Recently in Web 2.0 Category

If Jakob Nielsen is writing a usability article, we know Twitter is now 100% mainstream. Interestingly, this article though only covers release of corporate news information with tips for both writing punchy copy and for timing (9:01 is better than 9:00).

A little chillingly though, he indicates that Twitter "decay" (when people stop clicking) is fast. Twitter updates so quickly that messages are very quickly lost in the shuffle. As Nielsen comments "Once [the messages] scroll off the first screen, they're essentially 6 feet under." As a result, he still recommends e-mail for messages with a relatively long life span so that users can sort through their "pile" at a later date. No argument from me.

As we celebrate the 1st anniversary of the ETS Learning Design Summer Camp, I remember that I have another anniversary to celebrate - a year of Twitter. It was at a dinner last year that Robin2Go finally convinced me to give Twitter a spin.

One year later, I still have my account, but what do I think of it? I have to disappoint some people and admit that I still don't LOVE it, but I have come to appreciate it. As with many media (including, I suspect, the phone), the initial user base managed to put up the the silliest of messages, and we all know Twitter was no exception. Quite frankly, with a restriction of 140 characters, I didn't think it could ever evolve beyond the trivial.

But an amazingly short year proved me wrong. First it was a way for people to track the movement of tornadoes, then it became a way for a people to get out news of a government crackdown despite the shutdown of other media channels. Here in ETS it's a great way for people to quickly pass on interesting articles and traffic alerts, and yes a little gossip.

So why don't I love it? For the same reason I still don't love the phone or mail - signal to noise ratio. There are ways to manage the ratio in other media, but I haven't quite managed it yet here.

There's another issue which I haven't been sure if I should bring up, but maybe I will today. I think one reason people find Twitter and other forms "chatting" silly or annoying is that they may be observing a set of conversations that are "forced" upon them, yet cannot really participate in.

Consider something I think we all find annoying - overhearing someone on the cell phone. You may be forced to listen to intimate details of grocery lists, plans for the evening, or a review of last nights game you didn't watch. Not only is it banal, but it disrupts whatever internal thought process you may prefer instead (reading, meditation, blogging...).

Twitter shouldn't be the same, but what if it feels "mandatory"? Sure there are messages on Twitter that are relevant to me, but there are a lot of messages that aren't so relevant about what people are planning, games they watched or places they are going to. Maybe people do feel a genuine sense of community, but it reminds me that ... well I really am a dedicated introvert.

Don't get me wrong. I really enjoy conversations over coffee and in the hall. But they only take up a small fraction of my day and generally with a much smaller pool of people. I actually am able to absorb what I hear and appreciate it so much more.

Am I saying you shouldn't love Twitter? Not really. I think I'm saying that I wish I could filter out business Twitter from personal Twitter (like we can filter out personal e-mail from work e-mail). At that point I may really LOVE both sides of Twitter.

Postscript: Alternate Views (Jul 23)

Apparently I wasn't the only one reflecting on the user of Twitter at this event. Here are some interesting posts from Jeff Swain (who likes the community aspect of Twitter) and TK Lee who reflects on his Twitter note taking in a blog. TK comments that "communication has its cost" - we need communication to learn more information, yet paradoxically it's often a distraction to both produce and consume. I guess that's why "poor communication" remains a perennial in many work environments.

I've been on many projects where I spend time rewriting content - both technical documentation and course content. It seems to defy logic because if this content is already created why should another version be needed? Shouldn't a link be sufficient? Are we only doing this because we don't know any better?

Actually I do believe there are rational reasons for this phenomenon of duplicate documentation, even if they are not fully articulated. I think understanding them could help us build models where we can truly build the kinds of community-driven efforts we want.

If I Write It, I Control It

Sounds like a petty copyright but consider - suppose you link to a site and it disappears, what do you do then? Symposium keynote speaker David Wiley had an interesting solution in using the Wayback Machine to link to an archived version, but even that may not be 100% foolproof.

Another issue of control though is consistent format. Some instruction or content may be coming from different sources, but the goal of most editors is to ensure that there is a consistent voice. For instance, the ANGEL docs are written by a group of 15 people, but the format is the same, the images use the same browser and a local goddess of grammar makes sure they are all comprehensible to the general user.

Similarly the Lynda.com online video instruction series maintain a consistent format. Although the content is presented by a number of different trainers on a number of different topics, viewers can generally be sure that 1) the training videos will be segmented into short digestable segments, 2) support files are available and 3) the trainers are going to give a rehearsed presentation. This is very reassuring if you're panicking about an exotic piece of software.

Finally, it should be noted that most do-over documentation is written is for a specific local audience. Back when I was writing blog documentation, I had to make sure that we only referenced utilities we had uploaded, included information on authentication and, of course, how to activate your Penn State Personal Web Space. This kind of customization is what leads to a lot of duplicate documentation.

I Can Do This Better!

A lot of duplicate documentation comes from frustrated users. For whatever reason, the original documentation was either not satisfactory, or maybe not even discoverable. As a result, users re-document the process (so they can perform it later). If they are being generous, they share what they know either via e-mail, a blog or even a second site.

To be honest, users are generally right. I have a case where my information on an ITS tool actually comes from the Biology department. On the other hand...user preferences vary widely, especially depending on experience. One user may want to understand a concept but not care about implementation; another may need to access all the technical details but can skip over the basics.

For instance, a lot of my Unicode doc writing arose out of the fact that what I was finding was written by programmers for other programmers. Or it was written for Windows users, but not Mac users. There was kind of gap waiting to be filled.

Today, an interesting twist is whether a video or a cheat sheet may be desired (maybe it depends on what stage you're at in the project).

Adding a Missing Piece

I think the first two pieces are the hardest to tackle, but honestly what I think most communities are interested in are collecting missing pieces, especially for complex pieces of software like Flash, Photoshop or even Microsoft Office and ANGEL. A program like Flash has a lot of options available, but not even Adobe can experiment with every scenario.

Thus, what happens is that a lot of developers work through problems on their own and then (hopefully) share what they find. Currently this happens through various social networks - large and small. A small scale version is one instructor e-mailing a tip in the same department; on a medium scale information may be shared in a users forum. The largest is probably posting on individual blogs.

The information is available, but very scattered. The question is whether it can (or should) be compiled in a more organized fashion (beyond the Google search). After all, where's the line between creativity and consitency? Who has the time and where is the reward? Are flame wars a possibility? - In some cases yes!

I don't mean to be pessimistic, but these are the kinds of questions that need to be addressed in order for any kind of community to be successful. I have participated in several joint instruction projects/communities ranging from ANGEL docs to serving on an expert e-mail panel. In each case though, I was confident of the rules of the road.

I have to say that one of the best keynote speakers I have seen in a while was danah boyd. I don't want to just gush in a blog, so just to elaborate, I respected the keynote because:

1. We got some solid ethnographic research data (although condensed for keynote purposes).
2. More importantly, she presented a balanced view of "change." Not as an oncoming Armageddon or the next Eden, but as something normal that happens to every culture (especially the culture likes to invent new technology).

With respect to the research point, I was surprised at how many of my assumptions following the e-grapevine weren't quite right. For instance, boyd notes that Facebook did not override MySpace, but rather that MySpace and Facebook co-exist, but are used by different socioeconomic groups.

The divide is not necessarily bad, but it is important to know that it is there when thinking about what "services" we (Penn State) provide through either platform, and what that means from a social point of view. For course work, boyd recommends a third-party "neutral" environment like ANGEL, the Blogs at Penn State or maybe Twitter.

I was also moved by how protective boyd is of her teenage subjects. A theme I seemed to hear is that despite the seeming technical prowess of modern teens in terms of Facebook, they are not techno-super heroes. She comments that they still have the same concerns, and the same fears, that we all had. The NetGen hypothesis (i.e. differently wired brains/expectations) is a common assumption, but in an extreme form, can make the next generation of college students sound a little bit like an alien species.

But boyd merely assumes they are still normal teens, with different communication devices. There will be differences, but probably nothing we can't handle.

P.S. The Swain Interview

The interview between Jeff Swain and danah boyd has been posted. Interestingly, danah boyd wonders if teens will abandon Facebook now that their parents are finding their high school buddies. They really do sound like typical teenagers.

I recently did the copyright & free graphic session of the Winterfest Digital Media Day, with accompanying handout (FindingImages.pdf). I have to confess that images hold a special place in my heart pedagogy wise. As much as I love text, there are times when nothing can replace a visual.

Like text, still images can also be "cheaper" than video or animation especially in terms of the amount of memory needed. But images can be expensive in terms of production especially if you are wanting an image of a relatively rare phenomenon (e.g. a green flash when the sun appears green just at dusk or dawn). It's often cheaper to borrow if you can.

Seriously enlarged image of a green sun on the horizon. Original courtesy of Kai Schreiber. Licensed under Creative Commons

Fortunately, the Web 2.0 world has given us more options than ever for finding legal images. For instance the Wikipedia page on the Green Flash includes a lovely photo donated by Mila Zinkova who licenses under a GNU Free License documentation. Wikipedia is great for finding both donated images and images from the U.S. government which are otherwise buried in opaque search interfaces.

Flickr is another great source. As Stevie Rocco explained in an earlier copyright seminar, the advanced search option in Flickr includes a checkbox for Creative Commons licensed items. Again, you can often good results like this image from Mike Baird.

I can attest to the power of both tools because I had to find an astonishing arrays of photos for thermodynamics including:

• A smoggy city (Flickr)
• A car with closed windows (Wikipedia)
• A blender (Wikipedia)
• A power plant turbine (Flickr)
• A power plant (NOAA)

I'm really glad we didn't have to send a photographer to all of these locations.

One of the few Web 2.0 activities I regularly participate in is the iTunes Song of the Week. In fact I participate so regularly, I would say it's almost like a cult for me. Obviously, I love it for the free music, and frankly I haven't felt so musically hip in years. If you download enough, you will eventually get a free song which later appears in a major cinema soundtrack, a teen show or perhaps the Wegman's background music track.

But it's also very interesting to read the reviews for the iTunes Community (which is fairly large). If nothing else it is a great chance to see how one of the larger "communities" functions in the wild. Sometimes a review will recommend another single which I have already heard somewhere in a TV ad, but have never been able to download. Very informative (and profitable for the recording artists). Peer to peer is definitely king here.

I've also learned that for every new artist I have discovered here, I read at least one review from someone who has seen said artist in Dallas, London, San Francisco or Los Angeles. No matter how "with it" I become with the modern musical trends, I know that there will be someone even hipper. Web 2.0 means learning humility.

Of course, the interesting part of all may be the ratings fights. Do you love it or hate it? Or more importantly - do you love it when everyone else hates it? Based on reviews I have seen, I would have to definitely have to classify the core iTunes Single of the Week audience as being suburban and favoring acoustic driven 90's flavored singer-song writers. If we are on a rap or electronica week, reaction is rarely positive. As a closet urban music listener, it IS frustrating to see how little Turkish/German jazzy electronica is appreciated.

This week, we are back to singer songwriters, but the top review was a 1-star questioning the ubiquity of the singer-songwriter genre. A community rebellion perhaps? We are asked to click "Yes" if we agree, and push the review even further up the rankings. I have to confess that I did click "Yes", but then downloaded the song. It actually seems fairly catchy, and I do like the chance to expand my horizons.

Cole Camplese's word of the week is identity, which is an interesting follow-up to community. As I commented in my posting on the word community I believe that each person is actually a member of multiple communities and may have multiple "identities."

The next question is how does the community define identity? For me, I think the key point is what beliefs commonly shared by the community are also shared by you. Even though I've been an instructional designer for almost a decade, I still feel connected to an "inner linguist" because I feel that many of the values of that discipline are still important to me that aren't always expressed in instructional design (e.g. the need for exact phonetic transcripts).

On the other hand, I do have an instructional designer identity (especially in terms of project planning and course development). If I'm feeling like a lost linguist sometimes at ETS, I know I would be in conflict with my inner instructional designer at a linguistics presentation (the land where we don't use PowerPoint only because we don't use any classroom tech at all).

I know I can define my identity by the communities (or communities of practice) I participate in, but I also seem to define identity by where I'm NOT (a way to contrast myself with others). Although contrast is vexing, I would say that it can be interesting for defining your internal identity. For instance, I didn't really feel like a full-fledged member of the American community until I had a long summer trip to Europe.

Cole issued a challenge for the community to define "community". As it turns, out this question is also relevant to discussions we have been having about whether there is a divide in our community.

I think everyone agrees that "community" is some sort of group, but which kind? The main problem in defining "community" is that "community" is so widely used, it now has a variety of meanings some of which may contradict each other. Some communities interact voluntarily (e.g. my embroidery group), others semi-involuntarily (e,g, the contestants on most reality shows) and others just share just one trait in common (e.g. the American community).

In terms of identity also, most people are members of multiple communities. Even a woman in a "simple" nomadic tribe is both a woman and a nomad. Which community is more important to her? It may depend on the situation.

Are there any generalizations about multiple configurations of communities? I think for me it's important to remember that any community is really a group of individuals, each with the potential for unique quirks and needs. Sometimes each member of the community wants the same thing (more Christmas vacation!), but not always (or even frequently).

And not every member of a community has to share all the traits. A community of students is defined only by student hood, but other traits such as iPod ownership, Windows usage and so forth are up for grabs. You can design a course for the perfect Windows user with an iPod, but don't be surprised if you get a question from a Mac user with a Zune player.

In the rush towards more community engagement, I hope we don't forget the individual aspect. There is a fine line between reaching consensus (healthy) and group think (not so much). Community conflict is an inevitable byproduct of diversity within the community, but I'm learning that this may be a good thing.

Although few people like conflict, I think it's the real strength of what diversity brings to us. I think a lot of us think of "diversity" as the side dishes different regions or cultures choose to eat with their Thanksgiving turkey. That is, minor differences which mesh together and enrich everyone, but don't necessarily force us to change our own behavior or attitudes.

But diversity also means conflicting points of view, often within the same community. Understanding and accommodating divergent points of view necessarily means that a person has to challenge an assumption somewhere, and we all know how painful that can be.

People who argue on behalf of a divergent point of view may actually benefit the entire community. I am constantly amazed at how many of my individual civil rights have been protected by members of the American community I otherwise cannot stand. Larry Flynt of Penthouse fame ensured the right of parody as free speech. Communities wanting to teach creationism in charter schools ensure that we can also teach environmentalism or an indigenous heritage in other charter schools. Strage consequences indeed.

I've talked about how communities can split apart, but can communities also come together? I certainly hope so, because being involved in a functioning community is great thing. But I sometimes think it's something to be earned, not necessarily assumed.

P.S. Aren't you glad you were able to skim this lengthy passage instead of reading ALL of this text?

I see that yesterday's post about our office white board did hit some nerves. There's been continuing discussion of it on our director Cole Camplese's blog. Thanks Cole for responding and cross-posting - I appreciate his willingness to put his perspective out there in front of all of us, his ETS community.

Being a modern office modern office worker means you must master both old communication channels like the community bulletin board as well as the new forms like Twitter...so here's my take of an ongoing set of negotiations.

Recently there was a blank whiteboard installed in our hallway (probably a good idea), but almost immediately, there has been tension on what should go on the whiteboard. Is it an informal brainstorming tool? A place to post official office news? Although I have my preferences, I can see an argument for all three options.

Interestingly one of main problems for the whiteboard has been the erasure policy. If an entire white board is covered with a project sketch, how long does it remain? Similarly if we have a run of poll questions (e.g. water filter preferences, disco ball preferences, sci-fi preferences, presidential preferences). Are these appropriate?

I know that they were recently erased (and continue to be erased), so I do think someone is questioning their appropriateness. I know in the past we've been asked to not post political material in the office, so I wonder, so are we trying to be more "formal" here?

Which leads me to my annoying Twitter question... We all (more or less) tacitly agree that individuals can post whatever they want to their Twitter accounts - despite the fact that we know many of our colleagues will see them. And yet our Twitter posts are being displayed in the hallway on a monitor.

Maybe it's me, but given the fact that Twitter is in the hall and is being viewed by the same people who see the whiteboard, I do think of Twitter as a workplace communication channel.

That's not to say that I've been letting work stop me from ask annoying questions, but I do think it's interesting that our comfort level with "informality" on Twitter does not extend to the Whiteboard.