An explanation of the design choices behind my web presence.
There were several key conceptual ideas which I took into account when designing my presence to help create a positive and meaningful online identity. The use of powerful Web 2.0 tools by internet users to build online identities and social networks is becoming a common method for people to broadcast their ideas via digital rivers (Helmond, 2010). The content which is published with these tools and networks, is what builds an internet user’s online identity. My web presence is a music-focused blog about themed playlists, linked to my own identity and the tag ‘eighteen songs’. I designed my web presence in the hope of creating, discussion about, and sharing of, musical ideas and news via my central node and supporting Web 2.0 tools, whilst taking into account my internet footprints and digital shadow.
Foremost in my mind was the visual design of the central node, as the design concepts of the central node would determine the design concepts of the contributing nodes. Colors, logos, icons and fonts are all important components in building a meaningful online identity. I chose images which reinforced that this was a music related website via the use of the cassette tape and graphic equalizer images in the main banner. I next created an easily identifiable icon that could be associated with my web presence – I chose headphones. I found the images via searching through Google for images free of copyright restrictions and listed them in my credit page. These were ‘mashed-up’ with social network icons to create the icons that I have used across my nodes in order to create consistency across all of my nodes which enables them to be instantly validated (Joergensen and Blythe, 2003) as being part of my central web presence and my online identity.
Weebly is the tool with which I constructed the blog which acts as my central node. The blog was designed as my ‘central identity hub’ (Helmond, 2010) by which users can gather information about, and give context to, fragments about my identity from the contributing nodes (Akshay et al, 2007). I decided that Weebly would be the best fit for the design outlines of my web presence due its flexibility, customization, easy construction and site management tools, and how it’s tools assist in managing ‘lifestreams’ by distributing information via the central and contributing nodes (Helmond, 2010).
On the home page, links to the three contributing nodes give users quick, visible access to each node. Also included is a brief outline explaining the tenet of the site – eighteen song themed mix-tapes. These were put there to highlight what the site is about and what different choices there are for users to interact with its content via its contributing nodes, and assist them in managing their river of social information.
The three contributing nodes selected were Mixpod, Twitter and Facebook. They were chosen specifically to say something about me, and my online identity, and were built to relate back to my central node. I supplied each contributing node with relevant information about my identity to get consistency across all nodes. Mixpod was chosen as a contributing node after reviewing several other Web 2.0 music tools, it’s advantage was the simple media playing widget that is embedded on my home page. This widget enables website users to listen to the latest blog playlist on my central node; encourage social interaction via this node; and give audible context to the blog. I found Mixpod to be simplest way to build and maintain playlists. It also has collaborative social playlists with other Mixpod users, and easy integrates with both Facebook and Twitter enabling a ‘social media river’ (Helmond, 2010). Facebook was chosen as it is the most popular social network in the world (Van Grove, 2010) and thus I wanted to offer users easy integration into their existing social networks via Facebook newsfeeds. In contrast to Facebook, Twitter was chosen to add a sense of immediacy to my web presence. Twitter is a much more open social network (Hampton, 2009) and is highly accessible because of its simplistic short messages, and its mobility. Twitter is based on the question “what are you doing?” (Williams, 2009). When I create a blog entry and playlist, I can easily post these on and Twitter to advise these social network tools of ‘what I’m doing’. Twitter is also highly searchable on Google and makes it a perfect broadcast medium for my blog posts and playlists which assist me in building an online identity pointing back to my central node.
Accessibility was an issue that I kept in mind when building the site to ensure that those with disabilities are able to access the site. I believe Music is for everyone, and to my fullest ability, I wanted to make sure my web presence was accessible to as many people as possible (Carpenter, 2010). I intentionally used a larger font to make it as easy to read as possible and tested the site structures on WAVE. This site assisted me in making important structural changes and to understand that creating "universal websites" is an integral part of web design” (Carpenter, 2010).
In conclusion, all of the design choices made when constructing my web presence were done with my identity in mind, and how I could present that in a simple clear way that was compatible with existing online social networks. By using Web 2.0 tools I have been able to create a meaningful web presence whose content is easy to manage and broadcast via the selected contributing nodes. I have taken into account some key issues pertaining to today’s web environment, such as accessibility, when designing the site but still have a way to go in my technical abilities to fully address these issues. By taking into account such design requirements, I have made conscious decisions on how my web presence will affect my online identity, and reputation, in a world where we constantly live in our own digital shadow.
Foremost in my mind was the visual design of the central node, as the design concepts of the central node would determine the design concepts of the contributing nodes. Colors, logos, icons and fonts are all important components in building a meaningful online identity. I chose images which reinforced that this was a music related website via the use of the cassette tape and graphic equalizer images in the main banner. I next created an easily identifiable icon that could be associated with my web presence – I chose headphones. I found the images via searching through Google for images free of copyright restrictions and listed them in my credit page. These were ‘mashed-up’ with social network icons to create the icons that I have used across my nodes in order to create consistency across all of my nodes which enables them to be instantly validated (Joergensen and Blythe, 2003) as being part of my central web presence and my online identity.
Weebly is the tool with which I constructed the blog which acts as my central node. The blog was designed as my ‘central identity hub’ (Helmond, 2010) by which users can gather information about, and give context to, fragments about my identity from the contributing nodes (Akshay et al, 2007). I decided that Weebly would be the best fit for the design outlines of my web presence due its flexibility, customization, easy construction and site management tools, and how it’s tools assist in managing ‘lifestreams’ by distributing information via the central and contributing nodes (Helmond, 2010).
On the home page, links to the three contributing nodes give users quick, visible access to each node. Also included is a brief outline explaining the tenet of the site – eighteen song themed mix-tapes. These were put there to highlight what the site is about and what different choices there are for users to interact with its content via its contributing nodes, and assist them in managing their river of social information.
The three contributing nodes selected were Mixpod, Twitter and Facebook. They were chosen specifically to say something about me, and my online identity, and were built to relate back to my central node. I supplied each contributing node with relevant information about my identity to get consistency across all nodes. Mixpod was chosen as a contributing node after reviewing several other Web 2.0 music tools, it’s advantage was the simple media playing widget that is embedded on my home page. This widget enables website users to listen to the latest blog playlist on my central node; encourage social interaction via this node; and give audible context to the blog. I found Mixpod to be simplest way to build and maintain playlists. It also has collaborative social playlists with other Mixpod users, and easy integrates with both Facebook and Twitter enabling a ‘social media river’ (Helmond, 2010). Facebook was chosen as it is the most popular social network in the world (Van Grove, 2010) and thus I wanted to offer users easy integration into their existing social networks via Facebook newsfeeds. In contrast to Facebook, Twitter was chosen to add a sense of immediacy to my web presence. Twitter is a much more open social network (Hampton, 2009) and is highly accessible because of its simplistic short messages, and its mobility. Twitter is based on the question “what are you doing?” (Williams, 2009). When I create a blog entry and playlist, I can easily post these on and Twitter to advise these social network tools of ‘what I’m doing’. Twitter is also highly searchable on Google and makes it a perfect broadcast medium for my blog posts and playlists which assist me in building an online identity pointing back to my central node.
Accessibility was an issue that I kept in mind when building the site to ensure that those with disabilities are able to access the site. I believe Music is for everyone, and to my fullest ability, I wanted to make sure my web presence was accessible to as many people as possible (Carpenter, 2010). I intentionally used a larger font to make it as easy to read as possible and tested the site structures on WAVE. This site assisted me in making important structural changes and to understand that creating "universal websites" is an integral part of web design” (Carpenter, 2010).
In conclusion, all of the design choices made when constructing my web presence were done with my identity in mind, and how I could present that in a simple clear way that was compatible with existing online social networks. By using Web 2.0 tools I have been able to create a meaningful web presence whose content is easy to manage and broadcast via the selected contributing nodes. I have taken into account some key issues pertaining to today’s web environment, such as accessibility, when designing the site but still have a way to go in my technical abilities to fully address these issues. By taking into account such design requirements, I have made conscious decisions on how my web presence will affect my online identity, and reputation, in a world where we constantly live in our own digital shadow.
References
Akshay, J. et al. (2007). Why We Twitter: Understanding Microblogging Usage and Communities. Procedings of the Joint 9th WEBKDD and 1st SNA-KDD Workshop 2007, August 12. Retrieved May 10, 2010, from http://ebiquity.umbc.edu/_file_directory_/papers/369.pdf
Carpenter, E. V. (2010, March 20). Web Design Essentials - The Importance of Accessibility. Retrieved May 5, 2010, from http://ezinearticles.com/?Web-Design-Essentials---The-Importance-of-Accessibility&id=3962467
Demopoulos, T. (2008). Effective internet presence - now required for success in business and life. Retrieved from May 02, 2010 from http://www.effectiveinternetpresence.com/articles/effective-internet-presence.pdf
Hampton, Adriel (2009). The Biggest Difference Between Facebook and Twitter. Retrieved May 02, 2010, from http://adrielhampton.wordpress.com/2009/01/19/the-biggest-difference-between-facebook-and-twitter/
Helmond, A. (2010). Identity 2.0: Constructing identity with cultural software.University of Amsterdam. New Media Research Blog. Retrieved May 10, 2010, from http://www.annehelmond.nl/wordpress/wp-content/uploads//2010/01/helmond_identity20_dmiconference.pdf
Joergensen,J. and Blythe, J. (2003). A guide to a more effective World Wide Web presence. Retrieved May 2, 2010, from https://www.jyu.fi/econ/oppiaineet/yma/arkistoyma/vanhatmateriaalityma/YMAS350/Exam%20article%203.pdf
Mitchel, S. (2009, November 21). How to Write an Effective "About Me" Page?. Retrieved May 2, 2010, from http://ezinearticles.com/?How-to-Write-an-Effective-About-Me-Page?&id=3305430
Carpenter, E. V. (2010, March 20). Web Design Essentials - The Importance of Accessibility. Retrieved May 5, 2010, from http://ezinearticles.com/?Web-Design-Essentials---The-Importance-of-Accessibility&id=3962467
Demopoulos, T. (2008). Effective internet presence - now required for success in business and life. Retrieved from May 02, 2010 from http://www.effectiveinternetpresence.com/articles/effective-internet-presence.pdf
Hampton, Adriel (2009). The Biggest Difference Between Facebook and Twitter. Retrieved May 02, 2010, from http://adrielhampton.wordpress.com/2009/01/19/the-biggest-difference-between-facebook-and-twitter/
Helmond, A. (2010). Identity 2.0: Constructing identity with cultural software.University of Amsterdam. New Media Research Blog. Retrieved May 10, 2010, from http://www.annehelmond.nl/wordpress/wp-content/uploads//2010/01/helmond_identity20_dmiconference.pdf
Joergensen,J. and Blythe, J. (2003). A guide to a more effective World Wide Web presence. Retrieved May 2, 2010, from https://www.jyu.fi/econ/oppiaineet/yma/arkistoyma/vanhatmateriaalityma/YMAS350/Exam%20article%203.pdf
Mitchel, S. (2009, November 21). How to Write an Effective "About Me" Page?. Retrieved May 2, 2010, from http://ezinearticles.com/?How-to-Write-an-Effective-About-Me-Page?&id=3305430