Wiki Architecture
In Moreville and Rosenfeld's book Information Architecture for the World Wide Web, the chapter on "Practicing Information Architecture" fits well with what we are doing with Flickr. Their Venn diagram shows "...three circles (which) illustrate the interdependent nature of users, content, and context within a complex, adaptive information (relationship)" (p. 24). The diagram can help us see there should be no limitations when researching a topic on the web.
In regards to Context, Flickr can help put a company into perspective. Flickr can help display the work this company has done. For instance, I tried to pull up any Flickr pictures for Flat Iron Construction on previous works they did. Because I had to follow Creative Commons rules I could find only a few shoddy pictures of one bridge, finding good pictures would have been very helpful in our wiki. Pictures are worth a thousand words (sorry for the cliché) and would give our readers a sense of who this corporation is by seeing exactly what works they have created.
In regards to Content, if I am correct, this would apply to data only and certain documents may not be a good idea to keep on Flickr. However, a use may arise in the near virtual future.
Lastly, Users are the backbone of any company. I would think that a company would want to get its "face" out there, wherever "there" may be. Works they have done, the people they have helped, the people who work for them.
These circles show, in our changing world, we can still relate to each other on a personal and professional level. We have been learning how to do this all semester with Twitter, del.icio.us, and our wiki. Adding Flickr to that equation only enhances a virtual relationship for anyone working in our "neo-techno shift" (I just hadda use it).
Comments
But it's not a cliché: pictures are worth a thousand words. A number of years ago, I ran across a study about how readers read information. The majority of readers look to pictures and visual information first most of the time. I wish I could remember the exact statistic because it was surprising. It certainly gave me a new perspective on the importance of visual information: it's just as if not more important than the words. Which also supports the interrelationships you're talking about between content, context and user. Conveying information is necessarily complex. Given its importance to the reader in capturing information, indicates that we should place a priority on choosing a using graphics wisely in our wiki. You've inspired me to hunt down that study so I can find the precise numbers.... thanks.
Sara
Posted by: Sara | April 5, 2008 09:24 AM
Hello Amber, it's great that you brought up the Venn diagram with the three circles because that diagram is 'graphics' and thus a picture. The diagram definitely illustrates that "there should be no limitations when researching a topic on the web" and helps us understand better what we would have to understand with only words. When you had mentioned companies wanting to get their "face" out there, I thought about company ads and how I would say 99.9% use graphics/pictures for their advertisements (I've never seen or remember seeing an ad with just text and no pictures). Therefore, graphics/pics play a big role in getting a company's face out there. Thanks for your post!
Posted by: Hoang-Uyen N. | April 5, 2008 08:46 PM
Your use of the Flat Iron Construction example made a really good point and gave a good example of using our wiki better. The idea of using Flickr for documents seem scary to me right now but I do think you are right, we are going to see that in the future, probably the near future.
I have never considered Flickr as a marketing tool but I think it has a really great practical application for that use. I can think of several instances personally where I could use Flickr to increase brand visibility. However, when this topic comes up I'm always curious how we know where to draw the line professionally. When do we cross the line between being innovative and being too visible? I worry that using too many Web 2.0 applications can make a company look desperate for attention or too focused on getting out and not focusing on their content.
Posted by: Stephanie V | April 6, 2008 08:12 AM