Conceptual Research & Reflection Project part 4

Concept 8. The invisibility of difference
When you meet someone who you can see is hearing impaired, you tend to compensate (sometimes too much) for the mismatch between your 'communicative systems' – speech and hearing on both parts. But if you cannot see that the person you are emailing is using a low resolution, slow older computer running a simple ASCII text email program, then you tend to forget that there are such users out there and do not compensate. There are many differences between computers and computer users, but we tend to forget them when, positioned in front of our own computers, we are able to communicate rapidly and - apparently – effectively across time and distance.
One can see this effect most clearly in some websites that have been developed by people with more powerful / different computers to others. Screen sizes and resolutions, for example, differ widely between Macintoshes and PCs and the effect can sometimes be seen in websites that require too large a screen or assume too small a screen as the only possibility

The daily practice of electronic communication is shaped by over-familiarity with one's own computer system, and a tendency to assume that – as with much more established forms of communication – everyone is operating within compatible and similar systems. When in doubt, seek to communicate in ways that are readable and effective for all users, regardless of their particular systems.

All forms of Internet communication are affected, to some degree, by the invisibility of difference. While, at base, the protocols that run the Internet are (and must be) identical, their specific implementation in programs can vary widely. This variation is, however, very hard to see: hence, the ‘invisibility’ of difference. Fundamentally, we need to recognise that Internet communication can trap users into seeing no further than their own monitor, almost as if they are communicating by speaking to a mirror. Certainly, in online relationships, it appears easier for people to see what they want to see (rather than what they ought to see) displayed on their screen. Advanced Internet users are mindful of the way in which communications lose some or much of their original context and appear on their screens ‘as if’ they are coming from the user themselves, rather than the person with whom they are communicating. (Concepts Document n.d.)

Response

Accessibility issues are not just for the disabled
Back in the early days of the Internet when bandwidth was expensive and the tools used to communicate were a speedy 4 bits per second modem, sites were usually text based with little or no images. This has been called the golden age of accessibility. (Goggin, 2004, p58) Today with the intense graphical-user interface, heavy image based sites and ultrafast bandwidth; accessibility standards are seen as an essential bridge to span the divide between different operating systems and new and old computer technology. The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) has coined the phrase “Web interoperability” (Jacobs, 2007) which translates into—web technologies must be compatible with both hardware and software to gain full access on the web. W3C promote the use of Open Source Software (OSS) to achieve this goal to ultimately enhance user experience. “Open source is a development method for software that harnesses the power of distributed peer review and transparency of process” (Home, 2009).
It’s all too easy for software developers to forget about fringe community groups when developing new software applications. A significant example of this is when Microsoft introduced the Window operating platform. The change from DOS-based to a graphics-based system, rendered the screenreaders inoperable, as a consequence the blind society was left out in the cold (Goggin, 2004, p63).
“The benefits of OSS are better quality, higher reliability, more flexibility, lower cost, and an end to predatory vendor lock-in” (Home, 2009). These key principles are to promote innovation at a grass roots level that is driven by Darwinistic community development. Open source by its very nature is open to public use without cost, such as PHP, HTML, SQL and many others (Wheeler, 2009). There have been many arguments that OSS has no place in a commercial world (Perens, 2005) but you only need to look at the success the Adobes Portable Document Format (PDF) has revolutionised the way documents are exchanged. PDF was once proprietary software but is now accepted as an open standard, “Adobe has received approval of PDF 1.7 to become the ISO 32000 Standard” (King, 2007)—a truly altruistic act? That can’t be said about other software manufactures. Look no further than the troubled history of HTML and how developers’, through their commercial interests have de-railed the progress by introducing discrepancies in the code and how this has affected accessibility and given web site developers’ major headaches. The idea of OSS is the software can be modified to enable improvements in the code, which essentially encompass a whole community of developers in creating an accountable standard. “Accountability as a guideline for answerability, which motivates precautionary behavior that, in turn, caters social welfare” (Nuvolari, 2005).
Open source software is not the only solution to increase accessibility standards on the web, it’s only part of the battle. In a world where time is money we are always weighing up our commitment verses quality of communication. Where there is always someone demanding your attention, and with a tendency to rush though familiar jobs without taking the diligent care required—we do because we can, not because we should. (450 word)

Site1:

W3C: World Wide Web. (2009). Retrieved May 16, 2009, from http://www.w3.org/

W3C site has a wealth of information for the would-be site designer where it has claims to have published more than 110 web standards and guidelines that can be downloaded free. The site also has numerous active members list for peer-to-peer discussions where you can get involved in developers community. W3C is seen as a peak body to ensure that the development and accountability standards are maintained of open source software for the benefit of the community. The Consortium is represented by over 400 organization form 40 countries to encourage diversity. Surly a wining combinations!


Site2:

Sorry not time to finish this.

References
Concept Document: 8. The invisibility of difference. (n.d.) Retrieved May 13, 2009, from http://lms.curtin.edu.au/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab=courses&url=%2Fbin%2Fcommon%2Fcourse.pl%3Fcourse_id%3D_14736_1%26sc%3D%252fwebapps%252fdiscussionboard%252fdo%252fmessage%253faction%253dlist_messages%2526conf_id%253d_23724_

David, S. (2004). Opening the sources of accountability. First Monday. Retrieved May 16, 2009, from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1185/1105

Goggin, G. (2004). Net acceleration: The advent of everyday Internet. Virtual Nation: The Internet in Australia. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press.

Jacobs, I. (2007). W3C Develops Web Standards and Guidelines. Retrieved May 15, 2009, from http://www.w3.org/Consortium/

Home, (2009), Retrieved May 16, 2009, from http://www.opensource.org/

King, J. (2007). Inside PDF. Retrieved May 16, 2009, from http://blogs.adobe.com/insidepdf/2007/12/iso_ballot_for_pdf_17_passed.html

Nuvolari, A. (2005). Open source development: Some historical perspectives. First Monday. Retrieved May 16, 2009, from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1284/1204

Perens, B. (2005) The emerging economic paradigm of Open Source. First Monday. Retrieved May 16, 2009, from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1470/1385

Wheeler, D. (2009). The Most Important Software Innovations. Retrieved May 16, 2009, from http://www.dwheeler.com/innovation/innovation.html