INFORMATION AND ATTENTION (concept 33)
“In the era of the ‘attention economy’, readers and users of Internet information must be carefully craft, in their own minds, the kind of metadata which will – almost instinctively – ‘fit’ with the metadata of the information sources they want, so that – in the few brief moments of initial exchange, when a seeker of information encounters information being sought, rapid, effective judgments are made that ‘pay off’ in terms of further reading, accessing and saving… In other words, there is a critical moment when an exchange takes place of metadata from the web (whether ‘explicit’ – as in the title, or even within the website’s own HTML, rendered via a search engine’s relevance ranking, or ‘implicit’ – the intuitive look and feel of a source) and the metadata of the reader’s purpose and goals. If there is a ‘match’ then the information is likely to be accessed more fully.” (Curtin University 2008 )
The first thing that an internet site must do to gain attention is to be found, this in turn calls for search engine optimization – just to ensure the site makes it to the starting blocks of the attention race. Google offer tools that can be used to analyze how well this is being achieved. It is also important to ensure that a site adheres to design best practice by prioritizing usability. Examples of such best practice rules include “eliminating unnecessary elements such as graphics that take a long time to download and introductory splash pages that force a viewer to watch a video or animation” (Taub 2006)
Once the user arrives at the site, the focus shifts to retaining their attention. Research has found a majority of Internet users initially scan websites for just 30 seconds before deciding whether to read further. So a site must get it’s message across in this time, or the user will very likely move to another site. In response, online communicators increasingly need to employ tools that retain the attention of fickle and time poor users. Newsfeeds, alerts and recommendation engines form part of an “implicit web” which Alex Iskold explains is “all about the value that will accrue to an Internet user when their every action is tracked, recorded, and used to provide value back to that user”. Key to leveraging this idea is relevancy. Providing relevant content captures the user’s attention and encourages them to spend longer on the site, so collecting data about the preferences of the audience and combining it with recommendation engine technology can be a powerful tool; (Iskold 2007; Nielsen 1997)
The question for users is whether the value added by this technology, can offset concerns about security and privacy. There is the potential to cross the line between being intuitive and being intrusive. It comes down to how this is managed; those wanting to leverage profile data must operate carefully to gain their audience’s trust (and therefore their data). Advanced users increasingly understand this and want to be in a position of control and ownership of their own data. Opportunities also exist around portability of profile data. If a user is able to create an online identity that contains their full profile once, and then retrieve it to apply when they visit other sites, this has value to a time and attention poor user community as well as the owners of the sites they visit.
A notable organization addressing these issues is Attention Trust whose mandate is to advocate consumer rights and ownership of attention information. As their website states, they do so based on 4 key four principles:
“1. Property – You own your attention and can store it wherever you wish. You have CONTROL.
2. Mobility – You can securely move your attention wherever you want whenever you want to. You have the ability to TRANSFER your attention.
3. Economy – You can pay attention to whomever you wish and receive value in return. Your attention has WORTH.
4. Transparency – You can see exactly how your attention is being used. You can DECIDE who you trust”
In addition to these issues, to be truly effective in capturing attention, any use of profiling needs to be executed extremely well (or not at all). “Given that consumers are pressed for time, have short attention spans, and plenty of choice, sites that ensure they have well designed and tested algorithms in place in order to discern preferences and intent correctly are likely to be much more successful than those that attempt to apply the technology but do so poorly or fail to test” If the process becomes too hard or time consuming, or returns false results then the attention is lost and the user disengages, moving on to a competitor site that does it better. (Iskold 2007)
(501 words)
“Forget money; recognition is the new motive force. We’re happy to be paid in attention, social recognition.” (Horning 2006)
This article examines the reasons why, and the way in which captured attention translates to increased influence. Through examination of the motives that drive phenomena such as blogging and social networking, he discusses current issues where ‘attention’ data and information that could (or should) have a commercial value, are paid for instead with flattery and focused (deliberately) by advertisers and marketers toward the demographic group who respond most readily and naively to validation – teens. The article deals with the opportunities, risks and problems associated with the monitoring and capturing of information and discusses the current role of ‘Attention Economy’, as well as providing future speculation.
(108 words)
“As we rush through life and a myriad of web pages, we leave traces. We don’t have time to think deeply about any of this. The blogs that we visit, the music we listen to, the movies we watch; we take all of them for granted. Yet, all of the different kinds of information that we interact with define us. In turn, we change the world by issuing a verdict of what we like and what we do not like. Sometimes explicitly via bookmarking, rating and digging. But most often, implicitly.” (Iskold, 2007)
“If someone is going to spy on you, it’s probably best if its you.” (Wilson, 2006)
This article is written by Alex Iskold and published on the site Read, Write, Web. The author has written a number of articles dealing with ‘The Attention Economy’ and focuses here on the concept of ‘Implicit Web’. This article is a combination of opinion, research and quoted references. Iskold explains the term ‘Implicit Web’, how it works and it’s importance online where attention is highly prized. The article also case studies successful examples of implicit web: Last FM, Amazon and Google and discusses the value of Attention Trust – the non profit organization focused on the management of our ‘attention data’
(101 words)
Bibliography
Chartier, D. (2008). “Hands On: Facebook Redesign tries to clear social smog.” ars technica. Retrieved on 05 August 2008 from http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080721-hands-on-facebook-redesign-tries-to-clear-the-social-smog.html
Curtin University. (2008). WebCT NET11 Concept Document. Retrieved Study Period 2 from http://webct.curtin.edu.au/
Horning, R. (2006). “MARGINAL UTILITY: The Attention Economy.” Retrieved 01 August 2008 http://www.popmatters.com/columns/horning/060413.shtml
Iskold, A. (2007). “The Attention Economy: An Overveiw.”Retrieved 01 August 2008 from http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/attention_economy_overview.php
Iskold, A. (2007). “The Implicit Web: Last.fm, Amazon, Google, Attention Trust.” Retrieved 01 August 2008 from http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/the_implicit_web_lastfm_amazon_google.php
Nielsen, J. (1997). “How users read on the web.” Alertbox. Retrieved 29 July 2008 from http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9710a.html
Nielsen, J. (2006). “Email Newsletters: Surviving Inbox Congestion.” Retrieved 01 August 2008 from http://www.useit.com/alertbox/newsletters.html
Taub, E. A. (2006). “How to make your web site sing for you.” New York Times. Retrieved 01 August 2008 from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/15/business/smallbusiness/15web.html?ex=1321246800&en=5fb569e65eee5dae&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
Walker, D. (2004). “The key to email – a two second grab.” Retrieved 01 August 2008 from http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/14/1087065076891.html
Wilson, F. (2007). “The Implicit Web.” Retrieved 01 August 2008 from http://avc.blogs.com/a_vc/2006/12/2007_the_implic.html
PRIVACY AND SECURITY (Concept 26)
”The Internet is a profoundly ‘open’ system and advanced Internet users are cautious about either accepting or sending material from and to unknown sources and are careful in releasing information about themselves in any form. Conceptually, the Internet challenges us to take greater responsibility for the protection of privacy and security than perhaps we are used to when dealing with the media.” (Curtin University, 2008)
The Internet is a powerful medium enabling the rapid transfer of vast quantities of information between unlimited users, and whilst this brings great benefit, it has also given rise to new vulnerabilities. Just as with any offline community, there exist those who actively seek to exploit others (or in this case their information) for their own gain. The motivations are also similar, they can be criminal, commercial, social or political, However the anonymity of the internet, the ease, speed and reach it enables coupled with it’s relative newness and therefore limited technical understanding amongst many users makes the internet attractive to those that have both a high level of technical understanding, and a desire to exploit it for personal gain.
The short answer to the question of whether our information is safe online is generally NO “The only truly secure system is one that is powered off, cast in a block of concrete and sealed in a lead-lined room with armed guards – and even then I have my doubts”. (Spafford, 1989)
“The user base for strong cryptography declines by half with every additional keystroke or mouse click required to make it work” (Ellison n.d).
Balancing usability with privacy and security is a challenge for corporations, and many are grappling with the problem. Increasingly institutions employ short-term solutions aimed more at minimizing corporate exposure than at solving the root problem. I recently observed the well known UK bank Barclays’ introduction of a hardware based 3rd tier of security for online funds transfers. In addition to login, and password credentials, Barclay’s customers are now issued with a handheld card reader device for use in conjunction with credit/debit card while simultaneously logged in online. The justification that customers demand more security is surely valid, however a fiddly, user intensive solution like this where physical and online measures need to be combined is counter intuitive at best, and is unlikely to solve the problem long term. The consequence of entities piling up security measures like this is that usability suffers, and ‘Joe user’ either switches banks or revert to traditional ‘physical world’ methods for interacting with them, in this case going in to a branch. (Barclays, 2007; Nielsen 2000)
Whilst education and awareness building in the user community does help, it is not realistic to use this as primary way of dealing with threats to online security. Jakob Nielsen asserts that there are three main reasons why not: “First, and most importantly, it doesn’t work. Computer security is too complicated and the bad guys are too devious and inventive, It’s simply unrealistic to assume that average users can keep up with them. Second, user education puts the burden on the wrong shoulders. When there is a mismatch between technology and people, the answer should not be to change the humans. The answer should be to change the computers. Third, as long as we keep the burden on users rather than fix the technology, we’ll never realize the Internet’s full benefits. Instead, we’ll alarm users and make them ever more reluctant to use the technology to its full potential.” (Nielson, 1994).
The 14 years since Jakob Nielsen’s article have not seen sufficient improvement. It was announced on 7 August 2008 that a major security breach of the DNS (Domain Name Servers) servers has been discovered, where by adding bad information to the packets of data passing through certain DNS servers, hackers can swap the address of a legitimate Web site being loaded and replace this with the address of a malicious Web site instead. States Paul Vixie, president of the Internet Systems Consortium “This is the mother lode all right, from the point of view of Internet criminals looking for easier access to other people’s money and secrets.” (Robertson, 2008)
Part of the solution is the increasing willingness of governments to treat internet crime seriously and prosecute strongly. It has taken time for the authorities to get their heads around this, however in a landmark case believed to be the largest of it’s kind in history, earlier this month 11 people were prosecuted in the states over the theft and sale of more than 40 million credit and debit card numbers obtained by hacking 9 major US retailers. The leader was charged with computer fraud, wire fraud, access device fraud, aggravated identity theft and conspiracy and faces a maximum penalty of life in prison if he is convicted of all the charges. (Associated Press, 2008).
Jakob Nielsen stated back in his 1994 report that “the only real accessible solution is to make security a built-in feature of all computing elements. More specifically, this means: “Encrypt all information at all times, except when it’s displayed on the screen. Digitally sign all information to prevent tampering and develop a simple way to inform users whether something is from a trusted source. This might, say, replace current stupid security warnings that people don’t understand because they expose the guts of the technology. (“The security certificate has expired or is not yet valid.” Aha. And what does that mean to a normal person?). Turn on all security settings by default since most people don’t mess with defaults. Then, make it easy to modify settings so that users can get trusted things done without having to open a wide hole for everybody. Automate all updates. And Polish security features’ usability to a level far beyond anything we’ve seen so far. Security is inherently complicated, and it’s something users don’t care about (until it’s too late). The user interface requires the ultimate in simplicity. Heavy user testing and detailed field research are a must” (Nielsen, 1994)
(510 words)
This is a factsheet published by non profit organization Privacy Clearinghouse. It addresses the main issues around privacy and safety on the Internet, and is written in plain english. It is designed to answer common questions, educate the public, and equip the reader with a basic level of savvy, so that risks and exposures may be minimized. While it is an American website most of the information is relevant to all users worldwide. It includes examples of real world situations and being originally posted in 1995, yet updated in April 2008 makes for a robust long term view, that is also up to date and remains relevant.
(107 words)
Site 2. Security and Human Factors http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20001126.html
“Usability advocates and security people have opposite goals that create a fundamental conflict: Usability advocates favor making it easy to use a system, ideally requiring no special access procedures at all, whereas security people favor making it hard to access a system, at least for unauthorized users. How do we resolve this conflict? By recognizing that the real goal of security is to minimize the relative amount of unauthorized use. Although a system with extremely poor usability would certainly discourage unauthorized users, it is likely to turn off the target users as well” (Nielsen, 2000)
Jakob Nielsen is a prominent authority on usability and is founding principal of the Nielsen Norman Group who are producers of leading edge research into a wide range of user experience and user-centered design topics and their impact on the online industry. Here he writes about achieving improved Security by applying the rules of more usable realistic design. I find Nielsen’s work to be inspiring but more so, it is always interesting and thought provoking to compare his views from a usability point of view as compared with those of traditional security advocates – they are generally in direct conflict.
(100 words)
Bibliography
Curtin University. (2008). WebCT NET11 Concept Document. Retrieved Study Period 2 2008 from http://webct.curtin.edu.au/
Associated Press (2008) “11 charged in connection with credit card fraud” Retrieved 07 August 2008 from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26041151/
Barclays Bank (2007) “Barclays introduces ‘PINsentry’ – pioneering new security for online banking” Retrieved 29 July 2008 from http://www.newsroom.barclays.co.uk/content/Detail.asp?ReleaseID=1013&NewsAreaID=2
C. Ellison (n.d) Retrieved on 28 July 2008 from http://www.sysprog.net/quotlaws.html
J. Nielsen (2000) “Security and Human Factors” Retrieved on 28 July from http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20001126.html
J. Nielsen (2004) “User Education Is Not the Answer to Security Problems” Retrieved on 28 July from http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20041025.
Privacy Rights Clearinghouse (2008) “Privacy and the Internet – Traveling in Cyberspace Safely Fact Sheet about Online Privacy” Retrieved on 28 July from http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs18-cyb.htm
J. Robertson (2008) “Gaping Internet Security Hole” Retrieved on 07 August 2008 from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26043932/
E. Spafford (1989) “Computer Recreations: Of Worms, Viruses and Core War ” Retrieved on 28 July 2008 from http://spaf.cerias.purdue.edu/index.html
THE IMPACT OF TEXT-BASED REAL TIME CHAT (Concept 17)
“What is the difference here that makes this mode of communication popular; and then what impact does it have of the kinds of communication and social interaction that take place? Communicating in real-time with text enables a form of ‘authoring of the self’ that is similar to the processes of face-to-face speech but which is much more amenable to authorial control, experimentation and reflection. Further, text-based communication carries with it the possibility for multiple, differing conversations occurring simultaneously, relying on the ability of the human brain to deal with text much better than speech. A skilled Internet user will appreciate that text is, in some circumstances, a highly effective mechanism for communication. In particular, because text can be captured so much more easily than speech, it provides a mechanism for preserving and reflecting on conversations.” (Curtin University 2008)
The Internet has historically relied on the use of text-based communication, as it’s primary format. Advances in technology have more recently enabled audio and video communications, however text based communication remains in wide use. Real time text chat has many characteristics that distinguish it from other forms of Internet communication. It is more abstract than voice chat and the relative anonymity of text allows users to engage with others in the absence of visual or audio cues that would otherwise relay identity information such as age, gender, nationality, accent, appearance. Because the user can exert a high level of control over how they present to others, many users feel more confident and are able to express themselves more freely. Participants can also spend longer thinking about what they wish to say, and have the ability to review and change the statement before committing, yet still retaining the feeling of a fast flowing and dynamic exchange. Some text chat environments also allow for the saving of sessions, which can be a useful feature, particularly in business, or where the subject is complex or multiple subjects have been discussed.
Where real time chat involves multiple participants, several people may be communicating to the group at the same time, and perhaps several smaller private conversations are going on within the group. Additionally the differing speeds at which users operate cause multiple related topics to emerge. In a real time face-to-face environment this kind of format would prove unmanageable, instead, most users find it a lot easier in text. Essentially this is because while we are 2-3 times slower at typing than we are at speaking, we are 10 times faster at reading than we are at listening. Additionally the brain more easily deals with information presented in this format. The user can re-read points of confusion as the text history of each chat remains on the screen making it easy to continue a variety of conversation and switch between chat windows with ease. Says John Suler “This complex social maneuver requires the psychological mechanism of dissociation – the ability to separate out and direct the components of your mind in more than one direction at the same time” (Suler 2004; Llewelyn, 2007)
Text chat has long been incorporated into MUD’s (Multi User Domains) to allow participants to communicate with each other. The more recent introduction of voice has lead to intense debate as to the benefits of one over the other. ‘Immersionists’ who value anonymity and perhaps even escapism as being integral to their enjoyment of the experience argue that text is superior, whereas ‘Augmentists’ believe that a sense of reality, better served by voice is preferable. As Clive Thompson found ”With voice, the real world is honking in your ear” On the other hand, there are certain situations within gaming (think issuing directives to minions during raids and battles) where voice is just going to be much more effective. (Llewelyn 2007; Thompson 2007)
In summary, the value of text chat persists, and despite new technologies that allow emotively richer communication such as voice, there are still scenarios where text is superior. The onus is on the advanced user, to also become an advanced communicator, viewing the variety of communication mediums available to him/her as a toolbox, selecting the most appropriate tool depending of each different situation.
(501 words)
This article by Clive Thompson provides an amusing and insightful account from the point of view of an online gamer. His article mainly takes the view that there are more advantages of text chat over voice chat. He describes his experience using both text and voice chat in the online game World of Warcraft, and recounts his experience and observations during both. He surmises that chatting in text chat limits distractions and prevents prejudices due to the preservation of anonymity (and leaves the user’s imagination intact), while conversely voice chat changes perceptions and changes the experience, often not for the better.
“It conveys a lot of identity: Your voice instantly transmits your age, your gender and often your nationality – even your regional location too. (I can tell a Texan accent from a Minnesotan, and you can probably tell I’m Canadian by my nasal “oots.”)” (Thompson 2007).
(101 words)
Bibliography
Curtin University. (2008). “WebCT NET11 Concept Document” Retrieved Study Period 2 2008 from http://webct.curtin.edu.au/
Llewelyn, G. (2007). “The Schism around voice: Multicasting vs Broadcasting.” Retrieved 4 July 2008 from http://gwynethllewelyn.net/2007/03/26/the-schism-around-voice-multicasting-vs-broadcasting/
Suler , J. (1996) “The Psychology of Text Relationships” Retrieved July 3, 2008 from http://www-usr.rider.edu/~suler/psycyber/psytextrel.html
Thompson, C. (2007). “Voice Chat Can Really Kill the Mood on WoW.” Retrieved July 12, 2008 from http://www.wired.com/gaming/virtualworlds/commentary/games/2007/06/games_frontiers_0617
THE INVISIBILITY OF DIFFERENCE. (Concept 8)
“The daily practice of electronic communication is shaped by over-familiarity with one’s own computer system, and a tendency to assume that – as with much more established forms of communication – everyone is operating within compatible and similar systems. When in doubt, seek to communicate in ways that are readable and effective for all users, regardless of their particular systems.” (Curtin University, 2008)
The Internet brings its users into contact with a global population, enabling rapid communication on a scale not previously achievable, however there are challenges inherent in this. If the Internet is to be successfully employed as a medium for communication one problem that must be overcome is that of technological variance and the differing timeframes at which users adopt new technologies.
To maximize success and minimize breakdowns caused by differences, online communications should be ‘audience centric’ in their design and construction. This means finding out about the audience’s browsers, operating systems, connection speeds, and technical proficiency and incorporating this into the design of the communication medium. In cases where there are limitations, or are likely to be significant variations among user systems, communications should be based around simple CSS, standards-compliant code (or this should at least be given as an alternative to back-up rich features such as Flash and Video if this is used). Furthermore, online communicators wishing to influence their audience should also think beyond the ‘hard’ system issues to define users (and their differences). To optimize the success of communication, understanding trends in an audience’s culture, language, attitudes, needs and other drivers are important also. (Ragle-Davis 2008; Taub 2006)
A good real life example can be drawn from a project I recently worked on to develop an online strategy for a client whose goal was to increase their influence with customers. Initially they wanted to ‘grab’ attention with, highly graphical content, dynamic customized pages packed with flash and video content. The problem? The target audience were NSW farmers. Research confirmed that he majority of them were using dialup, and mainly just for checking email. So, successfully communicating with THIS group would involve a change of strategy and plain text email adopted as part of the solution, yes this lacked the pizzazz the client had in mind, but it could be opened, read and understood and everything else was simply secondary to that.The risk potential for sites that have not considered the ‘invisibility of difference’ here to become at best, not opened/read, and at worst to create potentially frustrating damaging experiences for recipients and users is high. It is important to note though that things do change, the Internet is a powerful medium and with time users evolve to adopt new technologies, so regular reviews in strategy and design make good sense.
In summary, we know that users simply want the communications they receive and visit to be easy to access, understand, navigate and use. So online communicators need to constantly consider what is going to best suit their audience, keep it simple if in doubt, use graphics and rich media sparingly and only where it really adds value to the user. Because the online world is dynamic, strategies should be reviewed regularly to stay up to date with trends in technology and adoption that may impact on how best to communicate. As stated by Garth A. Buchholz “The rules of Web design can be summed up in two words: Whatever works.” This is precisely why advanced Internet users, especially those engaged in the process of online communication, need to fully understand the concept of invisibility of difference to be effective. (Buchholz 2005)
* For word count / brevity this is a generic term for those advanced Internet users who are either the proponents of direct online communication, or indirect enablers.
(510 words)
A succinct article in which interviewee and usability guru Jakob Nielson summarizes the 5 key points of usability for web design. Although short, the article successfully captures the key elements of user centric website design and construction, (which considers and successfully navigates the invisible differences of a user population). The reader may like to consider the points made by Jakob in the context of CIO’s own site, as some of the comments posted indicate – CIO is guilty of several design ‘sins’ that indicate a lack of understanding for the various systems in place among their target audience, the comments illustrate the potential consequences of this nicely.
(107 words)
“a site that is cross-browser compatible will carry the same message and branding to everyone who looks at it, without unpleasant and unexpected behavior. Usability, Standards and Content Optimization are, at the end of the day, also audience considerations” (Ragle-Davis 2008)
This website advocates ‘audience consideration’ as an essential part of the design process, including identifying and defining an audience and their preferences plus best practice guidance on site construction to ensure success irrespective of system variation. The article touches on the issue of variation and advocates strong use of text in favor of graphics in order to ensure that users on slow connections, with old browsers, or using screen readers can access content without difficultly. In general this site is a simple, to the point and effective guideline for web designers and encourages the reader to consider of the invisibility of difference.
(102 words)
Bibliography
Buchholz, G. A. (2005). “Useability vs Loseability.” Retrieved July 20 2008 from http://www.digital-web.com/articles/losability_vs_usability/
Curtin University. (2008). WebCT NET11 Concept Document. Retrieved Study Period 2 2008 http://webct.curtin.edu.au/
Gelston, S (2007) 5 Things I’ve Learned About Web Design: Less Flashy Is More Usable rerieved on July 20 from http://www.cio.com/article/40991/_Things_I_ve_Learned_About…_Web_Design_Less_Flashy_Is_More_Usable
Maurer, D (2006) “useability for rich internet applications” Retrieved July 20 2008 www.digital-web.com/articles/usability_for_rich_internet_applications/
Raramuridesign. (2008 ) Tools to test your design in different Browsers . Retrieved July 20 2008 from http://www.raramuridesign.com/articles/tools_to_test_your_design_in_different_browsers.html
Ragle-Davis, R. (2008). “Design Decisions vs Audience Considerations.” Retrieved July 20 2008 from www.digital-web.com/articles/design_decisions_vs_audience_considerations/
Taub. E.A (2006) “How to make your web site sing for you” Retrieved July 20 2008 from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/15/business/smallbusiness/15web.html?ex=1321246800&en=5fb569e65eee5dae&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
