This article focuses on research methods. Specifically, the authors propose ways to take advantage of the user-generated content of Web 2.0 to conduct qualitative content and textual analysis. The authors point out the benefits of using Web-based communication in qualitative research if the website enables them to "impose some uniformity of structure on and embed metadata in the textual information as it is collected," "facilitate timely interaction to clarify and elaborate the texts first presented by informants," "provide data exploration tools built into the primary data collection platform," and "enable teams of researchers to work closely together to collect and analyze information presented over time by many informants" (p. 384). These are criteria for researchers to use to choose appropriate websites to use. The authors then point out that Web 2.0 websites generally meet these criteria. Finally, the authors discuss some issues such as confidentiality, ethical and legal requirements and expansion and transfer of websites that encounter researchers when they use Web 2.0 websites to collect data.
This article offers a convincing argument of the benefits of using Web 2.0 in research, which can be used in the method section in my dissertation to justify the online-ethnographic method I will use to collect data. It also points out important issues I need to consider when use this method.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
BIB_14: Wolff, W. I., Fitzpatrick, K., & Youssef, R. (2009). Rethinking usability for Web 2.0 and beyond. Currents in Electronic Literacy, (John Slatin Memorial Issue). Retrieved from http://currents.cwrl.utexas.edu/2009WolffFitzpatrickYoussef
In this article, the authors point out the gap in web usability studies in the Web 2.0 environment. They summarize some characteristics of Web 2.0 that differ from Web 1.0 such as user-generated content, seamless interaction between websites, and transformation in software and hardware system structure. The author surveyed Web 2.0 sites and provide case studies that reveal some issues in web usability of Web 2.0 arise from the functions and terminology. The authors conclude that more research needs to be done to further our understanding of Web 2.0 usability.
This article provides a starting point for us to conceive usability in Web 2.0 and the authors have proposed some interested issues and directions of the future web usability studies. The case studies, however, only show a fraction of the issues that need to be considered. Also, the methodology employed, which is website inspection, is very limited because it only offers us insight from the site of design, but does not say anything about the user's experience. Nevertheless, since there has not been much literature focusing on Web 2.0 usability, this is a useful article for my dissertation project.
This article provides a starting point for us to conceive usability in Web 2.0 and the authors have proposed some interested issues and directions of the future web usability studies. The case studies, however, only show a fraction of the issues that need to be considered. Also, the methodology employed, which is website inspection, is very limited because it only offers us insight from the site of design, but does not say anything about the user's experience. Nevertheless, since there has not been much literature focusing on Web 2.0 usability, this is a useful article for my dissertation project.
RR_14: Web 2.0 and usability
A run of Google search for “Web 2.0” today will yield more than 340 million hits. Web 2.0 is here, despite the fact that some view it as another “marketing ploy” in the IT industry after the dot-com boom (Dilger, 2010, p. 15). “Web 2.0” was coined by Dale Daughtery and O'Reilly in 2003 to distinguish the emerging web that was “qualitatively different” from its earlier version (Wolff, Fitzpatrick & Youssef, 2009, par. 2), which signified a “turning point for the web” after the bursting of the dot-com bubble in 2001 (O'Reilly, 2005, par. 2). According to O'Reilly, “Web 2.0” is not a concept that has “a hard boundary,” but rather one that has “a gravitational core” (par. 7). It is visualized by O'Reily as “a set of principles and practices that tie together a veritable solar system of sites that demonstrate some or all of those principles, at a varying distance from that core” (ibid). These principles include, according to O'Reilly, the web as platform, harnessing collective intelligence, data management as a core competency, end of software release cycle (constant and frequent iterative development), users as co-developers, lightweight programming models, design crossover multiple devices, and rich user experience. More recently, O'Reilly and Batelle (2009) also emphasize on the high-level of automation, or the machine's ability to “learn” about its users and “sense” the world, as well as other deeper and more extensive developments of the characteristics of Web 2.0.1 Web 2.0 , as part of the complex world of technologies today, is messy and fast-changing, but 'Reilly's description of Web 2.0 perhaps is among the most systematic and comprehensive. In order to make use of this concept to inform usability, I will focus a brief discussion on two most fundamental and interdependent characteristics of Web 2.0: (1) web as a platform, (2) web as a database.
First, Web 2.0 is a “platform” (O'Reilly's, 2005), and websites existing on this web have gone beyond a collection of web pages. A Web 2.0 site does not only provide information from its owner to its audience. Rather, it provides services to its users, such as helping them manage their bookmarks (delicious.com), helping them store their documents and access from multiple locations (dropbox.com), or helping them keep up to date the blogs they are interested in (Google Reader and other readers enabled by RSS). The boundaries between websites and applications are blurred in Web 2.0, and the web has become a platform to run applications with which the users can do something. B. Dilger (2010) summarizes this characteristic succinctly: “As opposed to the 'strategic positioning' of the Web as a conduit for information delivered in discrete units metaphorically called 'pages,' Web 2.0 imagines itself as a platform much like a computer operating system on which applications are run and services delivered” (p. 17).
Second, the web has becoming a huge database. As O'Reilly (2005) has pointed out, data are of core value in Web 2.0. Different from Web 1.0, where information is usually provided by the owners of a websites, in Web 2.0, a great amount of data are generated by the users, either consciously (as in the cases of twitter, blogging, and folksonomy) or unconsciously/automatically by simply using the web (as in cases of search data and IP addresses). Through data management, Web 2.0 “mixes” the user data and creates a sort of “collective intelligence” (O'Reilly, 2005), one of the web's most valuable assets.
Consequently, Web 2.0's functionality is increasingly complex and heterogeneous, websites within the web and the web and other media and technologies are highly interconnected, and the users' participation is deeper then ever. These consequences have profound implications to web usability.
Cooper (2006) has remarked that when one crosses a thing, be it a camera, a alarm clock, or a warship, with a computer, it becomes a computer. Now, in a somewhat absurd way, Web 2.0 verifies this observation once again: when one crosses the web with a computer, the web becomes a computer. The complexity and sophistication of web applications of Web 2.0 is incomparable to Web 1.0, and the users' web experiences are richer than ever before—think of web apps such as Google Documents. These developments mean that only focusing on aspects of static “documents” such as page layout or “little” IA that only involves “organizing the content of a website” (Redish, 2010, p. 196) is not sufficient for web usability. Instead, we need to take a broader view of web usability, a “big” view that considers user's experience, or the “big” usability” in a richer context and aims at creating websites that “work for its users” (ibid).
In addition, the sophisticated and heterogeneous functionality of Web 2.0 affords heterogeneous user goals when they use the web. This is distinct from Web 1.0, where, according to Barnum (2002), users want to use the web for three reasons, “information (content), sales (commerce), and interaction (communication with other people)” (p. 365). In Web 2.0, users can manage their bookmarks (Delicious), citing sources (Zotero), making flash presentations (Prezi), managing your personal library (Library Thing), and above all, interacting with other users. Again, users use the web more and more like using their own computer, only with the added value of collective intelligence and sense of community. Therefore, web usability in Web 2.0 must take into account of the heterogeneity of use; a goal-oriented and user-centered approach in web usability is more than ever necessary.
Another consequence of the heterogeneity of website functionality that affect usability is the emergence of two large groups of websites, which has not been addressed in existing web usability literature. The first group consists of websites that function as applications. Some examples in this group are Dropbox, WordPress, Facebook, Twitter, or, let's not forget, Google. The other group consists of “traditional” websites, which increasingly incorporate Web 2.0 applications such as RSS, sharing, geotagging, and blogs. Some examples include cnn.com, whitehouse.gov, amazon.com, and unesco.org. In the existing literature on web design and web usability, websites are categorized very often according to the entities that they are associated with. For instance, D. Farkas and J. Farkas's (2002) categorize websites according to “purposes” and “genres” into news and information, E-commerce, web portals, persuasion, building and sustaining community, and personal and artistic expression. Nielsen and Loranger (2006) categorize the “genres” of websites largely according to the industries the owners of websites belong to: “from automobiles and financial services to entertainment sites and intellectually oriented medical and cultural sites” (p. 7). Neither of these categorizations can properly place websites such as Delicious, a bookmark management application, Dropbox, a personal file management online system, or wikis, collectively created (usually) informational websites.
The new categorization has usability implications. Because of the different purposes and functions these two groups of websites have, perhaps different usability guidelines need to be developed according to their characteristics. For instance, the homepage designs can be very different between these two groups. Although the recommendations in Krug (2006)'s chapter on home page design in Don't Make Me Think! are still relevant to the first group, recommendations specially for each group need to be added for the severity of the issues they deal with may differ across groups, or even individual websites. One of the recommendations for the first group will be to put a short instructional video on the homepage if the function of the site is complex (e. g., prezi,com and dropbox.com). This is because these sites usually offer a specific and often new service, and therefore, learnability and the support to learning is of high priority on the usability list. On the other hand, this might not be a huge issue for the second group of websites.
Another consequence of two characteristics of Web 2.0—the web as a platform and the web as a database—is the distinct separation of the data and the interface as well as the deep interconnection among websites. In fact, the metaphors of “platform” and “database” already tell us something about this split— a split between content and form. This split enables websites to become tools to manage the shared data. In other words, data travel across the web faster and more easily in Web 2.0 than in Web 1.0 through features such as sharing and sidebarring (Wolff et al., 2009). Consequently, websites are deeply interconnected. By “deeply,” I mean that websites are not just connected by hyperlinks as in Web 1.0, but share and manipulate the same data. The “remixibility” (O'Reilly & Battelle, 2009) of data in Web 2.0 affords the “seamless” interconnection (Wolff et al., 2009) among websites.
One of the implications of these developments in web usability is the need for standardization in some aspects of design. If “seamless” connection has become not only a goal, but a requirement for Web 2.0, standardization has also become necessary. For instance, testing for different browser has been recommended by usability specialists before Web 2.0 took off (Barnum, 2002), but in the context of Web 2.0, as more competitive browsers are available such as FireFox, Safari, Chrome, IE, and Opera, it has become an integral process in website development. Beyond that, designers of traditional websites discussed earlier need to make sure that the content on their websites can be easily used by other websites. Issues such as tagging the images on the page for easy capture, and using technologies that are compatible with most websites have become important usability issues. On the other hand, designers of the first group of websites (such as Google Reader) are compelled to design better interfaces that can work with a variety of contents.
In addition, in terms of learnability and memorability, the standardization of terminology and visual elements such as icons that emerge with the new functions of Web 2.0 sites has become a problem. Traditionally, web usability requires compliance to conventions (Krug, 2006; Nielsen & Loranger, 2006). However, the fast changing Web 2.0 sites and emerging new features make this task a difficult one. This has been noted by Wolff et al. (2009) who argue that although the varied use of the same terms is considered poor in traditional usability, it is possible that Web 2.0 users are better at adjusting to the “shifting definitions” depending on the contexts of use (par. 25). In any case, these issues pose new problems for usability researchers to work on.
Not surprisingly, standard interface design has also been observed by many (Arola, 2010; Dilger, 2008). However, not all welcome this change. Arola (2010) argues that the standard design of Web 2.0, or “template,” such as that of Facebook renders the design and its rhetorical function invisible, and also takes away the users' power to express their identities through designing their own web page. It is important to acknowledge that standard designs of Web 2.0 sites do tend to efface individual user's “faces” in a way. However, Dilger (2008) is right to point out that function is the core of Web 2.0 sites. The simplicity and standardization of design relieves the users from the burden of interface designing and learning new interface constantly so that they can focus on what they want to do. In fact, making the interface transparent, a principle of good design, is in a way making the interface “invisible” to the users (which is the opposite of the critical view to making the interface “visible” (e. g. Arola, 2010; Selfe & Selfe, 2009). It is important that users should be invited to critique the design, but at the same time, to those who are interested in usability and user-centered design, this trend does not pose “threat” but new web usability challenges to meet.
Last but not least, Web 2.0 websites thrive on users' participation. Many have pointed out the characteristic of user generated content (Dayton, 2008; Wolff et al., 2009). However, they have not stressed enough the importance of user participation to Web 2.0. In Web 1.0 era, websites can function without the users' participation—at most they are just unpopular—but in Web 2.0 era, some websites, mostly those in the first group as discussed earlier, cannot even function without user participation—just imagine a Facebook without faces. As O'Reilly's (2005) has pointed out, users add value to the websites in Web 2.0. They go to many websites to use the information provided by other users or users as a collective whole. Therefore, designers of Web 2.0 must design websites elements that afford users providing, obtaining, and sharing information. For instance, we need to design elements of the websites to make it easy for users to tag an image or an article, to share the pages on other sites, or to leave comments. We need to study where to position links, buttons or icons for these purposes, and so on, just as we did with the search engine and other elements in Web 1.0 environment.
In addition, usability researchers need to understand how much control and what kind of control the users should have to strike a balance between efficiency and flexibility. Users are co-developers in Web 2.0 (O'Reilly, 2005), and designs must afford users' innovations and creative ways to use the web—what Sun (2004, 2006) calls the “user localization.” An example of user localization is MySpace users' taking advantage of a glitch in the design of the Web site to use html codes to customize their profiles, post pictures or videos in their comments or blogs, and so on. Another example is twitter users' use of “@” or “#” (“hashtags”) to indicate reply to other users' tweets or tag a topic (What are hashtags? 2010; What is an @rrply?, 2010). Good design in Web 2.0 environment should afford these unintended uses created by the users to meet their specific goals.
To summarize, all the discussions above share a common theme: the user must be positioned at the center of Web 2.0 design. The user is an agent who not only uses the applications, interacts with the machine and other users, but also generates data that add value to the web, who constantly innovates the web use, and who enjoys both a material and a virtual existence. Therefore, the tools of user-centered design and usability research are invaluable in understanding and designing usable websites and applications.
First, Web 2.0 is a “platform” (O'Reilly's, 2005), and websites existing on this web have gone beyond a collection of web pages. A Web 2.0 site does not only provide information from its owner to its audience. Rather, it provides services to its users, such as helping them manage their bookmarks (delicious.com), helping them store their documents and access from multiple locations (dropbox.com), or helping them keep up to date the blogs they are interested in (Google Reader and other readers enabled by RSS). The boundaries between websites and applications are blurred in Web 2.0, and the web has become a platform to run applications with which the users can do something. B. Dilger (2010) summarizes this characteristic succinctly: “As opposed to the 'strategic positioning' of the Web as a conduit for information delivered in discrete units metaphorically called 'pages,' Web 2.0 imagines itself as a platform much like a computer operating system on which applications are run and services delivered” (p. 17).
Second, the web has becoming a huge database. As O'Reilly (2005) has pointed out, data are of core value in Web 2.0. Different from Web 1.0, where information is usually provided by the owners of a websites, in Web 2.0, a great amount of data are generated by the users, either consciously (as in the cases of twitter, blogging, and folksonomy) or unconsciously/automatically by simply using the web (as in cases of search data and IP addresses). Through data management, Web 2.0 “mixes” the user data and creates a sort of “collective intelligence” (O'Reilly, 2005), one of the web's most valuable assets.
Consequently, Web 2.0's functionality is increasingly complex and heterogeneous, websites within the web and the web and other media and technologies are highly interconnected, and the users' participation is deeper then ever. These consequences have profound implications to web usability.
Cooper (2006) has remarked that when one crosses a thing, be it a camera, a alarm clock, or a warship, with a computer, it becomes a computer. Now, in a somewhat absurd way, Web 2.0 verifies this observation once again: when one crosses the web with a computer, the web becomes a computer. The complexity and sophistication of web applications of Web 2.0 is incomparable to Web 1.0, and the users' web experiences are richer than ever before—think of web apps such as Google Documents. These developments mean that only focusing on aspects of static “documents” such as page layout or “little” IA that only involves “organizing the content of a website” (Redish, 2010, p. 196) is not sufficient for web usability. Instead, we need to take a broader view of web usability, a “big” view that considers user's experience, or the “big” usability” in a richer context and aims at creating websites that “work for its users” (ibid).
In addition, the sophisticated and heterogeneous functionality of Web 2.0 affords heterogeneous user goals when they use the web. This is distinct from Web 1.0, where, according to Barnum (2002), users want to use the web for three reasons, “information (content), sales (commerce), and interaction (communication with other people)” (p. 365). In Web 2.0, users can manage their bookmarks (Delicious), citing sources (Zotero), making flash presentations (Prezi), managing your personal library (Library Thing), and above all, interacting with other users. Again, users use the web more and more like using their own computer, only with the added value of collective intelligence and sense of community. Therefore, web usability in Web 2.0 must take into account of the heterogeneity of use; a goal-oriented and user-centered approach in web usability is more than ever necessary.
Another consequence of the heterogeneity of website functionality that affect usability is the emergence of two large groups of websites, which has not been addressed in existing web usability literature. The first group consists of websites that function as applications. Some examples in this group are Dropbox, WordPress, Facebook, Twitter, or, let's not forget, Google. The other group consists of “traditional” websites, which increasingly incorporate Web 2.0 applications such as RSS, sharing, geotagging, and blogs. Some examples include cnn.com, whitehouse.gov, amazon.com, and unesco.org. In the existing literature on web design and web usability, websites are categorized very often according to the entities that they are associated with. For instance, D. Farkas and J. Farkas's (2002) categorize websites according to “purposes” and “genres” into news and information, E-commerce, web portals, persuasion, building and sustaining community, and personal and artistic expression. Nielsen and Loranger (2006) categorize the “genres” of websites largely according to the industries the owners of websites belong to: “from automobiles and financial services to entertainment sites and intellectually oriented medical and cultural sites” (p. 7). Neither of these categorizations can properly place websites such as Delicious, a bookmark management application, Dropbox, a personal file management online system, or wikis, collectively created (usually) informational websites.
The new categorization has usability implications. Because of the different purposes and functions these two groups of websites have, perhaps different usability guidelines need to be developed according to their characteristics. For instance, the homepage designs can be very different between these two groups. Although the recommendations in Krug (2006)'s chapter on home page design in Don't Make Me Think! are still relevant to the first group, recommendations specially for each group need to be added for the severity of the issues they deal with may differ across groups, or even individual websites. One of the recommendations for the first group will be to put a short instructional video on the homepage if the function of the site is complex (e. g., prezi,com and dropbox.com). This is because these sites usually offer a specific and often new service, and therefore, learnability and the support to learning is of high priority on the usability list. On the other hand, this might not be a huge issue for the second group of websites.
Another consequence of two characteristics of Web 2.0—the web as a platform and the web as a database—is the distinct separation of the data and the interface as well as the deep interconnection among websites. In fact, the metaphors of “platform” and “database” already tell us something about this split— a split between content and form. This split enables websites to become tools to manage the shared data. In other words, data travel across the web faster and more easily in Web 2.0 than in Web 1.0 through features such as sharing and sidebarring (Wolff et al., 2009). Consequently, websites are deeply interconnected. By “deeply,” I mean that websites are not just connected by hyperlinks as in Web 1.0, but share and manipulate the same data. The “remixibility” (O'Reilly & Battelle, 2009) of data in Web 2.0 affords the “seamless” interconnection (Wolff et al., 2009) among websites.
One of the implications of these developments in web usability is the need for standardization in some aspects of design. If “seamless” connection has become not only a goal, but a requirement for Web 2.0, standardization has also become necessary. For instance, testing for different browser has been recommended by usability specialists before Web 2.0 took off (Barnum, 2002), but in the context of Web 2.0, as more competitive browsers are available such as FireFox, Safari, Chrome, IE, and Opera, it has become an integral process in website development. Beyond that, designers of traditional websites discussed earlier need to make sure that the content on their websites can be easily used by other websites. Issues such as tagging the images on the page for easy capture, and using technologies that are compatible with most websites have become important usability issues. On the other hand, designers of the first group of websites (such as Google Reader) are compelled to design better interfaces that can work with a variety of contents.
In addition, in terms of learnability and memorability, the standardization of terminology and visual elements such as icons that emerge with the new functions of Web 2.0 sites has become a problem. Traditionally, web usability requires compliance to conventions (Krug, 2006; Nielsen & Loranger, 2006). However, the fast changing Web 2.0 sites and emerging new features make this task a difficult one. This has been noted by Wolff et al. (2009) who argue that although the varied use of the same terms is considered poor in traditional usability, it is possible that Web 2.0 users are better at adjusting to the “shifting definitions” depending on the contexts of use (par. 25). In any case, these issues pose new problems for usability researchers to work on.
Not surprisingly, standard interface design has also been observed by many (Arola, 2010; Dilger, 2008). However, not all welcome this change. Arola (2010) argues that the standard design of Web 2.0, or “template,” such as that of Facebook renders the design and its rhetorical function invisible, and also takes away the users' power to express their identities through designing their own web page. It is important to acknowledge that standard designs of Web 2.0 sites do tend to efface individual user's “faces” in a way. However, Dilger (2008) is right to point out that function is the core of Web 2.0 sites. The simplicity and standardization of design relieves the users from the burden of interface designing and learning new interface constantly so that they can focus on what they want to do. In fact, making the interface transparent, a principle of good design, is in a way making the interface “invisible” to the users (which is the opposite of the critical view to making the interface “visible” (e. g. Arola, 2010; Selfe & Selfe, 2009). It is important that users should be invited to critique the design, but at the same time, to those who are interested in usability and user-centered design, this trend does not pose “threat” but new web usability challenges to meet.
Last but not least, Web 2.0 websites thrive on users' participation. Many have pointed out the characteristic of user generated content (Dayton, 2008; Wolff et al., 2009). However, they have not stressed enough the importance of user participation to Web 2.0. In Web 1.0 era, websites can function without the users' participation—at most they are just unpopular—but in Web 2.0 era, some websites, mostly those in the first group as discussed earlier, cannot even function without user participation—just imagine a Facebook without faces. As O'Reilly's (2005) has pointed out, users add value to the websites in Web 2.0. They go to many websites to use the information provided by other users or users as a collective whole. Therefore, designers of Web 2.0 must design websites elements that afford users providing, obtaining, and sharing information. For instance, we need to design elements of the websites to make it easy for users to tag an image or an article, to share the pages on other sites, or to leave comments. We need to study where to position links, buttons or icons for these purposes, and so on, just as we did with the search engine and other elements in Web 1.0 environment.
In addition, usability researchers need to understand how much control and what kind of control the users should have to strike a balance between efficiency and flexibility. Users are co-developers in Web 2.0 (O'Reilly, 2005), and designs must afford users' innovations and creative ways to use the web—what Sun (2004, 2006) calls the “user localization.” An example of user localization is MySpace users' taking advantage of a glitch in the design of the Web site to use html codes to customize their profiles, post pictures or videos in their comments or blogs, and so on. Another example is twitter users' use of “@” or “#” (“hashtags”) to indicate reply to other users' tweets or tag a topic (What are hashtags? 2010; What is an @rrply?, 2010). Good design in Web 2.0 environment should afford these unintended uses created by the users to meet their specific goals.
To summarize, all the discussions above share a common theme: the user must be positioned at the center of Web 2.0 design. The user is an agent who not only uses the applications, interacts with the machine and other users, but also generates data that add value to the web, who constantly innovates the web use, and who enjoys both a material and a virtual existence. Therefore, the tools of user-centered design and usability research are invaluable in understanding and designing usable websites and applications.
BIB_14: Dilger, B. (2010). Beyond star flashes: The elements of Web 2.0 style. Computers and Composition, 27(1), 15-26.
In this article, Dilger complicates "style" in the context of Web 2.0, and argues for a understanding of style "defined by its conceptual stand on truth, presentation, writer, reader, thought, language, and their relationships" (p. 16, quoted from Thomas and Turner's Clear and Simple as the Truth). He argues that the core value of style in Web 2.0 is function, functions are layered and never hidden, function provides identity. He further argues that the emphasis on functionality of Web 2.0 gives rise to different human and non-human writers and readers of Web 2.0, and thus is "the real engine of its much-ballyhooed participatory nature" (p. 20). Because for Web 2.0 style, "interoperation, not representation, must be transparent," Dilger argues, code has become a window that connects applications across the web required by the convention of sharing on Web 2.0, and standardization has become necessary. Moreover, Web 2.0 style welcomes a variety of conceptualization of "networking" which provokes fundamental changes on the web. As a result, users have become more important than ever, and because of the new "we" the emerged with Web 2.0, Dilger argues that a new design, "users-centered" rather than "user-centered," must be cultivated. The Web 2.0 style also recognizes the weak ties that link the applications and users, namely, low-risk, low-effect networking. Finally, Dilger revisits the problem of the style vs. substance question of Web 2.0, and call for critical apparatus to understand the new changes on the web, including in educational contexts.
This is a great article that puts some important issues on the table for us to understand the new changes on the web called by some, not unproblematically, Web 2.0. Many of Dilger's observations are useful for me to formulate a model to examine Web 2.0 sites/applications, especially the arguments for function and users.
This is a great article that puts some important issues on the table for us to understand the new changes on the web called by some, not unproblematically, Web 2.0. Many of Dilger's observations are useful for me to formulate a model to examine Web 2.0 sites/applications, especially the arguments for function and users.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)