Monthly Archives: November 2011
Just wondering what everyone else has been researching for their final project! I know personally the end of the semester crunch is starting to get to me, but I was interested in what everyone else in the class had chosen for their topic 🙂
I chose to research the question, “Has the advancement in communication technologies i.e. texting, social networking, email, skype, etc. made an overall positive or negative impact on our society?” There is so much information to sort through on this topic, which is great, but I’m finding myself sifting through a lot of opinion based articles rather than factual information. I think in some ways I may be able to utilize bits and pieces of the opinion based articles for supporting details, since the opinions are from members of our society. I will be interested to see what ends up to be my final product!
Good luck to everyone on their final papers, only a few weeks left of the semester! Break is almost here! 🙂
A little funny story about technology before I get started on my reaction to this week’s readings. My sister attends UW-Stout and her boyfriend lives in Minneapolis. They use Skype every night to talk to one another, however, the internet was out for 4 days at her boyfriend’s apartment and I got a text at 10 PM at night asking if he could come over to use our internet so he could Skype my sister. I told him sorry and that I was going to sleep and I found out the next day that they had actually gotten in a fight because “talking on the phone is not the same as Skype-ing” and he felt that they weren’t able to connect in the same way! It’s interesting to think that technology has hindered our ability to be flexible. It’s as if we’ve come to expect certain things from our technology and when it fails, we don’t know what to do! Just something interesting to think about!
“As an ethnical frame of being in this world, it is not only natural to us, but also transparent and invisible.”
At the beginning of the chapter, Katz and Rhodes talk about whether or not it’s hypocritical to refers to their clients in a different way in internal or external communication. When I worked for Target as an assistant manager, they referred to their employees as “team members” and the customers as “guests.” Early on in the training process, I was actually corrected by an intern from corporate for using the incorrect terms. ha! My point is, Target used these terms internally and externally, which I appreciated for consistency, even if it did seem a little (okay, a LOT) like corporate fluff.
“…the virtual reality of media has become as real as, or more real to us than the tangible world” (p. 238). That’s a pretty bold statement that would be interesting to research. For me, I don’t think that’s the case at all. Granted, I don’t participate in too many forms of social networking and I’m far from being plugged in all the time (except for at work, when I stare at a computer screen for the majority of the day…blah!) and it would be interesting to know how many people do feel that way.
Katz and Rhodes talk about how the words and structure we use in email reveal our relationship with the person we’re sending the email to. For me, in the work place, this is very true. There are some co-workers I can write an email to in 10 seconds and not give it a second thought, while there are others, I have really think about how I structure sentences and word things, not to mention re-reading it over and over before I hit send, because of the nature of the subject and who it’s being sent to. Another factor that causes me to pause is the fact that emails are permanent to some degree, so what you type can be forwarded, printed and passed on, so if there’s something really sensitive, it’s sometimes best to pick up the phone or talk to someone face-to-face.
Digital technology is rapidly developing, and people are struggling to keep up with its rate of change and effect on society. Katz and Rhodes have developed frames that define what levels people have adopted technology, but the authors are confusing ethics with value systems. The authors have failed to discuss the impact of digital communications in terms of what is ethical (good or bad), but instead discuss value systems in a range of frames that guide peoples’ behaviors (such as whether people adopt technology or not). Whether people adopt technology or not is not an ethical decision in itself. How people decide to use the technology deals with ethics.
Technology is not new. For instance, a fountain pen is technology, and it has been around for over a thousand years. Fountain pens replaced writing with quills. Fountain pens were replaced by typewriters, and typewriters were replaced by computers. A person cannot call a computer ethical or not ethical, just as they would not call a hammer ethical or unethical. Technology is not advancing itself. It is people behind it that are driving it. People who make a website may try to achieve certain results, like increase visitor traffic. A computer isn’t the means to this end, but the people behind it are.
The Katz and Rhodes article also misses the point of technology, which is to improve the quality life for humans. The introduction of digital technology has not changed ethics. Ethics is fundamentally the same. I agree with the authors that technology’s impact is greater than it was in the past (p. 231), but this does not necessarily change how we determine what is ethical. For example, if a student decides to cheat on an exam, is it any more or less ethical if the student cheats on the exam with a smartphone than with notes written on the palm of his hand? Both are ethically wrong. The only difference is one involves digital technology.
I have to admit I was confused through much of Spilka chapter 9. As I read the six ethical frames Katz and Rhodes outlined I had a hard time trying to figure what some real-life ethical issues of that frame would be. Even when Katz and Rhodes gave examples I had a hard time figuring out what the ethical issue is. For example, in the means-end frame they say, “The primary ethical issue is whether the technical end justifies the technical means” (P. 234). Maybe I am stupid, but I don’t get it. I guess what they are saying is is the outcome of a new technology actually benefit the customer or does it hurt the customer? I guess because they allude that an end needs to be more then just technically advantageous, useful, or expedient.
I have an example from work that might fit into this category. A week or so ago my Vice President/Chief Information Officer decided she did not want to do her weekly e-newsletter that was sent to all of our staff anymore. Instead, she decided to start blogging and sharing information on Google+. By blogging and using Google+, my VP/CIO is saving time, but it she is hurting the rest of the organization because people are now responsible for actively seeking her announcements. In the past, they would have her announcements delivered right to them.
In addition, her newsletter always contained staff updates (e.g, who’s leaving now). Now, she wants us to post staff updates on Google+. I can see this as an ethical issue because staff updates should be private and Google+ by nature is not private because people can share posts with others.
Spilka, Chapter 9—E-mail in the workplace seems to mean different things to different people. I think e-mail is only as strong as a company allows it to be. It seems that some companies prefer to only use e-mail when you need to involve a group of people in the communication. At my company, we are supposed to use e-mail all the time. Even if I want to talk to the person that sits next to me, I’m supposed to e-mail them instead of talking to them face-to-face. It’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever been a part of.
I think the most important aspect when using e-mail is to remember that the person(s) you sent the e-mail to can also send that e-mail message to other people. I think this is why it is very important to be ethical and professional in all e-mail communications. The important thing that I’ve learned is that just because I authored and e-mail, it doesn’t mean that I own it and have control over who views it.
Privacy, Trust, and Disclosure—I thought this was a great article. I pretty much shop online whenever I can and if I don’t trust the company that I’m buying from, I will not purchase anything. I trust Ebay because they’ve always refunded my money when something has gone wrong with a different company that sold me an item through their Web site.
In August, I ordered some seat covers for my golf cart. The company that I bought them from through Ebay sent me the wrong items. I e-mailed the company to get my money back. The company wanted me to pay for the return shipping and then they would refund my money. I told the person that I was e-mailing that I didn’t trust them so I wasn’t going to pay for shipping with the hope that I would get all my money back. The company told me that I can trust them but I didn’t because trust takes a long time to develop in a relationship.
If you’re a company and selling things online, you need to make sure that people get what they expect. If customers are receiving what they expect then they will trust your company and buy more items from you in the future.
The two subjects for this week’s readings – ethics and privacy – are some of the most controversial issues that digitally literate people have to deal with. Both readings kind of gave me the creeps. I chose to focus on Katz & Rhodes.
I found this reading to be both interesting and frustrating. I disagree with many of their ideas about the ethical frames of technical relations.
I do not believe in the false frame. The Platonic belief that technology only an “imitation of Knowledge” (p. 233), is not entirely accurate. Technology is the result of knowledge. As such, I do believe that technology fits in the tool frame, “as mechanisms and systems to help their users meet their work goals” (p.234). I can even buy into the means-end frame because it makes sense that technology can be used for “production and profits” and “meeting technical requirements of the technology” (p. 234).
As for the autonomous frame: just no. Their questions, “Have you ever noticed how some systems…are more adapted to themselves, more focused on their own efficiency than on the human being who is the ostensible…user?” (p.234). That argument completely dismisses the role of agency and volition. It’s not the computers that are focused on their own efficiency: it is the people who programmed the computers. Taking agency out of the question renders the argument invalid.
Thought frame is less ridiculous. We do use machines as external extensions of our memories, like phones and PDAs. People, admittedly, even have machines within themselves (pacemakers, hearing aids). However, at my work at least, we do not “…refer to people, things, and actions with words like information, function, connection, transmission, input, output, processing, short-term and long-term memory, and noise in the system…” (p. 236). These terms aren’t exclusive to digital technology. Every one of them existed before the advent of computers. Applying them to a new paradigm is fine, but their logic doesn’t work.
The being frame is a result of the preceding frames. Since many of those are fallacious, the being frame doesn’t hold a lot of water for me. I do believe that people are depersonalized and are often treated as “standing reserve,” but that concept is not acknowledged, nor is it easily proven.
One of the parts that was most interesting to me, and not entirely preposterous, is their proposal that our relationships with machines may go from an “I-It” relationship to an “I-You” relationship, which means that at some point we may refer to machines as other sentient, self-aware beings. I can see that happening if machines become more autonomous and are programmed with beliefs. I do not see this happening in our lifetime. The technology might be there, but acceptance of it is doubtful.
Now for the fun part.
Background information: In my study of memes, I came across a team of folks (Autotune the News) who take daily news, autotune the speakers in the news clips, and set the fabricated “singing” to music.
They might be best known for setting to music the rant of Antoine Dodson, a citizen of Huntsville, Alabama, who was interviewed for a news story about someone breaking into his family’s apartment and attempting to assault his sister.
Autotune the news “songified” the incident:
The folks at Autotune the News have an app that lets you “songify” yourself. This week’s readings talked about how “humans and technology (often merged)” would have relationships with one another.
I decided to preempt this merging and created a song from a paragraph in our text. I read it into an iPad and here is the result. Yes, this is me “singing.” Lyrics are included if you want to sing along. Machine Me
I feel this chapter of Spilka specifically lays out the way we all will eventually have to develop a “persona” digitally which we will utilize as technical communication and social media advances. Much of the world has already begun this process by using social networking sites, such as Facebook. Whether we realize it or not, each of us over time develops our “place” within the social networking site the same way we do or would in the real world. However, Spilka brings up a whole other side of the topic when she discusses the role of professionalism, ethics, and work appropriate personas and how they may be different than in the ‘real world’ due to the issue of efficiency. It is hard to be as professional or ethical on a computer screen as one would be in real life? Is this wrong? Or is it just a part of the persona we’ve developed with time and the use of efficient technology? The chapter gave me a lot to think about. Spilka also brings up the words “hypocrite” and “ethical standards violations,” which sound to me like huge professional personas are different online. What may be unacceptable face to face in a professional situation may be totally acceptable in an email, for instance, and visa versa.
Both the readings by Spilka and Ishii were eye-opening to me and went quite far to validate the fact that we see the world through our own eyes. Up until this time, I had been considering emerging media in general as an American artifact, when there is no question this has to be taken as a global event.
This is not to say that each country or culture has an obscure view of media relations. In fact, there are many similarities. Ishii’s references to Japanese youth when she says “there has been a trend for young people to create their own unique subcultures in which they communicate predominately through SMS…” (Ishii, p 346) is a compelling likeness to what has been happening in the United States during the same timeframe. What is different, as she indicated through research findings, is that Japanese young people are more introverted and this leads to a greater tendency to use text messages over face-to-face conversations or even telephone.
These global differences continue on in Spilka’s writings. These references to the ways that other countries conduct business hit very close to home for me. I work for a company, Energy Control Systems, which has both a National and International presence. The international side includes a few salespeople in countries such as Asia, South America, Central America, Mexico, South Africa and others. Their main product is Sinetamer, a line of surge suppression equipment that is quite useful in these countries. The main impetus to our overseas sales; however, is the owner of our company. I always thought that he traveled 75% of the time because he liked it. Now I realize that there is more to it than that. Without his ability to meet face-to-face with contacts in these countries, we would have a lot less international business. I now have a much better picture of not only what my company does, but of my own responsibilities when I have opportunities to sell overseas.
It seems that culture is a much bigger issue today, than language is. When I was just out of High School, the biggest issues for college admittance was having so many credits of a foreign language. Today, most colleges no longer have these requirements. It makes me think that culture is, indeed, a more prevalent issue. It is interesting how my thoughts keep coming back to culture.
Spilka chapters 7 and 8 annoyed me. I’m sorry I am not afraid of the big bad digital age. In chapter 8, Blakslee (2010) says, ” one speculation is that audiences of digital documents may be different from those of print documents” (P. 200). My response is so what what if they are? Anything you write as a technical communicator you should be analyzing the audience. It doesn’t matter if a digital audience is different. If they are your audience, you should write for them. Blakesee (2010) goes on to say, “the Internet ‘may blow apart the entire notion of a selective audience’ because of its broad, and even limitless, distribution potential” (P. 201). That’s a bunch of bunk. Just because something is available on the Internet to the entire world doesn’t mean the entire world is going to view it. There are still selective audiences on the Web. People view what they are interested in. They don’t just view stuff because it is there.
Even when you write something for the web you have intended audiences even though it is available to everyone in the world. For example, all of the web content that I write is for consumption by people at the University of Minnesota. Anyone in the world can read it, but it is not for them. I use language the people at the U of M will understand. The other people that consume the content are not even a secondary audience. They are nothing. They are simpler there. They should understand from looking at the content that the information is not for them.
It’s just my opinion, but I believe that technology only complicates communication if you fear it.
Thatcher stated that technical communicators should possess 4 competencies when dealing with intercultural digital literacy:
- Understand the rhetorical characteristics of the digital medium itself
- Match those characteristics to the demand, constraints, purposes, and audience expectations of the situation in their culture
- Assess how the situation varies in the target culture
- Adapt their communication strategies to the different rhetorical expectations for the target culture
Week 11 Reading Response
I focused this week on the Blakeslee reading in the Spilka book. The idea of writing for audiences in the digital age is what this class is all about, so it really made sense to me as a topic for exploration. Two ideas came through for me: the idea of audience reading choice, and the concept of knowing your reader.
At the outset Blakeslee states, “We have yet to re examine the notion of audience to determine if anything is changing or needs to change in response to the field’s shift to digital communication” (p. 200). This, I think, is a valid argument. Text documents and digital documents are sofundamentally different, that it’s hard to imagine it not having an impact.
One of the ideas that struck me as I was reading this was that, as readers use digital texts, they “become participants, control outcomes, and shape the text itself” (p. 215). She quotes Landow’s argument that, “the nonlinear nature of hypertext empowers the reader, whose choices make a uniquetext” (p.215).
The reason it stuck out to me is because it reminded me of a book fad that existed during the 80s. Choose your own adventure stories were books where you read the story up to a certain point, and then you got to a pivotal part of the story where you had make a choice. After choosing you would flip to the page that would continue your story, depending on the choice you made. I don’t remember how many endings they would have, but I would re-read those books over and over to follow all the paths.
Blakeslee’s discussion of hypertexts reminded me of that genre, and made me realize how pretty much hyperlinks are “choose your own adventure” stories times about a billion. Comparing it to a little, 150 page book made me realize, again, how mind-blowing the internet is with all its anticipatory hyperlinking, banner ads, and sidebar ads.
Knowing Your Reader
That anticipation of reader needs is another thing that provoked a lot of thought. One of the most fitting quotes was, “You don’t know what you don’t know” (p.208). Anticipating reader needs can be very difficult, especially if you aren’t able to have direct contact with that audience. One of Blakeslee’s participants reaffirms the idea that, “One of my first concerns about an audience is that no one knows who it is. That’s an impossible situation to be in. We need to get somebody at the client, a stakeholder, to agree who the audiences are” (p.210). It is crucial to know and agree upon who these people are in order to tailor a useful message. She makes a good point, but the same was true with print.
Although she admits that much work needs to be done, she asserts that that writers need to take as much care identifying their digital audiences as they did learning about their print audiences. She advocates the idea of creating personas to obtain, “the kind of nformation about readers that writers are seeking” (p. 207). She also discusses, “interaction, especially with actual readers” (p. 208), so the writer can get an idea of user background, context of use, and perceived user needs.
I am glad that she discussed the fact that not every writer has the choice to meet their readers. In my experience, I’ve had it both ways. At the travel company where I worked I spoke with customers all the time. I even went on familiarization trips with actual customers. In the other job at a continuing education company for attorneys, I never even met one of our customers. I feel that I delivered better copy at the travel company because I met and made friendships with some of our “personas.”
It’s been a rough week, so this is all I have for creative this time around:
Spilka, Chapters 7—The way Spilka talked about how e-mail worked great in some situations but not so great with “delicate interpersonal communications” is totally true.
At my old job, e-mail was the communication of choice. Everyone used e-mail because it would track your conversation and people could view the content of the e-mail anytime of the day or night. The problem with e-mail was when you would get into an argument with a coworker.
I had a coworker that lived in Indianapolis, Indiana and I lived in Minneapolis, Minnesota. My coworker showed a customer a confidential drawing that I was going to use in an instruction. The problem was the drawing wasn’t approved and it was going to change. I e-mailed the drawing to my coworker because he wanted to see it so he could get an idea of what was going on. My coworker then e-mailed the drawing to a customer in California to show the customer what was going on. When I found out that the customer had the unapproved drawing, I e-mailed my coworker and told him to call me. He e-mailed me back and told me that he didn’t have time to talk on a phone. The problem was this situation was a delicate interpersonal issue where e-mail would not meet my communication objective because my coworker needed to understand that what he did was completely wrong. After I finally talked to him on the phone, things got figured out and everything was okay in the end.
Spilka, Chapter 8—Writing for cyberspace is always challenging and I think Spilka covered that point. The main thing that kept jumping out to me is when you write anything (paper or digital), you always, always always always have to ask yourself two questions—who is my audience and what is the purpose. When you know the answers to both those questions, you are more likely going to write something that actually communicates with your audience.
A final question: Can someone tell me where the “Ishii, K. (2006). “Implications of Mobility: The Uses of Personal Communication Media in Everyday Life.” Journal of Communication. 56.2, 346-365” reading is located? I checked all the books and D2L but I couldn’t find it.
Photo found at: http://www.google.com/imgres?q=e-mail&um=1&hl=en&safe=off&client=safari&sa=N&rls=en&biw=1280&bih=702&tbm=isch&tbnid=nhJ6lnxYlZ4MQM:&imgrefurl=http://ohinternet.com/E-mail&docid=kWhEyKUxI3JS4M&imgurl=http://cache.ohinternet.com/images/f/f5/E_mail.jpg&w=300&h=336&ei=mQ7ATrScGouEtgeviN21Bg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=877&vpy=135&dur=1194&hovh=238&hovw=212&tx=157&ty=145&sig=110374838443503213469&page=1&tbnh=154&tbnw=138&start=0&ndsp=17&ved=1t:429,r:4,s:0
The section of chapter 8 in Spilka that I found most applicable to my life would be the area where obtaining and responding to reader feedback is discussed. The chapter pertains to addressing an audience in a digital age, and since we rarely reach our audiences via face to face interaction, it is important for us to find new ways to offer and receive input on our writings and research. In my job, we provide and sell hearing aids to hearing impaired individuals. With each hearing aid comes an instruction manual written by the manufacturer. Since the majority of our patients are elderly or physically disabled, the instruction manuals can be quite daunting and hard to understand as well as utilize with their hearing devices. For Audiologists, the manuals seem basic and easy to use, however, they also are highly educated in the area to begin with. In this way, the manufacturers who write, edit, and print these instruction manuals did not consider their audience. Yes audiologists and experienced professionals can interpret the information, but the users, for the most part, cannot. Due to this lack of patient understanding, the majority of the time the patients end up calling us with questions or else they make an appointment to address the issues they are having with their hearing aids. The technology used within our practice is so advanced, and yet the patients are usually intimidated by the technology and feel inferior to it. It is ironic since by purchasing hearing aids the patient is basically buying a set of computers for their ears! I often wonder if we were able to have some say in how the manuals are written and published if our patients would be less intimidated by the technology and thus feel more comfortable with it, meaning less follow up appointments and frustrated patients. I guess it goes to show that technology and the “digital age” can be both a blessing and a curse.
Heidi’s geek rap reminded me of this TED talk. I would have left the link as a comment there, but figured I should keep up with the vivid posts we’ve got going on!
Ever since I read Alone Together last Spring, my husband and I use Turkle’s book title to describe moments like these, especially when we’re out to eat and I’m tweeting or texting someone.
A friend of mine posted this image on Facebook with the caption, “For my bosses at work.” He works at a management consulting firm, not on a laptop campus like I do, but this led me to wonder about a committee meeting I was at a few weeks ago.
Instead of printing out documents or carrying my laptop with me, I only brought my iPhone and accessed the documents from it. While there were plenty of people at the meeting with laptops and iPads, I felt self-concious after a few minutes because I wondered if people thought I was texting or checking Facebook. For this reason, I made consistent eye contact with whomever was speaking and also kept my iPhone screen visible to anyone near me so they knew I was only looking at meeting-related documents.
Who knows, perhaps no one even noticed, but as the youngest and newest person on this committee, I had to wonder what people might be thinking. What would you have thought about a person reading from his/her phone? Do you work in places where the laptop or Ipad might be more accepted at a meeting than an iPhone or Blackberry? Or does it even matter since we know what Smartphones are capable of these days?
I want to focus this post on a key point in Qualman chapter 8 because it applies to something I heard on the radio today. Qualman (2009) said, “Search engine results and the traditional Internet advertising model are antiquated–social media will push both of these to revolutionize otherwise they will see a dramatic decrease in market share” (P.237). On the radio today I heard that Google will start indexing people’s Facebook posts. There is a story about it here: http://www.9news.com/news/article/228052/188/Facebook-comments-to-appear-in-Google-searches
It is kind of scary for Facebook users that people may have the ability to find your Facebook posts with a Google search. Of course, if you you have your privacy settings set right, it will never be a problem.
It makes perfect sense for Google to make the move to indexing Facebook posts. Google wants their search results to be up-to-the-second accurate, and people’s Facebook posts are as current as it gets.
Using LinkedIn to Get Work: This article seemed pretty basic. I think it’s pretty obvious to keep your LinkedIn profile up-to-date if you are looking for work. The thing I didn’t like was when the authors said to link to your Twitter account. My problem with that is Twitter is more of a personal account. If you link to it, your showing everyone who you follow and what you post. I think it discloses too much personal information to a potential employer. I think it’s a bad idea to link to anything where you use an online avatar instead of your real name. I don’t see that as being professional.
The other thing I didn’t like is posting about looking for work. I think that posting about looking for work can help you find a job, but it can also let people know that you’re trying to get out of your current position. If you post something that says you want to leave your currently company, there probably is a good chance that someone at your current company or someone your “LinkedIn” with will know one of your coworkers and tell them that you’re looking for a new job.
When I’m looking for a job, I never tell anyone at my work until after I get the new job. I thinks it’s a bad idea to make a new job search public because the odds are pretty good that someone you don’t want to know about your job search is going to find out.
Spilka, Chapter 6: On page 160, Spilka says, “If, as technical communicators, we make decisions based only on our understanding and not of the cultural contexts in which these activities are embedded, we run the risk of proposing documents and systems that do not fit well with the organization where we work and our goals for the future.” Truer words have never been spoken.
At my company, they wanted to create a new Web site for our customers. The company had the IT department take charge with the design and how information is loaded into it. The problem is the IT department doesn’t fill the site with content so they don’t know how any other part of the company operates. Basically, the IT people made a site that is almost impossible to use because they never asked any other departments about features they would like to see on the site.
Now the company has too much money into the site and it’s too late to start over. We’re stuck with a site that is horrible to use and horrible to load with content. It’s pretty embarrassing.
* I wanted to share a link to our new/bad Web site but it’s not live yet.
Qualman, Chapter 8: I think if search engines had a feature where users could search “real-time,” it would change the way people search the Web forever. The thing is I think that a real-time search feature would basically bring the users to social media sites rather than Web sites.
I’m not sure how it would work or how you would set it up, but I think the idea is pretty interesting and it will happen sometime in the near future. Qualman said that search engine companies are working on it right now, so hopefully we’ll see it soon.
Here’s a site that is pretty interesting: http://www.socialmention.com/#
I apologize for getting my post up so late! Apparently I was in la-la land this weekend and it completely slipped my mind.
In Chapter 4: Information Design, the sentence “…knowing not just how to do things with technology, but also why and when actions needs to take place” grabbed my attention right away. One piece of technology that the non-profit organization that I volunteer at has started using recently is QR codes.
Here is an example of a QR code:
For those of you who don’t know how these work, you’re able to create these QR codes online by using a QR Code generator, which allows you to link a web address to a QR code. From there, many companies add it to their marketing material because when they’re scanned by a smart phone (with the proper app), it brings you to that designated web site.
The organization I mentioned earlier thought this would be a great way to get the word out about their mission and proceeded to plaster these on promotional t-shirts. Great idea in theory, right? Unfortunately, for whatever reason, they couldn’t be scanned on these t-shirts and the failed to include a web address apart from the QR code that people could go to as an alternative.
This idea really drive the points Salvo and Rosinski make about information design. While companies often want their customers to view them as tech-savvy and ahead of the curve, it’s really important to be thoughtful in how we approach a situation.
You want the findability to be easy to navigate, so it’s important to work through front-end strategy (site maps, wire frames). I’m a huge fan of mapping out projects before digging into them and realizing you only have half the information you need. I think site maps are a fantastic way to get everyone involved on the same page.