Reflections

In this learning period of three months, I feel I have matured as an amateur document designer and as a blogger of serious issues.

As a casual blogger, I have always blogged for my own pleasure. My posts were very text-heavy and I couldn’t be bothered if people were attracted to read them. However, after learning about the power of good design, I have started including more visuals in my personal blog. Now, I agree with Kress & van Leeuwen (2006) that images are independent forms of expressions.

I have also become more aware of the different ways people interpret text. Schriver (1997) argues that culture strongly influences the way individuals decipher words and images. That needs to be taken into consideration when dealing with sensitive issues such as race and religion.

My learning does not end here. I will continue connecting the dots and hopefully develop a flair for designing.

References:

1. Kress, G. & van Leeuwen, T. 2006, Reading images, Chapter 1, Routledge, London.

2. Schriver K.A 1997, Dynamics in Document Design: Creating Texts for Readers, Wiley Computer Pub., New York.

Mobile Video Blogging and Journalism Ethics

Since the marriage of webcams and broadband, moblogging--a term for mobile blogging coined by Adam Greenfield in 2002--has become increasingly widespread (Rutledge 2003). Technology has advanced to the level where individuals can tailor and personalise their videos before sending it out to their friends, all on their mobile phones (Simmons 2008). Live broadcasting has also become possible.

With this development comes the increase in citizen journalism. When Saddam Hussein was executed, the official video distributed by the Iraqi government was censored to be without audio. But there was also a video shot with a cell phone that included taunting by Shi'ite politicians in the room (Glaser 2007). The viral spread of this unofficial video on Google Video and YouTube was seen by millions and exposed the reality of the situation in Iraq to the world. This clearly demonstrates the power of citizen journalism through Vlogs and moblogging.

Current Problems

However, according to John Dickson, photo editor of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the quality of pictures and videos contributed by citizens is still too low (Rutledge 2003) for citizen journalism to become mainstream. Besides, Web 2.0 consultant Kathy Johnson (Simmons 2008) also points out that the biggest problem with video blogging is that the bulk of user-generated content fails to attract users due to its boring and mundane nature.

I believe as technology continues to improve, however, the average citizen will have an increasingly significant role to play in bringing reality to the masses.

(Refer to an older post, New Media Publishing for more)

References:

1. Glaser 2007, Saddam Execution another First for Citizen Media, viewed 3 June 2009, <http://www.online-publishers.org/newsletter.php?newsId=15>.

2. Rutledge, B 2003, 'Conference Panelists See Bright Future for Mobile Publishing', USC Annenberg, viewed 2 June 2009,
<http://www.ojr.org/ojr/technology/1058998393.php>.

3. Simmons, D 2008, 'Rise of the Mobile Video Blog', BBC Click, viewed 1 June 2009,
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/programmes/click_online/7392594.stm>.

Photographs: Truths or Lies?

Quoting the words of a Turkish Professor (Tiryakioglu, 2009), "It is common knowledge that words can deceive, but most people believe that photographs speak the truth."

Photographers bear witness to the events that shape our world. There are instances where photographs are the only way to convey the reality of a situation, such as horrific images of wars and disasters, or the jubilance of a huge sporting victory. Photographs bring us a little further into the story, and a little closer to the people involved (Funnell 2007).

However, as early as the 1860s, photographs were already being manipulated, only a few decades after Niepce created the first photograph in 1814 (Dartmouth 2009). The portrait of U.S. President Abraham Lincoln published in 1860, for example, was a composite of Lincoln's head and the Southern politician John Calhoun's body.

These occurences have only increased today as photo-editing and retouching software like Photoshop are becoming more common and more advanced.

In June 1994, a significant case of digitally altered photographs came to the forefront of media attention. Shortly after OJ Simpson's arrest for murder, a picture of him appeared on TIME magazine cover. His photograph was manipulated from the original mug-shot that appeared on the cover of Newsweek to make him look like a criminal--"darker" and more "menacing", as shown in the image below.

Figure 1: OJ Simpson on TIME magazine cover

Source: http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/research/digitaltampering/

This proves that visuals send out important meanings, and the integrity of photographs must be preserved despite retouching work that is being done on photographs for aesthetic purposes. Not maintaining credibility as a photographer will 'diminish journalistic impact and self-respect, and the importance of photography as communication' (Lester 1999).

I shall leave you with two questions to ponder about:

• To which extent is photo-editing acceptable?
• How can the credibility of journalism and the original meanings of the image be protected?

References:
1. Dartmouth 2009, Photo Tampering Throughout History, viewed 5 June 2009, <http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/research/digitaltampering/>.
2. Funnell, A 2007, 'The Power of the Photograph', The Media Report, viewed 5 June 2009, <http://www.abc.net.au/rn/mediareport/stories/2007/2051819.htm>.
3. Tiryakioglu, F 2009, 'Photo-Manipulation and TRNC Newspapers', SEARCH Conference, 30 May 2009.
4. Lester, PM 1999, Picture Manipulations, viewed 5 June 2009, <http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/lester/writings/chapter6.html>.

Facelift Gone Wrong: Facebook

Figure 1: Facebook group in protest of new layout

(Source: www.facebook.com)

The Facebook group shown in the picture above was formed to protest the Facebook revamp that took place on 13 March 2009.

According to Facebook vice president of marketing Chamath Palihapitiya (Australian IT 2008), "The new design lets Facebook members use tabs to give priority to fresh pictures, messages, or "feeds" on main profile pages and compartmentalise mini-applications and "static" information such as curriculum vitae. The changes are motivated by feedback from users as well as a trend toward people flooding the internet with videos, pictures, and musings they want to instantly share."

Unfortunately, what Facebook failed to realize was that many users in its growing user base are not young and tech-savvy--there was a 276% growth among those aged 35-54 years (Corbett 2009), and hence the Twitter-like revamp threw many out of their comfort zones.

The Facebook Layout vote application had over a million votes, with 94% of users against the new format (Obasanjo 2009).

Figure 2: Comments on Product Director Christopher Cox's response to Facebook users

(Image Credit: Jennifer Guevin/CNET)

This demonstrates that user acceptance is a major issue in any application as users interact with the design and layout. According to Obasanjo (2009), 'when your application becomes an integral part of your customers lives and identities, it is almost expected that they protest any major changes to the user experience'. But will users eventually get used to the new changes, or should negative reactions towards change be taken seriously by the Facebook designers?

When Facebook first launched its Newsfeed feature back in 2006, 500 Facebook groups were formed in protest as it disrupted users' sense of control over information posted online (Aslani 2006). However, after a few teaks in privacy control, today the newsfeed has become very central to facebook.

Will the same thing happen this time? Only time will tell whether Facebook can successfully appease its users again.


References:
1. Aslani, L, 2006, ‘Users Revel Against Facebook Feature’, The Michigan Daily, viewed 25 May 2009, <http://www.michigandaily.com/content/users-rebel-against-facebook-feature>.
2. Australian IT 2008, 'Facebook makeover leaves some devotees fuming', Australian IT, viewed 3 June 2009, <http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,24328928-15318,00.html>.
3. Corbett, P 2009, '2009 Facebook Demographics and Statistics Report: 276% Growth in 35-54 Year Old Users', istrategylabs, viewed 3 June 2009, <http://www.istrategylabs.com/2009-facebook-demographics-and-statistics-report-276-growth-in-35-54-year-old-users/>.
4. McCarthy, C 2009, 'Facebook, Google, and the data design disaster', CNet, viewed 1 June 2009, <http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-10206053-36.html>.
5. Obasanjo, D 2009, 'Facebook "stream" redesign: Disruptive companies don't listen to their customers – Mark Zuckerburg', viewed 4 June 2009, <http://www.25hoursaday.com/weblog/2009/03/21/FacebookStreamRedesignDisruptiveCompaniesDontListenToTheirCustomersMarkZuckerburg.aspx>.

Cultural Sensitivities in Ethical Publishing

Figure 1: Suharto and his 'Last Supper'

Source: www.daylife.com/photo/0dUFdkFbDIbYt

If you are a Christian, there is a chance that you were offended by the picture above published in the Indonesian news weekly, Tempo, on February 6, 2008 (daylife, 2008) after the demise of president Suharto. The picture was a mimickry of Leonardo Da Vinci's The Last Supper which featured Jesus Christ and His disciples, and the headline read, 'After He Departed'.

Or if you are a Muslim, the Prophet Muhammad caricatures published in Danish newspaper in 2006 might have provoked a sense of outrage.

In the former case, Tempo chief editor Toriq Hadad had to apologize "for anything unacceptable arising from the publishing of that cover" (ABC News 2008). In the latter, the cartoons sparked diplomatic sanctions and death threats in some Arab nations, while media watchdogs defended the freedom of the press to publicize the cartoons (BBC News 2006).

This begs the question: is it ethical to publish satirical images in the name of exposing prejudices and entertaining readers? Or should cultural sensitivities be given priority at all costs?

Kress and van Leeuwen (2006) argue that different people have different interpretations of texts due to different perspectives based on culture and social experience. Signs often mean what the creators want them to mean rather than convey how most people understand them (Williams 2003). Cross-cultural misunderstanding easily takes place, evoking anger and confusion if ideas are not communicated properly in the context of a particular culture.

Document designers should ask themselves whether the image they publish is intended to instigate negative emotions in their audience. Otherwise, entertaining a particular segment of the audience while offending the rest may not be wise. Designers should ensure that a complete and coherent understanding of the message they intend to communicate is achieved among the audience.

References:

1. ABC News 2008, 'Indonesian weekly apologises over Last Supper Suharto cover', ABC News, viewed 1 June 2009, <http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/06/2156269.htm>.

2. BBC News 2006, 'Muhammad Cartoon Row Intensifies', viewed 11 June 2009, <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4670370.stm>.

3. Daylife, 2008, viewed 2 June 2009, <www.daylife.com/photo/0dUFdkFbDIbYt>.

4. Kress, G. & van Leeuwen, T. 2006, Reading Images, Routledge, London.

5. Williams, K 2003, ‘Ways of Making You Think: Theories of Ideology and Meaning’, Understanding Media Theory, Arnold, London.