The opportunities of Podcasting

Posted in Classic shows on July 12, 2005 by Paul Boag

There has been a lot of talk about Podcasting over the last couple of weeks with the latest version of iTunes now supporting the technology. But what exactly is a PodCast and how if at all, can it benefit your organisation.

Sometimes it feels like the whole world has gone iPod crazy. iPod has spawned the next generation of music devices and single handedly changed the fortunes of Apple. But even though it is near on impossible to have avoided the iPod you may yet have escaped the phenomena of Podcasting.

What is Podcasting?

In many ways the PodCast is a natural extension of blogging. It allows anybody with a microphone and an internet connection to publish a radio show/blog that can be subscribed and downloaded to any MP3 player. PodCasts cover every imaginable subject from science fiction to gardening and are produced by enthusiastic amateurs and large corporations alike. They range from being entire radio shows such as those published by the BBC to short 5 minute bulletins.

It is still very much an emerging technology but it has seen much larger adoption than many other such technologies especially among the younger iPod generation.

How could it benefit my organisation?

Although largely untested I believe there are some real business opportunities in Podcasting. Podcasting provides a powerful new marketing and communication medium that is almost completely unexploited.

Of course the opportunities for organisations to utilise PodCasts are largely limited to those groups who are trying to reach the demographic that uses MP3 players. Currently this seems to be teenagers, students and young male professionals with disposable income. However there is an expectation that this audience will broaden significantly over the coming months.

Higher education PodCasts could contain hints and tips on university life, interviews with existing students and even demo tracks from student bands.

Nevertheless, for those trying to reach this demographic there are some interesting opportunities. Take for example the higher education sector that is always looking for new ways to attract school leavers. They could use popular existing PodCasts to advertise their courses or even run their own casts. These could contain hints and tips on university life, interviews with existing students and even demo tracks from student bands. Many university student unions also run their own radio stations which could be tapped for content.

With a bit of imagination it soon becomes apparent that PodCasts are an excellent way of connecting with a generation who are extremely unreceptive to traditional forms of marketing.

Click here for additional uses of Podcasting in the educational sector

How do we create a PodCast?

Because Podcasting is designed to open up broadcasting to everybody the process of producing a PodCast is very straightforward and there are many pieces of software that automate much of the technical process.

The real challenge is ensuring the quality of the PodCast doesn’t undermine the message being communicated.

The average PodCast listener is used to quality media and as a result has high expectations. The production value will be key to the Casts success. A combination of good content, professional vocal presentation and quality music will make your PodCast stand out from the crowd. In many cases finding this balance can be hard to achieve and could require the use of professional agencies to assist in the production process at least initially.

Looking beyond the PodCast

I would like to leave you with one last thought. At the end of the day a PodCast is just a downloadable MP3 track and so there is no reason why you need to limit the content you produce to a PodCast. What about broadcasting directly from your site or allowing users to subscribe to an email version of the Cast. Podcasting really has opened up a world of possibilities.

Top 100 University web sites

Posted in News on June 21, 2005 by Paul Boag

I was pleased to read in the Guardian Online that the University of Brighton (one of the many Higher Education sites I have been involved in) has come second in a review of the top one hundred University web sites. However, I then noticed that the University of Portsmouth, which I also designed, came 179th out of 200! Unsurprisingly I found this discrepancy disturbing so decided to look into things more closely.

Problems with the survey

Although it was nice to read an article that recognised the importance of the web in ensuring the success of University recruitment, I did feel that the survey itself lacked any real credibility. It read more like a desperate attempt to attract business on behalf of UCTV who commissioned the report and was I somewhat amazed that the Guardian decided to run it.

Limited Number

With an assessment panel of only 13 users, the results can have very little statistical value. Admittedly, the company that commissioned the survey recognises that fact and describe it as a "toe in the water". However, in my more cynical moments I might describe it as nothing more than very good PR for their organisation! Setting my cynicism aside, I can say that it does probably correctly identify a underlying problem with university web sites. Nevertheless, I doubt the ranking really means anything. For example, the percentage difference between the various ranking positions was so small that on a test base of 13 they become meaningless.

Poor demographic

The other thing that concerns me is that the sites were being assessed by a very narrow demographic. All 13 testers were British A level students. University sites have to appeal to a much greater demographic including, but not limited to:

Mature students
International students
Postgraduate students
Research students
Parents (often forgotten in the process of choosing a University)
Business
The media
Teachers
Lecturers
Existing students
Former students

As you can see the survey failed to grasp the breadth of people that University web sites have to reach.

Limited assessment criteria

The assessment criteria used seemed to revolve around usability concerns and content. Although I cannot over emphasis the importance of these two areas, they are not the only criteria a web site has to consider. In particular, how accessible the site is should have been a key consideration. Accessibility is a hot topic with Universities not only because of the legislation on the issue but also because making a site accessible can directly affect recruitment figures. Headscape did a report on this subject late last year and found that very few Universities or colleges had seriously addressed the issue.

Lessons to learn

Although, in my opinion, the survey only has no significant value I do think that the associated article makes some interesting points. It is time for Universities to address the issue of their web sites. It is true that a large majority of applicants rely as heavily on the web as they do on the paper prospectuses when choosing a university to attend. This is an audience very comfortable with communicating through the electronic medium and the Higher education sector needs to cater to that need. I strongly believe that those who fail to address these concerns could face serious recruitment problems over the coming years that could jeopardise their continued existence in a very competitive market place. What saddens me is that the Guardian undermines these legitimate points by constructing their argument on such a weak piece of research.

Web Accessibility Report Published

Posted in User experience on October 29, 2004 by Paul Boag

As part of my work with Headscape I have released a report which surveys the accessibility of University and further education web sites. I am pleased to say that it has received a lot of publicity which is good news but I hope that people don’t see it as condemning.

The media love dramatic headlines. "39% of University homepages break the law" sounds a lot better than "Slight concerns over University web sites". Of course life is never as black and white or as melodramatic as that. At least not in the world of web design.

What the report says

Our report surveyed 156 UK university web sites and 255 UK colleges of further/higher education. Out of those 39% of Universities and 54% of colleges failed to meet WAI accessibility guidelines. Whether or not this means they are breaking the law is yet to be seen. There is yet to be a test case in British law to see if inaccessible web sites are breaking the Disability Discrimination Act. However based on a test case against the Olympic committee in Australia (which shares many similiarities with our system of law) the chances are they would be.

Condeming?

Although we do list the sites that pass or fail the accessibility test in the report, this is not with a desire to "name and shame". Ensuring that your web site is accessible can be an overwhelming tasks especially when a large number of users are contributing to your site. It is relatively easy to make a site Single A complient but keeping it that way is another matter.

The accessibility guidelines that all publically funded web sites are meant to comply with can be intimidating to say the least. Without clear guidence of how best to approach these problems each University or college is left to work it out for themselves.

Also retrofitting an existing site that many consist of thousands of pages is not always straightforward and many education institutions simply do not have the resources to do it.

I have worked with many such organisations and know what a tough challenge this can be sometimes. Take for example the University of Portsmouth web site. We designed and delivered complient templates that were to be integrated into a content management system. However their site now fail to reach even the most basic level of accessibility and appear in our report. Is this because they don’t care about accessibility? Not at all, it is simply because accessibility is a challenging area that can often overtake us if we are not careful.

Web Accessibility Report

Posted in Accessibility on October 14, 2004 by Paul Boag

Life continues to be maniacally busy with a trip to the states and more work than you can shake a stick at (what a ridiculous phrase). However probably the biggest project for me of late has been the launch of a report into accessibility in Higher Education.

You may remember that a while back I published an article on Higher Education and Web Accessibility. Well this combined with a report I found on Accessibility on Council Web Sites made me decide to undertake a little research project of my own.

In short I reviewed over 400 UK university and college web sites and checked their homepages to see what level of accessibility they achieved. More than 39% of Universities and 54% of colleges failed to meet even the most basic level of accessibility laid out under the WAI guidelines. In reality this figure was probably even higher because I only checked the homepages using an automated tool called Bobby which does not check for the more "subjective" guidelines.

Considering educational institutions are obliged under both the Disability Discrimination Act and the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act to ensure that they do not discriminate against a disabled person in relation to the services they provide, it is amazing that so few have probably addressed the accessibility of their web sites.

If you have a few minutes check out the site at www.headscapeHE.co.uk. Even if you are not involved in Higher Education it is worth visiting the site to see how I have solved the problem of making it accessible while still ensuring it is visually appealing.

Higher education & web accessibility

Posted in User experience on August 17, 2004 by Paul Boag

By now anybody involved in managing a higher education web site will be aware of the need to make it accessible. However, not all are clear as to why this is important or indeed how to go about it. This article is designed to give you a quick overview of the subject and direct you to some useful resources. What is web accessibility?

Web Accessibility is about making your web site accessible to the widest possible audience. Because of the lobbying of organisations such as the RNIB most people associate web accessibility with the visually impaired. However, web accessibility is much broader than that. It is also about providing access for those with motor impairments, learning difficulties and other forms of disability. It is also about making your web site accessible to all, irrespective of what browser technology they are using to access your site or the connection speed.

How web accessibility is measured

In practice, web accessibility is primarily (although not exclusively) defined by a checklist set out by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). The W3C is a governing body for the web that sets standards for technical development. One set of standards is the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WAI) which defines three levels of accessibility each progressively more demanding. The most basic level of accessibility is Priority 1 (level A compliance) followed by Priority 2 and 3 (levels AA and AAA).

Why your web site should be accessible

There are three broad arguments for making your web site accessible to all:

Legal

Although the Disability Discrimination Act does not refer directly to web sites, the associated code of practice does. The Act makes it unlawful for a service provider to discriminate against a disabled person by refusing to provide any service which it provides to members of the public. The code of practice then goes on to give an example of an Airline company that provides ticket reservations via its web site. The required level of web site accessibility is as yet untested in a British court. However, in Australia a blind person successfully sued the Sydney Olympics Committee for providing an inaccessible web site. It is widely believed that this ruling will influence any future ruling in the UK.

The UK government is taking web accessibility very seriously and says the following on the e-government web site.

"All UK government websites are expected to achieve, as a minimum, and adhere to the single ‘A’ (Priority 1 items) level"

Higher Educational web sites are also affected by The Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 which makes it unlawful to discriminate against a disabled person in relation to the services provided to students, and admission to the university.

These two Acts effectively mean that it is vital that Higher Educational web sites comply with the W3C WAI Guidelines at least to Level A.

For more on web accessibility and the law click here

Practical

Those involved in making a higher education web site more accessible should not perceive it as an obligation but rather as an opportunity. An accessible web site provides a huge range of benefits including:

Accessible web sites receive significantly better placement on search engines
Ensuring your site is accessible opens it up to audiences previously excluded from your site, including not just the disabled but those using older technology.
Having an accessible web site demonstrates your commitment to the disabled and will attract higher levels of applicants from this group.
Making your web site accessible also improves usability which in turn has numerous benefits in its own right.

Moral

Probably the hardest argument to articulate for web accessibility is the moral one. However, it cannot be ignored. At the end of the day making your web site accessible to all is simply the right thing to do.

The way forward

By now you should have a clear understanding of what web accessibility is and why it is important. It can seem like an overwhelming task to make your web site accessible to all but it does not need to be.

The key is to ensure that the stake holders in your site have a clear understanding of why web accessibility is important and that you provide them with the training and skills to implement it. This, in conjunction with a clear plan of attack, should be enough to ensure your site is accessible to as many as possible.

For more help on the practical implementation of an accessible web site read this excellent web site accessibility plan developed specifically for the Higher Education sector.

Virtual communities – the benefits

Posted in Site content on July 11, 2004 by Paul Boag

Virtual communities can be a powerful tool in helping you do everything from increase brand loyalty to improving your website.

Virtual communities offer lots of exciting opportunities not only for companies with products to sell but also for charitable, voluntary and government sites who are looking to enthuse and excite people about their goals and vision.

I believe passionately in virtual communities. Back in 1994 when I was an art student working for IBM I wrote my dissertation on virtual communities and the benefits they offered. In those days online communities were new and exciting (like most things on the internet) and I had all kinds of idealistic visions of them breaking down social and racial barriers as well as allowing access to the disabled and immobile. Well pehaps I was somewhat naive (after all I was an art student!) but I do still believe they have a lot to offer. This article aims to define exactly what a virtual community is and then look at some of the benefits it brings:

What is a virtual community?

A virtual community is any place groups of people talk together on the Internet; in mailing lists, in newsgroups, in chat rooms, or on Web sites. Virtual community can also cover more specialized situations, such as long-distance education or shared project work spaces. And it can describe some communications that aren’t discussions, such as posting customer evaluations or answering opinion polls. Whenever people are aware of each other’s presence on the Internet, they’re likely to consider themselves part of a community.

Below I briefly cover the different kinds of virtual communities:

Mailing list

E-mail discussions within a group of subscribers are the simplest and most familiar form of virtual community. Anyone who can read and send e-mail can create a mailing list virtual community, although there are more elaborate tools for administering large lists.

Newsgroups

A worldwide system of discussion groups, also called Usenet, are the most abundant source of communities. Whatever the topic, there is a newsgroup devoted to it. Like e-mail, you post a message to a newsgroup and come back later to see if you’ve received an answer. Newsgroups are simple to participate in (if you have a newsreader), but somewhat difficult to administer.

Chats

Discussions that take place “live” (in real time) in chat rooms are the quickest way to connect with people on the Internet. In addition to traditional chat rooms, there are chat rooms in which you can move through a graphical world and others in which you can build your own text-based world.

Web-based discussion groups

Discussion groups linked to a specific Web site are quickly becoming the standard for site-based virtual communities. Like e-mail and newsgroups, you post a message to a discussion group and read the response later. You can participate in Web-based discussion groups on any site that hosts one, and build your own either by hosting it yourself or by using one of the many free discussion group tools like World Crossing .

Why launch a virtual community?

Here are the three best reasons to launch an online community:

You have a vocal, enthusiastic, and involved group of users who could help each other in using your product or services.

Do you get lots of e-mail every day? Are your users constantly offering you suggestions about how to improve your product or service? Do you have customers at all different levels of expertise who could help each other? If so, you might benefit from building a place where your customers can ask each other questions and exchange ideas.

You’re interested in developing a new product or service and genuinely want input and knowledge from other people.

Does your company do original research, either developing new products and services or entering a new business area? Are you forever cornering friends and family members with your next great idea? Do you have a genuine passion that keeps you out and asking questions? If so, you might build an online study group where you can bring other passionate people together to discuss new areas of research.

You have a “natural” community of product or service users, associates, and suppliers and want to give them a place to talk to each other.

Is your product or service directed towards a naturally cohesive group of customers? Do these customers have a hard time finding each other? Are they underserved by existing online communities? If so, you might build an online community where your customers can find each other and talk about their mutual concerns. This is particularly relevent to charities or voluntary organisations who attract people who are passionate about a certain subject. This gives them a forum to share that passion and spur each other on.

So there you go, a basic introduction to virtual communities. Obviously there is a lot more that could be said. After all I wrote a whole dissertation on the subject. Virtual communities offer lots of exciting opportunities not only for companies with products to sell but also for charitable, voluntary and government sites who are looking to enthuse and excite people about their goals and vision.

Two sites are better than one?

Posted in Accessibility on July 10, 2004 by Paul Boag

Ask anyone who knows me and you will quickly learn I know nothing about football. However recently I have found myself surfing around the Manchester United Football site because it is at the center of an argument about accessibility.

Two sites is better than one?

Manchester United have recently launched a new site which includes a separate accessible version to cater for those with disabilities. An obviously enough step you would think. It is certainly an approach that has been adopted by many large web sites including the BBC. What is more it has gained them a lot of positive press coverage and even won them an award. It is certainly an approach I myself would have taken until relatively recently. After all surely it is better to cater for the specific needs of the disabled rather than designing one site that fails to meet the needs of any of its target audience.

So why the argument?

So why have they drawn criticism from the likes of SitePoint’s Trenton Moss, accessify.com and even Matt May from the W3C? Why do people object so strongly to a separate site approach? Here are some of the key arguments:

Accessible sites often lack the same level of content

Despite the best intentions it is often the case that an accessible site doesn’t contain the depth of content or the richness of experience that the main site has. This is especially true when the accessible version is fundamentally a text only version and so losses any of the graphical content of the main site. In short those unfortunately enough to be using the accessible version become second class citizens. This is certainly true of the accessible version of the Manchester United site which only has a fraction of the content available on the main site.

Accessible sites are often hard to find

It is truly ironic that the link to the accessible version of a web site is so often the hardest link to find! This in itself says a lot about how those with accessibility needs are viewed by the sites designers. I apologise for picking on Manchester United yet again but I challenge you to find the accessibility site from their "standard site".

Build and maintainance issues

Taking out the morale dimension to this discussion there are good financial and practical reasons to avoid having a separate accessible web site. Separate sites are more expensive to develop and much harder to maintain. Unless you are running a content management system that deals with accessible sites (which are in themselves expensive) you will quickly find yourself updating content in two places so doubling your workload.

Separate accessible sites are not compatible with WAI guidelines

According to Matt May from the W3C you cannot claim to be anymore than priority one compliant if you run a separate accessible web site. He refers to the WAI guidelines for priority one compliancy which says:

If, after best efforts, you cannot create an accessible page, provide a link to an alternative page that uses W3C technologies, is accessible, has equivalent information (or functionality), and is updated as often as the inaccessible (original) page.

He goes on to say that "best efforts" does not mean no effort at all and this phrase is not a magic get out of jail free card. He argues that there are few reasons why it is necessary to build a separate accessible version with the advent of web standards.

Its not a black and white issue

In my opinion one of the most powerful reasons against the two site approach is that accessibility isn’t black and white. What criteria defines if a user needs to use the accessible version of a site? Is an elderly person mean ‘t to use an accessible site just because they have failing eyesight and some motor control problems? Should somebody with attention deficit disorder have to use a text only version of the site just because they find animation on the main site distracting? Most of these types of people wouldn’t consider themselves disabled and neither should they. Why should they be forced into using a site that isn’t appropriate for them.

Conclusions

I think the problem is that many web designers are afraid of accessibility. They do not understand how to make a web site accessible and so they would prefer to isolate the problem in a separate site. Also they suffer from many misconceptions about accessible sites such as it is going to compromise their design. However the consequences of these attitudes is that they are in danger of seriously alienating their target audience. I do not have a particular axe to grind when it comes to accessibility. However from a purely pragmatic approach it seems ridiculous to segregate large numbers of your potential user base simply because they are old, have a disability or are just using technology that does not conform to the latest standards. Manchester United Football club could do well to learn this lesson.

Why all websites should look the same

Posted in Design, User experience on July 2, 2004 by Paul Boag

Web designers are constantly striving to create something unique. However, is that really the right approach? I would argue that many websites should conform rather than attempt to be unique.

One of the things I love about my job is the fact that I get to work with all sorts of companies and organisations. Headscape (the company I work for) has just launched www.smallpoxbiosecurity.org which provides information on the threat of an outbreak following the deliberate release of smallpox. Not the average run of the mill web site! Although I have to say that isn’t the most unusual web site I have ever worked on. That accolade would have to go to the chicken incinerator site, but that is a whole different story.

Do different sectors mean totally different approaches to design?

When we launched the small pox site it started me thinking about the variety of sites I get to work on. I have worked on heritage sites, financial sites, IT and tech sites, tourism sites, education sites… you name it I have worked on it. You would expect that all of these different sectors would result in completely different websites. To some degree that is true. Certainly the different target audiences result in different approaches. The branding of the individual organisations need to be taken into account. The content is obviously another major factor. However underlying all of this there are a number of common rules that seem to govern all websites.

The underlying rules of web design

A lot of the rules that under pin most web sites are related to convesions. Users have come to expect websites to work in a certain way and if you choose to ignore those conventions you do so at your own peril. Some of the most obvious are:

The position of navigation

Users have come to expect navigation to appear either on a top menu bar or down the left hand side. To be honest I am not sure how this happened as we are used to tabs on a book appears on the right hand side. Nevertheless this is where users look for it so generally speaking this is the best place to put it.

The position of the sites branding

Users want to instantly know that they are at the right site (or in some cases what site they have arrived at). In either case the logical place to find the branding is in the top left corner. In western culture we read from left to right and from top to bottom. As a result the branding should be in the first place people look… the top left.

The clearly communicated purpose

Users can often be unsure exactly what a site is about and so it is also important to clearly communicate on the homepage what the site covers. This can sometimes be done with a tag line while sometimes a paragraph of text is required. Whatever the approach this is key information the user will expect to find.

Copy conventions

Web users are an impatient lot and never read copy properly. It has therefore become the convention to keep your text short and to the point (unlike this article). Also include lots of bullet points, headings and highlighted text to allow easy scanning.

Section conventions

Obviously each site will have its unique sections depending on the content, however there are some universal sections people expect to find and expect to have certain names. Sections like “about us”, “contact us” and “news” all appear on most sites. Neglect to put them there or call them something unusual and your users probably won’t go hunting for them.

Tools conventions

People expect to find a search box. In fact 50% of people instinctively look for a search box when they first arrive at a web site. Also users will seek out a site map if they can’t find what they are looking for and they use breadcrumbs to identify where they are if they get really lost. As a result all of these elements need to appear in a good design.

The challenge

The list could go on a lot longer but I am sure you get the idea. Visit the www.smallpoxbiosecurity.org and see if Headscape have really put our money where our mouth is and then go and look at some of the big name websites and see how many of them follow the conventions I have outlined above. Finally take a long hard look at your own website and ask yourself if your site makes life easy for your users or if you are more concerned with being different.

Why all websites should look the same ;)

Posted in Design, User experience on July 2, 2004 by Paul Boag

One of the things I love about my job is the fact that I get to work with all sorts of companies and organisations. Headscape (the company I work for) has just launched www.smallpoxbiosecurity.orgwhich provides information on the threat of an outbreak following the deliberate release of smallpox. Not the average run of the mill web site! Although I have to say that isn’t the most unusual web site I have ever worked on. That accolade would have to go to the chicken incinerator site, but that is a whole different story.

Do different sectors mean totally different approaches to design?

The underlying rules of web design

The position of navigation

The position of the sites branding

The clearly communicated purpose

Copy conventions

Section conventions

Obviously each site will have its unique sections depending on the content, however there are some universal sections people expect to find and expect to have certain names. Sections like "about us", "contact us" and "news" all appear on most sites. Neglect to put them there or call them something unusual and your users probably won’t go hunting for them.