As I was making this life change, savings and loans (or "thrifts") were failing. They had been since 1986, mostly due to bad real estate investments. (Sound familiar?) President Bush (the elder) introduced a "bail out" in February of 1989 but it was too late for my new employer. They just happened to be owned by a Texas-based savings and loan. By all accounts, they were doing well, then, boom! They were declared insolvent near the end of 1988. The RTC (Resolution Trust Corporation), an arm of the OTS (Office of Thrift Supervision), took over our parent company and our mortgage subsidiary was shut down in February of 1989.

I returned to South Jersey and found another job...in the mortgage business. The economy improved and, two voluntary job changes later, I landed my current position. That was a little over 12 years ago.

Today I face the possibility of another involuntary separation. My employer cut 75% of our workforce in the past year and a half to 2 years. News reports and "implod-o-meters" on the Internet predict our imminent demise. Those of us who remain show up every day and wait for the other shoe to drop.

Things are different from what they were in the late '80s. In the mortgage business back then, the people who suffered the most were employees of savings and loans. There was a rash of foreclosures but they were mostly concentrated in Texas. Now, it's global. You can barely find any business or person unaffected by the conditions.

So, as I consider my options, I find myself reflecting on how things have changed in respect to looking for a new job. The biggest change I see is the importance of the Internet.

Casting the Net

My, how things have changed. Back in the day, I found my jobs through one of three ways:

Professional recruiter who was paid a fee (usually by the employer).
Newspaper ads.
Personal referrals.

In fact, I can say I found positions with each of the three at least once.

Today, I don't know a person who starts a job search without the Internet. In fact, that's where much of the concentration appears to be. And it's no longer just going to an employer's web site, clicking on their "career opportunities" page, and scrolling through a list. We now have tools which, I believe, fall under the recent categorization of "Web 2.0".

The New and Improved Web
My understanding of Web 2.0 is still a little fuzzy. I've read articles but the techno-jargon gets in the way. But, what I grasp is this:

Web 2.0 is user or audience focused. It seeks to interact with us. We're not just clicking on links. We're establishing the information we want from a site. We may even be adding information to a site or database.

As information available on a site changes, the look and feel of the site doesn't. Data available on the site is independent of the site. Applications are running on the web. We're no longer looking at static pages where information must be changed in html to be refreshed.

So, how do we interact using Web 2.0? The articles I've linked to give plenty of examples: Wikipedia, blogging, iTunes, del.i.cio.us.
For job searching, the focus seems to be on two things:

Social networking sites - particularly LinkedIn
Interactive job search sites - Monster.com, industry specific sites.

Reach Out and Touch Someone

Going back to the old days, if you wanted to network, you had a Rolodex and hoped that you had everyone's home number. If you wanted to hook up (professionally) with some new contacts, you attended networking events, professional meetings, etc.

While the face-to-face meetings still have a place, the Rolodex is so 20th century. In today's world, the on-line social networking sites are where you stay in touch. And, they're where you can meet your contacts' contacts without a formal introduction. In my circles, LinkedIn seems to be the site of choice. I started getting invitations from departing coworkers just as the body count started.

By sending and accepting invitations to join one's network, you have access to a multitude of contacts and information about them. You can see where someone works, their past experience (like an on-line resume), and recommendations from current or former co-workers. This gives you a better idea of who you're dealing with.
LinkedIn has more applications that I've not yet explored. So far, the most critical area has been "People". Staying in touch right now just seems to have the most urgency. Particularly when you haven't had a chance to say "good-bye". But these are also the people who, as they land in new places, will be the most likely to help us late-comers (or late-leavers) land safely, too.
The social networking sites are part of Web 2.0 because we, the audience, are responsible for the content. We're building the database.
A Hunting We Will Go
Another newer function to the internet that I believe falls under Web 2.0 is the "define-it-yourself" job search. Some of these engines are undoubtedly better than others. The thing that I think makes them Web 2.0 is that you can narrow your search by setting criteria and then have links to the job...not just the site...sent to you when there's a new match.

My site of choice right now is USA Jobs. (With banks and other financial institutions failing and billions of dollars in bail-out money, those regulators will need plenty of people experienced with the inside workings to shovel through the muck and help set things right. )
With this site, you decide how much information you give upfront (like whether or not to provide a resume) and what jobs you want to "hear" about. You can set up as many searches as you want or need. And the information is constantly updated without changing the look or feel of the site.

What's Next?
Honestly, I'm not technically saavy enough to make predictions. I read that collaborative sites and audience defined functionality is the future. Some of it I find useful...like the tools I've mentioned here for networking and job hunting. Some of it I find confusing...like the new language of the internet and the associated tools. And some of it worries me...like the "democratic" nature of tools like Wikipedia - how "facts" and information can be owned by people without expertise in the given area. Maybe that's a blog for next week. "What scares me about Wikipedia." Hmmm...

Why Don't You Just Pull Over and Ask for Directions?

2008-10-21T21:26:00.005-04:00

That's a frequent complaint of my passengers. If I can't find my way with a map, I'm determined to find my way by intuition. Fact be told, I actually enjoy getting lost. Unless I'm really late. Or I'm in a bad neighborhood. But, in general, it's usually an adventure. I find things I'm not expecting.

That's true for me on the web, too. I start out with a general idea of what I'm looking for, get lost, and discover all sorts of new and interesting material. The problem is, that takes up so much of my time. And I'm starting to suffer from information overload. There's way too much information out there to sift through. It can be a bit ovewhelming.

Can I Get a Referral?

When I'm looking for someplace to eat in a strange city, I often ask a friend or go to a guide book to find something interesting. Being a vegetarian, my options are often limited so getting information from someone who's been there is useful.

The same can be said for traveling that "information highway". We often share links via e-mails. Now we can share them via "social networks". I recently joined "Delicious". (Sounds decadent, doesn't it?) I can bookmark sites I find interesting and share those bookmarks with you. In fact, here's a link to my bookmarks: My Bookmarks (Hey, I tried to insert the "badge" like the Delicious instructions told me to but it just didn't work!)

By "joining" another person's network, you have access to real-time updates. This method of sharing has potential in the classroom as well as the office (or wherever your workplace might be). Teachers can easily share approved sources of material with their students or useful homework sites with parents. In the workplace, you can similiarly share important (or amusing) material without having to send out e-mails or update web sites.

Is It Behind Door Number 1? Or Door Number 2?...

I chose a variety of links to help me learn a little more about how do so some things on the computer (like record audio, use CSS, and create a web page), refresh my policies and procedures skills (with a link to Information Mapping), and to remember an enjoyable class assignment (the short video on the history of Copper Black typeset). As I build up my collection of bookmarks, I'll need some way to keep them organized or they'll be nothing more than a long list of links.

The organization of these bookmarks can be helped with "Folksonomy" - a word not quite in Webster's yet, I'm sure. It generally means the method of labeling bookmarks, photographs, and other material found on the web using key words. Some consider it to be a very democratic process. However, there are generally no conventions so it's a free-for-all, even anarchical. A librarian's nightmare!

Why is this important? Because you also share the tags. Now, I may understand that the tag "Saturday Night Entertainment" means pictures of the night we pulled out the laser pointer and exercised the cats. Someone else might have a completely different interpretation. And, because anybody can place any link under any tag and identify it with any name, you never know where you're going until you get there.

Which can be make life interesting. Just make sure those parental controls are still set...

At Least It's Not My Writing...

2008-10-06T18:55:00.015-04:00

Some things you're just happier not knowing. I recently read an article about using typefaces. Most people probably know them as "fonts"...the various styles of the characters on your computer keyboard such as Arial, Lucida Grande, Trebuchet, or Verdana.

The article is entitled "Avoiding Typeface Terrors" by Kathleen Burke Yoshida. It is interesting material. (Well, it is if you create documentation for a living.) And, I found it very helpful. But it also put me in the position of having to make a change to my documentation approach.
Righting a Wrong
You see, it seems as though I've been using the wrong typeface for my policies and procedures and training documentation for years. I like Arial. It's clean. No fuss. Just like I try to write my documentation.

However, according to the article, Arial's lack of "serif" - or the little feet or protrusions from the lines as highlighted on the "T" to the right - makes it harder for the reader to follow the text; the reader finds it difficult to continue through the many lines of words without the little feet to lead the way.

So, where does that leave me? You might say it's easy. Just use the Microsoft default - Times New Roman. The problem is a little print related PTSD. Times New Roman and the lighter, wider Courier bring with them the baggage from my beginning years in banking.

It was in the early Reagan years and I unexpectedly found myself in an office job where I had to type...using a typewriter! Now, I took typing in high school so I could type my own college term papers. I didn't do well in the class - too slow with too many mistakes. But I could get by well enough to pull together a legible (if not smudged) paper on an old 1940s manual typewriter.

My job, however, had me typing legal documents - Notes and Mortgages - and mistakes were not permitted. The worst was the Mortgages. Each Mortgage includes a property description which basically defines the perimeter of the property. A nice rectangular property can be a short five lines. But an odd shaped property, especially in a rural area where landmarks are tree stumps and the intersections of neighbors' lots, can go on for pages. I could spend hours on one Mortgage.
Times New Roman and many of the other "with serif" typefaces remind me too much of the typeface used on the typewriter. I have my own "emotional" response to the little feet. Plus, I think it looks cluttered.
The Search
I want to do right by my readers so I'm in search of a new typeface. Normally, I really enjoy selecting typeface...when I have the opportunity. It's usually for a flyer or other material related to my volunteer activities. I can actually spend more time selecting the typeface than drafting the text. It can be fun. There are so many options. I recently discovered that there's quite a business in creating and selling typefaces. One site I came across (http://www.veer.com/) sells some amazing, interesting typefaces for $40 to $100. Not that I'm interested in spending $40 on a new typeface.
This search, though, leaves me with little opportunity for fun and creativity. There are rules and limitations.

First, it must be readily available in Microsoft Office.
Second, it must be legible.
Third, it must be readable.
Fourth, any "personality" it has must be professional.

After scrolling through the selections in Microsoft Word, I think I'm going to give Century a try. Here's what I like about Century:

It's open and round. The letters are not pressed together.
It's not heavy. There aren't a lot of thick lines.
Of the typefaces with serifs, Century is one of the cleanest. The feet are more like size 6 rather than size 9.

The down side to the openness is that it might take up more space potentially adding additional pages to each document.

Testing the Typeface

The question is, does it pass the tests outlined above?

Available in Microsoft Office: I found this in the list of available fonts and I have not added any to my computer. I also know it's available on my computer at work. Pass.
Legible: To test legibility, Ms. Yoshida suggests that you "place a piece of paper over the top or bottom half of a word or sentence. If you can read the word or sentence easily by just looking at half of the letters, then the typeface is likely to be perceived as legible." Pass.

Readability: The type size is easy to read and it has the obligatory serifs. Ms. Yoshida says to look for a large "x-height" meaning the body of the characters (the portion above the line that does not extend above the top of a lower case "x") is larger than the "ascenders" (the parts above the top of the "x") and the "descenders" (the parts below the line). Pass.

Personality: The personality of Century is not quite as formal as some of the other serif typefaces. But it's not casual. Because this typeface will be used for documentation that must be viewed as credible and must be taken seriously, it's important that it is not too informal. My opinion is that it passes but I think it requires a test drive from some discerning eyes.

Wish me luck!

Made Ya' Look!

2008-09-23T21:14:00.011-04:00

Design! Sigh...a personal confession here. I lust after the skills of a graphic artist. Sure, I can draw a picture of a house and it looks like a house. And not just a child-like representation - there's perspective and scale and detail that's representational. But the level of creativity involved in graphic art eludes me. I guess I'm just a literal kind of gal. When I draw a picture, I feel compelled to put the image on paper just as I see the subject. I have difficulty with distortion, vagueness, and illusion. It's sad.

There is, however, hope for me with graphic design. During my educational journey at NJIT, I am looking forward to developing my skills in graphic design. I doubt I'll ever be ready for the MOMA or Madison Avenue, but I hope to conquer the art of creating a visually appealing page...actually, many visually appealing pages. So, it's with considerable interest that I explore the elements and language of design through the use of typography.

Organic Letters

The following video is an interesting example of typography in design. It uses text, which is manufactured or mechanical, to create an image of something organic. Take a minute (okay, a little more than a minute) to view the video.

Elements of Design

There are several interesting aspects to this design. The format is very simple. It starts with a blank white screen with no borders (other than the edge of your screen and the control bar at the bottom). A row of text floats to the top and off of the screen as a guide or introduction of things to come. An asymmetrical design is then built from the bottom. It doesn't just shoot straight up. It moves up and across, drawing your eyes toward the top of the page and to one side or the other. Some of the text floats horizontally up in rows while other text climbs in columns that fall slightly into a lower position in a sinewy form as it collapses.

As the text compresses, drops, and fades, it morphs into the form of a tree. As would be appropriate for a tree, the figure is grounded at the bottom of the screen. Were it in the middle of the screen, or even a few centimeters from the bottom, it would look like it was floating in mid-air - an unnatural state for a tree. The lack of borders on the sides or top reflects the natural world; it creates a sense of openness.

The tree figure is created in a form described as "incomplete closure". The lines insinuate the form of a tree. Not every line is connected. Not every shape is fully formed. The contrast in the image comes mostly from the text against the white background.

The content of the text seems to be secondary to the overall design of the image. It's difficult to read as it moves across the screen and compresses; and, in parts, it's blurred. It appears to be a list of authors or artists. The theme could be growth through art. I was unable to find an interpretation from the artist. It would be interesting to know what he had in mind.

Language of Design

The design "speaks" to us using a vocabulary of visual elements. As I noted earlier, the image is asymmetrical. It's organic or natural, not controlled. Outside of an arboretum, deciduous trees, like the one depicted in the video, are rarely symmetrical. The colors are earth tones - mostly green and brown with some yellow and just a hint of red to create the contrast of complementary colors.

More organic elements are found in the lines. As the columns of text rise, twist, collapse, and fall, they morph into sinewy lines representing branches. Rows of text rise horizontally and stay straight across. As the image builds, the straight lines of text create the leaves. The random lengths of each line and the position of the text as it stacks one line on another define the crown of the tree. The text creates an edge, separating the tree from the sky, without drawing lines. It might be counterintuitive to have straight lines (something that appears mechanical) in an organic design. But the rhythm of the text creates an organic feel. Had the video continued, the negative space could have helped define volume for the crown of the tree.

Next Steps

Good design draws you in for a closer look. When you're creating any form of visual communication, it's imperative to capture your reader's attention. On a website or blog, good design is critical. There's so much out there whetting the reader's visual appetite. The competition is strong. I need to step things up a bit on this blog. I would like to take the things I'm learning (and relearning) about design and apply them here.

Ah, but first I have to figure out how to use the tools. This is when I yearn for a big paper user's manual. I know...blasphemy!

“Trix Are for Kids…”

2008-09-17T00:53:00.018-04:00

I remember the hyperactive cartoon rabbit bouncing around the television screen of my youth like it was yesterday. The happy, colorful commercials appealed to the younger set and convinced them to beg for sugary breakfast cereal.

I also remember Yule Gibbons. (He reminded me of my mother's eccentric uncle who "lived off the land" eating weeds and any small crop that would grow amongst the weeds.) Mr. Gibbons was hawking Grape Nuts. His commercials were more sedate, sometimes clever, appealing to the adults in the audience. Website designers may also take the different approaches when designing content to appeal to different age groups. We can take a look at two examples: The Cancer Project and PBS Kids.

The Cancer Project

The Cancer Project is an informational site sponsored by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM). It’s part of an educational project to promote dietary changes to prevent cancer.

The site is clean and well organized. The colors are reserved with just a pop of primary colors here and there on the home page. Graphics are limited. The design choices are appropriate considering the serious nature of the topic. Some visitors to this site may be dealing with the illness personally or through someone close to them. The content appears to be generally geared toward the lay person interested in cancer and prevention. Medical terms are simple but assume some knowledge of health issues. PCRM has another website targeted more at the medical community so there is little need to address them on this site.

Pictures and simple menus help the user navigate through the site easily. This is good for the visual and sequential learners among us. While primarily in English, there is one link that directs the user in Spanish to Spanish language material.

The Diet and Cancer page of the site provides categories of information related to research. The development of this page most likely included a compilation (through surveys or focus groups) of common questions regarding cancer and diet. Those questions where then grouped into categories that represent a common theme in the questions. For instance, basic information about cancer and its relationship to diet are grouped under Cancer Facts.

Selecting a topic from the category brings up a short article explaining the research and findings.

There is very little for the action oriented person to do on this site. There are drop down menus for a little bit of movement. And, for off-line adventures, there are recipes.
Overall, this is a very verbal website – mostly text – which could cost them some readers who are more visually inclined and like graphics. No accommodations are made here for the visually impaired; the addition of audio options would be useful.

PBS Kids

PBS Kids is a blast of color when you first enter. Content on the home page is heavy on graphics with minimal text. From the design, I assume that they are accommodating the youngest visitors who may not know how to read yet. They may not be able to make out the words on the screen but they can certainly recognize their favorite PBS characters.

And you can’t hear this here but, when you move the cursor over the child-oriented links on the page, an enthusiastic child announces the option. This is yet another way to allow non-readers to navigate the sight. Clicking on the arrows spins the wheel in the center like a wheel of chance on the Boardwalk! It’s a very fun, active site which appeals to young children. Interestingly, the links for parents and teachers do not come with the same, excited audio announcements.

I happen to like Mr. Rogers so I selected his show from the wheel. His page is also bright and simple. There’s no audio on this page (or, as it turns out, on the Sesame Street page). So, those non-readers may need a little help if they don’t understand what the icons at the top stand for.

But, when you enter Mr. Rogers’ house, the fun starts again with moving doors and simple sounds as you move the cursor around. The primary elements on the screen, like the bag on the table or the trolley, link to new pages with activities kids can do off-line or even more moving elements triggered by your cursor and clicks.

Children learn quickly by doing. And there’s lots to do on the PBS Kids site. Surprisingly, I did not notice any links to material in languages other than English. This limits the audience to English speakers. And, there is little here for the visually impaired child.

To reach the widest range of viewers, a website should have a variety of elements to appeal to people with different learning styles and abilities. It’s a difficult thing to balance. And, with both sites being funded by non-profit organizations, there are budgetary limitations. Both sites, however, do a great job of making the material accessible to the targeted age groups.

Different Perspectives

2008-09-08T23:17:00.009-04:00

In an effort to examine corporate blogs, it might be interesting to approach it from two different perspectives: the profit corporation versus the non-profit corporation. And, I thought, who could be more different in those two worlds than McDonald’s and PETA?

McDonald’s
Who doesn’t know McDonald’s? The Golden Arches. Big Mac and fries.

The purpose of their site as it appears in their masthead is to address:

Corporate social responsibility through the eyes of Vice President, Bob Langert, and the other people at McDonald's who work on corporate responsibility issues that matter. Get personal perspectives on the issues, hear open assessments of the challenges we face, and engage in civil dialogue with the people behind the programs at the Golden Arches.

The site is officially called “McDonald’s Corporate Responsibility Blog”. They discuss topics such as lifestyle, diversity, and the environment. Text is the primary element on the page. Very few graphics and very little white space exist. It appears that McDonald’s is targeting a more mature, relatively well-educated audience interested in the “moral fiber” of McDonald’s.

Their website is a touchy-feely place that attempts to connect with the reader through posts that are longer than a product promotion but not too long to lose a reader’s interest. They seem to top out at nine short paragraphs. They invite comments through a link at the bottom of each post to further engage their reader.

The posts I read did come from a personal perspective as they state in their introduction, always with a draw back to the corporate. Building a sense of community seems to be the motivation. And, if you’re part of the community, it’s hard to criticize the community. Many of the blogs were delicately defending McDonald’s actions or inactions. The attempt appears to be to make McDonald’s look like the “good guy” or, at the very least, “the not-as-bad-as-we’re-made-out-to-be guy”.

PETA
PETA is a little less known. The acronym stands for “People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals”. They are a non-profit corporation which promotes animal rights and, in direct contrast to McDonald’s, a vegan diet.

Their site doesn’t provide a mission statement but, after reading a few posts, it’s clear. They aren’t trying to make the reader feel good. They’re trying to excite the reader to indignation or action.

The site is called “The PETA Files”, a name that brings to mind investigations and criminal activity. The posts address various issues related to animal cruelty, abuse, or exploitation. The site relies on a combination of short articles and brightly colored text scattered throughout with photographs of animals and celebrities. Their audience is generally young and interested in what’s hip and exciting.

The language is direct, at times confrontational or sarcastic. They don’t mince words or shy away from profanity. The posts are short with few exceeding four short paragraphs. As on the McDonald’s site, readers are invited to comment using a link.

The posts are issue focused; there are no personal stories. Many of the posts are a combination of reporting and commentary. The focus on celebrities, the long list of “friends”, and the invitations to post on personal networking sites like Facebook appeal to their audience’s desire to be part of the in-crowd. PETA’s blog is an in-your-face account of their accomplishments and the wrongdoing of others.

The Bottom Line

McDonald’s and PETA are using their blogs for very different purposes in support of their own causes. McDonald’s wants to make you feel good about their organization so you’ll want to do business with them. PETA wants to make you feel bad about those they feel are guilty of animal abuse so you will join them and take action. McDonald’s might delicately tell you that PETA’s vehemence is misplaced and point to any steps where McDonald's has contributed to animal welfare. PETA’s blog will tell you in no uncertain terms to let McDonald’s know exactly what they can do with their “Golden Arches”.

Welcome!

2008-09-08T21:10:00.007-04:00

Most animals communicate – in some way – with others of their own species and – on a certain level – with animals of other species. Often it’s with body language, including changing color, facial expressions, posture, and movement. Many even communicate through vocalization. Whether they communicate knowingly or spontaneously with conscious effort is often debated. But they communicate nonetheless.

Humans are unique in that we use technology to assist us in our communications. From the development of paints that were applied to the walls of caves to tell stories or provide instructions to the printing press to our computers and cell phones, we continue to find new ways to communicate. Our message is spread faster and to a larger audience than ever imagined. The key is making our communication effective and meaningful. I hope to discover through these conversations how to do just that.