Internet Literacy

Ted Naylor and Charlene Croft, with E. Dianne Looker
from May 2007

While issues of access to technology and connectivity infrastructure remain essential, it is also paramount that on top of connectivity we recognize that inclusive access does not end at being ‘connected’. Rather, inclusion and participation in the knowledge society is tied to social processes that are dynamic and complex and which vary across different socio-economic contexts.

To this end, we introduce and discuss the notion of ICT literacy. This concept provides an analytical approach that makes visible that there are important differences in use, skill levels and objectives in using ICTs throughout the social order, particularly across the key socio-economic sectors of governance, business, education and community. ICT literacy therefore provides the analytical link to understanding how to navigate and use the information highway in ways that cuts experiences of users in different ways; people form literacies with meaning that are socially and culturally mediated. An equitable knowledge society is indeed a connected one, yet is also one based on acknowledging that a plurality of ICT literacies exist; there are not ‘dumb’ users of technology and ‘smart’ users of technology when considering how individuals employ ICTs in ways that matter to their lives, circumstances and needs.

From a policy and practice perspective, we believe this approach helpfully moves us away from the prevailing tendency to understand ICT literacy as a singular, hierarchy ranked, uniform set of competencies with computers or technologies that can be measured, standardized and taught.

The Knowledge Economy

It is now generally acknowledged that Canada, similar to other advanced social democracies, is becoming a knowledge based economy. This shift is premised on the accentuation of “knowledge” as the most important factor of production, surpassing land, labour, and capital based on the diffusion of information communication technologies (ICTs) throughout the social order (Parayil 2005).

From a federal policy and programme perspective, Canada has aggressively positioned itself as a leading proponent of the knowledge economy, making massive investments in infrastructure and programs based on the understanding that “Canada needs a highly skilled and educated workforce to remain competitive and sustain its prosperity in an increasingly global and knowledge-based economy” (Berger et al. 2007).

The Knowledge Society

While there has been a great deal of focus on creating an advantageous climate for growing the knowledge economy, considerably less focus has been put into considering how we might ensure the development of an equitable knowledge society. In broad terms, a knowledge society centre’s around the social capabilities to identify, process, transform, disseminate and use information to build and apply knowledge for human development (UNESCO).

However, while issues of access to technology and connectivity infrastructure remain essential, it is also paramount that on top of connectivity we recognize that inclusive access does not end at being ‘connected’. Rather, inclusion and participation in the knowledge society is tied to social processes that are dynamic and complex and which vary across different socio-economic contexts.

Indeed, scholars of the ‘digital divide’ now point out that this divide cannot be reduced to just technological access, “solved” through “simple technological fixes” (Parayil 2005) because connectivity and access to infrastructures are not a sufficient basis to develop a knowledge society based on equitable inclusion and participation (UNESCO).

In both cases, the concept of the knowledge society and economy hinges on access to computing infrastructures – while government policy and programme has begun to successfully conquer the ‘digital divide’ in terms of access to technology and connectivity infrastructure it has not yet sufficiently addressed the digital divide in terms of ensuring adequate levels of literacy with ICTs.

ICT literacy addresses the post-connectivity question of, what now? For those with access to the ubiquitous information highway, ICT literacy provides the analytical link to understanding how to navigate and use the information highway in ways that cuts experiences of users in different ways. This approach makes visible that there are important differences in use, skill levels and objectives in using ICTs throughout the social order and that these differences should not, and do not, necessarily follow along a hierarchal ordering of ‘lower’ and ‘higher’ skills within the social realm – there are not ‘dumb’ users of technology and ‘smart’ users of technology when considering how individuals employ ICTs in ways that matter to their lives, circumstances and needs.

ICT literacy

While there are many definitions of ICT literacy within the scholarly literature (see Bawden 2001 for a review), ICT literacy is generally taken as an “umbrella term” that attempts to describe a new set of literacies which have emerged as a result of a broader shift to an “information society” and the accompanying technologies embedded in that shift. As Warschauer (in press: 16) concludes, “Today, the social, economic, and technological transformations are again aligned to bring about major changes in literacy practices.”

Currently, the prevailing tendency in understanding ICT literacy is to understand it as a singular, standardized set of competencies with computers or technologies. In the tradition of traditional literacy, we then find those agents and organizations wishing “to define ‘it’, to teach it, measure it, assess it, and remediate it – in a word, to universalize and standardize it (Lankshear and Knobel 2005).” If you don’t have ‘it’, then you better get ‘it’ because you will need ‘it’ in the future, goes the rationale. Within the education sector, for example, this approach is ensconced within traditional curriculum programs that understand ICT literacy as a teachable and unified set of skills to be learned. However, evidence from our study, among others, suggests that ICT literacy should be more accurately understood across a broad range of competencies and skills, and that individuals use ICTs in ways that matter to them, and not necessarily along a fixed continuum of ‘advancing’ skills.

Our understanding of ICT literacy therefore differs from the normative understandings of ICT literacy by recognizing that there are social and cultural elements which draw our attention to understanding literacy in different ways which vary in different social contexts (Simpson 2005).  Freire (2000) describes literacy as “an active phenomenon, deeply linked to personal and cultural identity. Its power lies not in a received ability to read and write, but rather in an individual’s capacity to put those skills to work in shaping the course of his or her own life.” In this context, ICT literacy conceptualizes a whole host of social practices of how people engage in making meaning “mediated by texts that are produced, received, distributed, exchanged, etc., via digital codification” (Lankshear and Knobel 2005: 9). People form literacies with meaning that are socially and culturally mediated, which is not the result from some universally learned skill or technique.

With this in mind, we would suggest four major socio-economic sectors where ICT literacy matters; it matters in the sense that while literacies with ICTs will inevitably vary among individuals, these sectors continue to form the basis of the knowledge society. Therefore a consideration of literacy with ICTs among these sectors is paramount to ensure equitable inclusion in the knowledge society.

* Governance

It is important to consider ICT literacy in relation to its significance around equitable participation within the public domain. The existence of asymmetries in democratic and governing practices in Canada is now well established. In this context, ICTs are increasingly playing an important role in inclusion around policy formulation and decision-making processes (Dale and Naylor 2006). Civic engagement processes are increasingly found on-line, and the communication possibilities created by ICTs allow the public to express itself more immediately and effectively than previously possible, helping citizens reinvigorate public talk and dialogue in entirely new ways, and with entirely new results (Dale and Naylor 2006).

Aside from ICTs contribution to civic engagement, ICTs are also now crucial to evolving notions of alternative service delivery mechanisms within government. In efforts to become more efficient and effective, many government services are now found online (http://www.gov.ns.ca/snsmr). The rationale is that the public can be better served by making these services available online, circumventing the traditional bureaucratic ‘silos and stovepipes’ found across departments, and offering more immediate and better services to citizens.

* Business

Simply connecting business to the Internet isn’t sufficient for ensuring effective use of the advantages offered by ICTs. In a study of rural New Zealand small businesses, the authors recommend that human capability play the key role in their E-Commerce strategy as a priority for the Government in the drive for economic transformation. To this end, among a host of recommendations, the authors direct the government to facilitate skill training for small business by ensuring the education sector focuses on ICT literacy, and that the government helps the private sector “build broader ICT literacy and capability in the community including rural areas” (Al-Qirim and Corbett 2003). In this way, ICT literacy becomes positioned as the key competitive edge for businesses once they have gained connectivity – the better literacy skills with ICTs on behalf of businesses and owners, the more competitive they become within a global marketplace where ICT literacy is presumed to be the entry fee to compete.

* Education

Canada requires a highly skilled and educated workforce to ensure it is competitive and to sustain its long-term prosperity in a knowledge-based economy (Berger et al. 2007).

At the same time, it is widely believed that students who have difficulty converting written information to knowledge are at a critical disadvantage in today’s world (Sim 2006). ICT literacy is therefore a desirable and necessary form of human capital, particularly in relation to an increasing emphasis on an individual’s success within the context of a knowledge economy.

Within the field of economics, there is also a growing theoretical consensus that the driving force behind economic growth is technological advancement; an assertion which has clearly found its way into educational policy formulation, and curriculum reform and practice for many governments, including Canada. As Milton (2005: 10) contends, “The early drivers of levels of investment in ICT in education have not changed.  ICT skills are a key factor in both individuals’ success in the labour market and in national economic growth.” So while connectivity and access remain important obstacles within education, obstacles to creating literacy with ICTs within the education sector is the key to ensuring all groups have access to tapping the potential created by connectivity within Nova Scotia, particularly those groups that have been historically marginalized (Naylor and Frank, forthcoming).

*   Community

Rural connectivity and literacy with that connectivity represents an important development in the historical use of ICTs to foster and enhance civic participation within the public domain (Dale and Naylor 2006). In this context, the use of the ICTs to expand dialogue, literacy and discourse are taken as new features of a potentially democratic process within the public sphere since to a large extent they seek to involve different groups employing different techniques to achieve different objectives.

Rural communities worldwide are now facing formidable challenges: significant demographic urban growth, with associated problems of economic and population losses in many rural and resource-dependent communities, with associated job loss and community decline; and meeting the basic necessities for clean air, clean water, energy, transportation, land use, housing, jobs, health, waste disposal, etc. Such problems are dynamically interconnected and cannot be dealt with in isolation; they require new approaches, frameworks, partnerships and tools to address them in an integrative fashion (Dale and Onyx, in press). Key to facing these challenges is the capacity of communities to coordinate and lead discussions around these issues, potentially contributing to a rapid development of social capital.

The emergent tools of Web 2.0, for example, suggest the importance of a set of communication tools that rural communities might adopt as strategies that cut across the rural socio-economic experience. It also highlights the critical need to address a plurality of literacies that need to be considered in relation to connectivity.

Internet Web 2.0 applications are “those that make the most of the intrinsic advantages of that platform: delivering software as a continually-updated services that gets better the more people use it, creating network effects through an ‘architecture of participation’ (O’Reilly 2005). In this way, Web 2.0 first assumes access to web based infrastructure but from there departs from the current understanding of the internet as a single entry point to access more information or as static communications link. Rather Web 2.0 is centered on a model of knowledge generation and production by communities.

As rural communities continue to face the challenges noted above, they require the tools to mobilize not only their civic voices and participation but their commerce and economies; and without the literacy to embrace and adapt the evolving architecture of the knowledge society and economy they risk becoming marginalized as technology ‘have-not’s’.

tangled webs of the brave new world

Come writers and critics who prophesize with your pen – And keep your eyes wide the chance won’t come again – And don’t speak too soon for the wheel’s still in spin – And there’s no tellin’ who that it’s namin’ – For the loser now will be later to win – For the times they are a-changin‘

For the past three days I’ve had that friggin’ song in my head.  And most definitely, it has been Bob Dylan’s version of the song.  It’s so stuck I often find myself walking down the street singing it fairly loudly, and upon recognizing that, I find myself wanting to burst on out into it… all theatrical and shit.

I love being a citizen of Now.  Observing these structurally shaking instances of history.

Citizens of Iran, speaking out against their theocracy.  The Women of Iran, finding their voices.  The Net Generation of Iran, fighting violence with information-communication technologies.  Amazing.  I am sitting on the edge of my seat waiting for the results of this one.  Unfortunately our attention spans here in the West are so short, especially the media’s attention span.  Also unfortunately democracy always comes bundled with bureaucracy and it is possible that the institution has far more power to drag the recount process out.  I suspect the Iran saga will be anti-climatic.  They will do the recount, and the numbers won’t change.  What then?  The citizens will have to accept it.  Just as US citizens did in their 2000 election … and in the end, they didn’t even get their recount.  The Supreme Court decided… much like the Supreme Overlord will.

Unless, of course, the recount happens and the numbers do change… what will happen then?  I have no idea.

I am ultimately convinced that if Obama had not won in November, we would have seen a similar uprising in the US.  I know it is a highly theoretical thing to say, but I stand by it.  What’s happening in Iran is a smackdown of cultures.  What happened in the 2008 election was also a smackdown of cultures.  If John McCain won in a landslide, or even by a narrow margin, there would have been protests and allegations of voter fraud en masse.  In 2008, the outrage would have expanded past an audience of election wonking observers like it did in 2000 and 2004.  You would have seen these scenes from Tehran in Washington.

God I’m happy that didn’t happen.  I am increasingly impressed with Barack on a daily basis.  He is governing exactly how I hoped he would.  And, he is still using all those social media tools that got him elected to reach out to his constituents.

Though, when I read about a City in Montana that requires you submit all of you Web 2.0 logins and passwords, I think… WTF America?  Background check takes on a whole new meaning when you have to start opening up your cyberlife to your employers.  That is the depth approach to job screening.

Then I start thinking about the Bill just introduced in Canadian Parliament about intercepting Internet transmissions and gathering user information from ISPs and I think WTF Canada?   “Twenty-first century technology calls for 21st-century tools,” said Justice Minister Rob Nicholson (via CBC).  Indeed they do Minister Nicholson.

The Internet is blowing it all up.  Thrusting us into a brave new world whether we want to go or not.  We early adopters are all quite giddy about it.  Once labelled the “cyber-utopianists” it is clear the skeptics are now paying attention.  And jumping on board where they can.  The revolution could never be televised because it must be an interactive, reflexive process for it to be real.

But, now that the Internets’ transformative potential is very clear, it becomes scary.  Because Now, it is no longer theory… and you can bet your bottom dollar that there will be people trying to make their top dollars by attempting to exploit the technology for profit, for security, and for measuring an individual’s moral value by snooping around their Web 2.0 pages.

Now is, indeed an interesting and exciting time.

The line it is drawn the curse it is cast – The slow one now will later be fast – As the present now will later be past – The order is rapidly fadin’ – And the first one now will later be last – For the times they are a-changin’

Twitter FAQ for Sociologists…

What is Twitter anyway?

Twitter is a social networking site where the main activity is sending out and receiving 140 character (max) information bursts (called Tweets or Chirps).  People sign-up for membership using an email address and choose a unique username.  After disclosing of a small amount of personal information you are given your own Twitter profile.

Every profile is one page, and consists of a photo (if the user chooses to upload one), a 140 character “About Me” blurb, and if you have entered it, where in the world you are.  Your profile is also a record of your Tweets, in the order in which they have been entered, with the most recent last.

Where you “friend” people on other social sites like Myspace and Facebook, the social part of Twitter emerges as you “follow” other people’s tweets, and as people follow yours.  Your Twitter “home” then, becomes the real-time sending and receiving of tweets between and among you and those that you are following.

If you use Facebook, think of it as the Status Update feature isolated and turned into a social networking site on its own.

What kinds of information are being sent and received over Twitter?

The substance of the information bursts fall in a number of different categories:

• Mundane events (what I’m eating for breakfast or whether I’m going to get a bath or a shower)
• Personal news (where I’m going to have a beer or whether or not my best friend is pregnant)
• Making Plans with Followers (let’s go have a beer together to talk about our friend who is pregnant)
• Interesting Internet Finds (external links to articles, blogs, YouTube videos, pictures)
• Self-promotion (external links to your own blogs, YouTube videos, pictures, website, creative work)
• Citizen journalism (coverage and promotion of the local community events and news)
• Mediated journalism (external links to, interaction with and commentary on mainstream news)
• Commercial (purely service or product driven information with the intention of promotion)

Who uses Twitter?

Twitter is a social networking site predominantly used by individuals who are high-level communicators and organzations/businesses who want to reach those communicators.   Malcolm Gladwell’s The Tipping Point is a good lens through which to view Twitter users.  He talks about the Connectors, the Mavens and the Salesmen as being the three types of individuals which start and spread what he calls “social epidemics.”

Connectors are individuals who know lots of people and who use those connections to their advantage.  Connectors are people who have invested in social, cultural and identity capital and who can convert those intangible resources into pretty much whatever they decide to.

Mavens are the senders and receivers of information.  They are the people who always have the pulse on the good deals and breaking stories of the day.  Mavens are the trendsetters and the people who you turn to to find out about this thing or that.  Citizen Journalists are types of Mavens, often scooping the mainstream media in reporting “from the ground”

Salesmen are the persuaders of society.  They are the people who dedicate a great deal of their lives to selling people on their ideas.

These three types of people form the Golden Triangle of trends. “Mavens are the databanks.  They provide the message. Connectors are social glue: they spread it… Salesmen [have] the skills to persuade us when we are unconvinced.”  (p.70, The Tipping Point).

But there is a fourth type of Twitter user, which I will call Leachers.  Leachers are passive Twitter users who do not tweet themselves, but who set up profiles simply to follow users and extract information from them for whatever purposes they may have.  For the most part Leachers exploit Twitter and the information being provided to them from the Connectors, Mavens and Salesmen.  They only use half of the application.  They take information without giving anything in return.

How Many People Use Twitter?

According to Mashable, In April 2009, it was estimated that 7.4% of adult Internet users had a Twitter account.  That’s about 12.1 million people.  How many of these are active Twitter accounts with real people behind them is probably considerably less, but this is a problem with measuring any social metrics on social networking sites.

What about Twitter Penetration into Real Life?

Typically, when patterns of technology penetration are reported and analysed, they are done so in terms of number of users, which was answered in the above statistics.  However, the type of penetration discussed here has more to do with how this virtual platform influences and penetrates the everyday life of its users.

Because of the simplicity of the platform it makes it extremely friendly for use on any mobile phone with web capability.  Whereas Facebook there are multiple pages and multiple possibilities for surfing, the Twitter feed is the only screen you need to use the site.  Twitter mobile is fully functional, because it has such a simple function.

One of the concerns with this, of course, is that heavy Twitter users will often exhibit behaviours consistent with work-a-holics, or information addicts.  Non-users will often complain that their friends who have embedded Twitter into their daily lives are missing out on the here and now, and they hate having to compete for the attention of users.

Twitter penetration has also surpassed the personal and infiltrated the institutional.  Institutions, which have been the traditional gatekeepers and disseminators of public information are jumping in the tree for their own purposes.  Politicians, libraries, universities, governments, police, celebrities, the media, corporations – all the institutions who have things to say to people – are  chirping their way into the collective consciousness of the Tweeps (or Twits if you prefer) who would find that information useful.

Why has Institutionalized Media Become so Obsessed with Twitter?

Because Twitter is a social networking site which attracts the Connectors, Mavens and Salesmen; the mainstream media has become increasingly interested in hopping on board this social epidemic.  It has gotten to the point where many mainstream media outlets are using Twitter as a source for their stories, which perpetuates it’s perceived value by the users because it can create a direct line from them to the mass media.  The Trending Topics feature (a keyword top 10 of what people are tweeting about) assists the media in keeping the pulse on what the Connectors, Mavens and Salesmen are talking about (it should be noted that this is also why market research firms are so interested in Twitter).

In this way, the mainstream media co-opts Twitter as a form of unpaid journalism.  The Twitter user becomes a Prosumer (from George Ritzer) – the Producer and the Consumer of “news” mediated by the mainstream media.

Why is Twitter Such a Valuable Social Tool?

Many of the social benefits of Twitter can be found in the literature around social networking sites in general.  Feelings of connectivity can lead to stronger social cohesion within cultural and geographic communities.  Because the majority of content on Twitter is user-generated, the information does not have to pass through the same vetting processes.  There are still vetting processes though, but they emerge in the form of social consensus as to what information is valid, or worth repeating (or in this case, retweeting).

Some, like Silicone Valley ex-pat Andrew Keen, are concerned with these processes of user-generated forms of culture, lamenting the death of the expert as a dangerous evolution of western civilization.  But this concern only holds water if you fundamentally believe that culture should be guarded and distributed through institutionalized gatekeepers: mainstream media, academics, admen, studied artists and record companies to name a few.

A local example of the social value of Twitter can be seen upon recollection of the Spryfield fires.  Those Haligonians who were using Twitter at the time were sending and recieving information about the state of the fires much faster than any local media outlet was.  It was the efficient delivery of important information which was personalized and unvetted, therefore it contained an inherent unmeasurable value to it which is often absent in reporting from the anchor desk.

A global example of the social value of Twitter emphasizes democratization, and information which has circumvented the institution.  This example is actually playing out as I type this, in the highly contested Iranian election.  Where state controlled media is finding it difficult to control the message and the information coming out of the country.  Even their attempts to block Internet traffic has failed, as global activists are facilitating external communication by tweeting proxy server addresses for those who might not be able to otherwise connect to the Internet.

Is Twitter for Me?

Well, the only way to find that out is by going on and trying it.  Chances are that if you consider yourself to be either a Connector, a Maven or a Salesman, Twitter would definitely be worth checking out.  Unless you are a celebrity, or have many friends and connections to people already using Twitter, it takes a while to collect a following, and really understand how it works.  Ultimately, people will follow you if you are tweeting things that are relevant to them (another benefit of Twitter is the positive identity/idea reinforcement as more and more people start following you).

It is important to remember that the thing that makes Twitter so valuable and meaningful for people is the interactive aspect of it.  The more you use it, and interact with it, the more you understand it’s value.

I think, though, overall with Twitter, we need to rethink the whole media paradigm.  The old “Medium is the message” adage becomes flipped to think about  “the Message as the Medium”, with the “viewers” flipping to the “users” and where “content” matters more than “form”.

Do you have more sociologically related questions about Twitter? Post them in the comments here or tweet me @statsgirl.

Web 2.0 and the Nova Scotia Election

Back during the last US Presidential Elections, I wrote a blog about the candidates utilization of the Internet in their campaigns.  It was way back in the election when it looked like John McCain didn’t have a chance in hell of getting the Republican nod, and Barack Obama had just won a legal battle to have his campaign staff take over the MySpace site which someone else started in his name.  I had no idea back then that Obama would turn his campaign into a social media blitzkrieg… picking up where Howard Dean was cut off in 2004.

Obama and his campaign staff knew how to do it… they knew how to effectively use Web 2.0 and engage a whole generation of otherwise disenfranchised voters.   By reaching out to them online, because he knew that he probably would get them to come out to the rallies… In fact, after his comment at the first ever Virtual Presidential Town Hall regarding marijuana legalization and the “type” of people he was engaging online… he probably didn’t want too many of them showing up at the rallies after all!

In any case, in that review, I gave each candidate’s website a Web 2.0/Hipness rating, on a scale of 1 to 10… ranking the sites in terms of ability to engage youth, disenfranchised cynics, connectors and netizens based on my critical understanding of all of those things…

Here in Nova Scotia, things are a little different.  The population of youth, disenfranchised cynics, connectors and netizens is substantially smaller than the population of status quo voters.  We Nova Scotians have been accused of being fearful of progressive change… and Web 2.0 has not necessarily penetrated the whole population as well as in other provinces.  Frig, not even our whole population has access to High-Speed Internet… with far too many rural communities being left in the dust.

However, in an election, sometimes it is the small populations of those who have never previously voted which can make big differences in the election outcomes… And politicians are recognizing more and more that the Internet, and the effective use of Web 2.0 platforms can make those small differences have mega impacts.  So far the candidates have been slow to take full advantage of the platforms.  Of the three mainstream leaders, only Stephen McNeil is twittering… and none have encouraged user-generated video and photo… But they are all trying to connect using their Party’s websites.

The Liberals

Yesterday I chirped “The Liberals are smoking the other parties in terms of an effective Social Networking infrastructure… #nselection” and after taking a thorough look at their site, now I know why. A company called KTUpload is powering the Liberals Website.  I worked very closely with one of the folks at KTUpload for years at the Atlantic Centre for the Study of the Information Society… and while he had little to do with the site, I know that he “gets” it.  So while the Liberals have a smokin’ website, it is more important to note that they had the foresight to hire a web development team which gets it.

First point… When you Google NS Liberals, the sponsored link at the very top of the page is Darrell Dexter’s NDP website (Brilliant Guerrilla Marketing technique from the NDP)

Second point… The site is clean and easy to navigate.  It has clear menu titles and no drop-down boxes.  The pages interlink with one another very well… so if you are interested in looking at the media, you can click through the home page… and you will find the Media link on other pages of the site.

Third point… Web 2.0 platform use.  The Liberals are using all the big ones… Facebook, Flickr, Youtube and Twitter, and thier links to these pages are prominently displayed on the home page.  You don’t have to search for the legitimate groups… you just have to click through.

Although the home page of the Liberal Website may have too many sets of Stephen McNeil’s eyes on it… there is a simple contact form which makes it easy for the voter looking to get a sign or volunteer or get on the mailing list without have to search for it.

The “Follow the Leader” feature on the home page links to a calendar of events for McNeil… but when you click on it… there are very few engagements, making it look like he’s not very active on the campaign trail… While it is a great feature, it may not be juicy enough to be a home page link, when the photo gallery (which is buried on the media page) is very juicy and may have been a better choice as being prominently displayed… either that, or display the calendar for the whole month + of the campaign to show all the places he’s been as well as where he is going on a single view (they could even integrate the photos into the calendar)

The Candidates page shows the current 29 candidates for the Liberals. You can click through to a little bio page with some of their info… the candidates pages are inconsistent in their format.  Some of the photos are way too big for a quick load of the page, which is problematic for those who get impatient with page load time (especially for all those folks in rural Nova Scotia who only have dial-up).  Also, the candidates who are on twitter, should have links to them on their individual bio pages.

All the multimedia is great on the Liberals page, but they should have the text of the videos audio as well (again for our good friends in rural Nova Scotia who are trying to access the site via dial-up)

Overall the Liberal website gets my Web 2.0/Hipness Rating of 7/10… they lost points because no matter how good their site is, it’s really hard to make Stephen McNeil hip and because of the issues listed above.  But also because there is absolutely no where on the website which indicates their platform or positions on the issues… Aesthetics should never compromise information.

The NDP

It is unclear who is behind the NDP website, which leads me to believe that someone from the party itself is maintaining it.  There are pros and cons to this approach.  On the one hand, the party will have more control of the content… on the other hand, sometimes you should just let the professionals do their thing.

I do not like the amount of blank space on the NDP’s website.  The colour scheme seems weird to me… Too much blue, and not enough orange.  The slide show is nice, but there are far too many images with text that is what I would consider ‘negative campaigning’… too much talking about the Conservatives… People are coming to the website to find out about the NDP, not what the Conservatives are doing wrong.  And why oh why do the NDP have a widget with PC on it as one of the most prominent graphics on the home page.  They are on the offensive, and the tactics leave a bad taste in my mouth.

I like the “your action centre” widget, but disagree with using the word “your” for the videos and pictures on the site… because they are very obviously campaign photos and videos… not “your” videos and photos.  If they wanted to show ‘your’ videos and photos, they would have a site upload form and allow supporters to *really* share “their” photos and videos from the campaign trail.  They are really “Your Candidates” videos and photos…

The NDP have one up on the Liberals in that they have links to “the issues.”  Though again every single stance on every single issue is preambled with where the conservatives have failed, and there is very little substance, or indication how the NDP plan to address the issues.  So while they have done their job in identifying their priorities in this campaign… they have not done much to tell the voter the strategy in addressing the issues.

Their Candidates page is nice.  I like the electoral map and the list (though rather than alphabetizing by name, it may be better to alphabetize by riding).  Their candidate table could also be bigger, with direct links to their websites, emails, etc right on that main candidate page, which would be easy to do if they widened their content page.

The NDP have their Web 2.0 links embedded in the footer of every page, which is very clever… but the blue font is hard to read and the logos are not prominent enough (and the Facebook one may actually violate the FB TOS for logo use).

Overall (and though it breaks my heart) the NDP get my web 2.0/Hipness rating of 6/10… Negative campaigning is NOT hip… and the Website is lacking in aesthetic appeal, without the content to help bump the rating up a bit.

The Progressive Conservatives

So… when I Google NS PCs, the sponsored link (again) is a link to the NDP website.  But, the first link is not the Tory site, it is the Nova Scotia Young Progressive Conservatives site… in fact, Rodney MacDonald’s site is no where on the first page of search results at all.  A readjustment of the search to NS Conservatives (still the NDP sponsored link), but there it is (immediately followed by a CTV news story about the conservatives “failing”)

The Conservatives have a very slick website.  It is extremely aesthetic and “Nova Scotian”… which is easy to do when you have access to the designers which have gotten some very nice contracts from the Tories (NSLC, and the Nova Scotian Gaming Authority to name two)… Revolve Branding 360 are big playas round these parts… and the Tories have always understood the importance of branding…

Aesthetically, the PCs score big points on the site… they do have the most visually pleasing home page for my eyes.  That said, I can’t really find many too many design “problems” with the site, except in their Web 2.0 use.

While they allow the option to “share” their site on a multitude of platforms… they do not offer the voter the chance to *engage* the party and the candidates by linking to their Facebook, Twitter and YouTube presence… in fact the lack of these links indicates to me (a non-Tory supporter) that they do not even have a presence on these sites… ergo, it is not their priority to engage and interact with the electorate in this way.

So rather than critique the site, I’ll point out the subliminal marketing strategies behind some of the graphics and language on the site.

They are rotating three pictures which visually sum up their whole campaign beautifully.

The first is a photoshopped picture of Rodney and his team (the photoshop is in the sign on the podium Rodney is standing at) “Proven Record Economy First”  This image wants to remind you that Rodney has a team of capable MLAs behind him… They are applauding him (some very vigorously – look at the two dudes on the exteme left in the front row).  This photo, reinforces the other prominent language on the site… “our leader” “our team” “our track record”… they are presenting a united front.  Reminding those who are uncertain of Rodney’s experience himself, that he has a solid team of experience behind him.

The second photo is a garbage can, with a white background simply stating that the Liberals (red font) and NDP (orange font) have thrown 20,000 jobs in the garbage.  This must have to do with the infrastructure contract cancelling fiasco, but in the end it doesn’t matter… the graphic doesn’t link to the whole story like the other two images do… just a simple statement of interpreted truth with a simple graphic to accompany it.

The third photo is a beauty… perhaps the most compelling of all three.  It is related to gambling, and risk… which the designer knows much about given they do design work for both ALC and the gaming corporation… It is an image of two sets of dice, one with letters (probably Boggle dice) spelling out the word “R-I-S-K-Y” and two standard orange one.  Both of the visible sides of the dice show the smallest possible numbers they could be arranged with… notice the two ones…

The PC website gets a Web 2.0/Hipness score of 7/10 as well.  If the issues around the Web 2.0 connections were resolved, along with a letting Rodney MacDonald have a Twitter account… then I would revise my earlier statement that the Liberals were smokin’ the other parties in their SNS infrastructure, to say that the Tories were.

The Green Party

The NDP don’t care much about the Green Party… not enough to pay for a sponsored link when someone Googles it… But, the NS Green Party is so unknown that Google wants to know if you really meant the “NZ Green Party”.

The Green Party of Nova Scotia uses the federal Green Website template.  Which is a good thing, because it is important for people to remember that they are another Federal party… not simply a fringe party with little support… despite the fact that it is a fringe party with very little support.

The Green Party website has no external Web 2.0 integration, however does have a little SNS embedded in it’s site called “The Green Network”.  It’s a pretty good idea, though I am beginning to question the effectiveness of trying to start up your own SNS when there is free access to popular ones like Facebook and Twitter… only the most diehard of supporters will actually take the extra step to become a member of yet another SNS… It could, however, be a VERY effective tool for coordinating their campaign provincially… for the candidates to connect and share ideas, and to create strategies which can unite the party itself.  But it needs to be integrated with the large existing and successful SNS’s to be very effective.

The Green Party site does not appear to be in election mode at all.  There is no candidate list, no campaign rhetoric. no upcoming events.  But, the one thing that The Green Party Site does have is content and ideas… Their About the Party page outlines the Green Party’s core values as a party… something that none of the other parties care to offer up to the voter.

The other thing I really like about the site, is the opportunity to really get to know the leader of the Green Party, Ryan Watson… He has a blog, he has a twitter… and if you message him, he messages back!  Ryan Watson is young, handsome, charismatic, and hip himself… which scores the Party more points in this election than it has in past elections the NS Greens have participated in.

Overall, the website is severely lacking though.  No candidate list, an online form to request a sign which doesn’t inform you if your request has been completed and a graphics which lead the viewer to believe that the Green Party is a one issue, environmental, tree-huggin’ party.  Which isn’t bad if you are into that sort of thing… but will not play very well in industrial Nova Scotia.

Unfortunately, the Nova Scotian Greens have a small operating budget, therefore they rely heavily on volunteers to carry out the campaign… so it is hard to do regular updates and high level interaction… Ryan Watson is doing well assuming the role of leader… it’s just too bad that he doesn’t have a political infrastructure to back him up… we may have heard much more buzz about him if he had.

So while I’m giving the Green Party the lowest Web 2.0/Hipness rating a 5/10… I’m giving Ryan Watson the prize for hippest leader with an 8/10.

Hope you found this deconstruction interesting…

Facebook Nation?

I can’t believe it… The Facebook, evolving according to the will of the People?  But it appears to be true.  Today I joined the Facebook Town Hall to participate in the dialogue they opened today regarding what appears to be a constitution for Facebook.

I took part, and wanted to pluck my comments out of the already pages and pages of comments that are pouring in on this and share them here…

1. Freedom to Share and Connect – People should have the freedom to share whatever information they want, in any medium and any format, and have the right to connect online with anyone – any person, organization or service – as long as they both consent to the connection.

Nice beginning… but this does not address the issue of Facebook censorship and arbitration over what is considered “offensive”  It seems to me that there are many caveats missing… wasn’t there just a recent hubbub over Breast-feeding photos?  Also, there needs to be one thing added… the understanding of the user that in consenting to Facebook service, they are consenting to have thier information shared to third parties at Facebook’s discretion.

2. Ownership and Control of Information – People should own their information. They should have the freedom to share it with anyone they want and take it with them anywhere they want, including removing it from the Facebook Service. People should have the freedom to decide with whom they will share their information, and to set privacy controls to protect those choices. Those controls, however, are not capable of limiting how those who have received information may use it, particularly outside the Facebook Service.

I think it is really important to educate people about privacy controls and I appreciate this being addressed here.  In addition to this, the People should also be allowed to control the amount and substance of their own information that The Facebook shares with third-parties for use outside the Facebook service.  The Facebook service should  allow People who make their living through visual art and words and music, to decide what royalty free rights they grant to The Facebook service to reproduce and use their work.

3. Free Flow of Information -  People should have the freedom to access all of the information made available to them by others. People should also have practical tools that make it easy, quick, and efficient to share and access this information.

Yes, but please define what those “practical tools” are.

4. Fundamental Equality Every Person – whether individual, advertiser, developer, organization, or other entity – should have representation and access to distribution and information within the Facebook Service, regardless of the Person’s primary activity. There should be a single set of principles, rights, and responsibilities that should apply to all People using the Facebook Service.

Whoa! This is an interesting one!  Does that mean that the People have the same kind of access that the advertiser has?  What about those who want to advertise on Facebook… is Facebook advertising free or something?

5. Social Value People should have the freedom to build trust and reputation through their identity and connections, and should not have their presence on the Facebook Service removed for reasons other than those described in Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities.

Interesting… I don’t really have a comment for this one

6. Open Platforms and Standards - People should have programmatic interfaces for sharing and accessing the information available to them. The specifications for these interfaces should be published and made available and accessible to everyone.

Does this mean that The Facebook is open source?

7. Fundamental Service – People should be able to use Facebook for free to establish a presence, connect with others, and share information with them. Every Person should be able to use the Facebook Service regardless of his or her level of participation or contribution.

“Establish a presence” is an interesting turn of phrase… And what is with the capitalization of People and Person?

8. Common Welfare – The rights and responsibilities of Facebook and the People that use it should be described in a Statement of Rights and Responsibilities, which should not be inconsistent with these Principles.

Wait a minute… isn’t Facebook a private corporation?  Does the Common Welfare trump the investors stakes?

9. Transparent Process – Facebook should publicly make available information about its purpose, plans, policies, and operations. Facebook should have a town hall process of notice and comment and a system of voting to encourage input and discourse on amendments to these Principles or to the Rights and Responsibilities.

Great! I want a copy of the list of third-parties that The Facebook shares my information with, the public and private third parties… please.

10. One World -  The Facebook Service should transcend geographic and national boundaries and be available to everyone in the world.

Nice touch!

There is nothing in here about 2-way data sharing though.  That is, where the People are allowed to gain access to all of the data that The Facebook compiles and shares.  This is valuable information… and what makes Facebook so valuable to its shareholders… that the People can use and put towards the Common Welfare to generate Social Value…

I commend Facebook on trying to bring the democratizing principles of Web 2.0 into a set of morals, or values if you prefer, for this vibrant and active community of People… it is quite progressive and a worthy pursuit… but I just don’t understand how they are going to do it.

The Facebook is a corporation after all… whose soul purpose is to exploit the “prosumer.”  What Facebook has laid out here in its Constitution is fine for the Facebook as a community, but it still doesn’t address the role of Facebook the corporation, or government… which, in this case translates into a pseudo-democratic dictatorship…

The only way to truly make The Facebook into the Facebotopia they propose through these principles, without also being a hypocritical in their own business practices, is by allowing the People to buy it out… something that is unlikely to happen, as it would mean that users would have to start paying for their service… I wonder how many people would still use Facebook if they had to pay for it… Perhaps they could do something like Radiohead did with their pay-what-you-can album… highly doubtful though, and probably suicide.

But one thing that is for certain, Facebook is attempting to test adaptive structuration theory in its operations… and the People have “faithfully” adapted the structure that has been placed in their laps.  But to what extent will The Facebook will allow the People to do so?