Amy Frank's ePortfolio

The activity:

Select four (4) social software sites and answer the following questions:

1. Who “owns” materials posted by members?

The Facebook TOS state that you own your content and information, however, depending on your privacy settings, you grant Facebook “a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (“IP License”) (Facebook, 2. Sharing Your Content and Information).” In addition, your content may be available in their backup files and your content and information is shared with applications. For those people who do not read these TOS and limit their privacy settings, their content and information is potentially being used by anyone and everyone.

The Twitter terms state that you retain the rights to your content, but that grant Twitter “a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed) (Twitter, Your Rights, pp.1).” In addition, Twitter can make your content and information available to “companies, organizations or individuals who partner with Twitter for the syndication, broadcast, distribution or publication of such Content on other media and services, subject to our terms and conditions for such Content use (Twitter, Your Rights, pp.2).”

The Flickr terms of service state are similar to Twitter and Facebook. However, Flickr (Yahoo) goes further to declare: “You irrevocably waive any moral rights or other rights with respect to attribution of authorship or integrity in the Content you submit (Yahoo Canada, pp. 18).”

The Delicious Terms of Service seem less restrictive. These state that by posting content, you are giving permission to Delicious and others to access and use it in connection with Delicious and otherwise in connection with its affiliates’ businesses.

For Facebook, Twitter, and Flickr, it seems that the user can own the content, but these social sites own the right to do whatever they want with it. In the end, it seems that these sites truly own the content and information, and the users are permitted to use it.

2. For what purposes can these materials be used?

Three of the four sites indicated that the materials could be used, copied, reproduced, processed, adapted, modified, published, transmitted, displayed and distributed. This seems a rather unsettling concept. The pictures I have of my children on Facebook could be reproduced or distributed.  In addition, all of the sites claim to share content with their affiliates and partners.

3. Would using each site be appropriate with your students?

As a student, I am not in any rush to post my academic works on any of these sites. I am feeling vulnerable thinking about my personal photos and comments in the hands of these companies. These sites are social, and these types of sites should be used to build community. These sites do have privacy settings; however, I am not sure I would waste my time working with this type of social software for educational purposes when other software provide social collaboration and sharing of resources.

Delicious is quite different from the other three sites reviewed. I have used Delicious to create a resource databank. However, any sites linked to Delicious are still protected by their own terms and copy writes.

4. In your opinion, how well are the privacy interests of members represented?

A link to the terms of service is available on each page of these sites. Accessing information regarding privacy is easy. However, many users, including myself, overlook the privacy settings. In fact, I am convinced these sites intentionally have the privacy information as a link and not out front for all to read. When signing up for two of the sites, I was prompted to accept the Terms of Use on one page, but I had to click on a link to read the terms in a new window. According to the Webpages the Suck site from the Web Design activity in this toolkit, most users will not bother to open secondary windows. This means, a number of people accept the terms without even reading them.

Overall Thoughts

I am not too shocked about the use of these sites. I cannot say that I ever trust a site that relies on advertising. Flickr and Delicious are interesting sites for sharing content; however, I think the lesson learned through this activity is not to trust these sites with your own content. If you do not mind handing your content and information over to the site completely, don’t post it!

(n.d.) Terms of Service, Delicious.com. Retrieved August 1, 2010 from http://delicious.com/help/terms

(2008). Terms of Service, Yahoo Canada. Retrieved August 1, 2010 from  http://info.yahoo.com/legal/ca/yahoo/utos/utos-ca01.html

(2009). Terms of Service, Twitter.com. Retrieved August 1, 2010 from http://twitter.com/tos

(2010). Terms, Facebook.com. Retrieved August 1, 2010, from  http://www.facebook.com/terms.php?ref=pf

According to the documents provided for the accessibility activity, my Moodle site is missing some key components that would make it accessible for students with disabilities. In fact, I wish I had appreciated the reason alternative text was required for images and captions for videos prior to completing my course content. I had read about alternative text when completing the Web design and HTML authoring activity, and I thought I had appropriate alternative text and video captions. However, the text and captions I had in my course did not seem that meaningful upon review and would not assist anyone with a disability in understanding the media present. I revisited my course, and, since most of my videos are available on Youtube.com, I have provided the link to the video on the actual Youtube site where a full and detail description is provided. For the video I created, I added title and details. As well, I updated the alternative text on images to be more detailed.

In addition, I was feeling uneasy about using frames after completing the Webpages that Suck checklist. The site indicates that frames should not be used because not all browsers are capable of opening frames. However, the Web Accessibility Quick Tips: WCAG 2 at a Glance indicates that the noframes code must be used when frames are present. I have now included navigation links in the noframe section to ensure that users can navigate the page despite the use of frames.
When completing the Web design and HTML authoring activity, I used AccessColor to check the colour contrast and brightness of my HTML pages. I received the following message: “The AccessColor results show that for this page, both color difference and color brightness meet the recommended standard.” As well, I failed the Websites that Suck checklist because my fonts were not resizeable. I have updated my stylesheet with the appropriate code and now users can use the Ctrl button with scroll or the View option to resize the text. This gives me confidence that anyone with difficulty seeing would be able to see the text content on the page.

I feel that my content is predictable, and that I use links, headings, and titles in a consistent manner. The navigation is the same in each learning module, and the layout and links on my main Moodle page are consistent.

This has been an eye-opening experience. I would like to understand more about the types of resources and tools people with disabilities use on their computers. I still do not feel entirely confident that I could create a completely accessible course for all people with disabilities, but I do think that this activity has helped me realize why certain components are included in code and it has inspired me to think of accessibility as a part of my design.

(2010). AccessColor – Online Tool for Colour Contrast. Retrieved July 14, 2010, from http://www.accesskeys.org/tools/color-contrast.html

(2010). Websites that suck. Retrieved July 14, 2010, from http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/

Henry, S.L. & Dick, W. (Eds.) (2009). Web Accessibility Quick Tips: WCAG 2 at a glance. Retrieved July 29, 2010, from http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/glance/

Synchronous communication tools are fantastic ways to connect at a distance. However, I found this activity extremely challenging. You actually need someone at the other end of the tool to try it out. I reviewed Moodle chat (as I decided to add it to the course I am designing), Wimba, MSN, iChat, and Skype.

The biggest challenge of these chat tools seems to be accessibility. For instance, iChat is available exclusively for its Mac OS X operating system. This makes it challenging to chat with anyone using a PC. Wimba has very distinct hardware requirements.

Wikipedia’s page in Instant Messaging outlines some of the challenges to IM:

1. Security: hackers can deliver malicious code through 1) IM delivery of viruses, trojan horses, or spyware; or 2) using socially engineered text (often a message) with a web address that contains malicious code
2. Inappropriate use: “informal, immediate, and ostensibly anonymous nature of instant messaging makes it a candidate for abuse (Wikipedia, 2010, Inappropriate Use)”.

Here are my overall opinions of each communication tool:

Moodle Chat

This is a very basic chat tool. It does not have a lot of depth, but it works fine for basic communication. From my own personal experience in chat rooms of this nature, I would limit the number of students in a chat at one time. If everyone is typing, it can become somewhat confusing to follow and it seems to take a long time to make progress. In small groups, as long as everyone is proficient at typing, chat can occur efficiently and effectively.

Wimba

I am very impressed with Wimba, and I cannot believe I am only now hearing about it. I used the Wimba tools provided in the course to test it. The ability to use text or voice is amazing. As well, Wimba classroom is an excellent resource. I was unable to attend the Wimba sessions for our course; however, I viewed both archives. The use of video, sound, instant text message, and the presentation provided a very rich and meaningful session. In sessions that only use VoIP, I find people talk over each other. In IM sessions, messages get lost. Having the instructor present and manage occasional voice questions and read the IM seemed manageable. However, our Wimba sessions were quite small; therefore, I am not sure how Wimba would work with larger numbers. I would like to see my team at Alberta Health Services use this tool to present our material to our students. We have a number of rural clients who cannot travel for training. Having this type of tool could bring rural and urban teams together for the same basic training. I am very excited about the possibilities.

MSN

I did not have anyone to chat with, so I could not test the voice function. However, I was able to download the IM easily. I have used MSN Messenger on a previous computer; however, started getting too many requests to accept users I did not know (most likely hackers).

I believe MSN is acceptable for entertainment; however, I am  not sure I would use it for educational purposes. There are chatrooms for varying interest groups. MSN attracts people who are more interested in casual chatting. However, depending on your student demographic, MSN might be the chat option that is most popular.

iChat

I could not download iChat on my PC, and I do not own a Mac. It was impossible for me to use this program.

Skype

I have used Skype for personal and business uses. I have chatted with friends using IM and VoIP. I worked externally from my colleagues a few years ago and found Skype an easy tool to keep in touch with them. I could see who was actively online, and we could update our statuses to indicate what we were working on. Using Skype for one-on-one communication is fairly simple. However, I have been on a conference call with four other people and found it challenging. Often the voice would be delayed, and users would talk over each other. The strongest personalities tended to dominate while everyone else got frustrated and just listened.

In addition to chat and VoIP, Skype offers video conferencing. I have tried this option with relatives, but never for work. On a personal level, it is easy. However, to use this option, users must have a webcam (built-in or external) for their computer. Most new laptops have this option, but it tends to be an upgrade with desktops (at least the ones I can afford).

Mobile Chat:

Since I do not work in the school system, I tend to apply the concepts and principles from MET to the corporate world. Recently, Alberta Health Services has been considering mobile learning technologies. In addition, a friend who develops e-learning materials for Shaw Communications told me that Shaw is also investigating m-learning opportunities. Chat tools are available using Blackberry and iPhone products. These tools are similar to the basic chat in Moodle and MSN. iPhone 4 is being released this year, and users can use video chat options. It will be interesting to see if these mobile technologies start working their way into synchronous communication.

Conclusion:

I was pleasantly surprised by the functionality of Wimba. I am hoping to have a chance to work with it soon. At the onset of my journey in the MET program, I would often suggest using chat/IM or VoIP tools for group discussions. Now, most members of my groups and I want to avoid using these tools. Much of this stems back to the chaos of posting, the confusion, and problems with these tools. Many of my groups have relied on asynchronous discussion. After all, discussion threads, specifically the ones we use in Vista, are easy to organize, messages do not get lost, and everyone has equal access to them.

Resources:

(2010). Instant Messaging. Wikipedia. Retrieved July 20, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_messaging.

I like to believe that I have a good idea for design. Upon viewing the Wimba classroom session created on June 15, 2010, John Egan demonstrated how to upload HTML files into our Moodle courses. It was fantastic. I have always felt restricted by the Moodle HTML editors, so being able to use my own HTML files was exciting and motivating. I thought I would create my first module using this toolkit. I wasn’t creating an individual website, but I thought I could apply the same principles.

I used the article, Guidelines for Creating GOOD Storyboards for the WWW (1999) to assist me in creating my storyboard. I decided which topic I was planning on teaching and started planning. I focused on the following:

• Appropriate amounts of information – I chose to focus on creating a topic on Basic Equipment for saltwater aquariums. I spent some time breaking down the topic into smaller pieces. I did not want to overload each page or make the users scroll too much, so I decided to create additional pages that were linked together by a menu (using a frame). This would make it easy for users to move through information without getting lost in large blocks of text.
• Consistent Structure – The navigation is consistent from page to page. The menu in the left frame remains consistent from page to page.
• Consistent Design – I decided to start each page with a title of the page and smaller headings for sub-topics. This is consistent on each page. In addition, I planned on using the same colour and font. I planned on incorporating a CSS stylesheet to ensure the design would remain consistent.
• Appropriate Use of Supporting Images – all images were adopted from the Internet, so the quality was already appropriate for web usage.

I created my storyboard in Microsoft Word; however, when it actually came to linking pages, I did have to draw out the connections on a piece of paper. This really helped me “see” the larger picture. I can understand how written storyboards might be challenging when working with a group; however, on my own, I was able to decipher my own text.

I have created a website in the past; however, this is the first time I have ever attached a CSS stylesheet. I used Adobe Dreamweaver, so this was a fairly easy task. I chose the styles, and just started adding content and images. I decided to use frames. I have viewed other websites with frames, and I actually find it easier for users to navigate. The links to each page are consistently showing on the left-side menu. This does not change from page to page, providing the user with security and predictability.

I did not create a splash page for this activity. The document I was creating was meant to fit into my course, not work as a single site. Dreamweaver would have made it very easy to add a splash page had I needed one.

I reviewed the Web Redesign Checklist 1 and Checklist 2, and failed with the following:

• I did not realize that people might turn Javascript off. I had incorporated a Hot Potatoes crossword in a page, and the page was full of Javascript. This could be an issue for users; however, I could communicate this requirement to students.
• My links do not change colour after being clicked.
• My site contains frames. I had not realized that frames were not recommended, so did some reading. The websites I visited state that frames are not supported by all types of web browsers, and that it is sometimes challenging to link to a page on your site other than the one containing the main frame. Considering the nature of my site, I believe the frame still works. However, I am not too sure what to do with my noframes, and I will have to research this prior to completing my course.
• My font sizes cannot be resized.
• My site does not contain a privacy or legal statement page.

There were a few things that surprised me. For instance, the checklist states that sites should not have “Download latest browser” text or buttons. I didn’t see this as a problem, as many sites I visit have these. As well, I am perturbed that including the text “Welcome to…” on a home page could be such a violation. It seems rather welcoming, no?

AccessColor (http://www.accesskeys.org/tools/color-contrast.html) is an amazing tool that will check the colors on your page. I entered my website and received the following results: “The AccessColor results show that for this page, both color difference and color brightness meet the recommended standard.” I have visited a number of sites that contain poor colour schemes, and these sites tend to appear unprofessional.

Overall, I found this a fairly simple and fun activity. With the proper planning and website authoring tools, construction of a website can be quite straight-forward. The most challenging piece was embedding an activity from Hot Potatoes into a page linked to the stylesheet. Hot Potatoes contains styles that conflict with my stylesheet.

My HTML pages can be viewed at: http://moodle.met.ubc.ca/mod/resource/view.php?id=7504

Enrolment key: fishy

(2010). AccessColor – Online Tool for Colour Contrast. Retrieved July 14, 2010, from http://www.accesskeys.org/tools/color-contrast.html

(2010). Websites that suck. Retrieved July 14, 2010, from http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/

Egan, J. (2010). ETEC565A 66A May 2010 Classroom – 06/15/2010 21:01 Wimba classroom archive. Learning technologies: Selection, design and application. [Wimba Classroom archive]. Retrieved on June 15, 2010, from, https://www.vista.ubc.ca/webct/urw/lc5116011.tp0/cobaltMainFrame.dowebct.

Nieland, J. (1999). Guidelines for Creating GOOD Storyboards for the WWW. Jennifer’s 2D and 3D Website. Retrieved July 14, 2010, from http://www.public.iastate.edu/~nielandj/webarticle4.html