#8 Invisibility of Difference
“…is shaped by over-familiarity with one’s own computer system, and a tendency to assume that – as with much more established forms of communication – everyone is operating within compatible and similar systems.” (Allen, n.d.)
The invisibility of difference is a concept that affects everyone online, it is not entirely an individual user issue, but one that also involves groups such as web developers, corporations and government departments. It is inherently the issue of not recognising or compensating for individual differences in social, cultural, political and technical contexts. ‘A technical-political issue’ is outlined by Goth (2008) who quotes an example involving a charity’s donation web form. Their ‘Country’ dropdown selection included Palestine but not Israel. Israel had high instances of fraud at the time, so it was not included in the ‘Country’ ISO list. Complaints of anti-Semitism came forth and the online charity had an unexpected problem. Goth (2008) points out: “To someone unfamiliar with the different motivations behind including or not including code in the end-user facing application, the decision might appear to be a political statement”. The web charity did not intend to judge anyone. Although the 'Invisibility of Difference' is a notion that we can understand and appreciate, it suggests a solution is needed to address its core meaning.
Web standards are available for the service providers on the web, to assist them with approaching a fair and useful Internet when they prepare software, websites and services for the general public. W3C (World Wide Web Consortium) exists to provide such support and direction for anyone involved in the planning and implementation of web accessibility. But I found their mission and goals to be far more interesting; they focus on a utopian Internet, where the “social value of the web” (W3C, n.d.), is upheld by collaborative experiences. All well and good, however Bolchini, Colazzo and Paolini (p.3, 2006) believe “W3C indications are an important (but not sufficient) step in this direction” especially where W3C in fact fail to adequately address key developments such as Aural website requirements. This suggests that the W3C mission statement is not yet delivering on its promise and matters are not progressing as they should. W3C are not the law for Internet accessibility but they are regarded as the ‘go to’ site for clarity and direction on web standards. I would therefore expect W3C guidelines to be more timely and useful even if the issues were recorded albeit incompletely rather than waiting to release comprehensive information, by which time it is generally well known and has lost its intended purpose.
The concept also highlights important distinctions that may help to further public awareness of web standards. It’s too easy to misunderstand the intended meaning of 'accessibility' on the web. Although it centres on people with disabilities, it represents the foundation for accessible standards, quite like a starting point for additional user considerations. Many of the web standards for people with medical disabilities are actually useful and appropriate for people without disabilities. In addition the differences in terminology or actions experienced by the user are often created by the user through mistaken belief or blissful ignorance. These and broader issues come under this concept of differences but they all relate to underlying technical aspects that control the web interface for users which affects us all on a personal level.
http://ww.w3.org
W3C is a broad network that the user or individual would use mainly for reference but this site covers resources, developments and initiatives which are both theoretical and technical. It attempts to provide a web standards framework which is needed by users and providers of web based services. This site is at risk of becoming overwhelmed and outdated. It requires a lot of input and work from volunteers and employees which if not kept up to date, makes the developing initiatives less relevant as time goes on. For the general public it is a solid resource for technical information and any accessibility issues currently being actioned or underway.
http://www.access-board.gov
Although this is more of a US government resource for web standards, its bearing on accessibility in general is quite specific for businesses and organisations. This is helpful for people who are interested to see what initiatives are being done at the government and authoritative level while maintaining international relevance. There are solid links out to US and international sites that provide further in-depth information about accessibility and standards. Pointing to a larger overview of awareness and then digging deeper into governance and approaches to solutions of difference are given throughout the site.
#9 Permanent Ephemerality
"...electronic communication's similarity or otherwise to written or oral communication is dependent on the perspective of the users." (Allen, n.d.)
Permanent ephemerality is the temporary illusion of impermanence! The concept is more than an oxymoron, it means that although electronic information may appear to be permanent; it could also appear to be temporary and both ideas are correct at some point in time. It leads me to think about how the opposing notions of permanence and the ephemeral reveal the intricacies of a persons perspective. I believe we should be concerned about this as it affects everyone by default.
The nature of ephemerality itself is less concerning if it is indeed temporary however I find it difficult to think of situations where this ephemeral sense is ever a true condition in electronic communication. There are consequences to not recognising that electronic communication is often more permanent than it appears to be. An email message by example, can be deleted by the user but on a network that deleted message may have already been archived for retrieval any time later. Similarly a comment posted on a webpage that is taken offline may show up years later in a simple search engine query. Advanced Internet users know the implications of communicating online and tend to consider their input, in whatever form, as permanent – regardless of whether they perceive it to be or are told it is so.
Some networks commit errors of omission whereby they somehow fail to state clearly their policies on personal data collected and held by them. Facebooks recent changes in policy created a public outcry when members who had closed their accounts realised their personal data was not permanently removed. Closed accounts were removed from public view but remained as electronic data on Facebook servers. We are all at risk of holding the false belief that we are in control of our communication data, based firmly on our past and present experience and lack of information to the contrary.
"…satisfaction, frequency of past behavior, and comprehensiveness of usage are key to habit formation and thus relevant in the context of IS (information systems) continuance behavior" (Limayem, Hirt and Cheung, 2007)
How would users reconcile permanent ephemerality without fully understanding the technical aspects of online communication? If all electronic communication were considered permanent, users could effectively take part in their Internet activities almost without the need for any advanced experience of the technologies being used.
Advancing users may come to realise there is more to electronic communication than they had first thought. Their understanding and perception of electronic communication is progressing and developing with persistent use over time. Perhaps the worldview of the individual expands to include the many distinctions between the permanent and ephemeral, and it is quite possible that one could be an advanced user in this context by the very next day. I believe it is the social responsibility of those of us who are aware of this concept of illusion, to prepare and inform people by example who may not yet have the experience to appreciate that everything is ‘virtually’ not as it seems online.
http://netforbeginners.about.com
This subdomain site on About.com contains incredibly useful information for newcomers to the Internet. It covers the important topics that would most likely be asked by anyone without online experience but is a good resource for advanced users as it applies to ones practical sense of communication also. Topics from Net culture to scams and the basics of Internet tools such as browsers, provides an informed foundation of knowledge for the inexperienced user. The site includes relatively hip and up-to-date concepts such as 'memes' and 'the deep web' that are explained in user friendly terms. It's a good resource which is kept current using feeds.
http://www.getnetwise.org
GetNetWise looks visually more educational than other sites. It lists information in simple categories while giving users the ability to search for topics of interest. It appears to focus initially on privacy and security online however the concepts are covered in sufficient depth to teach users about the consequences involved with being online. The site goes further and explains the key issues for each topic and although not all aspects are covered, the information given gets the user to think about what they are doing and why. A good site for learners as it is not distracting and the menu options are well thought out for beginners.
#5 The Mobility of Electronic Digital Data
“…seeking to ensure that technical possibility is not simply substituted for effective communication requirements.” (Allen, n.d.)
Our use of email can give us a false sense of ‘speed and efficiency’ when we use it for work or play. This ability to share electronic content brings with it certain responsibilities that we should be aware of regardless of our technical expertise. Email has become a ‘cultural given’ where we include a growing number of people in our everyday email habits however we can often send them communication that is unnecessary, inappropriate and unsolicited. Some of our email messages can be classified as spam in many cases since fraud, hoaxes and ‘stuff’ we don’t ask for gets sent to us. A lack of consideration or rather not being aware of the other persons needs and knowledge is the fundamental problem highlighted through the everyday routine of email. Western Oregon University (Email Etiquette, 2007) give a lot of good advice to readers on their email etiquette page where it is mentioned that although email technology is not common knowledge, the use of email requires the same human interactions and communicative approach as if you were writing a letter or speaking to someone.
So, it seems that some users are likely to confuse the simple use of technology as sufficient communication in itself. They think by emailing a funny video to several people they know, would be appreciated and might brighten someone’s day. But do they stop to consider if the communication was necessary or even appropriate at the time? When I think about this scenario, it feels great that more than one person could enjoy seeing it, but here’s an example of ‘not necessary’… 'Why did Cody forward to me, just now, the same video I sent to him two hours ago?' Cody should have noticed I sent the video to him in the first place. People don’t always read what’s on the screen. They fail to grasp the essential nature of ‘one to many, one to one’ capabilities of electronic data. Kibby (p. 772, 2005) goes deeper with my point where she finds "this detachment lessens accountability, at the same time it increases authenticity". Although it is used easily, like spoken communication, digital data deserves attention and thought before it is released.
"While there is a significant proportion of e-mail that is social in character, it is also likely to increase communication within the workplace. E-mail is increasingly fulfilling the traditional role of the water cooler in facilitating communication." Dr Suzan Burton (as cited in You've got email, n.d.)
The social mobility of email has become easily attractive to many users because email provides simple subconscious ways of sharing ones identity and authenticity through text, audio and visual content (Kibby, 2005). It's as if we are using revolutionary ways and means to send an email to everyone we know as 'storytelling' with some added social implications tagged on. I would liken the use of email as a tool that enhances our individual needs and desires, but our ability to contextualise is a skill needed here to bring it all into perspective. We can connect at any time and as often as we like with other people - quickly and efficiently - so that we can retain control of our everyday lives and touch the lives of others at the same time. The mobility of electronic data is a positive progression of technology using the Internet but similar to 'offline' communication, it comes with the need for responsible and contextual delivery to be useful.
http://www.learnthenet.com
This is a good resource for users and teachers alike. It explains concepts using 'how to' points that lead into quick, short versions of email etiquette and basic communication issues. The site is able to address the important basics of communications online without burying the reader in too much technical detail. Although this site is run by a private company, it has been in existence for over 10yrs and continues to offer courses and material for community and educational use as well as the tips and advice for individuals. The value of this site is through its 'learning by example' tutorials, giving it wider appeal.
http://www.netmanners.com
NetManners clearly focuses on email etiquette and the ways in which technology is used with particular emphasis on informing users about competency and courtesy. The site encourages interaction through newletter tips, user self-test applications and commenting while it draws the reader into the topic of interest. There is insightful information using scenarios as examples to help make a point. The owner appears to be one person 'Judith' who is a professional consultant and author, deeply involved in netiquette issues. She runs several other related sites and has appeared in the media discussing Internet etiquette as well as authoring books. A current source for anyone wishing to learn about communicating online.
#22 Public Space and Regulation
“…public spaces often operate best when there is some form of regulation.” (Allen, n.d.)
The need for regulation on the Internet is apparent when considering the different perspectives of the audience and the website providers. Depending on the forum or portal that is accessed, some providers will impose rules that protect their users privacy, security, communication methods and more. Regulation should also be considered necessary for the rights of the public to access, collaborate, interact and share information without undue discrimination or difficulty.
Regulation does not necessarily inhibit free speech and the ability to participate in public forums but rather it attempts to ensure an appropriate and useable Internet is presented. Participation levels in social networks online are now more ubiquitous than ever, creating further need for monitoring and dynamic rules for both users and web providers. But why is nothing being done to address our need, the necessary order that allows us to use the Internet in a positive and dynamic environment? A search engine query researching the regulation of the Internet brought me little guidance and confidence with what I found. There is more discussion coming from the blogosphere and community driven institutions about this than from authorities of national or international significance. I suspect that this lack of coordinated effort to bring some order to the Internet results from our history of oppression and the denial of power when it is actually ‘quite Internet’ to expect the opposite. The answer could be addressed in theory, perhaps using an integrative approach to governance online.
Lim (2003) contrasts two models that might be used to regulate the Internet, calling them the Judicial and Socio-normative models. There is already a mix of both models in use and to some extent quite successfully such as the issue of policing child pornography. Child pornography is a recognised illegal activity worldwide - at least in the majority of countries with Internet technology where the judicial approach, using existing principles of law, is in force with countries taking the responsibility to investigate further and prosecute. Socio-normative activities which can be termed Netiquette in this context are also represented by the Internet community in the form of self regulatory action – people will police this issue themselves by reporting any illegal activity and content they come across to the authorities. Good ‘netizens’ would also act responsibly with how they conduct themselves online, there again addressing freedom of speech but while upholding social standards and values as an individual should.
Although we have established law and order in our society, in most countries, it is difficult to bring order to certain situations online. This justice and the inherent freedom of the Internet requires complex substantiation or supporting evidence that can at times prove difficult to assess and deal with fairly. Practical issues of cross-border, political and national governance come to mind. Different worldviews and meanings converge and form specific tipping points and tensions over what the Internet community might deem too liberal or heavy handed. This is why self regulation fails on its own and current judicial systems are equally useless without the resonance of the people behind it.
http://www.netdialogue.org
Netdialogue is a collaborative website project that is managed by Harvard Law School and Stanford Law School. The idea behind this site is to provide everyone from the general public to government an opportunity to see and comment on what organisations, initiatives and areas of the Net are being studied for the purposes of governance. The main advantage this site has over others is its helpful structure towards the information gathered. It helps the reader to understand the overall picture of Net governance while providing further specific details on initiatives that are underway by authorities around the world.
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu
This is Harvards ‘Berkman Center for Internet & Society’ which is a site that is more Web 2.0 in its delivery of information about the social development and dynamics of the Internet. The main focus for this site is research of new and upcoming developments that affect many areas of the Internet. In turn they are keen to concentrate on the aspects of law that is often identified in many areas of cyberspace. It seems that through their attempts to understand the dynamics of the Internet and how it affects the social lives of people, this site effectively collects current perspectives and identifies needs relating to Net governance.
Reference List
Bolchini, D., Colazzo, S. & Paolini, P. (2006). Requirements for Aural Web Sites. Web Site Evolution, 2006. WSE '06. Eighth IEEE International Symposium on, 75-82, from IEEE Xplore database.
Kibby, M. (2005). Email forwardables: folklore in the age of the internet. New Media Society 2005, 7, 770. Retrieved May 10, 2009, from Sage Journals Online database.
Lim, Y. (2003). Law and regulation in cyberspace. Cyberworlds, 2003. Proceedings. 2003 International Conference on, 34-39. Retrieved May 17, 2009, from IEEE Xplore database.
Limayem, Y. M., Hirt, S., & Cheung, C. (2007). How habit limits the predictive power of intention: The case of information systems continuance. MIS Quarterly, 31(4), 705-737. Retrieved May 11, 2009, from Business Source Premier database.
Bibliography
Lindtner, S., & Nardi, B. (2008). Venice, California and World of Warcraft: Persistence and Ephemerality in Playful Spaces. Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Proceedings of the 41st Annual, 151-151. Retrieved May 11, 2009 from IEEE Xplore Database.
Davis, J. (1998) Protecting intellectual property in cyberspace. Technology and Society Magazine, 17(2), 12-25. Retrieved May 11, 2009 from IEEE Xplore Database.
Posts
