Everyone talks about interactivity on the web, reckoning it to be just about the most important thing about a website; but what exactly is it, how important is it, and how do I get it?
The World Wide Web by its very nature has always been interactive in that it involves computers ‘talking’ to each other, but interactivity must mean more than that. Outside the cyber world, social scientists have always talked about interaction and interactivity; it is the basis of sociology, anthropology, economics and many other disciplines. In the real world, interactivity is simply the process of people interacting with one another; human interaction. This meaning seems to be more and more becoming the meaning of interactivity on the internet. People use instant messaging services and chat rooms to interact in real time either in or across cyberspace, and are increasingly using web pages in similar ways.
The basic level of interactivity on a web page that differentiates websites from static media such as books and magazines is the email link. You click the link and, hey presto, your email client opens with the address already in and all you have to do is type your message, click your mouse and you have sent a message to the website owner. That, however, seems very basic. The next step from that, and possibly the most common form of interactivity on websites is the email form. You fill in all the fields and click send, and an email has been sent to the website owner without the need to open your email client. For most users this is little different to the previous method, but it is more inclusive. Anyone using a computer can send a message even if away from their own computer and thus their email program. I recognise that this is less of s step forward than it seems as many people use online email programs such as yahoo mail and hotmail. I suppose all of these things are interactive but only in terms of being given the capacity to send someone an electronic letter.
The concept of interactivity in the media began in the1980s with interactive books. By making choices at specific points the reader determined the course of the story, and this concept has been developed and is the basis of many modern console and PC games. The human being is no longer a passive recipient of the messages from the artefact but plays an active part in shaping those messages. The thinking behind this aspect of interactivity is the reason why modern computers for home and small business use are all built to an open architecture (i.e. the owner of the computer can install whatever programs she likes, and customise the computer as she sees fit). In terms of electronic goods this is unique. Try to imagine an open architecture DVD player or radio; it isn’t possible. Many of the things we refer to as interactivity are just that; the capacity to actively interact with the machine. Using the dark arts of advanced web technologies, webmasters create a space where we can run through simulations of specific activities with choices at different points (just as in video games), and this can provide a very rewarding and active user experience.
In other words there is the idea of human-machine interaction.
The other key element is human-human interaction through the computer by leveraging the power of the World Wide Web. This is evidenced by the development of Web 2.0; a world of machines constantly talking to each other on our behalf as we conduct debates and discussions the social networking sites.
I am still not sure what interactivity means, but it all seems very worthwhile, and I am sure it helps with my online shopping. I know it is studied academically, and I know that it is a buzzword in the world of web developers, but as a social scientist that designs websites, I can’t help thinking that interactivity is the capacity of some websites to allow people, in the very broadest sense, to do stuff, rather than just read and look at the pictures.
Saturday 21 February 2009
Web 2.0: an idea not a look
As a web designer I have often been asked to produce something Web 2.0. It is at this point that I start to get depressed. Web 2.0 seems to have become a mantra for modernity on the web for those who have little understanding of the inexact arts of web development. Do I at this point begin to discuss SOAP, HTTP requests and the finer points of web services? Not if I want the contract I don’t. It is at this point that I have to fish for what the client actually means. Nine times out of ten he or she (usually he – female clients tend to be much more to the point) then tells me about such and such a website with rounded corners and that special sort of blue colour, and can he have one that looks a bit like that.
This brings us to the crux of the matter. Hot air in copious quantities has been said and written about Web 2.0, and most of it is at best confusing. As one delves into the bowels of the internet to try and grasp the elusive meaning of Web 2.0, it all becomes terribly confusing. Some suggest that a concept it has no meaning at all, as it employs exactly the same technology as Web 1.0. However, the general consensus would seem to be that Web 2.0 refers to the rapid growth of web services and the explosion of many-to-many publishing sites.
It would appear that there are two distinct elements to Web 2.0. Firstly, we witnessed the widespread development of interactive technologies such as blogs, wikis, social bookmarking, and web services, fuelled by enhanced hardware both in terms of higher spec computers for the end user and the rapid development of broadband. This in turn led to an increasing propensity for computers to ‘talk’ to each other in ever more sophisticated ways. For business this has meant an increasing capacity to share data with relative ease and for individuals the exponential growth of online social networking. The reality of Web 2.0 is probably that it is an idea rather than a tangible set of technologies we can point to. It is the idea of a more interactive internet. If Web 1.0 can be seen as analogous to a magazine or a brochure, then Web 2.0 is better seen as a conversation or a workplace.
Somehow, in all this, some people appear to think that Web 2.0 has a specific ‘look’, and that perception seems to revolve around the idea of rounded corners, even though sites such as MySpace and Facebook tend to have a decidedly rectangular look. The growth of rounded corners is less to do with Web 2.0, and much more to do with the transition from table-based websites to CSS styling, allowing web designers greater overall freedom including the capacity to provide small background images for elements of their sites; creating rounded corners. And then of course there is Web 3.0.
This brings us to the crux of the matter. Hot air in copious quantities has been said and written about Web 2.0, and most of it is at best confusing. As one delves into the bowels of the internet to try and grasp the elusive meaning of Web 2.0, it all becomes terribly confusing. Some suggest that a concept it has no meaning at all, as it employs exactly the same technology as Web 1.0. However, the general consensus would seem to be that Web 2.0 refers to the rapid growth of web services and the explosion of many-to-many publishing sites.
It would appear that there are two distinct elements to Web 2.0. Firstly, we witnessed the widespread development of interactive technologies such as blogs, wikis, social bookmarking, and web services, fuelled by enhanced hardware both in terms of higher spec computers for the end user and the rapid development of broadband. This in turn led to an increasing propensity for computers to ‘talk’ to each other in ever more sophisticated ways. For business this has meant an increasing capacity to share data with relative ease and for individuals the exponential growth of online social networking. The reality of Web 2.0 is probably that it is an idea rather than a tangible set of technologies we can point to. It is the idea of a more interactive internet. If Web 1.0 can be seen as analogous to a magazine or a brochure, then Web 2.0 is better seen as a conversation or a workplace.
Somehow, in all this, some people appear to think that Web 2.0 has a specific ‘look’, and that perception seems to revolve around the idea of rounded corners, even though sites such as MySpace and Facebook tend to have a decidedly rectangular look. The growth of rounded corners is less to do with Web 2.0, and much more to do with the transition from table-based websites to CSS styling, allowing web designers greater overall freedom including the capacity to provide small background images for elements of their sites; creating rounded corners. And then of course there is Web 3.0.
Web Design – the benefits of simplicity
As the internet has grown to become a mega-network of millions of computers across the whole world, the world wide web of internet sites has grown with it. There are web sites for every conceivable interest, in a multitude of styles. At the most basic level all websites are trying to achieve the same thing. Whether the site is a family blog, the shop-front of an online retailer, or a social networking site such as Facebook or MySpace, they are all attempting to tell the viewer what the author wants to say. To use the obvious analogy, they are all trying to sell something; either goods and services or ideas and thoughts.
The look of any website will depend on what it is trying to ‘sell’. A website selling building materials to the construction industry needs a very different appearance to a political blog or a site promoting a rock band. They do, however, share one thing. They have to get the message across. There are situations where getting that message across means that the website needs to be at the cutting edge with a complex interplay of sounds and graphics, but in the vast majority of cases simplicity is the watchword. However much the temptation is to produce sites with beautiful Flash intros and rollover images, we need to remember that the web is in essence a text-based medium, and that content is everything. However cleverly we try to get the message across is of no avail if there is no message. I am not advocating a world wide web of vanilla sites that look like poorly formatted word documents, but suggesting that web sites should be simple and easy to navigate; with clear content that actually says what the author wants it to say. Here are some simple rules:
- All content to be in text; i.e. none of the content should be graphical; the graphics are there to embellish the look of the site not impart information.
The navigation should be text-based. Using CSS means we can produce highly attractive and stylish navigation without the need for images. - The structure of the page should be clear and conventions such as underlining for hyperlinks should not be overridden unless it is obvious to the user without explanation.
- The site should use an appropriate colour palette avoiding any shimmering effects that could be detrimental to some users, such as those with photo-sensitive epilepsy.
- The typography of the page should pay due account to what fonts users will tend to have on their computers, so stick font families that are part of the default font sets for Windows, Mac and Linux. Also ensure that the font colour is readable against the background for people with colour blindness.
These are important for several reasons. Any graphical text will not be recognised by screen readers thus excluding some users of the site. Limiting the graphics on a page decreases its bandwidth and thus the loading time. This reduces the possibility of users with slower browsers getting frustrated and leaving your site before you have had the opportunity to give them your message. Most importantly, a simple, well laid-out site gives the user a comfortable browsing experience, increasing the possibility of a return visit. Following these rules enhances your capacity to get your message across. I am not suggesting that websites should be entirely devoid of graphical content. There is a place for the judicious use of CSS to provide background images to elements of the page, and photographs and other graphics can form an integral part of the content of a page. The key issue is that although graphics can enhance the experience, the key element of a website is the text.
Qualitative Research
Although it is well understood in academic circles, a large number of clients (and even a number of commercial social researchers) I have worked with have only a tenuous grasp on the concept of qualitative data collection and analysis. As far as data collection is concerned, most clients are fairly happy with the idea of in-depth interviews or focus groups, for example, yet when it comes to the analysis, they have a tendency to ask for the figures. It is at this point that I have to explain that there are no figures; the analysis is qualitative. This can often lead a lot of head scratching and furrowed brows, and comments such as “Well, it’s just hearsay”, or “How does that tell us anything?” So, what is the point of qualitative analysis, and what can it tell us?
Firstly, what it can’t tell us is how much, how many, who or when; that is statistical data derived from quantitative data collection and analysis, such as surveys and audits. What qualitative data tell us is why, how and what the particular research object means to the respondent. The most powerful use of qualitative methods on commercial social research is either alongside quantitative techniques, or when the statistical evidence is already known. If the quantitative data represents the skeleton of an answer to the research questions, qualitative data gives it flesh. Once we have established with the client that the figures come from a different source and the focus group or the interviews are about the meaning of the research object, the next question is “How do you know they were telling the truth, or if they have made a mistake?” That is the biggest question of all and the answer is “I don’t”. Without exclusive access into the head of another person it is impossible to know if they are telling the truth. More prosaically, they may be telling the truth as they see it but be mistaken. This leads clients to then question the value of qualitative research, feeling that there is no ‘scientific’ element to it. But they are wrong.
Qualitative research can be as rigorous as quantitative research. Take the example of in-depth interviews. The researcher uses a basic script or aide-memoire to ensure that all the pertinent tissues are discussed with the respondent, but the respondent is allowed to ‘ramble’ to a limited extent as he or she may then introduce other pertinent issues that the researcher had not thought of. These issues then enter the script and are used when interviewing the next respondent. This tends to ensure that all issues are dealt with in the data collection. The analysis of the data begins immediately upon completion of the first interview. The researcher develops a series of themes and perspectives that can be best thought of as mini-theories about the issues being researched. After each interview he or she reviews and amends those themes and perspectives, and possibly adds new ones. At some point during the process, it becomes clear that now new ideas are coming from the interviews. This is the signal to the researcher that all the issues have been explored and the interview process can end. He or she then goes back through the collected data and his or her themes and perspectives and comes up with the final analysis.
Back to the issue of truth. Max Weber (1863 to 1920) basically stated that unless we know that someone is lying we must assume that they are telling the truth, and in some ways all social research depends upon that commonsense idea. In a more refined way, it would be nonsensical to believe that 20 or 30 people would all tell the same set of lies to the researcher. In our own practice we do however, part from Weber on this issue to some extent. From experience we can tell if we have a rogue respondent, as they will project a series of answers and ideas that are completely at odds with those of the other respondents. This can actually create something of an ethical dilemma in some cases. If, for example, the respondents are workers within a specific project, it could alert us to the fact that one individual is at odds with the team. We cannot report this to the client as it would be a breach of confidentiality, but we need to report in a generic way that there may be an issue, using phrases such as ‘a small minority of respondents felt that..”
To sum up, qualitative research is valid and useful in its own right or as part of a mixed methods approach with quantitative research, as it gives us insights into the meanings of specific objects or activities, but it is the job of quantitative research to come up with the numbers.
Firstly, what it can’t tell us is how much, how many, who or when; that is statistical data derived from quantitative data collection and analysis, such as surveys and audits. What qualitative data tell us is why, how and what the particular research object means to the respondent. The most powerful use of qualitative methods on commercial social research is either alongside quantitative techniques, or when the statistical evidence is already known. If the quantitative data represents the skeleton of an answer to the research questions, qualitative data gives it flesh. Once we have established with the client that the figures come from a different source and the focus group or the interviews are about the meaning of the research object, the next question is “How do you know they were telling the truth, or if they have made a mistake?” That is the biggest question of all and the answer is “I don’t”. Without exclusive access into the head of another person it is impossible to know if they are telling the truth. More prosaically, they may be telling the truth as they see it but be mistaken. This leads clients to then question the value of qualitative research, feeling that there is no ‘scientific’ element to it. But they are wrong.
Qualitative research can be as rigorous as quantitative research. Take the example of in-depth interviews. The researcher uses a basic script or aide-memoire to ensure that all the pertinent tissues are discussed with the respondent, but the respondent is allowed to ‘ramble’ to a limited extent as he or she may then introduce other pertinent issues that the researcher had not thought of. These issues then enter the script and are used when interviewing the next respondent. This tends to ensure that all issues are dealt with in the data collection. The analysis of the data begins immediately upon completion of the first interview. The researcher develops a series of themes and perspectives that can be best thought of as mini-theories about the issues being researched. After each interview he or she reviews and amends those themes and perspectives, and possibly adds new ones. At some point during the process, it becomes clear that now new ideas are coming from the interviews. This is the signal to the researcher that all the issues have been explored and the interview process can end. He or she then goes back through the collected data and his or her themes and perspectives and comes up with the final analysis.
Back to the issue of truth. Max Weber (1863 to 1920) basically stated that unless we know that someone is lying we must assume that they are telling the truth, and in some ways all social research depends upon that commonsense idea. In a more refined way, it would be nonsensical to believe that 20 or 30 people would all tell the same set of lies to the researcher. In our own practice we do however, part from Weber on this issue to some extent. From experience we can tell if we have a rogue respondent, as they will project a series of answers and ideas that are completely at odds with those of the other respondents. This can actually create something of an ethical dilemma in some cases. If, for example, the respondents are workers within a specific project, it could alert us to the fact that one individual is at odds with the team. We cannot report this to the client as it would be a breach of confidentiality, but we need to report in a generic way that there may be an issue, using phrases such as ‘a small minority of respondents felt that..”
To sum up, qualitative research is valid and useful in its own right or as part of a mixed methods approach with quantitative research, as it gives us insights into the meanings of specific objects or activities, but it is the job of quantitative research to come up with the numbers.
Community Development and a Community Development approach to Service Provision
Community development has been seen as emphasizing self-help, mutual support, the building up of neighbourhood integration, the development of neighbourhood capacities for problem-solving and self-representation, and the promotion of collective action to bring a community's preferences to the attention of political decision-makers. However, community development and community development work are concepts that can be hard to narrowly define. However, community development is probably best seen as …an occupation (both paid and unpaid) which aims to build active and influential communities based on justice, equality and mutual respect (Community Development Exchange (CDX))
CDX go on to make clear the purposes of community development work and what it means in practice. Community development work is done in ways which challenge oppression and tackle inequalities. It involves changing the relationships between ordinary people and people in positions of power, so that everyone can take part in the issues that affect their lives.
Community development work involves working with communities to; identify their strengths, needs, rights and responsibilities, plan, organise and take action, and assess the effect of any actions taken. It also involves working with agencies to increase their capacity to understand and work with communities.
Terms such as ‘community development’, ‘community capacity building’ and ‘community involvement’ are similar in the sense that they can all refer to processes of helping community members develop skills and confidence so that they can have more influence on the issues that affect their lives. However, terms such as 'community involvement', 'community participation' and 'community engagement' usually refer to attempts to encourage communities to get involved in the work of an outside agency or organisation. This type of work is more likely to start with the needs or targets of the agency, rather than the needs of the community. Community development is different to other community-related work because it involves a commitment to; starting with the issues which people in communities identify as being important to them, rather than starting with the issues that an outside agency wants to tackle, helping people understand why the issues they want to tackle have come about, and why some groups have more power or resources than others, and working towards changes which reduce inequality and poverty.
Taking a community development approach requires being committed to; collective working (working together towards common goals, forming networks and making connections to help people collaborate and come together in groups), equality and justice (challenging discrimination and working alongside those who are powerless, and raising awareness about inequality and how things can be changed) learning and reflecting (recognising that everyone has skills and knowledge, and learning from mistakes as well as successes), participation (helping individuals to get involved and sharing power throughout communities, and increasing people’s influence over decisions which affect their lives), political awareness (raising awareness of communities’ concerns, and linking local concerns to the bigger picture), and sustainability (working with and investing in the capacity of people and groups so that change lasts, and using environmental resources responsibly).
At a practical level we have involved ourselves in community development in the course of our evaluation work, primarily by involving local people in the data collection and data analysis process.
CDX go on to make clear the purposes of community development work and what it means in practice. Community development work is done in ways which challenge oppression and tackle inequalities. It involves changing the relationships between ordinary people and people in positions of power, so that everyone can take part in the issues that affect their lives.
Community development work involves working with communities to; identify their strengths, needs, rights and responsibilities, plan, organise and take action, and assess the effect of any actions taken. It also involves working with agencies to increase their capacity to understand and work with communities.
Terms such as ‘community development’, ‘community capacity building’ and ‘community involvement’ are similar in the sense that they can all refer to processes of helping community members develop skills and confidence so that they can have more influence on the issues that affect their lives. However, terms such as 'community involvement', 'community participation' and 'community engagement' usually refer to attempts to encourage communities to get involved in the work of an outside agency or organisation. This type of work is more likely to start with the needs or targets of the agency, rather than the needs of the community. Community development is different to other community-related work because it involves a commitment to; starting with the issues which people in communities identify as being important to them, rather than starting with the issues that an outside agency wants to tackle, helping people understand why the issues they want to tackle have come about, and why some groups have more power or resources than others, and working towards changes which reduce inequality and poverty.
Taking a community development approach requires being committed to; collective working (working together towards common goals, forming networks and making connections to help people collaborate and come together in groups), equality and justice (challenging discrimination and working alongside those who are powerless, and raising awareness about inequality and how things can be changed) learning and reflecting (recognising that everyone has skills and knowledge, and learning from mistakes as well as successes), participation (helping individuals to get involved and sharing power throughout communities, and increasing people’s influence over decisions which affect their lives), political awareness (raising awareness of communities’ concerns, and linking local concerns to the bigger picture), and sustainability (working with and investing in the capacity of people and groups so that change lasts, and using environmental resources responsibly).
At a practical level we have involved ourselves in community development in the course of our evaluation work, primarily by involving local people in the data collection and data analysis process.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
