Emerging Technologies in STC

Wellllllllll...this week I learned what a wikiword is. I had to look it up - after reading the Stafford and Webb article. The readings for this week were very functional, I thought - really cementing in what it is we are doing and working with, for those of us who have never used a wiki before (or blogged before, for that matter). I was happy to see that we are following the suggested protocol from Stafford and Webb including locked off access and self contained sub-topics (p. 2)- it seems we are off to a positive start with our wiki. Some of the technical terms in the article were not explained very thoroughly for those of us who haven't done this stuff before - which was confusing considering their article was a how-to (ie what is a WikiWord I asked???)

I'm really looking forward to the 'doing' part of the project now - not just planning and sharing and learning about the new technology out there. The topic I've claimed is quite interesting to me and I hope we can all learn a bit about the history of bridges in our country via the info I gather. Hisotry is always so interesting because of our tendency to ignore/not be aware of what is around us. We'll see what is out there - I'm afraid it will be stories of bridge collapses that had the same structural malfunction that the 35W bridge did...not that 'we' would get around to checking for the same faults that caused collapses in other places. We'll see. I'm ready to get my hands dirty and hope you all are too. It looks like we have success ahead of us!

Posted by brow1769 at 09:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Wiki Workplace...what a concept. I have worked in the same mundane, hierarchy driven company for 25 years, I cannot fathom being able to have an idea that may actually be implemented. Oh sure, we can have our "skip-level" meetings with managers one step above ours but all that is just smoke and mirrors. They are just trying to appease the masses, make us think that what we say really matters when in actuality, it really doesn't. While this chapter talks about implementing wiki into the workplace to replace these skip level meetings, add valued insights from the people in the trenches, and build a resource available to all employees, I would really like to SEE how it works. The idea is great, and the example of Best Buy's "bottom-up approach" is fascinating, but I still want to SEE how it works. When Krista set up our wiki page, how did she go about it? How are we going to add all the information we have in deli.cio.us (and Thinkature)?
I can see how the Team will work, this is the fun part and the most important. If the teamwork is good, the time allocation, decision making, resource allocation, and communication will follow (Tapscott and Williams, 2006. pp. 259-263). The statement made by Ross Mayfiled, CEO of Socialtext says it best, he suggests that part of the reason wikis are popular and useful is inherent in the collaborative tools themselves; asking users to share control, and foster trust. "The more participation that you have...the greater quality you'll have in a project, in the same way that an open source works" (Tapscott and Williams, 2006. p. 254).
On p. 264 in Tapscott and Williams, clear goals, structure, discipline, and leadership in the organization will perhaps be more important in the virtual workplace because of the sub-existence of leadership. I can see that working it's way out in this class. It still confuses me as to where we will end up, but the hands-on learning on how to get there will be the reward.

Posted by Amber at 05:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Especially since this is an online, emerging technology in STC course, I might be about to start a big debate here, but I’m willing to take responsibility.

My technology world runs on Apple. Ever since I started using Apple computers back in elementary school, I have been in love with them. Don’t get me wrong; I think that PCs have a ton of uses, like when you need to turn a ten-minute project into a thirty-minute project, or when you need a hacker magnet. How can you not applaud the fact that Vista takes nearly 2gb of ram to run right of the box, that’s definitely using all of your resources.

All right, I know, I’m being harsh. Mostly that all has to do with programming. I do applaud the work of Mr. Gates, as his dream has become reality, and given us all nightmares. Lets face it; even my phone runs off of a Microsoft OS. I do think that PCs play nice together in the business setting, but I do feel that when it comes to something like Wikis, an Apple is the healthier choice.

In my opinion, Apple has always taken steps to make their computers work for the user, not the other way around. With Apple, each of their programs works with the next.

Now before I sound too much like an Apple ad, I’m going to get to my point. For those of you that don’t know, Apple has developed .Mac, which as I understand it, Apple gives you space on their server, and software to manage it. With this software, you can upload files, photos, and videos, host web pages, and even have your own mac.com email. My point in all of this is that this is a major move towards collaboration by a large corporation.

The “What is a Wiki” article by Stafford and Webb, was very well done, and help to fill in the gaps with some of this wiki stuff for me. I do think that it is good that they mention that Wiki’s are “not so good for non-geeks, as you need to be reasonably tech-savvy and familiar with the concept of text markup.” Since everyone isn’t tech savvy, I think that it is good that companies like Apple are creating software that makes it easier for everyone to collaborate online. Apple isn’t the only one; Google is among them as well.

Online collaboration is great, but we need a way to run it. I am very much into modifying cars, and there is a saying that you always want more brakes than you have car. In other words, you always want to have more stopping power than you need. Lots of power is great, but if you don’t have any way to control it, you have problems. My point is that, I think articles like the one written by Stafford and Webb are great, because they really stress the point of being critical about the software that we use. The even caution users about upgrading, saying that “It’s not about the wiki, it’s about the project.” I think that this is a great point to keep in mind as we continue to explore the uncharted waters of Wikis. Know the goal, focus on the project, stay on task and don’t get caught up in making things look good. Just because the car has a nice paint job, doesn’t mean that it will go fast.

P.S. Here is a link to Apple's .Mac, if anyone is interested in taking a further look at it. I just joined a couple of days ago, and am still learning myself.

http://www.apple.com/dotmac/

Posted by kiley011 at 12:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

When I think of the word Wiki, I think of Wikipedia. Wanna know what else I think of? I think of DJ's spinning records so the sound that comes out is "wiki, wiki, wiki". I thought I'd share my thoughts and hopefully that brought music to your ears. : ) Moreover, Wiki may bring music to anyone's ears. In the reading What is a Wiki , a Wiki is defined as "A wiki is a website where users can add, remove, and edit every page using a web browser. (Stafford & Webb, 2006, p. 1)" It's collaborative and many people are involved. That's like music. It takes not only the melody but the harmony . . . singers and instrumentalists (unless it's a capella [without instrumental accompaniment]). It all comes together to form one piece. I'm not just talking about music, I'm also talking about wiki's. . . All of us in the class are working on a particular area, and we will come together to form one amazing website. If we get it right (and all the areas flow well together), we'll come up with something audible. However, if we get it wrong (and the areas seem mismatched to one another), we'll come up with a scratched record. Try spinning a scratched record. I don't think it would sound like a crisp "wiki, wiki, wiki".

What else was music to my ears when reading this week? From the beginning, I loved reading Chapter 9 of Wikinomics. I was immediately hooked because it mentioned the University of Minnesota and Geek Squad and Best Buy. There are a lot of organizations/companies/institutions mentioned in the book; however, there are millions in this world, and Tapscott & Williams chose to mention those. I love it when I hear about anything that I have ties to. I go to the University of Minnesota! My sister's friends were part of the early team members of Geek Squad! I used to work right by Best Buy Corporate! When I was younger, my family used to take trips to Best Buy for fun! Okay, that was kind of geeky for me to say, but as stated, "[Geek Squad] was acquired by consumer electronics giant Best Buy (Tapscott & Williams, 2006, p. 240)". So, if Best Buy acquired something with the word Geek in it, I think it's all right that I say geeky things every once in a while. :) Besides, those trips were actually very productive--we would get a lot of stuff done there while having fun of course.

In all of this, I think we should remember to have fun. Sometimes having fun is forgotten. Fun should be incorporated in everything we do because I think it makes situations more bearable. We should work hard and play hard/have fun. Think of music. Music is generally fun. Yes, there are some sad songs like "why did s/he break up with me" or "my life is such a mess" or "everything sucks"; however, bringing music into the situation lightens the setting. For example, establishments like bars/clubs/mall retail stores play music. Sometimes when I have a ton of work, I turn music on and get going. Working out at a health club? Look around and you'll see people listening to their iPods/MP3's. Music is fun. Let's have fun. Let our Wiki site be music to our ears!

Posted by Hoang-Uyen N. at 10:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

When I first started reading Vannevar Bush’s article, I didn’t realize it had been written in 1945. It mentions war, but it wasn’t until about the fourth paragraph that I had to stop, go back to the top and check out the byline. Once I saw the date, the part about scientists burying their competition in the demand of a common cause made sense because it sure didn’t in regards to the current war—there is still plenty of competition between companies and defense contractors in weapons development.

I know nothing about this gentleman, but he seems to be quite the visionary regarding where technology was heading or where he thought it should go. (According to Wikipedia, he’s the “patron saint of American science.”) Not so much the visionary when it comes to writing as he always uses “he” and “him” for a scientist because the “girls” are languidly keying the stenotype or are armed with key board punches. And yes, I realize he’s a product of the time.

For those of you who didn’t read the article, he discusses ideas regarding dry photography (I’m assuming he meant Polaroid, not digital…would digital be dry photography 2.0?), microphotography, voice recorders and translators, advanced arithmetical machines (calculators?), and the automated telephone. I had to laugh when I read about that. He says, “it could be made extremely fast by substituting thermionic-tube switching for mechanical switching, so that the full selection could be made in one-hundredth of a second. No one would wish to spend the money necessary to make this change in the telephone system” (7). Sorry, Mr. Bush, but I think they did and then they did more.

I thought the part on indexing was right on target (8). He believes the top-down method doesn’t work because “The human mind does not work that way. It operates by association” (8). To fix this, he discusses items being tied together with some coding (tagging?) in the memex, which seems to be a desk-sized computer, but with the internet inside the desk on microfilm. And he can share his information with a friend if he wants…is that a wiki if he reproduces his data and passes it on to a friend who could then code it however he wanted?

I know this is why we are reading this article, but it’s amazing to see what was written 60 years and see how it seems to have come true in some sort of way. When he talks about “trails of interest” (10), it almost sounds like browsing and “ His excursions may be more enjoyable if he can reacquire the privilege of forgetting the manifold things he does not need to have immediately at hand, with some assurance that he can find them again if they prove important“ sounds like bookmarks (11). The writing style made it a slow read, but it was worth the time.

Moving on to modern times, Jaron Lanier’s essay was great. The idea of a “hive mind” makes a lot of sense, as do his thoughts on the collective. Collectives can be good, or can be stupid, which is really how anything can be given the right circumstances.

And I really liked this quote: “The beauty of the Internet is that it connects people. The value is in other people. If we start to believe that the Internet itself is an entity that has something to say, we’re devaluing those people and making ourselves into idiots.” Short of pondering this idea for an hour, I’m having trouble expressing why I like this quote so much. I just do. The internet is way to communicate with family and friends and learn from people I don't know (yet). It's a tool, not a thing.

As for Wikinomics and Best Buy, I think they’ve just become one of my target companies in my upcoming job search…I’d like to work for a progressive company for a change.

Posted by MichelleJ at 09:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

While reading through this weeks assigned readings I found a quote that was really pretty brilliant. On page 243 of Wikinomics Robert Stevens said "I'm now going to try and discover their agenda, and serve it" in reference to the communication and collaboration techniques being utilized by the Geek Squad. I have personally seen corporate pecking order destroy creative talent. Stevens' quote really put into perspective how important it is to allow the users to generate and decide the mode of communication. In the case of Geek Squad, they found that communication through playing Battlefield 2 was far more successful then trying to collaborate on the wiki. This concept really brought the readings into focus for me.

Moving backwards a little, the whole concept of the wiki, as introduced by Stafford and Webb was a little narrow. They said that it could be used for writing essays or books but failed to illustrate the other functional aspects of the wiki such as the design example given in Wikinomics. Stafford and Webb spoke about their experience with the wiki while writing a book or the practical aspect of designing an essay in it since wikis let you work without notes. They missed the engineering and artchitectual aspects. The Geek Squaders used their company wiki to design a product that they thought would best serve their customers ( Tapscott 243-244). The wiki was their shared drawing board that had one major advantage, it never runs out of space. The use of the wiki to design the flash drive allowed mass collaboration on a very interesting level. Employees around the world could bring their ideas, drawings, and concepts to a preverbal whiteboard. It was an unlimited space with unlimited potential. Without the wiki only a small group would have been able to participate in the design process, the wiki opened the doors to everyone throughout the country.

Despite Stafford and Webb's lack of scope regarding the use of wikis they did very accurately illustrate the advantages: 1) instant collaboration without regards to location or time 2) One master document that everyone can view, share, and edit which prevents duplicate work and open one person's ideas up to everyone 3) Every page revision is saved and archived which allows the users to monitor the development of the project 4) Everyone has a say. No one is excluded as a result of geographic location or limited meeting space that happens in the standard board rooms. (2)

There was one more thought from Wikinomics that I would like to comment on and that is the concept that the "Net Generation" seeks to dissipate the pre-existing hierarchies in the corporate workplace. Networking, particularly wikis, allows workers to disperse over a greater geographical error which will potentially eliminate the role of the typical boss (246). I thought this was a great thought. Working in the corporate world I can say that I often push our office to adapt new methods of communication and collaboration so that physical boundaries no longer limit us. The internet has brought such a wide range of clients to many companies, why shouldn't it also bring a wide range of employees. i think one day we will see many companies who have employees located all across the country. Most of these employees may never meet each other face-to-face but will probably know each other only through the virtual world. In this completely virtual corporate world bosses will cease to exist and cubicles will be a thing of the past. Working where you want when you want through the use of wikis may be coming in the near future.

Posted by Stephanie V at 09:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

While “the days of lifelong employment and pensions are already long gone” (Wikinomics, p.265) that doesn’t mean that one cannot still yearn a day similar to those long gone. The work place is quickly changing and quickly. It still disturbs me when I consider that the Internet as a public place only came into being in the late 1980s to early 1990s. The Internet has changed the world in a very short time putting me into that group of people mentioned by Tapscott and Williams that has to learn how to work with all these new types of web technology. This fact seems odd even to me, considering how technological my life has been since my first experiences with the Apple IIe and Dos. However, computer literacy and experience has little to do with Internet literacy and experience, which is the type of experience that seems to be necessary in these new work environments. Although slowing down the changes in the work environment will probably never be accomplished even if a majority of people wanted it to happen. The work environment is attempting to change in time with the newest technology and is leaving people behind faster and faster. “The shift from cottage industries to the factory system unfolded over the better part of a century. The transition from industrial factories to today’s high-tech office environments took at least a few decades.” (Wikinomics, p.266), and today the transitions are happening even faster, forcing new levels of adaptation upon those of us trying to live in this accelerating environment.

Posted by AnthonyP at 09:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

—Sara 28.02.08

What I’ve learned from this week’s reading is that wikis are wonderful but they don’t measure up to the utopian ideals bestowed upon them by wiki worshipers. For some things, wiki wisdom is great. For others, the wisdom of the collective is really bad. Jaron Lanier, Chris Wilson, and Matt Barton discuss important philosophical and functional shortcomings and misconceptions of wikis and wiki wisdom. Their perspectives are important—knowing the limitations of the collective wisdom helps all Internet users evaluate projects like wikis and leverage their unique capabilities.

The philosophy behind wikis and other Web 2.0 technologies resonates with me: non-hierarchical consensus decision-making, equal access and participation, the people rule ... Reading about the philosophy and operation of PageRank, for example, should make my heart sing: The Google algorithm “ … relies on the uniquely democratic nature of the web by using its vast link structure as an indicator of an individual page’s value. … PageRank results from a “ballot” among all the other pages on the World Wide Web about how important a page is. A hyperlink to a page counts as a vote of support (Wikipedia “PageRank”).”

If the philosophy of PageRank and the wiki is so lofty and honorable, why does it make me think of Paris Hilton? After reading Lanier’s article, I see the connection. Paris Hilton is famous for being famous. She’s not uniquely talented, smart or especially pretty but if she were a Web page, she would get a lot of “votes.” In the logic of PageRank, that makes her important and valuable.

The phenomenon of Ms. Hilton illustrates Lanier’s argument about the collective wisdom: sometimes it’s really stupid. Tools like wikis assume that consensual processes yield incremental improvements to their resulting products (Lanier “Digital Maosim” pg. 4). In reality, collectivism does not guarantee continuous improvement or quality or authority. That’s why Wikipedia isn’t an acceptable for academic research. That’s why Paris Hilton is famous despite being uninteresting and unimportant.

Lanier warns us that blind faith in the wisdom of the collective is dangerous. He doesn’t have to invoke Maoism to appreciate the negative machinations of the “hive” mentality however. It is evident in the degradation of media and culture treated “collectively.” Lanier argues for example, that digital collectives like Wikipedia and aggregators, in particular, have the effect of averaging content, eliminating the highs and lows, the controversial and unique (Lanier “Digital Maosim” pg. 8). The result is banality or worse—Lanier cites American Idol, popurls. The problem is, quality is by definition never average. Moreover, participation in online collectives is usually anonymous. Consequently, Lanier contends, personal voice and the subtleties that give language full meaning disappear along with authenticity, authority and accountability (Lanier “Digital Maosim” pg. 4). He concludes that “The collective is good at solving problems which demand results that can be evaluated by uncontroversial performance parameters, but it is bad when taste and judgment matter (Lanier “Digital Maosim” pg. 9).”

Chris Wilson augments Lanier’s views, arguing that even exemplary online collectives such as Wikipedia and Digg are neither wise nor collective. He reports that almost all social media sites are controlled by a minority of users and/or designated administrators. In many cases, a small group of the most active participants author the majority of the site’s content. Algorithms tend to favor the most devoted users while magnifying the disproportionate amount of control a tiny elite has over content and rankings. Administrators also adjust algorithms for specific ends in addition to regulating content on an ongoing basis. In practice, Wilson concludes, “ … it is a mistake to assume [these sites owe their] success to the wisdom of the online crowd (Wilson “The Wisdom” pg. 1).”

Matt Barton seems to have come to terms with the contradictions and shortcomings of the wiki way and offers very practical advice on the best uses of wikis. Although he accepts Lanier’s criticism that wikis abolish the notion of authorship and personal voice, his general rule is a more positive: “projects that emphasize authorship or require protection are not proper wiki applications (Barton “Embrace”5.21.04).” Accordingly, Barton rules out using a wiki for creative writing projects, portfolios, editorials or rhetorical argumentation. Projects well-suited to the wiki way include encyclopedias, bibliographies, handbooks or textbooks, or any type of document authored by a group.

Barton’s perspective is a welcome answer to the disillusionment Janier or Wilson might provoke. Although wikis and the collective wisdom do not add up to the “shining examples of Web democracy” they promise, they are well worth preserving (Wilson “The Wisdom” pg. 1).” Internet users need to understand what wikis do well and what they don’t. Knowing the limitations of the collective wisdom helps all Internet users evaluate projects like wikis and leverage their unique capabilities. In the process, we may all learn something about collaboration and digital democracy.

Sources
Barton, Matt. “Embrace the Wiki Way!” 21 May, 2004.
Lanier, Jaron. “Digital Maoism: The Hazards of the New Online Collectivism.” Edge: The Third Culture. 30 May, 2006.
Wilson, Chris. “The Wisdom of the Chaperones.” Slate.com. 22 February, 2008.
Tapscott and Williams. Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything. Portfolio Hardcover, 2006.

Posted by sara m at 08:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

I first noticed the ugly looking black and white beetle with the logo "Geek Squad" impaled on the side of it about five or six years ago. When I asked what they did, the only response I got was "they fix electronics." Over the years I have seen an increasing number of our Geek Squad mobiles roaming around, and it has heightened my curiosity about the company that once was independent. I had no idea that the Geek Squad was taken over by Best Buy, but then again I don't go into Best Buy a lot.

What I thought was interesting and amazing at the same time was the fact that Stephens struggled to set up an agenda that encouraged the collaboration of a systematic wiki so that members could keep in touch and stay focused on the "mission", and it so happens that the techo-weenies were a step ahead of him, but with a slightly different approach. They didn't want to collaborate the boring way, they wanted to brag to each other virtually while they were blowing each other's brains out. I guess the point I am trying to make is that the more engaging and fun the activity is at least in this case, the more collaborative and productive work can be on a global scale....especially among nerds. Stephens comments, "They're talking and they're hanging out, and often they're talking shop and swapping tips" (pg. 243). That is mass-collaboration at its finest.

However, as mass collaboration has matured the past three years with different methods of work strategies including tools like blogs, wikis, chat rooms, peer-to-peer networks and personal broadcasting, the hierarchy of old strategies used in traditional firms have been crumbling. Is this change happening too fast? "Will to much openness and self-organization in the workplace lead to disorganization, confusion, and a lack of focus" (pg. 264). I have been sitting on this question for awhile and I still have not found the answer even after Schmidt's comment, "you tell people what the company's priorities are, and somehow it works out, self-organization is better" (pg. 264). I have concluded that I just need to be in that working atmosphere to find out for myself, instead of taking everyone else's opinions. I am definitely more of a busy worker than a bursty one, so hopefully as our wiki project continues to grow I am able to focus up and rely on the collaboration and knowledge of others to help steer me in the right direction.

Posted by stow0037 at 02:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

After reading so much the past few weeks about group collaboration it is finally time to begin this as a class. Our ideas and contributions will develop a website that will educate and inform the public. Wikis for the most part are new to me other than occasionally researching a topic and finding it on Wikipedia. Up until now I never realized that anyone could post a wiki to the public, and because of that we must be careful about the content that we choose to provide and how it will be presented.

There are definitely advantages to using a wiki. We can collaborate as a class without having to meet at specific times or keep at the same pace. We are able to keep our ideas in one place so that all can see and add, remove, and edit as we go along. As from the reading I think it can be best described as "A wiki is a website where every page can be edited in a web browser, by whomever happens to be reading it. It's so terrifically easy for people to jump in and revise pages that wikis are becoming known as the tool of choice for large, multiple-participant projects." (Stafford and Webb).

While the advantages to using a wiki are great, it is important to keep in mind that there are also some disadvantages. Since each of us are going to be contributing to this site it is extremely important that it appears uniform and well structured. By that I mean that we want it to be easy to use and not messy, because that may lead us to lose our intended audience.

It is our goal to create an informational site about the 35W bridge collapse to the public. In order to achieve that success we must take important steps to reach our end goal. Last week we each chose a topic to cover and become knowledgeable with. We then each prepared a task list that should keep us on track. Although everyone's list is different, they all keep us on a schedule that best suits our personal goals.

I predict that this class will teach me how to effectively collaborate using today's technology and will in turn help me succeed in the workplace. The web is reshaping workplaces in a profound way. "Increasingly employees are using blogs, wikis, and other new tools to collaborate and form ad hoc communities across departmental and organizational boundaries." (Wikinomics, pg. 240). A perfect example of how wikis can aid in collaboration and innovation in the workplace is the company Geek Squad. These employees use wikis to "brainstorm new ideas, manage projects, swap service tips, ans socialize with their peers." (Wikinomics, pg. 240). At the start this company had 60 employees and was earning $3 million in annual revenue. "Today Geek squad has grown to 12,000 service agents, and under Best Buy's umbrella the division clocks nearly $1 billion in services from over 700 locations across North America, and returns $280 million to Best Buy's bottom line." (Wikinomics, 239).

Companies are moving away from the hierarchial workplaces and implementing more collaborative and socially connected ideas. More and more companies are finding that they are becoming more successful by using the ideas from their employees. As Robert Stevens creator of the Geek Squad learned, " First observe, and then implement. I am deathly afraid of wasting time and energy trying to get people to do something they don't want to do. So next time, before I build that shiny new playground, I'm going to think about how Geek Squad agents are already organizing--it's just more efficient that way." ( Wikinomics, pg. 245).

Today's workplace is becoming more self-organizing. Mass collaboration is being created with the use of wikis and is changing the way good and services are created. Companies that change from a traditional hierarchial structure and allow the use of creativity and technology will be able to have a competitive edge and in turn be more successful.

Posted by Tracy J at 02:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

I have to say, since I was a teenager, I loved Best Buy. I would shop there often and would think about the store when I wasnt there. And, still, today I have a desire and drive toward that company more then any other electronics company (nay, company in general). But what is it that drives people like me toward a, still, heartless, profit driven, behemoth beacon of capitalistic nonsense? First and foremost, they have always treated me well. I have purchased products that appeared new, but lacked the contents (due to some punk kid thieves) and was able to exchange copies without any hassel or questions asked. I am always greeted at the door when I enter (whether I want to be or not). They price things like new release movies at a decent sale price where other retailers charge full (or more) for quite some time before the prices are reduced. The reward zone program allows for the customer (namely me) to feel like they are part of the company by giving coupons that equal a certain cash value toward another bestbuy purchase in order to reward people for shopping there. Further this program gives periodic % off coupons for purchases as well.

But why does BestBuy do this and other competing companies dont? Could it be because Best Buy gives customers something more then the required purchase to item ratio and thus increases the confidence and trust they have so that they will come back in the future? Or are they simply insane to spend the extra time, money, and effort that their competitors seem to have no interest in? I, personally, think it is fantastic that they go above and beyond the call of duty in order to make their customers feel like they are apart of their organization and that they actually matter.

Now, I have worked inside the Best Buy corporate headquarters and I have been the "higher ups". They are your typical beaurcratic, profit driven, seemingly heartless business men and women. With few exceptions, they wouldnt give you the time of day if asked let alone treat you like a human being in person unless you had money to give them. Normally, I would avoid a company run by such people like a plague, but, I feel, as a customer, I am treated pretty well. That, and there are very few companies who arent run by people like that, and most of those companies dont make the customer feel welcome to any great degree.

But enough rambling about how great or not Best Buy is. Their company has flourished because they have been innovative and actually listened to those outside of their inner circle. Those refering to the customer base, their lower level employees, and even those who have no affiliation with the company what so ever. Things like taking a company of 70 employees and turning into 12000 employees while expanding across North America while filling a long sought after service (aka Geek Squad) shows just how willing Best Buy is to gain and maintain their customer base. (Wikinomics p. 239)

Bringing Geek Squad into the focus and reading about Robert Stephens impressed me a little. First off he was a student at the UofM which brings him a little closer to home then the "larger then life" mentality that I typically associate with names attached to big companies. (Wikinomics p. 239) Secondly, the fact that he actually listened and explored why his employees werent using his wiki and further adapted his system and setup toward their needs is inspiring. (Wikinomics p. 246)

The problems I see with many modern companies is that they still see the consumer and employee base as ignorant, spineless, and unorganized, when, in reality, the opposite is true. To an extent, the previous might be true of the older generations who grew up without the access to information that the younger generations are privilaged and they have been the customer base for quite some time now, but the more educated and flexible generations dont fall for the same tricks. Therefore, the companies who hang on to the mentalities of "work place hierarchy" and "consumer ignorance" will soon fade away.

A news report I read some months back indicated that Generation Xer's are causing drastic changes in the business world. They demand moderate days, decent wages, significant amounts of time off (paid even) to raise a family, and flexible working environments. It basically indicated that the younger generations dont simply want to work their lives away doing meaningless work while missing out on the joys of life. I wish I could still find that article so that I could quote it, but it is long since buried in the archives of yahoo! news. I have to say, we should demand no less. Life is too short to simply work 24/7 and miss out on what really matters in life. Companies like Enron show us that it's just not worth it.

Tapscott and Williams. Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything. Portfolio Hardcover, 2006. Pg. 239-267.

Posted by David S at 01:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (7)

Last night, the Minnesota Society of Professional Journalists and Minnesota Public Radio hosted what was billed as “a UBS Forum examing the present state of journalism, the effect of new media on mainstream media (MSM), and ethical issues and quandries created by evolving communication, expectation and collaboration.” I was unable to attend because of prior commitments. but the lovely folks over at Metroblogging Minneapolis live-blogged the entire thing. If you're interested in citizen journalism, take a few minutes to peruse this.

One of the featured panelists, Chuck Olsen of The Uptake, has posted some after-thoughts on how things played out. If you don’t have a passing familiarity with the citizen journalism landscape or are offended by mild cursing, this probably isn't for you, but I’m posting it for those of you who are invested in or interested in the local blogging scene.

Posted by Krista at 09:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Our metrics for success with this project won't be the same as with a typical informational or commercial website. Many of you have hit on the idea, informed by the readings, that we will achieve success by including various content and usability functions in the site. Hit count is always a way to assess a website's popularity and thus is attractive as a proxy measure of success. Feedback is another possible measure, and establishment of a recurring user community would be an unmistakable sign that we've done a good job. All of these are useful, even unquantified, and we could choose any combination of them to define our success by the end of the semester. But that won't work for us.

We are working toward a fixed deadline with the end of this class, and that's where our point of measuring success has to fall. Whether some or all of us continue on as site administrators, contributors, etc. won't be relevant for the direct purpose of this class - determining whether we are successful in this context is fixed. For this reason, we will not be able to rely on hit counts, feedback, or the potential development of a user community to gauge our results. These metrics will simply take too long to develop.

So it's back to the first idea - the content and function of the site itself. Here we have total control over what happens, and can define our success exactly as fits our objectives and timeline. We've already done most of the groundwork for this, in the Forums this week and last, on Thinkature, and with Krista's audio/slide presentation. We have a functional outline of our site and how we want it to work. We can now define our success as following through with that outline, creating and posting our wiki to the web. Giving ourselves a little more specificity will help too. One way to do that would be to set content targets for each of our subsections (or for each contributor): 5 text articles, 10 photos, 20 external links (arbitrary numbers), and I'm betting some of you will have other creative ideas on this.

It might sound like none of this gets directly back to our very important question of audience. We can't account for the audience directly in our measurement of results, but we are doing so by design, and measuring the implementation of that design. In this way, we are still placing due attention and importance on the question of the audience.

Posted by Jim O. at 12:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Every person has a different opinion about what success is. For one individual, success for this site could be creating a well researched website that covers all aspects of the bridge. Another person could define success as having done extensive research on just one topic. It all can vary from person to person. For our purposes, I do feel that we need to agree upon an audience if we want to determine success with our user base, outside of an exit survey or a hit count.

I realize that we are shying away from the thought of a general audience. I would agree that this shouldn’t be used to define our audience. However, since we are developing a website on a topic that has already been researched, I do feel that we should use some type of academic anchor point, even if everyone is going to have access to our website. I believe that this will help us to create a better website by being more specific, and will also give us the chance to talk with real users of our site. I don’t think that we should be worried about those that just happen to stumble upon our website. I do believe that we should try to retain a specific user base be creating a site that they will keep coming back too.

In information architecture, they stress the importance of realizing that everyone has different perspectives. “The fact is that labeling and organization systems are intensely affected by their creators’ perspectives.” (O’Reilly, 2007, p.57) Because of the various perspectives we have when creating this site, it will be difficult to pull the topics together in a way that all of the creators (us) will be happy.

In the same regard, we could put together the best site in the world on this subject, and if no one wants to look at it, or come back to it, have we succeeded? We may say yes, or users may say no, for many various reasons.

Because of these two issues, I feel that it will be much more beneficial to our users, and much easier for us to compile information if we are putting together a website that will be based on an audience, and not what we THINK people want. I believe that when we have a happy user base, getting the information that they are seeking, we WILL be successful.

If there are a thousand websites out there, compiling information about the 35w bridge, there really won’t be any reason for users to choose our website over the next. If we just provide information to a broad, unidentified audience, we will just be an Internet echo.

We need to be unique, and it is my belief, that our audience’s need will determine our success.

Posted by kiley011 at 09:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

In our chapter, there was so much great information on how we can make this website a success. The main issue I see as a problem is classification. This issue encompasses all the subtopics like organization, heterogeneity, perspectives, politics, schemes, structure, and social classification. How will we classify all of our bookmarked areas so our website will be full of the correct information with an easy browsing system?

Labelling, classification schemes, and cataloging are all parts of organizing information in a way that is useful to all who visit. (Morville & Rosenfeld, p. 54) . Here is my take on how this can be successful, of course, keep in mind I am no expert by any stretch of the imagination, but I have visited quite a few sites and some are just plain crappy. I think we are all on the same page when I say we want ours to be wonderful, so here is my opinion.

Ambiguity and heterogeneity may be good ideas. I thought we had way too many labels on del.icio.us, but this could work towards the ambiguity and heterogeneity on a sub-topic level. Morville & Rosenfeld say "The heterogeneous nature of web sites makes it difficult to impose any single structured organization system on the content." ( p. 56). Classifying all of this information into a main group of topics is going to be the hardest thing to do.

To classify this information on a main topic level, we should look at schemes like the exact organization scheme (Morville & Rosenfeld, p. 59). I know the topic scheme shows under the ambiguous scheme but I think we can use it as an exact also. Since our website will have a more defined aspect than that of, say, Google with its total ambiguous style, the exact organization scheme with some ambiguity included seems to be the best answer. A chronological scheme may also work, but maybe as a subtopic.

I am not sure we need to concern ourselves with task scheme since we will not include a comment section or any interactive aspect. Our audience scheme, per Krista, will start with the University, however these audience schemes break a site into smaller, audience-specific mini-sites which I cannot see a use for yet (Morville & Rosenfeld, p. 65). Metaphors scheme might be fun to play with. As for using multiple schemes (hybrids scheme), except for a few cases, Morville and Rosenfeld state, "...when you start blending elements of multiple schemes, confusion often follows, and solutions are rarely (balanced)" (p. 67).

Organization seems like it will follow right along with whatever scheme we use. Using the top-down approach sounds feasible. "Because hierarchies provide a simple and familiar way to organize information, they are usually a good place to start the information and architechture process" (Morville & Rosenfeld, p. 69). This is where Thinkature was supposed to come in, if it worked, (sorry Krista, but it was a bear!). We have to think about a good balance in breadth and depth: do not give too many options, group info at page level, USER TESTING! (Morville & Rosenfeld, p. 71). Hypertext may work to lead us from a topic to a list of all the subtopics.

Anyway, I feel I have just rambled because, again, this is all new to me until I can use it and apply it. I really cannot wait to see what others are saying and how this thing ends up. My parents are excited, my kids are excited, even my dog, Brutus, wags his tail every time I mention the words "Information Architecture".

Posted by Amber at 12:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Success comes in many forms, shapes and sizes. Most often, success is measured in $ and is vastly business oriented. I, personally, have never found money to be a means to success, nor an accurate measure of success. My reasoning is because it is purely quantitative and lacks the qualitative component to make it viable. There are other measures of success that diminish the singular quality of wealth. Things like happiness, freedom, and control. Now some might say that those are all qualitative and lack the quantitative component and to an extent, they would be right. This is because people compare themselves with other people. They measure success based on others. In this, they become limited and essentially achieve no success at all because they lose their freedom. They are bound to the worry that another might get ahead of them and so they strive to produce more. In this production they essentially waste time out of their limited life which they will never get back and still "end the game" with less then those who have "more" life left. Does this make sense?

So to measure success, we must take into account that our real success is based in the realms that are difficult to measure and that aren't based on a comparison with others. So long as we learn something from this project, we carry away from this course something of immense wealth that is worth far more then numbers can count. Simply knowing that we are supplying others with our knowledge and points of view from as many facts and references as are needed will be sufficiently successful.

Many people believe that happiness is derived from the things that can be purchased, but this is a common misconception. The things we are able to obtain through quantitative measures provide pleasure, but pleasure only lasts as long as our interest holds. Once our interest disolves, we are on to the next item on the list in a never ending cycle to achieve... what? Contentment. Being content with yourself and your situation increases the happiness in your life 10 fold because you are no longer bogged down by the fear associated with losing your place in the "human race".

This is all well and good, but contentment is boring. Life suddenly has little meaning. This is why we further take our contentment with our situation and branch out toward helping others achieve contentment as well. Things like dontating to those in need helps them to not worry about "losing their place" and keeps them sustained.

But in order to help others, we have to help ourselves first right? And to do so we strive to make lots of money right? Well there is nothing wrong with making money so long as we dont use it toward our measure of success. Then the tool works for us rather then the other way around. So, if we help others first and then achieve our contentment, everything else falls in line to help us achieve happiness and success.

Therefore, success is not based on a quantitative measure, but more of a qualitative measure. One that is almost abstract and is very individualized. If we can help the individuals across the globe achieve contentment through our site by finding the proper information easily and enjoyably while learning something in the process, then I feel we've succeeded.

Posted by David S at 09:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

We will know we have succeeded when our goals have been met. That is, we build a media-rich site, we include original, well-researched text, we provide links to primary resources, and we provide audio and video components. From this broad base, ‘success’ can be more clearly laid out as the accomplishment of our sub-topic goals. So, each general goal should be tailored to fit our individual areas. Within each sub-topic, the content should reflect our goal statement, and the sub-topic success can be measured independently from the other sub-topics. There are some additional goals that we should meet that are more general – for instance, our ‘media-rich’ site needs to not only be built, but must function as well. Our search feature should return relevant results, our links and audio/visual files must work, and editable areas should function as designed for users.

Updated note: Okay, reading my post I feel pretty closed off to elaborate thought compared with most of you. Mut, my basic premise is this: the idea of success is so general that defining it can become overly broad...just like we needed to clarify what topics make sense for our project given that we are an STC class, I think it is important to get down to the bare bones of success for our project. A rubric, of sorts, of minimal points which must be addressed outside of our general, individual ideas of what success really is. In completing certain points of the success rubric, I would hope that we would all learn something. For instance, just in selecting our individual topics, we all learned/continued to use del.icio.us - a success, clearly for us as individual students...but not really a point that the success of our final product will be measured against. If we don't clarify a few points to define success for our project, we may never feel like we have succeeded, as clearly the site will continue to morph and grow - and will not reach a traditional end-point.

Posted by brow1769 at 11:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Throughout the past couple of weeks I think that we have successfully implemented our thoughts throughout newer developments including delicious and thinkature. I do believe that the hardest part is over in the beginning phases of development, because just getting the ideas down onto something concrete is half the battle. I feel that the audio file pointed out a huge gray area for the class, which was that our audience was not general and that it was variable. The audience analysis depends on the topics brought about by the concerns and repercussions of the collapse. Although, the collapse of the bridge could affect many people around the country, our wiki will be very successful if we can narrow the focus of the audience. Step one in our success should be accurately narrowing our audience analysis.

The second main focus for success should be shed upon developing task lists. In BrownEtAl, task lists "help you to create a more accurate schedule, and a detailed task list helps to better track the progress of the project." I agree with this 100%. Task lists can always change throughout the course and development of a project, but to get them down in a sequential order is again half the battle. You can map progress with office project or excel which gives you duration time slots which is extremely useful.

The third and main focus for success is putting the wiki together in a usable way on the web so that people that seek out information can easily find it and gather it in a timely fashion. How do we do this? Organizing our information under categories that cater to the cognates of visual rhetoric (emphasis, arrangement, conciseness, clarity, and ethos). Usability.gov claims that 63% of web users don't find the information they need on their first try, and it takes the average person 7 seconds before they give up on the site altogether. If we can develop a website that is pleasing to the eye and user friendly, I think that is success entirely.

Posted by stow0037 at 10:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

I decided to consider the question of success in terms of past work I've done on websites. Generally we gauge the success of a site based on the number of hits it receives. Since attention is the new currency as we have heard in both the books Connect! and Wikinomics, the number of hits a site accumulates directly correlates to the revenue it produces. However, the more I thought about what would constitute success for our wiki the more I believed that it would very from my typical understanding of success.

i think that the wiki will be successful if it accurately presents the plethora of information, regarding the bridge collapse, found on the web. The wiki will no thrive on the number of the people who visit it but rather the number of people who contribute to it. The better we are at adding and organizing information the more successful it will be. If it's only purpose is to help one person understand the true magnitude of the bridge collapse then it will be successful. If each of the 14 of use involved in the course contribute, it will fill that position and be successful.

I'm not sure we will actually know if it is every successful. It is hard to measure it's value to those who visit it. However, we will be able to measure both the quantity and quality of information contained in it. The success will ultimately rest on the quantity and quality of the information we contribute to it and the usability and understanding it will provide to those who visit. While we can measure what we do we will never really know the impact it has on the readers.

Posted by Stephanie V at 10:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I remember in my younger years, I heard the cheer that goes: S-U-C-C-E-S-S That's the way you spell success. Let's gooooooooooooooooooooo! The [team] is the best. Let's goooooooooooooooooooo! They stand out from all the rest. Let's gooooooooooooooooo! Let's go, let's go, let's really go! That may not be much, but something so lighthearted (like a cheer) could really have a lot of meaning.

Krista asked, "What does success look like? Based on what we've said so far about our project goals and plans, how will we know if we've succeeded or not? What specific indicators should we look for?" Take the part of the cheer that says, "They stand out from all the rest." If we have a website about the 35W bridge collapse that stands out from all the rest, we have something that sets us apart. That could be thought of as success. People flock to sites that stand out due to a number of reasons--because it's refreshingly different, because people pass on the word about the site that they remember because it stood out in their mind, and so on.

If you take what was written in the readings this week, it was summarized in Project Planning and Tracking, "Every project needs a project plan. Ideally, project plans need to include the scope, assumptions, requirements, tasks, schedule, and costs for the project. The more detailed your plan, the better you will be able to track your progress as time goes by (Brown et al, 2007, p. 113)" From this, if we completed all the steps of our project plans (scope, assumptions, etc.) and stay on top of it and not lag behind, we'll be successful because we completed all the necessary steps to make the website a reality.

When we are completing our tasks, we have to remember that: "Time is money, and for most projects, the cost of your team's time will be the largest percentage of your expenses. (Brown et al, 2007, p. 107)" I totally agree with that, so we should definitely use our time wisely! If we do, we could accomplish so much more than if we didn't use our time wisely, thus success is closer to our fingertips. Related to time, I was surprised to read, "Whenever two or more people share a task, the total amount of time required to complete that task goes up just a bit because the people involved need to spend additional time coordinating their efforts (Brown et al, 2007, p. 97)" I thought that it would take less time because you have two people instead of one to complete it. Honestly, I thought that it would take 1/2 the time because two people were sharing the task. Nonetheless, there are advantages such as getting a second opinion and the ability to cover more ground or cyberspace rather. They also say "two heads are better than one!"

Regardless if we have a partner for a task or not, we all are a part of a team. I'm not trying to sound like a coach or a cheerleader, but we can do it! If we all complete our work, the website will be on its way to launch into the world wide web. That is the first step of knowing that we succeeded. Let's not stop there. Let's go above and beyond. Let's stand out from the rest (as I mentioned at the beginning). If we stand out, we know people are going to our site. If we have a site that's working--great, we succeeded! If we have a site that's working and heavily hit--great, we really succeeded! Bring in your talents! Search far and broad so that serendipity comes to you! Sometimes I think success is not the definition of others but each individual's definition . . . If we are happy within ourselves and know that our effort was spent wisely (and we didn't waste time as I mentioned time is money earlier), we have succeeded. In the end, I hope everyone is proud of what they have contributed to the site.

In addition, let's not forget about ethics. Chapter 14 of Information Architecture is on the topic of ethics. "The truth is that ethics is one of the many hidden dimensions of information architecture. (Morville & Rosenfeld, 2006, p. 341)" I believe if people do things ethically, with integrity, it goes a long way and those people will go far!

Posted by Hoang-Uyen N. at 09:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)

What does success look like? In contemplating this question, I was rather stunned by the realization that I have very little professional experience to inform my answer. In theory I “collaborate” with others everyday yet neither my teammates nor clients rarely—if ever—pose that question. Given my inexperience, I found the ideas presented in this week’s readings very helpful. The way Brown et al. structure the question of defining success is very constructive. Morville and Rosenfeld offer many specific indicators of quality and pose important ethical questions. Together, they comprise an effective framework with which to measure the success of collaborative projects like the wiki we’re creating for this class.

In their book, Managing Virtual Teams, Brown et al., frame the issue of success by asking “Why are you doing this project?” and “What will be different when you finish the project successfully (Managing 2007 pg. 99)?” Both these questions ask about the purpose of our project: to provide the public with a comprehensive, informative site that focuses on scientific and technical aspects of the bridge collapse. (Thank you Krista for providing the purpose statement!) In addition, everyone probably has academic or personal reasons for taking this class that are also important measures of success but which can be evaluated individually. In my case, for example, I am taking this class to advance my career.

While the first question is more general, the second question leads to specific answers and terms of success. Applied to our class project, my answers would be:
• there will be a new, and hopefully unique, wiki about the scientific and technical aspects of the bridge collapse;
• the wiki will meet our stated goal of being a media-rich site containing original, well-researched text, and direct links to primary resources and media.
Academically and personally, I will have learned about emerging technology by using Web 2.0 applications to participate in the class, write about our reading, and collaborate on the creation of a wiki.

These answers include broad, qualitative terms such as “comprehensive,” “well-researched,” and “media-rich” that are easier to evaluate when they are redefined in more precise and measurable terms. Some of this work is already done:
• “Comprehensive” refers to the breadth of the wiki’s content. The content of our wiki will include the twelve topics we will research individually.
• “Well-researched” could be defined by the same general standards applicable to all University writing and research.
• “Media-rich” implies a mixture of content in various media including video, audio, still images as well as text.

“Informative” is another qualitative aspect that Morville and Rosenfeld suggest many specific ways to define and measure. Applying their principles of good information architecture to our wiki will lay the foundation for an informative site. They discuss various methods of organizing content but argue that good information systems have a cohesive organizational scheme and a structure that enables the user to form a quick “mental map” of the site (Information 2007 pg. 69).

The authors argue that organizational schemes based on topics are most cohesive. Logic is the primary advantage of topical organizational schemes. Topical organization “ … defines the shared characteristics of content items and suggests logical groupings of items (Information 2007 pg. 58).” Topical schemes also define the “universe of content” encompassed by a site, giving users a good idea of what they will find there (Information 2007 pg. 63).

Morville and Rosenfeld recommend top-down organizational structures because they aid users in forming a mental map of a site. Top-down structures anticipate the most likely questions of users including: where am I, what’s important and unique about this site, how do I get around this site, how do I search for what I want, what’s available on this site, what’s happening on this site, and where is the contact information (Information 2007 pg. 44). The top-down structure has the additional advantage of being more familiar to users and simpler to use than systems structured from the bottom-up.

Other characteristics of good organizational structure identified by Morville and Rosenfeld involve taxonomy design and labeling. In their view, the most effective taxonomies are hierarchically structured with content organized in discrete or mutually exclusive categories (Information 2007 pg. 70). Well-designed taxonomies also strike a good balance between exclusivity and inclusivity, the amount of cross-referencing and the breadth and depth of the site (Information 2007 pg. 70). Good labeling systems have the following important characteristics:
• representative of the content they link to or precede
• consistent style, syntax, specificity, comprehensiveness, presentation
• differentiating
• user-centric
• contextual, i.e., meets the user’s expectations not personal associations
• narrow in scope (Information 2007 pg. 98–100)

Finally, I think another important measure of success involves addressing several ethical issues. First, we need to make our site accessible to people with differing physical abilities. Secondly, although our content will not focus on social aspects, I think that in general, our treatment of the subject must be dignified out of respect for those who were injured physically and emotionally by the bridge collapse.

This seems like a daunting list! At the same time, breaking success down into specific indicators makes success seem by far more attainable than lofty-sounding but vague goals. I look forward to applying these new ideas to both the wiki project and my own job.

Sources
Brown, Katherine M., Huettner, Brenda, James-Tanny, Char. Managing Virtual Teams: Getting the Most from Wikis, Blogs, and Other Collaborative Tools. Wordware Publishing, 2007.

Morville, Peter and Rosenfeld, Louis. Information Architecture for the World Wide Web. O’Reilly, 2007.

Posted by sara m at 08:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

How we will know we're successful? I think the best way to approach this is to examine other sites. I'll rely on my old favorite, Metafilter, for inspiration. Now, Metafilter isn't a wiki, and isn't specialized like our site will be, but it's a highly successful community site that draws hundreds of thousands of users. I think we can draw some lessons from the Metafilter model.

First, the navigation is clear, easy to find and simple to navigate. When the site requires participation, the authors have provided thorough, concise directions that guide EVERYONE through, not just those who are familiar with the internet. Second, there's quality control happening, which I think is applicable to our site, as well. Matt Haughey's (Metafilter creator) goal was to gather the "best of the web," and while not everyone agrees, Metafilter has interesting, intelligent content. It's a filter, which is an important concept for us. We don't want every single scrap of 35W information on our site; we want the most accurate and pertinent. I think it can be tempting with sites like this to make an encyclopedia, but I think we serve our audience best if we filter the information.

Metafilter's also successful because everyone has a voice. Now, this is difficult to police, but I think if our audience feels like they can contribute or participate somehow, they'll feel more engaged and more likely to return to the site. Whether this is through editing the wiki or uploading videos or providing additional research, I think audience participation is essential, especially with a topic like this. Disasters feel universal, and if we're especially gearing this to a UMN audience (as suggested in the Moodle), then the site will feel even MORE personal. A wiki, in its purest form (as I understand it), belongs to everyone.

We'll know we're successful when we have a clean, coherent, interesting and engaging product - not just by our standards, but by our visitors', as well. We have an organized task list and game plan - as long we stay focused, we'll have a successful site.

Posted by Jennifer W. at 08:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

It's really difficult for me to explain what success looks like, so I am going talk about what I took from this weeks readings and apply them to our project . To achieve success it is important to start with a plan that includes a purpose and goal to help you get there. The fact is that the Internet is such a largely used tool that it makes it difficult to narrow in on a specific audience. You cannot assume that our audience is going to have the background knowledge for every topic that we cover. It is imperative to provide comprehensive material that is well-researched and accurate. This will include informative text, photos and video and presented in a way that is fun and interesting.

Creating a task list has helped us come up with a plan and now our goal is to effectively organize and present them in an interesting way. The topics we have come up with include: environmental factors, chronology, structural causes of collapse, charities/victim compensation funds, taxation issues, similar collapses in US, internet/citizen journalism, political repercussions, redesign plans, traffic impact and preventative measures. While all of these topics are related to the bridge collapse, they provide a variety of information for each individual interest.

The organization of information is a major factor in determining success. Our audience is variable and not general. There are many different reasons people may seek out our site. We need to organize the information so that the people can find the right answer to their questions. For this reason it should be easy to navigate so that they don't get lost and frustrated. For if people don't get the information that they are looking for they are not likely to return and that would leave us unsuccessful. A piece from the readings that relates to this is "As the Internet provides users with the freedom to publish information it quietly burdens them with the responsibility to organize that information." (Information Architecture, pg. 54). Anyone can create a website, but not everyone can do this successfully. "By recognizing the importance of perspective, by striving to understand the intended audiences through user research and testing, and by providing multiple navigation pathways, you can do a better job of organizing information for public consumption." (Information Architecture, pg. 57).

So to conclude, I feel that every project needs a plan. This will help to ensure that the information is presented in an organized, informative and use-friendly way. By doing so we should be able to achieve success.

Posted by Tracy J at 02:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

What does success look like? I’m not sure, so I’m going to ramble for a bit and see what comes out. I’ve looked at the scope and I’ve looked at the requirements. I’ve got a laptop, a digital camera that can make movies, a digital voice recorder, software, and I’ll have plenty of gumption once I am free of my job in a week. So far—nothing scary. Whew!

To relate this to the readings, I think Morville and Rosenfeld’s best bit of advice is “…it is impossible to create a perfect organizational system. One site does not fit all!” (57). I think it’ll be a good thing to remember because sometimes it can be easy to get wrapped up in the little details and forget the overall goal. I guess that’s the project management part…speaking of which, the Brown chapter on PM was an excellent and easy to follow overview of the process. Most of the info was not new to me—I’ve worked in a logistics department, so I am used to seeing project schedules and assumption and requirement lists, but I’m not so familiar with task list generation.

But the main ideas that jumped out at me this week were consistency and organization. I liked that consistency => predictable systems => easier to learn (99). Users come to expect certain things when they click on certain links and if they don’t get the expected result, it’s confusing.

As for an organization system on the bridge site, I see both exact (chronological, 60) and ambiguous (topic, 63) schemes being used. Chronological because the collapse happened on a specific date and events have occurred since then (rubble clearing, examining rubble for structural defects, bidding new bridge, choosing design, building begins, milestones, etc.).(I also chose chronology as my area in the task list.) Topic because someone might just want to use a “serendipitous mode of information seeking” (62).

In terms of structure, I see a hierarchy being used. The example of breadth and depth on page 71 was a good illustration of what seems to be a fine line between too much clicking and topics spread too far. I don’t think the database model has much use here, so if someone disagrees, please chime in.

I liked how the authors used conversation to describe the interaction, or lack thereof, between users and a website (83) and the purpose of labels, “…information architects must try their best to design labels that speak that same language as a site’s users while reflecting its content…Labels should educate users about new concepts and help them quickly identify familiar ones.”

One last thing, when I was reading the chapter on labeling, I had a sudden flashback to when I worked at National Car Rental about 8 or 9 years ago. I remember sitting in an office with a Perot System’s contractor and a res dept supervisor doing content analysis. At the time, I didn’t know she was an information architect, but after reading this book, I guess that's what she was. Perot Systems was converting a paper-based resource to online help, so she would quiz us about how it was used by the different users, what the sections were, what the topics and subtopics were in the chapters, and so on. She also asked what we thought was missing since the new software was rolled out. She was very thorough and detailed in her questioning—so much so that it began to seem tedious because we just sat there while she typed. Unfortunately, I can’t tell you how it turned out or if it was ever finished since there was some turmoil and movement with the company.

Posted by MichelleJ at 02:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)

The University was contracted to construct a model of the previous 35W bridge to be used in the NTSB investigation. Reports about the model aired on local new shows last night in addition to reports about the debate in the state legislature over transportation funding.

MODEL OF FORMER I-35W BRIDGE, built by civil engineering junior Rachel Gaulke, is being sent to Washington, D.C. today. The 1/200th-scale model will be used by engineers at the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), for various presentations to help visualize and explain information related to the bridge collapse and its causes. NTSB contracted the U to produce the model because of its familiarity with the bridge. The budget for the model was about $6,000, including labor and materials. Read the news release and watch the video on the construction and presentation of the bridge model.

Posted by sara m at 07:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Someone shared this video at a gathering of designers I attended last week. Being more of a right-brained sort of person, I really enjoyed it. Whether you're right-brained or not, however, it is poetically and politically thought-provoking about where the Internet could go:

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/26

Posted by sara m at 03:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

So, I was reading the Star Tribune on Sunday and saw this article about the kids on the schoolbus and life after the 35W bridge collapse. I was really touched by it. The article title (which suits well) is "One day at a time for Waite House kids". I could not imagine what they went through. Nonetheless, this article is full of hope.

http://www.startribune.com/local/15686767.html

I also added it to our del.icio.us

NOTE: You may or may not be able to access the URL/web address via Star Tribune site. I was able to access it without logging in the first time. Thereafter, it asked me to log in.

Posted by Hoang-Uyen N. at 08:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)