The Referencing Post.

Ah yes the referencing, how I love it. When I remember to do it.
So here it is all the referencing from each blog entry.
Post One:
O’Reilly, Tim. “What is Web 2.0?: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software.” O’Reilly Page. 30th of September 2005. Web 2nd July 2009.
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html

Post Two.

Anon. “Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia,” Wikipedia. n.d Web 10th July 2009.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

Encyclopedia Britannica Inc. “ Encyclopedia Britannica,” Encyclopedia Online. 1994. Web 10th July 2009.
http://corporate.britannica.com/company_info.html

Post Three.

Lowgren, Jonas. “Interactive Design,” Interactive Design; HCI Information Architecture, User Experience and more. 3rd November 2008. Web 16th March 2009.
http://www.interaction-design.org/encyclopedia/interaction_design.html

Post Four.

Richards Kate. “Teams, Roles and Project Planning.” 100789 Lecture 3. 11th March 2009.

Post Five.

Spiekermann, Erik. “Information Design,” AIGA page. 21st June 2002. Web 18th March 2009.
http://www.aiga.org/content.cfm/information-design_1

Post Six.

Seton Australia. “First Aid/ PPE>> Posters,” Seton Australia Page. 2006. 18th March 2009.
http://www.seton.net.au/templates/firstaid_posters.cfm


On the other hand, is it possible I have also just completed almost all the link requirements? Hmmm perhaps not.

Examples of Information/Instructional Design.

While this is a “new” media unit for these examples I have chosen to use older print examples, first aid posters being one that can cover both information and instructional design. Providing the information need to save someone’s life and giving instructions of how to do that. The information given can be as simple as a red cross, known world wide as a symbol for medical help, or it could be detailed information about the symptoms of an illness or affliction, these details would be in a language that related to where the poster was situated to give the best possible usage of it. As if it was in a language that was not relevant to the area it would of course fail in that respect as a informational design, the symbol however being a widely acknowledged sign should in most places be able to be correctly identified. As I mentioned above the layout plays an important role in some informational and instructional design, in particular in this case and instructional poster shows the users in which order to do the steps instructed when treating an illness or injury. The layout normally involves both the use of words and visual representations to give the user the greatest chance of being able to use the design, it is also often done in the form of a flow chart to show how and where one step leads onto the other. Through these design aspects the function of the information or instructional posters works to there fullest potential.

What is Informational/Instructional Design?

Ahh just like that other post I did, this seems like one of those topics that almost answers itself. However what is it really? Well in short the designing of a piece which informs the user in a simple yet effective manner. Like other design the layout of an informational design piece is important, as is any use of logos or brand names, however the information be it visual, audio or language based must be recognizable and be able to provide the end user with the information they require. It is important that the end user of an information design piece be considered when designing an information piece, because if they can not understand it then the design has essentially failed as is mentioned by Erik Spiekermann (2002). Instructional design is on the whole quiet similar however instead of informing the user of something, it instructs them on how to do something. Again the ability of the instructions to be displayed in a way that makes them understandable for the user is the key issue, while layout and style take a secondary position. However in saying that should the layout be confusing or unappealing in either situation the user may potentially choose not to use the design, or may not be able to locate it.

Example of Interactive Design

As we were shown in the lecture the multimedia exhibit of “By Standers” by Kate Richards and Ross Gibson (2006) is an impressive example of the use of interactive design. The multimedia exhibit for “By Standers” is an instillation combining the use of audio and visual design with the design of the art space and of course interactive design.
While a huge amount of work went into creating the piece collecting all the data and producing the artistic elements of it, it is the way in which the piece interacts with the users. Through a system of motion and sound sensors the program adjusts itself to give the person/s viewing a varying level of intimacy with the artwork.
For instance should the be to much movement and noise the exhibit will in a sense draw itself away from the people viewing it, encouraging a change in behavior from them.
This demonstration of a program being able to create a change in actions from those using it is a strong use of interactive design, showing the influence design has on its users. And while there are also software controls that allow for different speeds and depth of the artwork, it is mainly the human interaction with this instillation that shows how extraordinary it is.

What is Interactive Design

Well apart from the title of this unit, I was thinking as a guess it was design that interacted with the user or allowed the user to interact with it. I think I was half right.

According to Lowgren (2008) Interactive design can be broadly broken down into two categories; the design discipline and as an extension of HCI.

The view of Interactive Design as a design discipline shows it as being more closely related to industrial design or architecture, because of the amount of planning that goes into an Interactive
Design piece. There’s also a link to a Scandinavian school of system designs, where a belief in user participation was a long-standing aim.

The view of Interactive Design as an extension of HCI (human-computer interaction) has its bases in research programs, the major problem with this was that the users would only detail the problems with the design the program had been in use. It was decided from that that if the user was able to make changes to the design there would be better more productive use of the design.

Through changes in the way computers are being used, as well as how, the changes and level of participation users are able to make on programs they are using has been increased. It must however be noted that the user is not always solely in control of how the program interacts, in some cases the programs have been designed in such a way as to alter with the interaction the user provides.

Examples of Web 2.0

However to properly explain and prove the existence of Web 2.0 let me give you an example.
A very good example of this is seen in Britannica Online compared to Wikipedia.
Britannica Online was, and I suppose still is somewhere, an online encyclopedia where a team of publishers got together and chose the content of the website - this being the Web 1.0 way. The user then has no choice but to accept the information that the site provides and should they find error has no opportunity to fix the information.
Wikipedia however is a user based, sure someone or a group of people got together and decided that a service like this should exist, but the content, the editing and using is all done by the users of Wikipedia. Should a user find fault with the content they can edit it, or make it known that it should be edited. Should a user find that there is not the information that they believe to be important available they can write up a new posting for the site.
This comparison between these two similar sites shows the how Web 2.0 gives the user new control and options not previously available during the Web 1.0 stage.

Defining Web 2.0

- Note: yes I completely realise how boring my title is, do you have a better suggestion? However to get on with it.

O'Reilly defines Web 2.0, more or less, as what exists after (and occasionally during) Web 1.0. Helpful isn't it?
Well in truth that is a simplification of what is actually said. O'Reilly tells us that the concept of Web 2.0, bought about during a brainstorming conference, is to define web content which revolves around the user/s of said web content. Prior to Web 2.0, a system of management controlling web content and deciding what was wanted, needed or looked for was used.
The change from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 is suppose to have during the "dot-com bubble burst of 2001"(O'Reilly, 2005), when the web, and its users, moved away from companies that published web content to a more community based content supply.
During this up-rising web users created, or promoted the idea, of a more user focused web - allowing for communities to start up revolving around user content be it information, blogs, shared files or even the way content is categorised. It also created the idea of the more users are accessing web content, adding to the content or otherwise, the better that web content becomes.
Through this the atmosphere of the web has changed making it more personal and friendly place.