Work with Me!

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

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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."

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

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:

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 The information can be updated quickly and without the waste of tossing outdated printed materials.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

I see two main drawbacks to using a website:

1. 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.
2. 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:

1. Audience
2. Components
3. Meaningful descriptions
4. Effective visuals
5. 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

"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'

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:

1. Professional recruiter who was paid a fee (usually by the employer).
2. Newspaper ads.
3. 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:

1. Social networking sites - particularly LinkedIn
2. 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?

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...

“Trix Are for Kids…”

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

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”.