[Air-l] On-line behaviour

[Alexis Turner]

This response is indicative of something I have been thinking about a lot 
lately, which can basically be summed up by asking "WHY do we expect people to 
use the web to the extent to which we, web professionals and scholars, do?" and 
"WHY are we so dumbfounded when they don't?" In particular, I have really begun 
to question my own horrified, but, ultimately, knee jerk reaction to discovering 
that someone does not "engage," "participate," or "produce" things on the web.  
After all, I don't grow my own food, fix my own car, or build my own 
calculators, so why should I expect others to learn HTML, join a list, or 
defrag their own harddrive?  I am, of course, puzzled on a personal level as to 
why someone wouldn't find these things as ridiculously fascinating as I, but I 
have come to realize that we cannot possibly be expected to engage deeply with 
every item we come across on a daily basis, simply because of the sheer amount 
of data and processes with which we regularly interact.  There just isn't 
enough time in the world, so we must each pick and choose according to our 
tastes and talents.
-Alexis


On Sun, 26 Nov 2006, John Veitch wrote:

::Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 13:10:21 +1300
::From: John Veitch <jsveitch at ate.co.nz>
::Reply-To: air-l at listserv.aoir.org, jsveitch at ate.co.nz
::To: air-l at listserv.aoir.org
::Subject: Re: [Air-l] On-line behaviour
::
::Hello Karen
::
::For me the much more interesting study is a new sort of "digital 
::divide", where people have access to the Internet, but they don't really 
::have "on-line behaviour" except swapping jokes and pictures, and doing a 
::Google search twice a month.
::
::There is some research on literacy, based in Canada but presently 
::occurring in about 20 countries around the world. I've personally been 
::involved in collecting some of the data here in NZ. There are about 20 
::questions asked about computer use. Interestingly people were not asked 
::if they received any list mail. Nor were they asked if they had joined 
::any social networks. Nor were they asked if they had published some 
::personal web pages. In my view this shows that the people who compiled 
::the questions are about 5 years behind the times.
::
::However that may not be the case. I interviewed about 60 people. I know 
::5 of those were functionally illiterate. (This is NZ, our educational 
::standards are good, and I'm shocked.) Over 80% had Internet access in 
::the home. Not a single person mentioned list mail, or social networks or 
::personal web pages. As I said these were no specific questions, but 
::there was a question something like "Do you do anything else on the 
::Internet that we haven't talked about."  People mentioned genealogy, and 
::music making, and specialist business applications. A bit late in the 
::day I started to ask an exploratory question, mentioning lists and 
::social networks, but never got a positive response.
::
::So I conclude the prime online behaviour is NOT being online, even when 
::people have personal access. Such behaviour confounds me. It's not at 
::all what my expectation would anticipate.
::
::This confirms with a much bigger number the small group I observed using 
::their computers in Bryndwr, Christchurch in September 2003.
::http://www.ate.co.nz/internet/bryndwr.html
::
::When you begin to understand this, the implications are enormous. 
::Non-participation explains very easily the long tails we see on lists 
::and in social networks. On LinkedIn for instance the mean number of 
::connections per member is less than 5 and depending on how many people 
::with zero connections there are, the mean may be much lower than that. 
::LinkedIn might have 8 million members, but they are not Linked In.
::
::On Ryze 5% of the members attract about 50% of all the attention. 
::Another 10% get about 46% of the attention, leaving 4% of attention for 
::all the rest. Mostly that 85% of the membership would be best described 
::as not participating. Hence the long tail.
::
::What disturbs me about this is the failure of "Digital Strategy" in 
::Canada, in New Zealand and I'm sure elsewhere. The digital superhighway 
::was the dream in the mid 1990's. What we got was the "world wide wait" 
::as most of you will remember, and concern about the "digital divide". We 
::certainly have a digital divide. But it's not the one we expected to have.
::
::If the digital superhighway can be said to exist, we need to ask why 
::most of the computers connected to it are controlled by people who have 
::no idea how to benefit from using that terminal. This understanding has 
::led me to found the Global Engagement Trust. Here are three links.
::The GET Wiki: http://get.wikispaces.com/
::My GET page: http://www.ate.co.nz/global/index.html
::John O'Brien's GET page: http://www.irmstrategies.com/global/index.html
::
::Regards
::John
::
::
::
::
::
::Karen Stepanyan wrote:
::> This mailing list should be the right place to ask whether you are familiar with studies of on-line behaviour.
::John Stephen Veitch
::http://www.ate.co.nz
::Should we be talking? Can I help?
::Google me
::
::_______________________________________________
::The air-l at listserv.aoir.org mailing list
::is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org
::Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
::
::Join the Association of Internet Researchers: 
::http://www.aoir.org/
::