What Makes an Effective Home Page?
A Critical Analysis
Home page as Communication
A home page is a communication device. This implies that home pages should/could/might
be usefully analyzed from within communication theory. This paper will show
how two communications models can help to guide the web page designer from
a theoretic perspective.
Once again, it bears repeating, at least saying in a different way, that
most traditional "guides" to effective page design focus on mundane
technical, minimalist rules which can be implemented by grade school students
or even automatically via web editors. This paper has already showed
an example of such a list (see above). That is not, however, the intent
of this paper. Our interest is effective communication and effective pedagogy.
Two models of communication
Communication theory postulates two basic approaches to communication: a
model based on the transmission of messages, and a model based on the development
of meaning. For the first we have chosen a traditional 1949 adaptation of
the Shannon-Weaver model first suggested by Harold Lasswell. For the second,
we have selected a basic semiotic model.
Lasswell Model
Harold Lasswell, in 1949 suggested a simple but useful model which captures
the essence of message transmission:
Who
says What
to Whom
in Which medium
with what Effect.
Let us explore the implications of this model for the WWW.
1 Who: A home page needs clear identification of the sender. Not
only does this mean a name, but must include some level of authority. It
is critical to know whether the sender is a hobbyist, a professional in
the content area under discussion, a grade 3 child, a Ph.D., or whatever.
If the web page represents an organization rather than an individual, then
that must also be clear. Print media long ago distinguished between formal
and "unauthorized" biographies. The WWW must do the same. The
famous New Yorker cartoon "On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog."
hits this point to the core. Too many web authors at all authority levels
neglect to tell us who they are. Without clear identification, the Internet
will become a "muddy" and less-than-useful place to visit.
2. Says what. Obviously this refers to the content. First, we want
real information here, not just links. Too many web authors think that an
ideal web page provides links to other web pages. Every individual's personal
method of organizing the things he/she likes best is not effective utilization
of web space. How many individuals, groups have their own personal list
of "cool sites", and Web page of the day, week, month?.
Second, we want real validated information. This harkens back to step #1
(WHO). We must reiterate that information to be useful needs some authority.
Who says so? Why should we trust your page?
It is becoming commonplace to "stumble upon" a web page which
is full of content, of which we are nevertheless suspect. We are suspicious
because the content is not clearly connected to the first step of the Laswell
model: Who. The two go must go together, and the two must be explicit.
3. In which medium? What is important here is that web authors need
to remember that web pages need to be written to operate, as much as possible,
across platforms. Not only are web browsers different (Netscape, Mosaic,
Lynx) but configurations for sound, pictures, and motion are not necessarily
universal.
The other use of the term "medium" can simply mean "the Internet",
but interestingly the Internet is considered to allow "multimedia."
To answer "all" to the question "Which medium?" only
indicates the difficulty within which web authors place themselves. Web
authors need to be clear as to the medium they are using, and at the same
time the medium which the reader may be using to access the message.
This phenomenon has not happened ever before quite in the same way in the
history of communication. If a videotape was available in BETA, but the
user had access only to VHS, then the problem was clearly defined. But on
the Internet, the user does not always know whether the message was composed
for Netscape 2.0 or Mosaic. (Although one is starting to find a disclaimer
at the beginning of some pages to the effect that "These pages are
best read with Netscape 1.0.)
4. To Whom. A major omission of many web authors is an explicit identification
of target audience. While it would be difficult and clumsy to begin every
page with a disclaimer stating "This page is meant to be read by the
following audience...", nevertheless web pages seem especially susceptible
to being aimed at an implicit implied audience, an unidentified audience.
Sometimes that differential within an implied audience is one of age; sometimes
it is one of formal/informal group orientation (as when a series of pages
are aimed explicitly at a particular group of students taking a specific
university course).
Of course producers of film, video, or even text media have always preferred
to have their product aim at the widest possible audience possible. But
on the Internet, audiences do tend to be specific, narrow, precise,
but oddly and nevertheless, implied. Perhaps on the Internet, no-one else
knows you are a dog, but you do.
And the easiest (but sloppiest) solution is to put the onus on the user/reader.
If a page is not for you, go on to something else. There is something not
quite satisfactory in that arrangement.
5. With What effect. The Lasswell model demands a final focus on
effects. These can be technical (Could the sound bytes be downloaded? How
long does it take a visual to be downloaded?) to aesthetic (How attractive
are the pictures?) to pragmatic (What use is the material?)
A semiotic model of communication.
Semiotics is the study of signs and sign systems. A web page is a rich text
full of signs, codes, symbols, and meanings. Using the common language of
literature, a simple semiotic model can help us explore the relationships
between the author, the text and the reader.
In linear form the relationships looks like this:
_____________________________________
author ----- text -------reader
_____________________________________
The sequence suggests a primacy and an order which is worth following, at
least initially.
The author is the first authority. The two words are indeed only
variants of each other. The author is the creator of a text, and the one
to whom we turn for further information. But sometimesauthors are not available
to us. They may be too busy. They may be too important to talk with us about
our trivial concerns. They may live too far away. They may even be dead.
This brings us to the second level of authority: the text. When the
author is not available, the text itself becomes the authority. When this
happens, we bring in a new kind of person, the interpreter, to help us understand
what the text really means. For example, perhaps one of the greatest textual
authorities in Western culture is the Bible; other cultures have their own
"bibles." And the interpreters are the priests, the rabbis, the
ministers, the clergy and a host of others who help us understand what the
text really says, and what the text really means. Another important case
where the text is the authority is the law. In this case, the authorities
which we need to help us decipher the law are called "judges",
"lawyers" and "politicians."
The third level of authority is the reader. To many, this seems a
difficult idea. After all, how can the reader have as much authority as
the text or the author or even the interpreter. But of course, the answer
is that each reader reads into a text based on his or her own background,
knowledge, age, culture, gender, position, status, and a host of other factors.
As we write this, both of us are wearing a black t shirt which, as so many
T shirts do, contains a text. This text says
http://www/cbc.radio.ca/radio/programs/performance/2newhours/2newhours.html
One of the authors purchased this T shirt because he is interested in contemporary
music, and "Two New Hours " is a radio show which plays such music.
The second author is not interested in contemporary classical music. But
he is interested in the Internet, and is intrigued that the T shirt advertises
an http web site on the front, and gives an email address on the back. So
to one of us, the shirt means music, while to the other it means Internet.
Who is right? Who is the authority? Does it matter what the purpose of the
original author was? Indeed, the original authorial intent may have been
neither of the above, but rather to advertise, or better yet, to make a
little money for the Winnipeg Symphony Orchestra New Music Festival which
sold the T shirts.
The meaning to the readers is just as valid as the meaning to the original
author. Once that "first" meaning has been encoded in text, it
is fair game for the readers to decode it in their own way.
Now, how does this semiotic model help us explore the home page phenomenon?
First, the author of the home page must realize that they have an enormous
responsibility. Second, the reader needs to be cognizant of the fact that
the text and author may not be an authority at all! Third, by putting together
different texts, the reader is constructing a new text with a new meaning.
The first authority is the reader now turned author.
Who is the author on the web? We all are. We write as we read. We can do
this at the level of merely exploring existing home pages or we can actually
create our own home page which links through hyperspace to other texts.
We began the above discussion with a linear representation moving from author
to text to reader. At this stage it might be useful to suggest that the
depiction should be cyclic:
________________________________________________
----------------------------author-------------------------------