Week 3, Post 2: Current Situation Draft

Literature Review

In Barton and Barton (1993) and Selfe and Selfe (1994), they discuss the political, economical, societal, and cultural dynamics that build “borders.” These borders can be both literal and figurative in scope and provide explanation as to why and how visuals are “seen as complicit with social-control mechanisms inextricably linked to power and authority” (Barton & Barton, 1993, p.53).

The ideological concept of denaturalizing the natural is constructed around the hegemonic process in which “certain meanings and practices are chosen for emphasis, certain other meanings and practices are neglected and excluded” (Barton & Barton, 1993, p.53). These concepts are termed the rules of inclusion and the rules of exclusion and they work to identify the “privileged” classes’ role in the development of visual representations (Foucault, 2001, Kaplan, 1994). The rules of inclusion can be defined as those rules that “determine the strategies and formal devices used to symbolize aspects of phenomena chosen for representation” (Barton & Barton, 1993, p.55). The rules of exclusion assert that “the map that is not made…warrants as much attention as the map that is made” (As cited in Monmonier, 1982, p. 99). In other words, there were powers at play that determined why certain things were represented in the way that they were and why certain things were excluded entirely.

The goal of Barton and Barton’s (1993) argument seems to be to create awareness regarding the inclusionary and exclusionary dynamics at work. They also identify the powers that are responsible for creating the dual modes that serve as the basis for ideology of the map. Self and Self (1994) do not differ in their argument in “The Politics of the Interface: Power and Its Exercise in Electronic Contact Zones.” Instead of only creating awareness, they suggest that people must be educated to be “technology critics as well as technology users” (484). In becoming critics, we are then able to “map these virtual spaces as sties of ‘multiple and heterogeneous borders where different histories, languages, experiences, and voices intermingle amidst diverse relations of power and privilege’ ” (As cited in Giroux 196). In creating awareness and becoming a critic, it also becomes the responsibility of the individual to note the ethical implications of one’s decisions. Katz argues about the dangers of the “ethics of expediency” in an article by the same name. In an effort to become responsible critic, the ethical implications of one’s actions and goals must be taken into consideration.

Thus far, a theoretical framework has been outlined that discusses the ideologies that are responsible for the construction of visuals. These ideologies can be applied to the current visual argument of the Clemson University Office of Sponsored Programs (OSP) website (http://www.clemson.edu/research/ospSite/indexSponsored.htm).

The Visual Argument of the OSP

Overall, the Office of Sponsored Programs has a very weak visual argument. It has been known to be a confusing site and an under-utilized one even though it has pertinent information for faculty, staff and students. This becomes increasingly problematic as Clemson is a land-grant institution and requires faculty to conduct research, but does not provide a well-constructed tool that the intended audience can utilize.

There are three major issues regarding the visual argument of the site:

1) Tufte’s concept of “chartjunk” can be applied to this site;

2) Steve Krug’s first law of usability is completely ignored; and

3) Bitzer’s rhetorical situation is not applied.

In examining these three major issues, it will provide a foundation on which to identify additional variables as well as clearly outline the client’s needs, and how the proposed study will be conducted in order to meet those specific needs.

Tufte’s “Chartjunk”

In applying Tufte’s (2001) concept of “chartjunk” in context to the OSP website, the point is that the site incorporates too many ineffective visuals that distract the user from locating desired information. The design elements do not seem to have been crafted around any particular theme, but rather, scattered around the screen, thus resulting in an overcompensation of trying to identify visual cues, such as links, for the users.
The menu bar is distracting because of the number of words incorporated on such a small area, and the words are difficult to read as the size of the text is too small to read comfortably. Although the font is sans serif, the preferred font for most electronic documents, especially in regards to headings, it interferes with the ease of readability.

Another problem with the choice of font is that there are several different visual cues for links as seen in the image below:

Figure 1: Office of Sponsored Programs home page

If a user was asked to identify the links on the page, one would assume that the blue hyperlinks at the bottom of the page would be the obvious links; however, the rest are not so easy to discern. In creating buttons on the left, and a link menu bar at the top, it creates discontinuity for the user. The “Site Index” and “Search” links are not easily distinguished as links because they are not the same color or size as the other links. Because of this discontinuity, it must have been assumed that buttons were needed to create a visual cue in regards to creating links. The below image is a way in which to eliminate the “chartjunk.”

Steve Krug’s Law of Usability

At first glance, the user is forced to think about the page and what is clickable, a danger because “…when using the Web every question mark adds to our cognitive workload, distracting our attention from the task at hand” (Krug, 2000). This could account for the under-utilization of the website as most users would not want to devote the time or effort to figuring out how to work a site that contained information about an already difficult and time consuming topic.

Another problem is that the homepage does not accommodate for the audiences’ needs:

· showing the user what he’s looking for,

· showing the user what he’s not looking for,

· showing the user where to start, and

· establishing credibility/trust (98).

This site does not fully abide by all of these levels because it has no intended audience. The Office of Sponsored Programs is available to all Clemson faculty, staff and students, and yet, information such as “Faculty Expertise” and “Funding Opportunities” are placed in a prominent location even though they can be considered misleading in the information they provide. “Faculty Expertise” does not necessarily tell a user anything, while the options listed within the “Funding Opportunities” pull-down menu is clearly directed towards an expert audience. Only those familiar with InfoED would understand its purpose. There seems to be no particular hierarchy or order to the option in the pull-down either. This can create confusion and frustration for the user.

Problems such as these can deter users from using the site. One study showed that the “visual appeal can be assessed within 50 milliseconds, suggesting that web designers have about 50 milliseconds to make a good first impression” ( Lindgaard, Fernandes, Dudek, & Brown, 2006, p.115). The study goes on to suggest that “aesthetics, or visual appeal, factors may be detected first and that these could influence how user judge subsequent experience” (115). With a website like the OSP, the overall first impression is not going to be impressive, and as a result, it may damage the integrity of the site and the information provided.

Another issue with all of the research sites is that they all look exactly the same. The only thing that changes is the information and the links that correspond with that information. That can make navigating the site difficult as there are no significant visual cues that would alert the user if they had managed to switch pages accidently. A tab system based on a color theme may be useful in distinguishing one research page from another.

The website also tends to show the user more of what they are not looking for then what they are looking for. It could be assumed that most users are not looking for “Publications & Reports,” “e-Research Administration,” or “Grant Admin. Training,” or most of the links at the bottom (although they coincide with those links listed at the top, though this is not apparently evident). It would seem that in designing this site it was geared towards an audience very familiar with conducting research at Clemson, as evident by the fact that there is no established starting point. It is up to the user to have a clear sense of what he wants to accomplish before ever arriving at the site. The site seemingly excludes any other type of audience as its hierarchical structure would only make sense to those who work in one of the research offices, and the overall layout is designed to be “simple,” but only for that intended audience in mind.

Bitzer’s Rhetorical Situation

There are three components to Bitzer’s (1968) “rhetorical situation.” They are “audience,” “exigence,” and “constraints.” The visual rhetoric as so far described using Tufte (2001) and Krug (2006) sheds some light on the problems plaguing the OSP website, but a full rhetorical analysis will provide a more holistic picture beyond the visual components.

Thus far, the main emphasis has been placed on the visual rhetoric of the OSP website, but the Limited Submission Program must also be considered. The visual design of the Program is not as much of a concern as the functionality and usability of the program, at least at this point and time. A rhetorical analysis can be applied to both.

OSP Website As previously discussed, the site was created for the incorrect audience. The premise of the rhetorical situation hinges upon finding the correct audience that can act and mediate change in light of the exigence and despite the existing constraints. Just based on the current state of the website, a thorough audience analysis was not conducted. A thorough historiography of the OSP website may reveal why this is the case.

Aside from the lack of audience analysis, the purpose of the website must be reevaluated. Currently, information is hard to find and access so it can be assumed that it is not used as a “tool” by the users. One option that will be explored later is to develop a more “customer-oriented” website that allows the users to engage with the website in a meaningful way that decreases the amount of time preparing a proposal and creates a more effective way of going through the process.

Limited Submission Program The Program has two intended uses: one for authors, and one for reviewers. The difficulty in initially assessing this program is that it was an idea to make the process easier and more efficient. The Program was developed in an effort to eliminate the collection and distribution of hardcopies of proposals as they were submitted. It then grew into a program that allowed reviewers to score the proposals online. In many ways this Program is still being developed and shaped and a number of different needs identified by the client pertaining to both the website and the Program can be seen in the table below.

Table 2: Limited Submission Program and Office of Sponsored Programs needs based on the client’s descriptions.

Need	Explanation	Assessment
Data field forms	Information can be input by authors and reviewers	Look at criteria for authors to determine additional fields Look at needs of reviewers and information they would want to know about authors
Track limited submission proposals	Determine if they were submitted externally and if awarded – see if fulfilling the purpose of the URGC	Within the Program, create a feature in which authors must submit their progress report as a component of the URGC funding initiative
Possible modes of success	Make past limited proposals accessible to authors and reviewers	Create a password/username database
Control submission guidelines	Different limited submissions have different instructions that differ from the general instructions provided. Must be able to format guidelines to meet requirements	Make the guidelines and standards for an internal limited submission the same. For example, require vitas for all internal limited submissions (do not pick and choose when it is needed)
Communal environment for reviewers	Create a chat area for reviewers so they can discuss internal pre-proposals that can only viewed by reviewers	Take a look at Google Docs and their chat message capabilities as a model
Develop search engine	This can pertain to looking for authorized signatures, past proposals, current funding opportunities	Will need to assess what audience looks for most often to develop a search engine.
Create authoring environment	Supply form fields with word limits Authors need to be able to access proposals they submitted to make changes/revisions	Will allow authors to provide only that information that is necessary Will enable authors to make revisions/changes without having to talk to a middleman.
Training Registration and Survey Program	Create survey tool and follow-up surveys Create podcasts of training sessions Reports of who participates in training sessions	Surveys can be administered and podcasts watched online for convenience Reports will determine success/effectiveness

The above table addresses some of the needs pertaining to the Limited Submission Program and Office of Sponsored Programs. Aside from rhetorical analyses pertaining to the sites, developing a “customer-oriented” website will require understanding how these types of sites are developed.

There is virtually no literature that addresses the needs of Limited Submission Programs. Porter (2005) evaluates how to manage Limited Submission Programs through 10 recommendations, but he does not offer any suggestions in the way of making it more effective and efficient for users. His suggestions should be heeded because they include things such as better communication among coordinators and principle investigators, providing formatting instructions and guidelines for proposals, encouraging fair assessments of proposals among the committee, and the like. These are good tips for managing the process, but his study ignores how to implement these managerial components. However, these can be used in the redesign of the Limited Submission Program and OSP website, so long as there is a way to measure the usability of these changes.
Other factors to consider in the role of website usability and evaluation include a more business perspective in regards to electronic commerce. Venketash and Argawal (2006) have taken a closer look at what influences and persuades users to use the certain electronic commerce sites that they do. They say that “marketers are concerned not only with identifying the specific evaluative criteria that consumers are likely to use, but also with the relative importance (weights) each individual consumer assigns to these criteria” (372). In an earlier study conducted by Argawal and Venketash (2002), they developed a metric to study the usability of websites that focused on five different categories: 1) content, 2) ease of use, 3) promotion, 4) made-for-the-medium, and 5) emotion. Their study applies the criterion cross several different e-commerce sites. They found that each of the criteria weighed differently for both consumer and business in regards to the usability of the site.

These criteria can be applied to assessing the OSP and Limited Submission program before and after recommendations are implemented, as well as using e-commerce models to promote the new designs and encourage users to visit the site.

The OSP website and Limited Submission Program drastically need to be changed to tailor to multiple audiences needs and not deter users from viewing the site within the first 50 milliseconds. A usability study would reveal a lot of information in regards to how to structure its organization as well as how to make it more enticing and user-friendly through visuals and aesthetics. The different theorists in the field offer reasons for its current structure as well as suggestions for improving its overall visual appeal. The proposed study tries to incorporate these different studies in the redesign of the website and Program.