Q3 Users Percieved Web Credibility in furture

  • Nowdays it is so easy to get onto the internet.
  •  Since so many people are on it, it is sometimes difficult to find a credible website. Proving your organisation exists is going to be a big issue in changing percpetions, and its already becoming a factor.
  •  People will want to see the organisation address and be able to have easy contact to the organisation. Today with so many scammers and people claiming to do certain things, a contact us button somewhere in good view with your address shows you have nothing to hide. People want to feel secure.
  • The world at times can be an insecure place and people want to feel secure on the net, people are going to want to know things like what happens to my email address after I send it to you etc.
  • Having a website with good security is already a factor in the perception of credibilty, with the fact you can do almost anything on the website.
  • Phising sites, that look so much like other sites etc are dangerous. and sites which tell you ‘make sure this address is in the search bar…if its not its a fake”.  You know then that the oragnisation cares for your safety.

References

Moss, T. (2004) Beyond Usability: Web Credibility. Retrieved  30 May, 2009 from
                http://www.codeproject.com/KB/usability/WebCred.aspx

Fogg, B.J. (2003). Credibility and the World Wide Web. In Presuasive Technology: Using Computers to change What
                 We Think and Do (pp. 147-181). Amsterdam: Morgan Kaufmann

Leave a comment

Filed under Week 13

lWeek 13 Final Activity

ASSIGNMENT ONE

jafbjahfjfh

ASSIGNMENT 2

Slide1

Slide2

Slide3

Slide4

Slide5

Slide6

Slide7

Slide8

Slide9

END OF ASSIGNMENT TWO

order

play

jhjorder

Leave a comment

Filed under Week 13

Week 11 portfolion Crtl reading Q1 Pinks Aptitudes

According to Daniel Pink, we are now seeing the “Revenge of the Right Brain”. (Pink, 2005) Left brain thinking which gave us the information age, which involved people who could reason with computer-like logic, speed and accuracy, is no longer as important. That alone, is not sufficient enough. In a world filled with outsourcing, loads of data and crammed with choices, the abilities that matter most are right brain specialties of artistry, empathy and seeing the big picture. (Pink, 2005)

These are Daniel Pinks six right brain Aptitudes to help you succeed in the ‘Conceptual Age’

DESIGN

  •  Today, creating something that is functional is just not enough. It needs to be beautiful and emotionally engaging. (Cornelius, 2009).What will differentiate one presentation from another will be good design. It goes back to the aesthetic usabilty effect from last week.
  • Design needs to be simple (going back to design principles ie sufficient blank space etc) and designs are the best when they are not noticed consciously by the observer or user. (Reynolds, 2008, p16)
  •  To do this we need to think about design before we start a presentation and consider what our objectives, messages and  target audience are. (Reynolds, 2008, p16)

STORY

  • To have the best presentation, we do not just want an argument, but a story. (Cornelius, 2009)
  • Just having an argument is not enough as there is so much information widely available that someone else can use the information to counter or rebut your argument. (Cornelius, 2009)
  •  The ability to tell a story or compose a riverting narrative is the way to communicate and persuade (Reynolds, 2008, p16)
  • People remember stories better than facts (Reynolds, 2008, p16)
  • Knowledge is no longer controlled by public libraries, schools etc, instead its easy to access over the internet and it can be outsourced, meaning the value of facts has diminished. (Cornelius, 2009)

SYMPHONY

  • In the conceptual age analysis is not the greatest demand – its synthesis, seeing the bigger picture by using seemingly unrelated pieces ( Reynolds, 2009, p 18)
  • It is about making connections between dissimilar information in order to innovate (Reynolds, 2009, p18)
  • Pink calls people who do this, ‘Boundary crossers’. They are people who develop skill in more than one seemingly dissimilar area and connect them to create a new idea. (Cornelius, 2009)

EMPATHY

  • It involves not just having logic ( Greer, 2008)
  • What will distinguish those who will be successful will be their abililty to understand what their audience want and what makes them ‘tick’ (Greer, 2008)
  • You have to put yourself in the position of the viewer. You have the abilty to understand others and forge relationships with others. (Greer, 2008)
  • The presenter can then see what is not working and make adjustments based on the reaction of his/hers audiences body language ( Reynolds, 2008, p 17)

PLAY

  • Involves not being too serious and incorporating some play into your presentation (Reynolds, 2008, p18)
  • Having humor in your presentation can give it life and energy. (Greer, 2008)
  • Being too serious and being devoid of humor is dull and the audience will probably not enjoy the presentation
  • You have to have some seriousness obviously, but laughing people are creative people, and the audience will appreciate the creativity.

MEANING

  • Involves paying attention to more then just the bells and whistles (Greer, 2008)
  • Presentation also to be more than an accumulation of words. It needs to have an effect on the audience
  • Its a chance to share what we feel is important and share our story, and hopefully make a difference, even if its a small one. (Reynolds, 2008, p19)

References

Cornelius, C. (2009). Daniel Pinks Six Senses. Retreived 18 May, 2009 from
                   http://wiki.bath.ac.uk/display/charlescornelius/Daniel+Pink’s+Six+Senses

Greer, M. (2008). Encourage Right Brain Thinking. Retrieved 18 May, 2009 from
                   http://www.inspiredprojectteams.com/?p=627

Rennolds, G. (2008). Presentations in “The Conceptual Age”. In Presentation Zen: Simple Ideas on Presentation Design and Delevery (pp. 14-19). Berkeley, CA: New Riders

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized, Week 11

Week 13 Crtl R/W Q2

Wikipedia is not a credible source, hence the reason for the non allowance. It lacks in the two key areas of expertise and trustworthyness.

Wikipedia firstly can be edited by absolutely anyone.  (Derick, 2007) Everyone is aloud to contribute. Just take any article, do we know whos written it, who the author is? Many pages also lack citations and references. Wikipedia as an “Accumulation of biased opinions” (Cohen, 2006)

Wikipedia is so much more susceptible to inaccuracy and bias than normal, traditional printed encyclopedias. Tradional encyclodpedias pay people to research and verify everything before it gets printed. Wikipedia relies on the readers of the website to ‘flag’, ‘discuss’ and modify inaccurate information. (Derick, 2007). Its clear that the traditional encyclopedias here are defintely more credible. We know who published the information.

Wikipedia has also been known to be prone to mispellings and gramatical errors, along with article vandalism. (Derick, 2007) Pro Wikipedia people have argued that there is only a small minority of article vandalists out there and that there is a team of volunteers who monitor articles when they come in (Cohen, 2006), but with so much information and updates coming in regularly, 24 hours a day its hard not to be skeptical about wikipedia. Wikipedia can be used as a very small starting point if you are intrested in learning something new but many entries are biased perspectives and we in many cases dont know where the information has come from. (Derick, 2007)

In conclusion, wikipedia lacks trustworthyness because in many articles there is no citations or references. Fogg mentions that having references  and links to outside sources show people you are confident in your information. It is doubtlful that many articles are fair and unbiased as people can just put across their opinion or the way they saw something. The site lacks expertise because we dont know who the authors are, and what their credentials are.

References

Derick, M. (2007) How does Wikipedia Stack up as a Reliable, Trustworthy, Source of Information. Retrieved May 28,
                    2009 from http://www.internetmarketingmonitor.org/0541/how-does-wikipedia-stack-up-as-a-reliable-
                    trustworthy-source-of-accurate-information.html

Cohen, S. (2006) The Great Wikipedia Debate: Should Anybody Be Allowed to Contribute?. Retrieved May 28, 2009
                  from http://66.102.1.104/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache:57yjRS9YKcYJ:sambot.com/stuff/2006-11-21_15-
                  19.pdf+wikipedia+is+not+credible

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized, Week 13

Week 13 Crtl R/W Q1

Credibility on the Web

Credibility is the percieved quality of a website.  (Fogg, 2003, p122)It is important that we evaluate the credibility of websites looking at the two key dimensions Fogg describes. They are trustworthiness and expertise. When looking at trustworthiness we need to see if the site has references and citations, gives links to outside materials, is fair and unbiased and gives the organisations physical address. (Fogg, 2003, p147-181). When looking at expertise we need to look at whether the site has been updated regularly, knowledge/skill of author whether the authors are even listed and whether his/her credentials have been given. (Fogg, 2003, p147-181). These are very important issues because the internet is a source of unlimited information. Anyone in the world can create a website, and anyone can talk about anything and express any opinion they want. (Harris, 2007). There is a distinct lack of guidlines. Sites can be created for (Brown, Hickey & Pozen, 2002) So as a student it is so important to get a site that is unbiased, fair and honest. There are so many sites out there, we have to look at Foggs key dimesions when choosing one site over another.

Internet rescources are not like a published book. Books get reviewed by a publisher and editor so the public know the information they are getting is right. With the internet, noone has to get approval before information is put up. (Brown, Hickey & Pozen, 2002)

As i mentioned before, bias and honesty is a big issue. As a student you have to sit back and take a look and see what side they are coming from. Barely anything in life is neutal. Nothing is from ‘noones point of view’, but bias is noticeable if say a business only publishes positive reviews of their products. Finding a creidle author on the net is also tough becuase some site have a lack of references so, for all we know, they information could be opinion or guessed information, or even made up. That is why we are encouraged at University to read books. The information is approved and made by credible authors. On the other side – it is why wikipedia is not allowed, as discussed in the next question.

References

Fogg, B.J. (2003). Credibility and the World Wide Web. In Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to change what
                   we think and do (pp 122-125). Amsterdam: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.

Fogg, B.J. (2003). Credibility and the World Wide Web. In Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to change what
                   we think and do (pp 147-181). Amsterdam: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.

Harris, R. (2007). Evaluating Internet Research Sources. Retrieved 27 May, 2009 from
                  http://www.virtualsalt.com/evalu8it.htm

Brown, J, Hickey, K, Posen, V. (2002). An Educators Guide to Credability and Web Evaluation. Retrieved 27 May
                  from http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/wp/credibility/index.html

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized, Week 13

R/W Q2 Chunking

Chunking

Chunking is a way of presenting information which th concpets into small pieces of chunks of information to make reading and understaning and easier. (Lidwell, Holden & Butler, 2003, p30) It makes information easier to process. Chunking helps to serve your short term memory limits by formatting information into a small number of units (eg a string of letters, a word, series of numbers) (Lidwell, Holden & Butler, 2003, p30)

Chunking is a good way for readers to scan information rapidly. It increases legibility, therefore it  is quite important online. If you want people to use your information effectively, cramming as much as you can into one page is not the way to go because when people are on the web they tend to scan for specific information on a webpage than read the page sequentially. (How to Format Online For Maximum Legibility, 2007)

Chunked content can contain bulleted lists, short subheading or possibly short sentences with one or two sentences per sentence. (How to Format Online For Maximum Legibilty, 2007). But the best way to go is to follow the 4 plus one or minus one technique. The maximum amount of chunks that can be read efficiently processed by short term memory is 4 plus or minus one. (Lidwell, Holden & Butler, 2003, p20)

References

How to Format Online For Maximum Legibility (n.d) Retrieved May 23, 2009 from
                        http://www.masternewmedia.org/information_design/formatting-online-content/chunking-content-for-
                        maximum-content-accessibility-20070627.htm

Lidwell, W., Holden, K., & Butler, j. (2003) Chunking. In Universal Principals of Design (p 30)
                       Massachusetts: Rockport

Leave a comment

Filed under Week 12

Week 12 Performance Load Crtl R/W Q1

Performance load involves how much mental and physical activity is needed to achieve a certain goal.( Lidwell, Holden & Butler, 2003, p148) When we talk about perormance load we can talk about two different parts. Cognitive load, and Kinematic Load. Cognitive Load is the amount of mental activity needed to achieve a goal (Lidwell, Holden & Butler, 2003, p148). Kinematics is the study of how things move. (Kinematics, 2007)

The point that needs to be made when looking at Performance Load is that It should be decreased as much as possible. Performance Load can also be called ‘The Principle Of Least Resistance’ Simply it is a broad term that covers many fields, but can be attributed to webpage design. It says that animals, people and even well deigned machines will naturally choose the path of least resistance or effort.(Corey, 2000, p304). Given certain possibilities for action, an organism will select the one requiring the least effort. So if performance load is high errors inrease and the probability of successfully achieving the goal decreases. (Lidwell, Holden & Butler, 2003, pp148-149) Since we want to choose the path of least effort, we should decrease performance load. When the performance load is low errors decrease and its more probable that you will accomplish your task. (Lidwell, Holden & Butler, 2003, pp148-149)

One thing you should aim to do is to think about the 80/20 rule. It is basically a principle for setting priorities. Users will use 20% of the features of your product 80% of the time. (Lidwell, Holden & Butler, 2003, p12)  The point is to focus the majority of the deign and development effort (80%) on the most important 20% of the product. (Lidwell, Holden & Butler, 2003, p12). Its important then to realise that you can often focus your effort on the 20% that makes a difference, instead of the 80% that does not mean much. (Lidwell, Holden & Butler, 2003, p12).

You can also decrease kinetic load by reduceing unneccessary steps in tasks and reducing overallmotion and energy expanded. You can reduce cognitive load by getting rid of unnecessary information from displays and chunking. (Galitz, 2007, p85)

References

Corey, M. (2000) Evolution and the Problem of Natural Evil. Rowman and Littleflect

Galitz, W. (2007) The Essential Guide to User Design. John Wiley and Sons

Lidwell, W., Holden, K., & Butler, J. (2003). Performace Load. In Universal Principles of Design (pp. 148-149).
                       Massachusetts: Rockport

Lidwell, W., Holden, K., & Butler, J. (2003) 80/20 rule. In Universal Principles of design (p12). Massachusetts
                       Rockport

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized, Week 12

Aesthetic Usability Effect Q2 and activity

3 examples in everyday surroundings that meet the aesthetic-usabilty principle

 car2     car1

CAR – Cars come in all different shapes and sizes but they all do the same thing and look relatively similar. They have seats, four wheels, lights etc and they all go from point A to point B. If you take 2 similar cars, people would go for the one more aesthetically pleasing – despite the fact it makes no difference to the actual driving abilty of the car. A good design makes the person happy, so any problems will be met with a creative mind and a positve attitude, like the Red Holden Commodore. But if compared to my dads car above (Nissan), it wouldnt be met with such a postive mind if a problem occured.

THE MOBILE PHONE

phone

There are hundreds of phones of the market and once again many phines can do the same things and have many of the same features such as talk, text, email, MP3 player etc. So why pick one phone over another if they both do similar? The deign. My phone pictured above can do all the features mentioned above, but what made it stand out? Its sleek black sophisticated design. Noone wants to be seen with a poorly coloured or ‘ugly’ phone – even though it doesnt make it work any better.

THE APPLE MAC 

apple-mac-book-better-specs-pic-1

 Well, this little machine is a beauty. Its sleek, elegant and very attractive – its something which could even add to the beauty of your living room. In a recent Microsoft ad Giampaolo dismissed Apple as he knew they were all about aesthetics. He said there was a lack of power and he wanted a PC because he wanted to pay for the computer – not the brand. Both computers can do the same thing, albeit it in a different way.

There have been some problems with mac, such as the Dock being a hinderance to new uses. But people who are happy with a design, are going to be more tolerant about the problem and get around it.

Leave a comment

Filed under Week 10

Week 12 Q3

I believe phychology is a necessary study in design

It is important to know how people think and what they like so they can make something that is successful and effective. For example, The principle of least resistance which says people will choose the the path of least effort. So after finding that out, we know to reduce performance load as much as possible.

It is important to know what people like, how people feel about certain things and what makes an effective website for example. One that people like. The study finds out peoples general or natural behaviours towards certain things and how people perceive certain things. (Cleanthous, 2009)

Things like  colour can also play a part, the fact that people find it easier to read black on white. Also where the eye is first drawn to on a page, and where the eyeline of a page is. (Cleanthous, 2009)

Chunking, is another example that has come from studies. Now we know how much information the average person can remember in the short term. Just how you present information can shape peoples percpetion or make a person dismiss your site, whether there is too much information jammed into a page. People just want to scan for easy informative points. (Lidell, Holden & Butler, 2003, p30)

Of course, the aesthetic usability effect. Studies have proven that effect after working out how we think and reason when we are happy or sad. For example, more creative when happy and more tolerent towards problems. Now we know good design in so important!! We know people will PERCIEVE an object easier to use if it looks good. Now we know thanks to psychology what makes people tick. (Lidell, Holden & Butler, 2003,pp 18-19)

Lidwell, W., Holden K., & Butcher, J (2003). Chunking. In Universal Principles of Design (p30)
                       Massachusetts: Rockport

Lidwell, W., Holden, K., & Butcher J (2003) Aesthetic Usability Effect. In (p18)Universal Priciples of Design
                       Massachusettes:: Rockport

Cleanthous, G. (2009) The Psychology of Web Design. Retrieved May 26, 2009 from 
                       http://www.webprofits.com.au/blog/2009/01/28/the-psychology-of-web-design/

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized, Week 12

Week 11 Pinks Aptitudes Q2

If i was giving this presentation to an audience, I would probably give the audience death by powerpoint due to the lack of Pinks aptitudes. This is not a great powerpoint fot the ‘Conceptual Age’ (Reynolds, 2008, p14)

Slide1

DESIGN: I did not really do anything different or out of the ordinary. I believe there was a lack of conceptual underpinnings. The design wasnt terrible, but Pink believes good design is never noticed conciously ( Reynolds, 2008, p16). I used an orange colour palette to signify warmth, but as far as deign goes that was it. The images i used did relate to what i was talking about but it may look to the viewer that I have just plonked the images there. I tried to follow many design principles and in doing so focused too much on simplicity. I was overconcious of the design distracting from the function of my presentation. The slides contained all the appropraite information, but a presentation more beautifully designed would have made my presetation fall to the back of the pack. I dont believe its emotionally engaging enough. I did, before starting my presentation ‘stop my busy mind’  (Reynolds, 2008, p 16) and consider my topic and target audience (which was to teach 13-15 y.o about a problem they may have heard here and there, but not know anything about) but before knowing pinks aptitudes, i went for function over design, instead of a balance between the two.

STORY: This is another aptitude which needs a bit of work. I did not really put my own character and experience into the presentation.(Reynolds, 2008, p16). Obviously my goal was to inform about global warming and trying to put it into a narrative would be a bit of a challenge on paper in a powerpoint. If i was delivering it to an audience i could with the facts deliever it using my own experiences. When i was talking about  how 11 of the last 12 years have been the warmest on record i could talk about my own experiences in perth, with all of the heat, when giving my presentation. Looking at my powerpoint, it is just one fact after another. I didnt put my own spin on the material which is important when people can rebut you points. (Cornelius, 2007)

Slide4 

SYMPHONY: I didnt really use unrelated pieces to form a bigger picture and see things in a different way. (Reynolds, 2008)

EMPATHY: The presentation does lack some empathy. I tried to give the audience what they wanted in terms of information, but as i know now – information and logic is not enough. (Cornelius, 2007) Other then colour there wasnt really much design. I needed to do a bit of research to find out what made my target audience tick so i could make an emotional connection, and i didnt really do that. If i was presenting this i probably would have seen a bored audience, but since i wasnt presenting it i couldnt make a judgement to see if they were getting what i was on about. (Reynolds, 2008)

Slide6

PLAY: This powerpoint is definetely devoid of fun and humor. It is serious throughout. It is fairly dull and lacks play. (Reynolds, 2008) Sure global warming is a serious issue and has to have seriousness in it, there is too much which gives it no energy. Here and there i could have made it more lighthearthed and if i were to present this to an audeience i would ellaborate on certain light hearted points as part of my STORY. Not enough play and the audience will just go through the motions. Humour makes people intrested.

 

MEANING: Pink says we cannot just have an accumulation of information because of the vast amount of it, so your work has to have purpose about it. ( Greer, 2008).What do you want your work to do? What is the meaning of what we are doing? Is it going to have an effect on the audience? Mine will have an effect, but not a positive one. They will have learnt a bit, but wont go back out that room and think “Yeah, that was intresting, lets do something about this, he really made us think” They would have been bored and understimulated because of my uncreative deisgn, lack of narrative etc. By using the previous aptitudes i can give it meaning and as an effect have a positve impact on the audience. At the moment i am not fulfilling the pupose. I have the information, i just need to approch this task differently.

References

Cornelius, C. (2009). Daniel Pinks Six Senses. Retreived 18 May, 2009 from
                   http://wiki.bath.ac.uk/display/charlescornelius/Daniel+Pink’s+Six+Senses

Greer, M. (2008). Encourage Right Brain Thinking. Retrieved 18 May, 2009 from
                   http://www.inspiredprojectteams.com/?p=627

Rennolds, G. (2008). Presentations in “The Conceptual Age”. In Presentation Zen: Simple Ideas on Presentation Design and Delevery (pp. 14-19). Berkeley, CA: New Riders

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized, Week 11