Weinberger 9 & 10

Wienberger's continued discussion of messiness, knowledge, and the idea of "collective delusion" got me thinking (again) about our class discussion about wikipedia. I think wikis and similar kinds of online resources can be valuable, however, there is a danger, no matter how many checks and balances the moderators put into place. When I'm searching through sites like these, looking for information of any kind, I try to maintain an awareness of who is engaging in the discussion and why. A good example of this (although admittedly trivial) is ratemyprofessor.com. I have, on occasion, visited the site to try to get a picture of a professor with whom I am not familiar. The problem with a site like ratemyprofessor, however, is that the only people who post are those who hold very strong (and often very biased) opinions about the professor in question. If you consider how many students are actually aware of the existence of the site, how many of those students feel strongly enough to access the site and post an opinion, and how many of those students are presenting completely unbiased information, the reliability of the site itself becomes pretty shaky. 

The same problem, I think, presents itself on the web in general. True, it's become more and more universal...however, any site that presents an opinion, or even information, of any kind, too often represents only a cross-section of public opinion or knowledge. 

Multimedia Letter Design Plan

My audience for this "letter" will be future students of SUNY Potsdam. I am particularly interested in gearing this project towards writing majors of all kinds. My presumption in creating this letter is that students of composition may overlook the similarities between writing for a digital format and more traditional kinds of writing.  

My aim is to encourage students to consider the way in which they communicate digitally: to consider audience, "voice," style, and presentation, just as they would for other kinds of composition. Additionally, I would like to emphasize the new possibilities that digital writing brings to writers, both professionally and creatively.

 

I think it is appropriate to present this information in a way that demonstrates my point; an online presentation will enable me to illustrate the various uses of online writing.

 

I don't think there is a specific medium that would be expected in this situation. I intend to use a powerpoint presentation because it is something that I am familiar with, and that will enable me to keep everything simple and clean. I plan to use powerpoint to house screenshots, links, images, text, and (possibly) video in a manageable format.

I'm still working out my points and arguments, but I think a basic discussion of the uses for online writing, and a continuing discussion/presentation of each of these, will be a logical progression. 

I intend to use mostly visual evidence. I'll seek out a variety of websites targeting a variety of audiences, and use these to illustrate my points. There will be text, but I would like to keep it to a minimum.

I'll strive for conciseness in my communication, and I'll probably opt for a fairly conversational tone.

I think poor grammar, spelling, and mechanics undermines credibility in most communication situations. I'll be very conscious of this as I present my information.  

Weinberger's discussion of the importance of explicitness really hit home with me. I'd love to align myself with those savvy, pulled-together people who ALWAYS catch the implicit rules and signs. However, on "bad" days at least, I can definitely see myself with the Allston crowd, pushing the paper "start" label while ignoring the button next to it. Websites that have "buttons" that are not clearly buttons, or links that are not clearly links, frustrate me. Maybe we're all just getting lazy, but if I'm surfing the interwebs...well..."don't make me think!"

Particularly annoying to me is youtube and its "upload" link. No matter how many times I visit youtube to upload a video (which is fairly frequently), it takes ages (at least, internet "ages") to find that upload link. For the sake of my pride, I'm going to insist that it's strangely and inconveniently located. Here's a screenshot:

this is at the very top of my profile page. Reading from right to left, "upload" is the last item on the list, and this list of links is very small and not very noticeable when compared with the bright colors and giant buttons on the rest of the page. The drop-down list under my username is also completely unhelpful, as it leads to items that are located on that main page anyway. This seems silly, and maybe I'm splitting hairs, but it drives me crazy every time I try to navigate my youtube page. This, I think, illustrates my point. Possibly I should bring my brains when I'm online, but I (apparently) don't always. The internet has made us impatient, and we want websites to do our thinking for us. Good, bad, or indifferent, web designers would be wise to take this into consideration. 

When I first picked up McCloud reading assignment at the library, I was a bit confused. I'd actually read Understanding Comics already, for a graphic novel course I took last summer. I couldn't remember anything in it, though, that had anything to do with this class. As soon as I started reading, however, I began to draw comparisons between the things I'd learned about comics and their design/purpose and the ideas we've been looking at in class. 

I especially enjoyed the idea of comics being an art, a medium, and a "vessel which can hold any number of ideas and images." I think this holds true for graphic design and webpages as well. I think it is valuable to look at graphic design as an artform, and content as being "up to creators, and we all have different tastes." This is something I've been pondering for a bit this semester: what is the relation between form/content and art? That is to say, I'm sure there must be a line drawn somewhere between the need for efficiency and utilitarian style in a website or graphic design, but where does art come in? Must form always follow function, or can the form itself be the function?

Multimedia Musings

     I, obviously, saw a wide variety of multimedia elements in the websites we looked at on Thursday. Some of them were highly effective, some seemed not so effective, while others were just fun. I thought it was interesting to look at the ways in which multimedia was used to achieve specific, but different, goals, depending on the purpose of the website. At the same time, even the  merely “fun” multimedia elements are used for such practical purposes as initial attraction and increased traffic for the website. I noticed that many of the websites had opening pages that said “enter here” or some variation on that idea. I encounter this pretty frequently on the internet, and it’s an interesting phenomenon. It would seem like the extra clicking and time it takes to access the main page of the website would be a bad thing, at least as far as web design and efficiency are concerned. I think, though, that this is a purposed and well thought out rhetorical device. The invitation to “enter” a website cements the idea of it being a physical, tangible place. The multimedia presented on the “enter here” page is purely for attraction purposes. It acts as a storefront, of sorts. Merchants put a good amount of planning into the design of a storefront, because it attracts customers and gives them a taste of what is inside. I noticed this same principle being used for websites. The multimedia on the “enter” page was always something fun and attractive, and it hinted at the website content. 

     I think this use of multimedia is effective for some, but not all, kinds of websites. I presume that websites with more specific content, and a more direct, frequent user base, would not find the excess multimedia on the “enter” page to be necessary. It may be annoying to users, and detracts from the all-around efficiency and usability of the page. Additionally, the flashy effects probably do require an advanced designer. 

As I was reading the last bit of Don't Make Me Think, I was thinking (ironically enough) about the website Dr. Springsteen showed us in class not long ago, "Goop." I personally, am very attracted to the design of this website. After seeing it in class, I immediately found it for myself and started exploring. I also have played with the idea of making my coursework website similar in appearance, but it may take more savvy-ness than I currently have. 

While reading Don't Make Me Think, however, I began to notice that GOOP probably doesn't fall in line with Krug's recommendations. I still find GOOP very attractive, though, and I think it's navigable and it does hold my attention. 

Here's a screenshot of the main page for GOOP:

It doesn't explain itself (except for the "by Gwyneth Paltrow" part...maybe the addition of a familiar name makes the website instantly "familiar?"). The navigation tools aren't very illuminating (you don't know what you're clicking until you click). Generally speaking, the purpose of the website is entirely unclear. 

 Maybe it is trying to reach a specific audience...an audience that I clearly am a part of, because, as I said, I really like this website, and I was initially attracted to it because of its homepage.

I'm not saying I necessarily disagree with Krug, but perhaps his ideas of web design are confined to a specific kind of website for a particular audience. 

Again, I'm not exactly certain of the target audience for GOOP, besides people like me who get excited by pretty colors and a simplistic design, but it seems as though Krug has very specific ideas about websites as they relate to businesses and marketing. Perhaps other kinds of websites should be granted more lee-way, and room for creativity, to reach their specific audience.

Don't Make Me Think

I knew I'd like this book as soon as I saw the title. I wasn't disappointed, Steve Krug presents a lot of valuable information in a way that is accessible and fun. Reading the first half of this book got me thinking about different websites I've visited that have been frustrating. Websites that aren't easily navigable are annoying, I think Krug is absolutely right. Additionally, I think it's very useful to think of a website as a billboard. I know that when I go to a website, I almost never read the entire content. Unless I'm specifically looking for something to read (like a blog), I won't read over a line or two on a website. 

Krug's talk of newspapers, especially, reminded me of some frustrating experiences I've had with the NY Times website. Obviously, it's the NY Times, so a person who visits the website will probably be more into the idea of reading the content than not. However, every time I have visited that site, I've found it extremely difficult to navigate. Usually I'm searching for something in particular, and the amount of information on the main page is overwhelming. Also, the text is all very similar, so although it's broken up by category, it's difficult to scan. I decided to take a look at the website for USA Today, to compare. The layout of the page may not be as cool and savvy-looking as the NY Times website, however, I found it much more searchable, and less intimidating. 

In The Non-Designer's Design Book, Robin Williams makes the case for attractive and exciting, in advertising, as opposed to bland and boring. Obviously, effective advertising is an essential component for any successful business. I appreciate the fact that Williams wrote this book for people who need to use advertising strategies on a daily basis, but who may not know the first thing about graphic design or marketing technique (or even good taste!). I was impressed at her "nuts and bolts" approach, and her practical advice concerning the real-life application of design principles. 

I decided to do a little web-searching to find other design "tutorials" and see how they measure up. There seem to be some excellent online resources for this type of thing, but there are also some that fall short. My favorite is turnkeyflyers.com. I initially found this youtube video, in which the argument is made that creating an exciting and attractive flyer for real estate purposes should be a priority. If your flyer is bland, they say, it will have a negative affect on your business. True enough. Here's the video:

 

My initial response to this video was, "wow, this is boring and bland," but I assumed their area of expertise is in making exciting flyers, not thrilling videos. So I decided to click on the link to the actual website for TurnKeyFlyers. This is what I found:

Not only is this website boring and bland, it also violates several of the basic design principles in Williams' book. I was especially amused at the irony of their preaching versus their practice. TurnKeyFlyers might consider revamping their website, before making heady claims about "presentation."

     I think Weinberger does an excellent job of laying out the pros/cons of our traditional methods of classification. Obviously, the Dewey Decimal System is error prone and, in the grand scheme of things, doesn't make much sense. I was interested to read about the practices of most libraries in Europe, in which the stacks are closed off, and the librarians must fetch the book for you. I assume this method has been utilized in at least some American libraries in the past, because there's a scene in Breakfast at Tiffany's in which Paul Varjak takes Holly Golightly to the library and shows her how to request a book. I was always intrigued by this idea, although I'm still in two minds about it. I've always loved to wander through the stacks in the library, and if I'm there for recreational purposes, then I usually don't have a particular book in mind. As a child, I would often choose books based mainly on their appearance, and I enjoyed finding the "prettiest" books in the stacks. This is some of the charm, in my opinion, of a library. The alternative may be more efficient, but until libraries can come up with a more sophisticated search method, the stacks should probably remain open. The possibility of a more sophisticated way of searching, however, is become more and more real, as is evident from the discussion of various online classification systems in Everything is Miscellaneous. Amazon's search/classification system is, it seems, highly efficient, and also has the advantage of being visual. The "search inside this book" feature is also useful, and gives the customer the ability to really "see" the book, beyond a thumbnail view of the front cover.  

     One of my favorite websites to visit is Etsy. I like it because of its content, obviously, but also because it is easily navigable and searchable, if I'm looking for something specific. At the same time, if I feel like browsing, I can do so by a variety of methods. My favorite browsing method is the color search, which allows me to find anything on the site that comes in the particular shade I'm looking for. Etsy is reliant on a good deal of cross-categorization, and the vendors on the site are able to control how their product is presented, and where. 

 

The first two chapters of Weinberger's Everything is Miscellaneous were really interesting (and not just because they provided me with fun new vocabulary words like "antialphabeticist"). I've never really considered carefully the methods we use for sorting. I tend to be a "sorter" and an "arranger," but I've never tried to figure out the method to my madness, it's just something I do.

I've always accepted alphabetical order as the "scien

tific" way of doing things, but I really don't know why. I rarely arrange things alphabetically for my own use. When I sort, I do so according to importance, frequency of use, etc.. What I like so much about my own exclusive corners of the internet, is that I can arrange them in ways that make sense to me. When I open my browser, my homepage is iGoogle. It looks like this:

                                                                                                                                                               Arranging items to suit my needs/habits is easy enough, all I have to do is drag them around. I find myself changing things up frequently, depending on my current needs. Google reader is almost always located at the top right, because it's what I check most frequently. The window for Gmail is closed because I forward emails to my Mac Mail, and read them there. I still keep the Gmail window, though, because sometimes Mac Mail doesn't work and I like my account to be easily accessible. Weather, a calendar, and news headlines are prominently positioned, as well, while the distracting stuff (like Youtube, iTunes, and the NY Times crossword) are labeled as "less important," by me, but still visible.