Kierkegaard preached loving condescension: getting down on someone's level in order to lift them up. He discussed authenticity and the fight against despair and resignation. Finally, he outlined three different levels of being: the aesthetic, the ethical, and the religious. With that in mind, let us see how these principles can be applied to the BYU Humanities website.
To my mind, "loving condescension" in a website translates to a welcoming and robust interface. A Kierkegaardian website should introduce its purpose and content in a way that is easy to understand, even if its visitor has no prior knowledge of its subject. The BYU Humanities website does not do so. It fails to include an obvious mission statement or text box that outlines the goals of the website, or even "humanities" in general. Perhaps, one might argue, it would be insulting to the intelligence of most visitors to define "humanities." I doubt that. Most people would appreciate the gesture, even if they might not consider it necessary. Erring on the side of caution is essential for a website to be accessible to everyone. This idea of accessibility relates back to Plato and Aristotle, as a matter of fact.
Nietzsche, a forerunner of existentialism, championed the powerful individual, or the Übermensch. He emphasized the will to create values and the will to power. He believed that those who create should do so with respect for their audience, as if their audience were creators themselves. To inspire, to exemplify, to strive to break free of moral and societal restraints, these are Nietzschean values. Can they be applied to the BYU Humanities website? Perhaps, in a (grossly) simplified way, they can.
To be quite honest, Nietzsche is not a philosopher who can be simplified coherently. It is difficult to quantify the degree to which a website was created with the idea of the will to power in mind, for example. Perhaps, then, a website which defies the norm, whose creator took pride in his work and could be critiqued as such, could be considered Nietzschean. I honestly don't know. I hesitate to apply the term here. Regardless, let's look at the BYU Humanities website anyway. It has what you might call a "slick" interface, and clearly attempts to follow the minimalist and modern schools of thought. From a technical design standpoint, however, there is room for improvement. Margins could be matched up, dividing lines could be thinned, and fonts could be changed to agree with each other. For example, mixing serif and sans serif fonts in content boxes is a major no-no, and one which I am frankly surprised to see. The website as a whole is on the right track, but definitely needs work to be considered a website which other creators could draw inspiration from.
Showing posts with label 6) Critiques of Other Sites. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 6) Critiques of Other Sites. Show all posts
March 9, 2015
February 13, 2015
Moderns: Qualtrics.com
Unique Experience
When repeat users visit Qualtrics, they have the opportunity to choose what kind of information they see. This allows them, to some extent, to place their own lens on the website.
However, this is quite limited and could go a little further. Because Qualtrics users have accounts, when they log in they should be able to view a personalized version of the website. Their accounts gather information on them (specifically what type of information they collect) and the website could reflect this, showing them what is most relevant first.
Lds.org does this to some extent with the users' ability to highlight and make notes on certain documents. Qualtrics should do this but I recommend a step further by displaying relevant material first.
Unimpaired Beholders
Qualtrics employees that have unique insight into the world of research have the opportunity to write blog posts that go on the website to educate researchers that visit the website. They provide a more unimpaired view than the majority of people involved in research because they see so many more applications and uses of research products.
However, it might be nice to provide an opportunity for people outside of Qualtrics to write blog posts that appear on Qualtrics' website. This may be a difficult decision, however, because if the writer is good, they could probably get much more attention and interaction by posting via other mediums (such as LinkedIn, research websites, etc.). If the writer is not good, they would be more willing to post on the Qualtrics website but in that case we don't want them. Qualtrics would need to provide some incentive for writers to post quality material. This leads to the last point...
Gamification
The trend of gamification is often blown out of proportion as it is often more important for firms to integrate it than to actually do it right. However, in the path of helping people to become master critics it can be a valuable tool. Because users already have profiles, their information and progress can be easily monitored. Qualtrics.com can include trainings for them that they earn "badges" (or points, titles, etc.) upon successfully completing. Another way for these users to earn badges is to write quality content - these can be customer reviews, helpful answers to FAQ's, insightful information on the research process. This could be a way for Qualtrics users to interact with each other and collaborate on ideas. It would be awesome if it could help Qualtrics build a stronger community and become a one-stop shop for all research concerns and questions.
When repeat users visit Qualtrics, they have the opportunity to choose what kind of information they see. This allows them, to some extent, to place their own lens on the website.
However, this is quite limited and could go a little further. Because Qualtrics users have accounts, when they log in they should be able to view a personalized version of the website. Their accounts gather information on them (specifically what type of information they collect) and the website could reflect this, showing them what is most relevant first.
Lds.org does this to some extent with the users' ability to highlight and make notes on certain documents. Qualtrics should do this but I recommend a step further by displaying relevant material first.
Unimpaired Beholders
Qualtrics employees that have unique insight into the world of research have the opportunity to write blog posts that go on the website to educate researchers that visit the website. They provide a more unimpaired view than the majority of people involved in research because they see so many more applications and uses of research products.However, it might be nice to provide an opportunity for people outside of Qualtrics to write blog posts that appear on Qualtrics' website. This may be a difficult decision, however, because if the writer is good, they could probably get much more attention and interaction by posting via other mediums (such as LinkedIn, research websites, etc.). If the writer is not good, they would be more willing to post on the Qualtrics website but in that case we don't want them. Qualtrics would need to provide some incentive for writers to post quality material. This leads to the last point...
Gamification
The trend of gamification is often blown out of proportion as it is often more important for firms to integrate it than to actually do it right. However, in the path of helping people to become master critics it can be a valuable tool. Because users already have profiles, their information and progress can be easily monitored. Qualtrics.com can include trainings for them that they earn "badges" (or points, titles, etc.) upon successfully completing. Another way for these users to earn badges is to write quality content - these can be customer reviews, helpful answers to FAQ's, insightful information on the research process. This could be a way for Qualtrics users to interact with each other and collaborate on ideas. It would be awesome if it could help Qualtrics build a stronger community and become a one-stop shop for all research concerns and questions.
February 12, 2015
Lds.net and The Moderns
Critique:
Because I wanted to focus on Hume with my critique of lds.net, I decided to dive in and pretend to be a user (since for him beauty is in the eye of the beholder), and see what beauty I could find in the site and its services. I went through the site again, and explored some of their pages and articles. They have a lot of interesting material, and I found myself reading multiple articles without intending to. A large reason I read those articles was because they were right there on the top of the front page, with gripping titles. I did find myself wondering which tabs to select--the ones on the top or the ones on the side, since I could tell that some of them were the same but not all. So that was confusing and definitely not a design that I could appreciate or find value in as a user. I also found the order of the drop down menus somewhat illogical. I wonder if there is a way for the site creators to track which tabs are clicked on most and have those be at the top of the drop down menus.
Action plan:
Organize tabs better so as to not confuse the user, and allow for them to access the beautiful pages and services of the site.
Because I wanted to focus on Hume with my critique of lds.net, I decided to dive in and pretend to be a user (since for him beauty is in the eye of the beholder), and see what beauty I could find in the site and its services. I went through the site again, and explored some of their pages and articles. They have a lot of interesting material, and I found myself reading multiple articles without intending to. A large reason I read those articles was because they were right there on the top of the front page, with gripping titles. I did find myself wondering which tabs to select--the ones on the top or the ones on the side, since I could tell that some of them were the same but not all. So that was confusing and definitely not a design that I could appreciate or find value in as a user. I also found the order of the drop down menus somewhat illogical. I wonder if there is a way for the site creators to track which tabs are clicked on most and have those be at the top of the drop down menus.
Action plan:
Organize tabs better so as to not confuse the user, and allow for them to access the beautiful pages and services of the site.
February 11, 2015
February 3, 2015
Aristotle and Modern Experts Critique the Social Aspects of mormon.org
Here is my first attempt at a video! I'm happy I did it, but anxious as well. I've already seen some silly mistakes...Enjoy!
February 1, 2015
LDS.NET
Two main points:
LDS.NET
1. The website has amazing potentialities which are in their case forums for connecting and talking. They look well thought out and intriguing.
2. They use ethos well by displaying all of their followers on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, etc. They use pathos well by allowing for real people to open up and talk about passionate topics. BUT unfortunately, they do not use logos very well. I believe they do not use logos well because the layout of their sight is pretty confusing. This is a big turn off to me, and I am sure to other users as well. I feel if they could get the logical flow of their website down, they would have a lot more users.
Notes from class:
- The actualization of potentialities brings happiness.
- Ethos, pathos and logos help create persuasiveness for a website, which will bring users.
LDS.NET
1. The website has amazing potentialities which are in their case forums for connecting and talking. They look well thought out and intriguing.
2. They use ethos well by displaying all of their followers on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, etc. They use pathos well by allowing for real people to open up and talk about passionate topics. BUT unfortunately, they do not use logos very well. I believe they do not use logos well because the layout of their sight is pretty confusing. This is a big turn off to me, and I am sure to other users as well. I feel if they could get the logical flow of their website down, they would have a lot more users.
Notes from class:
- Some potentialities on sight are not actualized. Like comments on articles.
Aristotle: Qualtrics
Ask Questions.
Get Answers. Act Fast.
I would argue that the Qualtrics home page exactly fits one aspect of Aristotle's description of how a presentation should be; possible to understand but not obvious. This brief explanation on the Qualtrics landing page uses simple words and phrases but requires thought to completely grasp the meaning.
This screenshot highlights another good application of Aristotle's philosophy; that knowledge should be shared in stages. Readers are able to narrow down the topic they want and get a brief overview. By clicking through to Learn More they will be able to read more on that topic and watch related videos. This provides an opportunity for the viewer to develop as they get deeper into Qualtrics' message.
For further insights, there are articles to go even more in depth but these are not currently linked to the listed products. It would be good to have relevant articles mentioned at the bottom of the more in depth description of the product.
Qualtrics also offers the user a way to quickly share the articles and blog posts on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Google+ at the bottom of each post. One thing that would be good to add is to provide the ability to highlight a certain section and have the option to tweet that quickly. Another addition to functionality that might be good is to be able to share the content listed for each product description. Aristotle might argue that ALL of the content should be easily shareable.
The main downside could be the inability of users to send in material to be used on the site for development. This website is not built for user interaction but mainly to inform and persuade users of the need to use Qualtrics and then provide an easy way for them to get in touch with a salesperson. As can be seen on the right side of the screenshot below, whenever a viewer is on a product page there is a tab to quickly chat with a salesperson.
Pathos, ethos, logos...
This analysis would take quite a bit of time to truly analyze but here are some quick points:
Ethos: Qualtrics builds credibility by showing how we work with and have benefitted companies just like the one the viewer is a part of. By seeing our relationship with they peers, they begin to have trust in us.
Logos: The articles and insights show how important it is to gather accurate and actionable insights from a logical perspective.
Pathos: The case studies show how drastic changes have been made as well as the major losses that are possible by now changing.
January 30, 2015
January 21, 2015
LDS.NET Critique
1. Unifying theme
This website does have an overall unifying theme and that is Mormonism and strengthening individuals faith in it, but it is really confusing in the way it is set up, so everything feels detached and a little bit unrelated.
2. Inclusion of everyone
Lds.net is mostly friendly to a Mormon viewer. A non-member visiting might feel like an outsider just because of content. If they want to draw non-members in too, they might want to create a more inviting atmosphere. Currently there is a lot of content that only members would relate to and understand.
3. Enticing opportunity for open discussion
You can contribute by clicking the "contribute" button, but the placement of this button feels random and disorganized, and so I don't really have a desire to click it and am slightly confused already. I don't see why someone would want to click that button when the main page of the website is so confusing and disorganized. It gives the impression that contributing would be confusing and not worth the viewers time.
4. Easy to understand
Like mentioned above, the website is very confusing and disorganized. I would not want to revisit that website after my first impression of it.
This website does have an overall unifying theme and that is Mormonism and strengthening individuals faith in it, but it is really confusing in the way it is set up, so everything feels detached and a little bit unrelated.
2. Inclusion of everyone
Lds.net is mostly friendly to a Mormon viewer. A non-member visiting might feel like an outsider just because of content. If they want to draw non-members in too, they might want to create a more inviting atmosphere. Currently there is a lot of content that only members would relate to and understand.
3. Enticing opportunity for open discussion
You can contribute by clicking the "contribute" button, but the placement of this button feels random and disorganized, and so I don't really have a desire to click it and am slightly confused already. I don't see why someone would want to click that button when the main page of the website is so confusing and disorganized. It gives the impression that contributing would be confusing and not worth the viewers time.
4. Easy to understand
Like mentioned above, the website is very confusing and disorganized. I would not want to revisit that website after my first impression of it.
January 20, 2015
Plato: qualtrics.com
Qualtrics.com
Let's start with what the site does well:
Unified theme - qualtrics.com is a well-made site that is smooth and flows easily from page to page. Every page has a similar look and all are focused on research and data collection. There are pages for different products and uses as well as supporting pages providing insights for the user. Everything ties back into data collection.
Easy to understand - along with the ease of navigating the site, it is also easy for the user to understand the purpose. The site is not wordy and the language it uses is clear and direct. Anyone interested in data collection would be able to find what they are interested in and find material that is explained at their level.
In contrast, there are to key things that qualtrics.com does not do particularly well:
Includes everyone - while Qualtrics is great for anyone interested in data collection, those not involved are out of luck. There is also a bit of a cap on the bottom end; those who aren't able to spend more than a few thousand dollars on survey research per year are basically disqualified from using the product.
Facilitates discussion - this last point, and perhaps the most important, is definitely lacking on qualtrics.com. There is a page titled Qualtrics Customers that has reviews from clients but the page is very controlled. It is difficult to say whether this hurts or helps. Customers definitely will recognize that there will be no negative reviews on here as Qualtrics posts the content. However, the reviews are a great way for potential customers to see how other firms have used the product. Difficult to say whether this is good or bad.
Let's start with what the site does well:
Unified theme - qualtrics.com is a well-made site that is smooth and flows easily from page to page. Every page has a similar look and all are focused on research and data collection. There are pages for different products and uses as well as supporting pages providing insights for the user. Everything ties back into data collection.
Easy to understand - along with the ease of navigating the site, it is also easy for the user to understand the purpose. The site is not wordy and the language it uses is clear and direct. Anyone interested in data collection would be able to find what they are interested in and find material that is explained at their level.
In contrast, there are to key things that qualtrics.com does not do particularly well:
Includes everyone - while Qualtrics is great for anyone interested in data collection, those not involved are out of luck. There is also a bit of a cap on the bottom end; those who aren't able to spend more than a few thousand dollars on survey research per year are basically disqualified from using the product.
Facilitates discussion - this last point, and perhaps the most important, is definitely lacking on qualtrics.com. There is a page titled Qualtrics Customers that has reviews from clients but the page is very controlled. It is difficult to say whether this hurts or helps. Customers definitely will recognize that there will be no negative reviews on here as Qualtrics posts the content. However, the reviews are a great way for potential customers to see how other firms have used the product. Difficult to say whether this is good or bad.
Plato: Critiquing Venmo
My critique of Venmo, which is an app that allows users to transfer money to their friends, will follow the four points that seem to be most salient to our discussion, which are:
- Unifying theme
- Inclusion of everyone
- Enticing opportunity for open discussion
- Ease of understanding
First, Venmo is well unified because everything on the app is included because it facilitates transferring money form one person to another in a timely fashion. The sidebar allows you to search for people who owe you money, or to whom you owe money and can be linked to Facebook to find which of your friends owe you money. It has an option to see pending payments, to change your profile settings (so your friends can recognize you and know that you are who they're actually sending money to), and has an option to cash out when your friends pay you. The home feed lets you see transactions your friends make, and even gives you the opportunity to like and comment on them.
Second, Venmo makes it reasonably easy to include everyone. I had some difficulties setting up my profile when it came to linking to my checking account, since I use a really small credit union which wasn't listed on the app. So it took a while and some trial and error to validate my account. But once I had it up and running, it became very easy to make transactions.
Third, as Venmo is designed to allow people to pay each other, there isn't much discussion that's really necessary besides telling someone to pay you what they owe you or you'll send Frankie over to break their legs . . . just kidding. But the interface is in place for conversations to happen. I think that as Venmo gets bigger, they hope to promote events on their app that people can buy tickets to and split the cost, or something of that nature. They're not even a year old, so they're still in the very basic stages of what they could be.
Fourth, while Venmo is relatively new, their interface is still very slick, easy to understand, and professional-looking. These are all qualities that inspire confidence, which is a necessity considering they're dealing with peoples' money.
Plato: Critiquing Mormon.org
My critique of Mormon.org will follow Topher's outline and the four points, which are:
- Unifying theme
- Inclusion of everyone
- Enticing opportunity for open discussion, and
- Easy to understand
First, the theme of Mormon.org is parallel, meaning not quite the same, to other websites ran by the LDS Church. However, there is plenty of material that connects Mormon.org to the main websites, so it offers some connection on those points. I would say that Mormon.org's theme is an acknowledgement of what the world calls the LDS Church (hence the name) while also proclaiming what they are about.
Second, there are, again, plenty of inviting links, pertinent life questions, lots of viewable profiles from members available for those not of the faith, and many other things inviting people to join.
Third, there are various links inviting visitors to a range of things, like viewing profiles, speaking on line, visiting with missionaries, or finding a church nearby.
Fourth, as far as the website goes, it seems easy to navigate and quick to understand.
Plato and LDS Social Media
December 24, 2014
Purpose Statement
Welcome to our blog! We hope you find something here that you are interested in.
This blog is a collection of research by students at Brigham Young University. We are studying together to determine the best ways to foster community in an online setting. What are the underlying principles or elements that help or hinder conversation and being together (in some sense) online?
This blog is a record of our progress in developing this new knowledge. It includes analysis of various websites and social media platforms, as well as suggestions as to what elements are essential to an online community. Ultimately we hope to build a model for a website that effectively fosters a sense community. This blog may be adapted in layout to better achieve those goals.
We welcome you to join with us; be a part of the conversation; submit ideas for us to consider; invite others to participate. Comments and criticisms are welcome. We just ask that you be polite. After all, we're developing a nice community. :)
This blog is a collection of research by students at Brigham Young University. We are studying together to determine the best ways to foster community in an online setting. What are the underlying principles or elements that help or hinder conversation and being together (in some sense) online?
This blog is a record of our progress in developing this new knowledge. It includes analysis of various websites and social media platforms, as well as suggestions as to what elements are essential to an online community. Ultimately we hope to build a model for a website that effectively fosters a sense community. This blog may be adapted in layout to better achieve those goals.
We welcome you to join with us; be a part of the conversation; submit ideas for us to consider; invite others to participate. Comments and criticisms are welcome. We just ask that you be polite. After all, we're developing a nice community. :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)