RR_04: Farkas, D., & Farkas, J. B. (2002). Principles of Web design. New York: Longman.

As the title of the book suggests, Farkas and Farkas are primarily concerned with the principles of Web design. This suggests that this book is a guiding overview of Web design, but at the same time, inevitably lacks the details and depth of any of the aspects of Web design it covers. The focus on principles also explains the theoretical priority of the book. Although the authors have devoted chapters to talk about the application of these principles in the process of Web development, they did not put as much effort into providing examples to show the audience how to do it. As to the theory, the authors cover fairly extensively the issues and consideration concerning Web design at their time. However, an eight-year old book on the Web is inevitable outdated, not in the sense that what the authors discuss is irrelevant to today's technological and social context, but that these principles are no long adequate for successful Web design today. New understanding of the Web and design principles are needed to accommodate the new technological and social changes.

The authors rely on hypermedia theory to understand the Web. However, hypermedia theory, which perceive the Web as a network of nods and links, is no longer adequate in understanding today's Web, or Web 2.0 so to speak. Instead of linked nods, the Web perhaps should be understood today more accurately as databases and the user interfaces (which are not just the screen, but everything involved in user's interaction with the databases). What I mean by database is different from, say, Manovich's notion of database. In The Language of New Media, Manovich argues that the “key form of expression” of new media is database as opposed to the traditionally dominant narrative (p. 194). He argues that:

Many new media objects do not tell stories; they don't have beginning or end; in fact, they don't have any development, thematically, formally or otherwise which would organize their elements into a sequence. Instead, they are collections of individual items, where every item has the same significance as any other. (p. 194)

In this sense, Manovich's (2001) understanding of database agrees with Farkas and Farkas' hypermedia theory, which regards the Web as a network of linked nods that (1) is structured (and often in hierarchical structure) and (2) allows users to navigate from one nod to another with certain freedom (which means a void of “master” or “authoritative” narrative). Manovich's database consists of linked “objects” and Farkas and Farkas's Web consists of linked “nods.” Although an “object” can be any element of information in all kinds of forms, and a “nod” is “a substantial chunk of digital content" (which often but not necessarily is a Web page) (Farkas & Farkas, 2002, p. 126), Manovich and Farkas and Farkas use these concepts and the collection of them (database and the Web) respectively to emphasize the non-linear and variable nature that is a break from the more traditional media such as print and film. In other words, hypermedia theory and Monovich's new media theory both emphasize on the freedom on the part of the audience (the user) to construct her/his narrative.

However, neither hypermedia theory nor new media theory can adequately account for the Web today. For instance, emphasis on the freedom of the user/audience in both theories regards only to reception of information. Farkas and Farkas analogize a Web site as a “lecturer” and the user as “the sole member of the audience” (p. 132). The user's power over the system primarily comes from her/his choice or preference of what information to receive. This view is based on their view that “ most websites are first and foremost information environments rather than environments for online computing” (p. 133). In other words, Farkas and Farkas's understanding of Web sites still stays at the document metaphor stage. This view implies a rather static understanding of the Web as hyper linked information environment.

Interestingly, Farkas and Farkas's views on the user and the Web are more or less shared by Manovich as he writes that databases “appear as collections of items on which the user can perform various operations: view, navigate, search” (p. 194). Not surprisingly, Manovich marvels this power of user compared to the audience of earlier media: “The user experience of such computerized collections is therefore quite distinct from reading a narrative or watching a film or navigating an architectural site” (p. 194). These views, however, do not account for the user's more active role in Web reality today. The authors may be able to explain how the user's ability to search for information affects the reality she/he is presented via the Web or new media (two different concepts; I'm not meshing them together as one). However, their theories cannot explain how individual user's search behavior affect the information she/he receive in the future or how users' search record/data affect how information is structured on the Web and, further, what the Web is becoming.

One characteristic of the Web today that authors in the early 2000's like Farkas and Farkas or Manovich were not able to clearly see (because of the technological and social constraint at the time) is the radical separation of the structure/system and the content/data. To Farkas and Farkas, for instance, a nod is both data and part of the system. However, the contemporary Web, or Web 2.0 does not work like that. Web sites are built increasingly using database and Web-based applications based on technologies such as JavaScript/Ajax. The understanding of the Web functioning as databases (not in Manovich's sense) and interfaces (which including Web-based applications that enable users to interact with the databases), however, recognize this separation, and thus provide a better lens to understanding how the Web operates today, which will serve as a basis for principles of Web design.

To be fair, Farkas and Farkas have dedicated one chapter to Web sites as online computing environments, which is more relevant to today's Web 2.0. However, the discussion is very general—no more than a few “guidelines.” Also, some of their recommendations, such as refraining from plug-in programs, should be rethought given the new technological development and users' increasing comfort level with technologies.

One point Farkas Farkas have made may deserve more attention in today's highly automated Web environment. That is their concern about power and information. They warn the readers when they talk about the “adaptive” systems such as the customized home page Yahoo's provide:

Although there is great potential in adaptive linking, it is not easy for adaptive systems to draw correct inferences about human behavior and information needs. [...] Finally, citizens must be vigilant about allowing governments, corporations, and other organizations to manage and filter the information we get over the Web. (p. 214)

Perhaps even more dangerous than the monopolization of traditional media, the monopolization of the Web—a few corporations such as Google and Facebook—means the concentration of power of control over not only information to be disseminated but also of the data collected automatically about every Internet user. If Foucault is right in saying that the control of personal information is a means to control the population, then we are indeed entering a time when possibility of control is, although invisible, evermore pervasive.


References

Manovich, L. (2001). The language of new media. Cambridge: MA: MIT Press.