Not@AoIR 1: Thinking about technical ability
Posted on October 16, 2003 @ 11:22 in Research
Right, so this year I'm not attending the Association of Internet Researchers' conference, that is starting today in Toronto. Needless to say I'm more than a bit peeved about that, but there is just so much going on, so much that needs to be done, that I had to cancel. To make up for it a little, I'm going to post at least one sensible research related post every day for the next three days. So even if I'm not really blogging at the conference, at least I'm sort of there in spirit.
So, today I will post my thoughts on how I have operationalized "technical ability" for my analysis of personal home pages. I was really happy to receive feedback on my first two posts on the subject, so feel free to comment and criticize my approach. Read on in the extended entry...
What is "technical ability" with regard to personal home pages?
It's not easy to define what exactly "technical ability" or "technical expertise" is with regard to personal home pages. Since the home page is a technological medium, each home page implies a certain mastery of that technology. We don't usually consider writing a technology, but in fact it is. In school and at home we learn how to put a pencil to paper at a very young age. First we just doodle, later we draw, and then we are taught to produce socially meaningful marks on the page. In this process we develop an intricate understanding of the properties of paper, different kinds of pens, pencils, and markers, and maybe more importantly, the meanings attached by others to our "products." The home page, although not exactly pen and paper, presupposes a similar proces of learning.
If we briefly consider the screen as a blank sheet of paper, then there are many different ways to fill it with something we wish to express. Using a WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get) editor, like for instance Microsoft Frontpage, you enter text and drag graphical elements around until the page looks like you want to and then you "publish" the page to your web server. This is probably the most common way people are introduced to making a home page nowadays and we could compare it to being handed a piece of paper, a number of stamps, and ready-made cut-outs, plus a pen that will only allow you to write text but not draw anything. We can fill the page with stamped images, paste some of those cut-outs in, and add some of our own text. This is good enough for many people and many purposes, but with a bit more knowledge about different types of paper, typography, a pencil that will let us draw, and different inks, brushes, and painting techniques, we could actually start to express ourselves in a much more sophisticated way.
Learning the technologies that underlie home pages, such as HTML, CSS, Java(script), PHP, Photoshop, and knowledge of web- and interface design will give the home page author more control over over the appearance of his/her home page, and thus a larger "palette" to express him/herself with. Technical ability is not easily classified, because many elements interact and form a many dimensional continuum. A home page author may, for instance, be very well versed in the "programming" side of making a home page, but know next to nothing about Photoshop and interface design. This author may craft a technically very elaborate web site, but that doesn't mean that it's either good looking or easily navigable. On the other hand, a home page author may be a wizard with Photoshop and craft a great looking website, that is however compromised by the author's lack of programming expertise.
Another example is that among a relatively small (but growing) group of web designers, who work with(in) the W3 standards, there is a fairly strict "best practice" understanding of what makes a "good" web page. For them a good web page "validates" according to the rules of the web standards governing body, the W3 Consortium. However, a website may validate and still look like crap and be hard to navigate. Validation says little more than that web page "car" is considered "roadworthy" and shouldn't break down under normal circumstances. It's quite another thing whether the "car" looks good, has a bit of performance, or handles above and beyond the bare minimum of not falling over when taking a sharp corner. Nevertheless, home page authors displaying the W3 logo's for valid (X)HTML and/or valid CSS make a certain claim about their technical ability and the "performance" of their home page. This is not a totally vapid claim, because knowing how to craft a W3 validating home page is like knowing how to spell and use correct grammar: a first step towards expressing yourself in that particular medium.
However, judging all these technical aspects of a home page is something that is of no direct interest to the majority of (potential) visitors. Most visitors coming to a home page are not that technically able themselves and even if they are, they might not be particularly interested in whether a home page is completely W3 validated, as long as the page looks decent enough and they can find what they came looking for. More importantly, most of the technical aspects of a home page are not all that readily visible when simply visiting a home page. Most web designers would probably agree that the best way to use CSS is by calling a separate stylesheet from the HTML document and not by embedding the CSS code in the HTML document. In either case though, the web page will look exactly the same to the visitor. The same goes different roll-over button techniques and for instance using image tags versus CSS background styling for headers. For most visitors the web page will look the same, regardless of the technique used. The fine points of the different techniques are only visible when you actually take the trouble of looking at the code, or if you happen to be disabled and depend on web designers making their website accessible for your "special needs browser" by using particular techniques and standards.
The point is that the technical ability of the web designer is not readily quantifiable because there are so many dimensions to "technical ability" and because sometimes "technical ability" is only "visible" in the code itself. What I will do then, is propose several operationalisations of the different dimensions of technical ability that I will use in this research to talk about home pages. These points are for the moment in semi-random order and will probably we refined at a later stage. These points are also not "cumulative" in the sense that scoring on more of these points indicates a higher technical ability; they rather indicate the awareness of the author of a particular dimension of the technical abilities involved in making a home page.
- Claim of technical ability, simply: does the home page author make any claims or statements about the technical aspects of the home page?
- presence of W3 buttons
- The presence of W3 buttons claiming valid (X)HTML or valid CSS indicates that the home page author is aware of these standards and has taken the trouble of writing code that validates. As noted above, with this knowledge often also comes a deeper understanding of web design, but not necessarily.
- "best viewed ..." statement
- The "best viewed" statement indicates that the author is aware of differences between browsers, screen sizes, and sometimes color depth. This statement both indicates awareness of these technological facts, but at the same time indicates the author's inability (or unwillingness) to design for (or around) these differences.
- "made with ..." statement
- The "made with" statement can be a form of advertisement or recommendation for a particular piece of software that the author happens to like a lot. Alternatively, it can be a statement of technical ability, when for instance it says, "Made with Notepad," indicating the author's ability to code HTML "by hand." The statement can also have a more political nature, when the author, for instance, notes the use Macintosh or Linux specific software.
- "general" technical details or updates statement or narrative
- Many authors don't talk about technicalities at all, but some remark upon recent changes or updates to the website without actually referring to the technicalities involved. This often takes the form of a list or narrative about the development of the website.
- Graphical ability, or the "Photoshop factor"
- use of graphics in the web page design
- In this category fall those people who use graphics as an integrated element of the web page design. Here I'm thinking primarily about big "header" graphics that blend into the background and/or navigation area, or indeed contain the navigation. Also those design that use graphical elements to make up the, for example rounded, borders of tables or divs.
- use of graphics in non integrated way
- This category mostly applies to those people who employ "funny" graphics, like animated e-mail link graphics, and non or less integrated header graphics.
- presentation of own graphical work
- Does the author offer graphics or significantly enhanced/tweaked photos of his/her own making?
- Overall web design awareness is a rather subjective aspect. It is more a corrolary to technical ability, rather than an indicator of it. Usually more technical abilities allow the author to craft a better design (but not necessarily), but even a technically limited home page author may be aware of various web design "rules" and craft a decent looking and navigable website.
- layout and consistency
- Is the layout consistent across the various pages of the website and does it enhance or hamper the presentation of the content.
- template or personal design
- Does the author use prefab templates or a personal design? This aspect is primarily applicable to the weblogs in the sample, as the ISPs in the sample don't provide a template service for the home pages.
- style and consistency
- Has the author been able to craft a personal style or are most elements rather generic? Is the style consistently applied across the different web pages? Use of CSS is a strong indicator here, as it is the easiest way to "apply style" to the web pages, but a same sense of style can also be achieved by heavy use Photoshopped elements.
At this point it should probably be noted that in general, I will look at the web pages based on their appearance and not their code. I will look at the source to clarify details, but the primary analysis will take place on the level of the "surface," that what is immediately visible to most surfers when they visit a home page.
Comments and Trackbacks
just to let you know, several commented yesterday that it isn't the same without you.
Posted by jeremy hunsinger on October 18, 2003 @ 15:38
are you crazy? the conference practically COLLAPSED without you there.
no, frank you missed a great conference but you were also greatly missed. please attend the next one in sussex!
Posted by silver on October 20, 2003 @ 22:23
Ah, Sussex, great! I heard some rumors it was going to be in GB, which is really nice and close :)
Posted by Frank on October 21, 2003 @ 08:18
Post a comment
Comments and trackbacks have been closed on this site. My apologies.
Since MT-Blacklist inexplicably stopped working I had no other recourse than close comments and trackbacks to stop the spam. I've been meaning to correct this for quite a while, but life got in the way... in a good way I should add.