The assessment declaration. [I declare that in submitting all work for this assessment I have read, understood and agree to the content and expectations of the assessment declaration – https://www.rmit.edu.au/students/support-and-facilities/student-support/equitable-learning-services (Links to an external site.)]
Blog Post:
Norman, D 1999, ‘Affordance, conventions and design (Part 2)’, Nielsen Norman Group, viewed 28 March 2020, http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/affordance_conv.html
The author identifies there are three main methods of design: conceptual models, constraints, and affordances. Norman blames his book “The Design of Everyday Things,” for creating confusion around the term affordances, which he believes should be two separate theories, real and perceived. He suggests perceived affordances are what the user believes is possible with an object, whereas real affordances relate to what a user can do with a physical object. Constraints are defined by Norman as physical, logical and cultural and are considered a neglected part of conceptual models. Constraints limit what a user can do with affordances of an object without the user experience becoming over-complicated. Web design is an intangible space that requires a conceptual model which is constrained by the use of perceived affordances.
Norman provides touch screens as a good example of affordance being misinterpreted. Although the user is touching the screen, they are interacting with the software making the affordance perceived. The use of symbols or objects on an interface might help direct a user but that is a convention, a skill learnt. Users don’t naturally perceive it as an item they interact with, rather the object invites interaction. However, this shows the complexity of the theories and how easily they can be misunderstood because they come from a background in psychology, not design. It would be more useful to have them written in terminogly designers use and show clearly how these link together. Notably, the author addresses this issue in the future by creating one simple term, UX (user experience). The author refers to his time in the psychology unit at Cambridge University to lend credibility to his argument. He reinforces this further by referencing his debate with phycologist J.J. Gibson who initially coined the term ‘affordances.’ Using his partner Jakob Nielsen to give more credence to his argument presents a bias in his sources. The article was written in 1999 and since then technology has rapidly changed and UX (user experience) design has become a key part of web development today, addressing many of the concerns of the author.
This article tries to gives a clearer analysis of the main theories originally proposed by Norman’s, “The Design of Everyday Things.” By providing examples of misconceptions in design, it helps to recognise where the confusion has arisen. However, it falls short of being explicit by using similar names for the theories that don’t clearly distinguish them into separate categories. The heavy use of psychological terminology needs simplifying for designers. Although the article has dated, much of the content is still relevant with regards to social media, especially Instagram, which is based on these key principals of perceived affordances and constraints. Interestingly, the author predicted that touch screen devices would become key elements of user experience design. The text links with the course prompt, “how do the affordances of Instagram affect the way photos and videos are authored, published and distributed in the network?” by confirming the key message of the author, that there is a need to have an understanding of the conceptual models of design when producing and distributing digital content.
Words: 518
Niederer, S 2018, Networked images: visual methodologies for the digital age. Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, Amsterdam. pp. 8-20
This article proposes a new way of researching images on the web. Currently, most research methods view them as static content only. The author believes this is an outdated view and proposes that images on social media websites, referring to Instagram in particular, can be shared, liked and tagged and that these networks enhance this process through algorithms that recommend, filter and feed content to a range of users with the result that images now become ‘networked’ content rather than purely static data. Screenshots are provided from social media platforms such as Twitter and Instagram, as evidence that images are becoming networks. Social interaction buttons are highlighted and user interactions with these images can be seen. To reinforce her claims further, she cites researchers who have been lobbying for ‘mixed – approaches’ as a way to analyse the image’s meaning, audiences and circulation and concludes that methods of research need to shift in focus from treating ‘…images as data to images as content.’
The author breaks down image research into three key sections, images as data, images as content and platform vernaculars. Defining these three concepts is useful because she backs it up with clear reasons as to why all these approaches are needed for analysis of networks within images. She eludes towards the possibility of inaccurate results that can arise from research approaches such as the use of small sample sizes of images designed for analysing traditional media that appeal to market needs rather than ‘theoretical concepts.’ Most current methods and tools need to be redesigned for the digital era and take into consideration their environmental contexts and network capabilities. The author also stresses the importance of analysing different cultures on the web especially across different platforms. Platform vernaculars appear when looking at different responses to climate change across Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Google Images, and Reddit. Each site has its own cultures and ideas that form different responses to the topic and needs to be taken into account when analysing a platform. This research gives substance to the theory there is no one size fits all system for the web. The article offers a new perspective with up to date information that covers many different social media platforms and is backed up with a wide range of reliable and unbiased sources. However, it is limited by its lack of evidence on whether these new concepts can achieve their desired outcomes, especially with the limitation of different cultures, making it hard to create one system that analyses every individual network.
A positive aspect of this highly detailed article is it presents new strategies with which to analyse images on the web. The suggestion that images should be networked directly links back to the course topic “how do the affordances of Instagram affect the way photos and videos are authored, published and distributed in the network?” and helps to clarify the way we as communicators need to consider the user’s interaction with our content, including the culture of that platform. This is especially relevant for Instagram, a site that is designed around the concept of images being networked, creating communities of like-minded people.
Words: 552
Hinton, S & Hjorth L 2013, Understanding Social Media. Sage Publications, London pp. 7 – 29
The article argues that the creation of the term Web 2.0 developed an attitude change within corporations after the dotcom crash in 2000, now seen as Web 1.0, where a failure to monetise the web due to the complexity of it and lack of freedom letting consumers generate content, prevented businesses from profiting. The authors cite a range of different researchers and historical events in various countries as examples that the web was always intended for content creation by general users. However, American businesses failed to realise this from the start. It wasn’t until the concept of Web 2.0 was defined that systems became easy to use and gave users the feeling they were in control. This empowerment resulted in the sharing of lots of personal content about themselves. A sense of control hides the truth that they are the product being sold.
The consequences of the liberal ideas of empowerment and freedom are explored; empowerment exists, especially on social media, by giving people a voice in countries which don’t have freedom of speech. In western countries, this idea of freedom is a sugar-coated reality sold by marketers. From the emergence of user-generated content, businesses realised they could exploit this to create valuable data for themselves. The authors support their theory by analysing Facebook’s principals ‘to give people the power to share and make the world more open and connected’. They also argue Google helped marketers define Web 2.0 by creating an advertisement company that appeared user friendly and non-obtrusive while selling their information and creating profiles. By giving users the perception of control, companies gain control. A range of opinions are included from other researchers on the subject of Web 2.0 and clearly defines it. Although there is a discussion of social media giving users power, the article is limited by only mentioning Facebook as an example. Other sites like Instagram would have been useful to be included, especially as Facebook acquired them in 2012, increasing their control of the social media market. This article was written in 2013 and should be used in conjunction with current research that shows companies like Google and Facebook’s control of the web today.
Perhaps the most beneficial aspect of this article is it has useful information in providing a clearer definition of what Web 2.0 is and how it resulted in a user-generated content movement which links directly to the study of how Instagram was developed. Significantly, the article also addresses the fact that the subject is not black and white, especially in regards to the matter of user freedom which can be both positive and negative and usually depends on the motives of the companies behind the sites. Even though there is no specific mention of Instagram, the reference to Facebook’s principals mean parallels can still be drawn since it accumulated Instagram and this can be used to analyze the ways its users willingly hand over their freedoms, highlighting the need to consider what the consequences for privacy are as a result.
Words: 501