Wednesday 7 December 2011

Information Architecture

In our final DITA lecture we considered web site design; more specifically information architecture. We considered what makes a good web site by considering what end users love and hate about the web. Our lecturers listed the following:
LoveHate
Good DesignCan't Find it
AestheticsGratuitous Bells and Whistles
Big ideasInappropriate Tone
UtilityDesigner-Centredness
FindabilityUnder-Construction
PersonalisationNo attention to detail
Waiting

Much of this is common sense - for example, people will get frustrated if they cannot find what they need, or if they are overwhelmed with unnecessary graphics. I have certainly been irritated in the past by websites that make you watch (or click a button to skip) a video before going to the main site - especially if you intend to use it a lot.
We considered why it is important to organise information. For you info pros out there, the answer is incredibly obvious, but for the sake of argument let's spell it out. Not organising your information might seem quicker when you create it. A common cry where I work is 'why can't we just put things in our personal drives and be done with it?' The reason is twofold: first, when you come to look for something it will be like searching for a needle in a haystack. Second, if it's on your personal drive, we can't help you as much, because we can't see it. (I risk digressing here to the importance of a nice EDRMS in an organisation, so perhaps I will move on.) If this argument doesn't work, one can point to financial reasons - Jakob Nielsen was quoted in Rosenfeld and Morivlle's book 'Information Architecture' saying, 'low intranet usability costs the world economy $100 billion per year in lost employee productivity' (p.xii). This was back in 2002, so nearly a decade later I suspect this figure is a lot larger.

Organising information on web pages is actually very flexible. For example, it is possible (although perhaps not recommended!) to link an unlimited number of pages. In the 'real world' it is more difficult to do this; if you compare information architecture to architecture (buildings), you would not be able to link a room to an infinite number of rooms. A database is slightly different, as entity relationships tend not to link to a very large number of other entities. (This is due to the requirement for unique identifiers; other tables get added in - see the database blog for more details on this!)

Above we looked at a list where web loves and hates were identified. So how do we avoid falling into these traps? A cynical response, perhaps, is to not let the graphics design team get over excited(!) However, our lecturer pointed out that another trap people fall into is handing over the website design to the geeks, who make it over-technical. To avoid this when developing a web site, it is important to have people from lots of backgrounds on the design team, including: graphic design, technical types (for dealing with databases, programming, etc), project managers and information architects. Information architects generally have a background in information management - for librarians it can be a natural move as it is basically creating a structure, providing labels and making things organised.

When you've got your team you need to consider how you are going to achieve the web loves listed above (and avoid the web hates!). There are lots of guides on the web describing how to put together a good web site (for example, Smashing Magazine and Sharpened Productions). A common theme is to be user focused. It seems obvious, but think about who is using your website, why they are using it, and how they might use it. A general rule of thumb is to avoid making people think too much; navigation should be intuitive. This is where good architecture comes in. An information architect considers the relationships between pages, optimises access to information and of course will know all about indexing! In addition, they will be familiar with consistent labelling, for example not mixing up their nouns and verbs.

So what can we conclude? Good web design isn't just about having lots of graphics and helpful information (although this is still important!). With the expansion of the Web people are increasingly impatient and fast-moving, so good navigation systems and searchable web pages are a must. People visiting your web page shouldn't be forced to think too much, which is possible with consistent labelling. (To think about it another way, people shouldn't be scrutinising your labels too closely, they should just be using them).

Saturday 3 December 2011

Mobile Information, the Semantic Web and the World of Open

Hello bloggees! My apologies for having fallen off the map of late, I have been very busy trying to get some reading done for my coursework. I know, excuses, excuses, but I am going to attempt to catch up on what's been happening in my DITA module in this post, which covers Web 2.0 technologies, potential Web 3.0 and related policy.

First of all, I will give you a quick overview of mobile information. Then I will touch on the semantic web, which is sometimes considered as 'Web 3.0'. I will conclude with a look at the world of open - this  covers open source systems and open data.

Mobile Information

Mobile devices offer the advantage that they are context aware, By this, I mean that they can identify where they are. This includes, but is not limited to GPS (Global Positioning System) on mobile devices. Having GPS allows your phone to offer map services and you can find companies near to where you are. Additionally, mobile devices often have a magnetic compass an accelerometer which means that the phone 'knows' which way it is facing.

Having cameras in your mobile device can also allow context awareness. Face and building recognition technology is inaccurate, but it is improving. If you combine this with GPS, you could add more detailed metadata to your photographs: in theory you could tag where, when and who you are photographing.

Bluetooth also offers context awareness on mobile devices. Bluetooth allows devices to receive information, and also to broadcast, for a distance of about 10 metres. It has been proposed as a technology for 'information fountains' - for example offering tourist information in the vicinity of attractions.

One downside to mobile devices is their size; the screens are very small (certainly considering the size of the screen on a laptop or PC). Applications are therefore stripped of some of their content so that they can be viewed on a smaller screen. Usually the same content is presented, but in a different or collapsed way. For example, if you open a Wikipedia page on a mobile device the information has been collapsed into menus so the loading time is smaller, and you do not have to scroll through a lot of information unnecessarily. Keyboards on mobile devices are also small - this can cause problems as fiddly keys lead to spelling mistakes and a reduced typing speed. This can be avoided to an extent on some devices, as there is the option to have different keypads for different applications.

The Semantic Web

The Semantic Web is one vision of what Web 3.0 might be like. While there is no fixed definition of Web 3.0 (some argue that it is merely a marketing plug) it is generally assumed that it will need to be one step further than Web 2.0. So if Web 1.0 was readable, Web 2.0 was readable and writable, Web 3.0 should be readable, writable and executable (or interact-able). The semantic web offers a way of doing this.

As we know, computers aren't that bright on their own. Unlike people, they are not intuitive and require strict instructions to execute. If you think about XML, this 'tells' the computer more information than HTML. The semantic web is a lot like this. However, it goes further than XML which only 'tells' the computer that something is a title; it also explains what a title is. An example of semantic web technologies is RDF or the Resource Description Framework.

At it's most basic, RDF creates metadata. But it also creates meta-metadata. An RDF statement is made up of a subject, an object and a predicate. The subject is the thing itself - for example it could be an image, a journal article, a video, and so on. The object is the metadata, the predicate is the relationship. For example:

Subject: this video
Object: Matt Damon
Predicate: has starring actor

Typically the subject is a URL (which makes sense as we are discussing Internet resources). Sometimes, the predicate and object are also URLs. However, these URLs need not point to anything specific - they could be URIs (Unique Resource Identifiers). Unlike a URL, URIs do not necessarily point to a tangible 'thing' on the Internet. A predicate that is a URI will describe the relationship - for instance in the example above rather than just saying 'has starring actor', it will explain to the computer unequivocally what this actually means so that it can be 'understood'.  

From this you can build a map of relationships of Web Ontology Language (OWL). This is a taxonomy with rules applied in a sort of web. This allows the computer to make links that you might not have been able to spot yourself, especially if you have a lot of information in the OWL. So using the example above perhaps you could look at all the videos that have Matt Damon as a starring actor, and you could map his career. Perhaps this is not the most useful thing you could do with an OWL but hopefully you get the idea!

The World of Open

In this lecture we considered open access publishing, open source software and open data. It was reiterated that the Internet is a disruptive technology, and has caused a change in the way people interact with information. It is unlikely that the replication and distribution of digital information would have been so widespread without the Internet.

The world of open is as much an ideological idea as a technical one. There are academics and programmers who are passionate about removing barriers to openness, including digital publishing, source code, government information, and so on.

Open access publishing is where full research articles are available to anyone for free, across the web. The impact of open access on the publishing world is debateable. There is an obvious advantage to using journals which are free for immediate access, but these journals have not been around long enough to build up a reputation. The real impact of open access publishing remains to be seen.

Open source software development looks to develop an infrastructure rather than finished products for commercial sale. The Internet has made is possible for software developers webwide to work collaboratively, uniting programmers with similar areas of interest regardless of where they are. In particular the Internet makes asynchronous working possible, as developers can communicate via email, for example.


In our lecture we discussed the motivation for Open Source Software; after all, it seems odd to be offering software structures for free! There are two types of stakeholders to consider, at micro and macro level. At micro level, developers may be building this software because it doesn't exist and they need it. There is also a financial incentive as individual developers can build a reputation and make a lot of money if their products are used widely. At a macro level, Open Source allows developing and maintenance costs to spread across several companies (this can also work with individuals).


Finally, I should touch on Open Data. The best way to look at this is with an example. The British Government have run several initiatives over the last few years, which are all driving at openness. The Freedom of Information Act (2000) requires departments to have a publication scheme, which is a list of available documents/information. Usually, departments are quick to publish released information after a request. The first initiative was Making Public Data Public, which was championed by Tim Berners-Lee and the Minister for Digital Britain, The Rt Hon Stephen Timms MP. Over time (and under various governments!) the openness agenda has been referred to by several names, and has branched out (at the moment it is unclear whether there is a huge different between Open Data and Transparency), but the underlying message is the same: public data should be made open and available for use unless there is a good reason not to release it. The idea is that the default should be openness, rather than only releasing certain data. Naturally there is still a lot of work to be done, but there is already an awful lot available here and here.


This concludes a rather brief overview of some Web 2.0 technologies and related policies. It will be interesting to see what happens next. Mobile technology is developing at a rapid pace (despite the latest iPhone exploding a few times) and it will be interesting to see what is dreamed up next. The semantic web and open data go together well, and I think they will perhaps develop together.At Cabinet Office they are already using semantic web technology on their Transparency website.