Blog #4

I found that there were a lot of connections to the articles we've read previously and Chapter 5. First, the idea of tagging information so that there is organization to our miscellaneous information is referenced in Web Squared. It began that we only tagged photos, but no we tag information. As Weinberger says, "tags work as a way for individuals to remember and refind pages." In Web Squared they say, "we add tags to our tweets so that they can be grouped more easily." These two points coincide perfectly. It's completely relevant to this class too because we add the #dtc356 tag to all of our tweets so that we're easily able to access one another's tweets without having to sort through all of the personal/irrelevant information.


In Web 2.0 and Web Squared the key idea centers around collecting metadata and creating a more user friendly experience. In Web Sqauared, they even say "As the information shadows become thicker, more substantial, the need for explicit metadata diminishes." This idea supports Weinberger's third new strategic principle "everything is metadata and everything can be a label." It's important that people keep this in mind when collecting information about users. Weinberger uses the example of searching for a specific Shakespeare play where you search in Google for either Shakespeare or a specific quote to find what you're looking for. Both Shakespeare and the quote act as metadata for the play itself. Through tagging everything possible with the quote and Shakespeare, users are able to find exactly what they're looking for much quicker than they would otherwise. It's doing exactly as Weinberger says - increasing usability and leverage of knowledge which empowers our knowledge beyond comprehension. 

Blog #3

Skim Chapter 3 and read Chapter 4 of Weinberger. Pay attention to notions of power (who get to do the order/labeling and to what ends), difference between lumpers and splitters, and consider whether or not the shape of our knowledge is changing (p. 71)


I found this reading really intriguing. It got me thinking about all the lists I have in my life. Often times I make lists and forget them and find them two weeks later. Looking back at most of my lists, I've found that I'm a lumper - and I don't often split things, nor do I have someone split them for me. I see things as big picture. Too much organization stresses me out oddly enough. I find myself making things too "bushy" when I try to detail them further. I would be that person that is mentioned on Page 70 who organizes their shoes with a category for each shoe and size. I have a hard time drawing lines between too broad and too detailed. I can rarely find a happy medium. Which is why I'm the type of person who creates lists for metadata, even beyond just my grocery list.


I think the shape of our knowledge is definitely changing - with the addition of technology, it's becoming easier and easier for people to be both the lumper and the splitter. Even something as simple as creating a list. We can use bullet points, the furthest to the left bullet represents a larger category, and as we indent we get more and more specific. For instance, We can create a basic to do list. Then we can add big picture things to do (i.e. School, Home, Personal). Then within each of those categories we can lump a few things together (i.e. School: DTC 356, DTC 375, DTC 355) and then finally list the most detailed information below each of those sections (specific homework assignments). Now, we can so easily create lists and lump and split our information through our e-mail programs, word processing programs or even on a piece of paper sitting on the counter. It seems as though now we are able to see on a broader scheme than before. I think this comes from our need for organization in our world where information is breeding at a rapid pace and we need to find places to store all of that information as quickly as it can be produced.


Someone else might organize their DVD collection by genre instead of alphabetically. My problem with that is that I cannot define clear genres. I think this means that I'm an old school organizer - I like one big list. I was able to lump my movies into two categories, but no more than that because then it gets too technical and I will end up with a chaotic mess. I can only lump so far, and even then it's a pretty pathetic excuse of a lump. But nevertheless, I'm better at lumping than splitting. For me, I'm too indecisive to be able to split my movies into specific categories because to me it may be a "classic" but someone else may see it as a "romantic comedy." I think movies are a pretty terrible example of lumping and splitting for me personally because genres aren't cut and dry - they're really based on opinion.  Either way, I suppose my alphabetical ordering of my DVD's shows that I'm a fan of ordering things in the most basic way - even if it's not the most effective way.

Blog #2

In David Weinberger’s “Everything is Miscellaneous” he discusses some very interesting points. The prologue goes in depth about how the popular office supply chain Staples organizes its stores. He goes into detail about why items are organized the way they are. He makes a very valid point, which I found to be one of the most important points of the chapter, about how everything cannot be within arms reach of the customer at all times. He calls it “operational simplicity.” It’s the idea that you must organize things to their fullest potential so as not to frustrate the customer but to provide a cohesive and effective organizational structure that uses the space in the most effective and user friendly way possible.

The first chapter discusses organization and the three levels of organization. I found it interesting how he related iTunes to this organization method. Personally, I always found iTunes to be very well organized, but Weinberger does not find it to be effectively organized. The three tier organization organizes things by sorting them into large sections first (e.g. genres on iTunes), then smaller categories (e.g. artists), then finally into the smallest sections where you can find each object (e.g. albums leading you to a list of songs). I think this form of organization is much more effective than what chapter two discusses: alphabetizing.

Weinberger discussed alphabetization. The major point of this chapter was that the alphabet itself is miscellaneous, yet we have socially constructed it into something that makes sense to us. Without an alphabet, everything would truly be random and each person could set their own ideals for how things should be organized. The idea of the alphabet is a great idea, it provides order for the chaos of information we are bombarded with on a daily basis, but it becomes unfair when people abuse the alphabet.

One thing my roommate and I spend a great deal of time organizing in our apartment is our movies. We have over 500 DVD’s to sort through each time we want to watch a movie. We had to split them up into two different shelves in two rooms. We chose our favorite 100 DVD’s to have in our living room and easily accessed, then we alphabetized them. We originally tried to organize them by genre, then alphabetize the genres but we ran into too many troubles with deciding where to draw the line between genres and whether to subdivide the comedy section into romantic comedies and slapstick comedies. We simply decided to organize the entire library instead. It works because when we want to find a particular movie, it is easy to find and there is no dispute over which genre it should be in. 

Blog #1

For me, the most important idea from this article is that the web is growing and changing at a very rapid pace. In the future I need to remember that what is true of the web and technology now, most certainly will not be true five years from now. I have no idea what I'll be doing in my future, but I know that if I'm ever working with a smaller company or even beginning my own, I will make sure that that company has a web presence. The web is everything now - if you're not online, you're not connected with the rest of the world. The web is such an incredibly powerful tool, and I think that we are just now skimming the surface of the possibilities it holds. With the introduction of social networks and web applications, the web is becoming smarter and smarter and gaining more and more value each day. In the article it says "the fundamental lessons of Web 2.0 apply to any network application, whether web- or  mobile phone-based (and the lines between the two are increasingly blurred)." I found this part really interesting and applicable to the future because phones and computers are becoming increasingly similar. Therefore, if a web-application wants to become even further usable, it should find a way to connect with users on the go.


The most exciting web application I've seen in the past year is probably picnik.com. It allows people to upload photos, edit them and save them to their computer. It's sort of a free online version of Photoshop for the amateur photographer. It allows the user to use it for free or upgrade to "premium" for even further features. It's exciting because it makes photo editing real for people who otherwise wouldn't be able to. I just think it's kind of a fun thing to use when you want to play around with photos and not do designing, just some touch ups. Also, it's really useful for people who don't have access to any photo editing software because they can access it via the web without having to download anything onto their computer.