Th-th-th-that’s all, folks!
Thanks for being a great class, and congratulations on delivering some fine work.
This site now goes into sleep mode until the next teaching session begins in September 2008.
This posting is to give you generic feedback on your performance on the module. My general observations are:
- that the best of you have performed magnificently (as is reflected in your grades), adhering strictly to the assignment briefs, and delivering first-class work
- that many students (and I’ve blogged this already) did poorly on the first assignment (the “naive-user review”) by not adhering to the published requirements for the task; in particular, the sign-up and detailed walkthrough of functionality
- that, although the best were impressive, many second assignments (the Ning exercise) showed too little thought in choice and focus of topic area, and too little investment of time and effort in developing a bona fide ’social network’; too many had not been customised in any way, too many had no members other than the author, and too many had user-generated content from the author only
- that those who did best on the third exercise (the mashup) were those student who went beyond mere replication of the classroom demonstration; for example, in addition to RSS feeds also included, for example, Google Maps
- that, sadly, some few students did not attend the classes, showed little commitment, and therefore performed badly (again, as reflected in grades)
Thanks to all who attended for making this an enjoyable module to teach. I hope you’ll feel this to have been a great opportunity to learn about Web 2.0 and social media.
Samuel Ketter seems to have got things right–at least as far as conceptual design is concerned–in creating K9 Kings for his second assignment. An article in today’s Independent (‘It’s love at first byte as dog owners log on to pet networking site‘) reports the success of Dogster.com, a dog’s social networking site:
Online social networking is no longer just for singles and students, now even dogs and cats can get online, after a fashion.
Dogster.com has emerged as the Facebook/MySpace for our four-legged friends, where the animals have their own profile pages likes, dislikes, best friends and tricks. It has become a runaway success.
This is no amateur operation being run out of a dog lover’s bedroom. There are also podcasts, or rather wagcasts, and a Catster FM radio show which feature breaking news. And the site is also attracting some serious money.
Ted Rheingold, the founder of Dogster has watched his photo-sharing site grow into a meeting place of tangled online leashes where pet owners chat online and even arrange to meet – The New York Times reports that one group of 100 West Highland terrier owners convened at a dog friendly motel on the Carolina coast. …
Dogster already has some 250,000 dogs online. The poochs’ owners can register for free, post photos, write in online diaries or use the forums to discuss issues from health and obedience to fashion and movies. They can (at $20 a year) post extra photos.
Samuel, do you see the exceptional opportunity you’ve created for yourself? Take a long analytical look at Dogster.com and endeavour to understand what has made it such a success; then apply what you’ve learned to the customisation of your own site (without directly copying) and in a year from now you could be the wealthy owner of a successful social networking site.
Read the full article online:
Leonard Doyle, ‘It’s love at first byte as dog owners log on to pet networking site‘, The Independent, 8 December 2007.
I’ll remind you of comments and advice I gave in the lecture, some weeks ago, on design principles and some “Dos” and “Don’ts”.
“Under construction” was a horridly amateurish notice in many ‘Web 1.0′ sites. Web sites in any case, by their very nature, evolve over time and are therefore never complete. This is so much more the case with Web 2.0–the so-called “read-write” web–where the content itself should come pre-eminently from the site users, your ‘customers’. And not merely the content … feedback from your site users, either explicit or culled from logs and stats indicating usage, should guide you in refining functionality and improving the user experience.
So Web 2.0 sites when first launched will in all likelihood be “in Beta”–never ‘under construction’! Encourage feedback from your site users, even if it’s critical feedback, and listen to what they have to say; and report such feedback, as well as your response to that feedback, in your write-up in your blog.
Just as it’s unlike me to single out individuals for criticism, so it’s also unlike me to single out individuals for praise. Today I make an exception: the Ning ’social networking’ exercise has yielded a couple of very nice sites …
Neither are 100% perfect (and I’ll give individual feedback to each) but both are very good efforts so far … an inspiration, I hope, to the rest of you.
I’m a nice guy, believe me … and so I don’t like to pick out individuals for criticism. But today (although I shall not name them) I really feel it’s for their own good. (And, of course, all of you will learn from this.) So please read this as helpful advice. Let’s start with the following, copied below in its entirety:
Once your connection allows you access Napster you soon discover one basics layout for a web 2.0 allowing anyone and everyone to download just around 4 million tracks from its library fitting the definition of Tim O’Reilly’s view of a web 2.0.
Once you have finally reliased that you want to become part of Napster music downloading club and found enough money to become a member all you need to do is click on the large button which clearly says “Download Napster”. Once you have signed up you can start searching for all your favourite songs and artist just buy typing what you want
One great advantage about using Napster is that it very easy to use which is esspecially helped by the layout of its page making Napster very user friendly and very easy to navigate. unlike one of its main competitors like limewire which is a PHP and not a web 2.0 like Napster.
Hey, c’mon! what do you think you’re doing here? don’t you care about your work? are you really pretending to be a university student?!? then write like one!
To begin with, this is w-a-a-a-a-y too brief, and tells the reader very little about the app. You do not even say what Napster is! In the first sentence you write “allows you access Napster”–might I suggest that the little word “to” is missing from somewhere? In the final paragraph you write “it very easy to use”–in this case, a missing “is”. And what on earth is “one basics layout” and “a web 2.0″ (which, incidentally, ought to have an upper-case “W”)? When you later write “just buy typing” I really start to worry about you.
Spelling errors (“reliased”, “esspecially”) are, of course, UNFORGIVABLE–the editor in your blogger has a spell-checker that highlights spelling errors as you write.
You write “fitting the definition of Tim O’Reilly’s view of a web 2.0″ and yet you fail to specify what O’Reilly’s characterisation of Web 2.0 actually is and how precisely Napster ‘fits the definition’. If it does, then explain clearly how and why it does.
You write “found enough money to become a member”. So how much money is that, then? Is it membership itself that you pay for? or is it per download? or is there any cap on the number of downloads?
And Limewire (note the upper-case “L”, by the way) definitely isn’t a “PHP”–it’s a P2P application, and consequently not seriously comparable to Napster.
In conclusion, I think you’ll want to do a really major overhaul of this review. And, when you do so, pay some attention to my notes in the Assignment 1 spec–give me at least a detailed walkthrough of the paradigmatic user experience from the moment the user find the site to the moment s/he starts downloading.
The next review I’m going to pick up on is (again reproduced in its entirety):
FOAF (Friend Of A Friend) , foafing the music is recommender system, base upon the users own profile. It works by the user inputting what they like? (i.e. sports), what sort of music? (genre) and even to the extent to where you live. From this the system will recommend music, artists accosted with the users selected profile.
It’s always the little words that seem to slip off the edge and disappear, isn’t it? and there seems to me to be a “a” missing from “is recommender system”. And while on the subject of things missing, what’s missing from “base upon the users own profile”? yes, that’s right, the “d” at the end of the first word and the apostrophe (both here and again in the final sentence) in “users”. And what on earth is “accosted”?
How about explaining exactly what a “recommender system” is, and what specific information may be in a user’s profile that determines how recommendations are made?
This ‘review’, like the first, is again f-a-a-a-a-r to brief!!!! and the same concluding advice applies.
The final ‘review’ I’m going to comment on is probably about the right length I’d expect … but utterly misguided! I’m quoting about half of it below:
The website I reviewed is http://secondlife.com/. The layout of this website is very appealing as the first thing you notice is the bright colours and eye-catching image. It is laid out in a simple way which displays a variety of infomation available to the user.
There is a style sheet (CSS) on this website, which enables the hyperlinks to change colour when the mouse is hovering over them. This is very attractive and appealing for user.
A positive point about this website is that there are no pop-ups which can be very distracting and irritating for users.
Also available on this website is a link to join up for a membership. This was a simple task and was a very quick process. The membership is free and clearly shown on each page to interest users.
Clearly stated on the main page is the number of users logged in. This is a good thing to include as it shows the user how popular this site is, which generates a positive feel and may encourage users to join for a membership to understand why it is so popular.
As you work your way down the page you then come to many links provided for users to continue their search. They’re organised in a way that makes it easy to use and find what you are looking for. This is also displayed as a faded table which gives the website a modern and stylish look.
The first thing I have to say is that nowhere in the entire review is there any statement whatsoever of what Second Life is all about! But then, reading through it, I get the sense that you actually don’t care what it’s about (viz, the web portal for a ‘multi-user virtual environment’–there! wasn’t difficult to say that, was it?) … because that’s not what you’re talking about. Kicking off with “The layout of this website is very appealing as the first thing you notice is the bright colours and eye-catching image” is committing the cardinal sin you were warned against in Week 1: telling me how pretty the colours are, etc. You were asked to “explore, describe, and assess the full functionality of the site … you need to provide good evidence that you have USED the site and have in-depth understanding of what the site offers the user”. Instead you offer vague, unsubstantiated, generalities such as “bright colours” (even if I were remotely interested in the colours, you don’t actually state what these colours are!), “eye-catching image” (duh! what image is that? and what exactly is the public meaning of ‘eye-catching’?), “laid out in a simple way” (so what specifically counts as ’simple’?), “displays a variety of infomation” (uh-huh … but then you give absolutely no indication at all of what exactly this ‘information’ is), “This is very attractive and appealing for user” (so what precisely is the objective and independently attestable correlate of your subjective and impressionistic ‘attractive’ and ‘appealing’?).
Heck, I’m going to give up right there … life is too short and precious. Short conclusions for the attention and edification of the cohort:
- first of all, read the rubric for the assignment! ensure you are following the instructions I have given you
- be careful you get your facts right! there is indeed a Second Life web site, but there’s little that is Web 2.0-ish about the site per se. Second Life is an interesting case study for ’social media’ only as a MUVE, and this figures nowhere in the review.
- if you find yourself incapable of resisting impressionistic terms such as ‘appealing’, ‘eye-catching’, etc, at least explain very precisely what you mean by these terms by identifying and describing quite specific features
- but, better still, don’t use such terms at all: you’re supposed to be describing the functionality of a web site, not engaging in fine art appreciation!
Other students–quite disgracefully!–haven’t even written their reviews yet. Do so now! And whether your review is written, half-written, or unwritten, please revisit the Assignment 1 spec and ensure that your review meets all the requirements!
Have a nice day 
These are some generic observations and recommendations based on an initial review of your first assignment.
- In general, follow the guidance I have given in the Assignment 1 spec (sidebar). For further guidance / inspiration, look at the style and conent of reviews on sites such as KillerStartUps.
- Do NOT begin with “The website I am going to be reviewing is …”, “I have decided to review …”–just get on with the review!
- State very clearly and precisely what purpose / function / service the site is intended to deliver and how it delivers. Generic statements such as “web2 page where the user can meet other users, upload and share pictures, videos and blogs” or “is a professional looking website which provides all the information a user would need” are too vague and consequently uninformative.
- Use short paragraphs. Continuous text is harder to read on the screen than on paper.
- Use bullet points judiciously. A review that is nothing but bullet points is not a review!
- Insert screenshots where appropriate. Keep the images to a modest size (e.g. no wider than 450 pixels or the width of the page).
- Use colours and a font size that
A welcome to my Multimedia Design students in the Faculty of Computing, Information Systems and Mathematics, Kingston University. Although CISM students are the primary readership, I am happy to share the content of this site–for what it’s worth (and that’s for others to judge)–with the big wide wired world in the spirit of ‘open learning’. Although there is (as yet) no widget for it on WordPress-hosted sites, please assume that this site is covered by a Creative Commons licence.
The module will focus specifically on Web 2.0 design issues; an outline of the course content is published on the Syllabus page accessible from the sidebar. Because this is the first year in which the new syllabus will be taught, and I was asked to assume course leadership only a couple of weeks before the start of the semester, it will take time to populate all sections (including assessment specifications) of this site with full information. Please bear with me.
The blog you are now reading will be used to manage your own learning trajectory through this module. It will be organised as follows:
- the main blog will be used to manage the course on a week-by-week basis, with announcements, occasional reviews, pointers to important resources, and such like
- assessment information and rubric for the individual assignments for the course are listed in the sidebar. Please read these carefully and ensure that you understand exactly what is required of you. If you are in any doubt, please ask me to clarify.
- additional key resources are listed in the sidebar. Assume that because they are there they are important enough for you to take the initiative to look at them!
- non-HTML documents, including the module guide, may be downloaded from the Box.net panel. I’ll alert you via this blog each time a new document is added.
- all students enrolled for this module are required to create their personal learning blogs in which they will document their work and compile their portfolios. Student blogs are listed in the sidebar.
If you have not yet created your blog, please do so immediately and email me the URL. Please also ensure that enable ‘comments’: your work on this module will be assessed in part on the quality and number of comments you submit to the blogs of other students in your group. Once you have created your blog, upload a photo of yourself into your ‘About’ section (see the article at the end of this link): this will help me associate names with faces and save me the embarrassment of having to address you as “Thingy” in the class …
I hope you’ll enjoy this module! have fun!
