 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
An Interactive Guide to Better Web Searching – Artifact Report
Statement
of Problem
The World Wide Web is a big place, and it’s getting bigger all
the time. In its early days, people could develop and maintain a good
collection of links and addresses themselves. As the Web grew, it became
harder and harder to find sites. People knew there was content out there
“somewhere” – they just couldn’t seek it out as easily
as before. Thus dawned the need for Search Engines. What started with
Yahoo.com soon blossomed into a competitive industry. However, different
sites used different methods of operation. How could a person, new to
the Web, know which search site was the best?
Analysis
As a Web-savvy technologist, I was often asked about different search
sites and how they operated. While I was glad to provide as much information
as I knew about different searching sites, I also saw a need for a site
that provided clear explanations and examples that I could refer people
to, not only to answer immediate questions, but as a resource for people
to return to as they explored different types of searching sites.
Rational
for Approach
I designed the site to be a self-paced series of instructions. Users could
either go through each section in order, or jump to a section that best
addressed their questions. My intent was to put the site online and let
people use it when the need arose – a sort of Just In Time instructional
piece.
I chose three sites that I found provided good search results and appeared to have “staying power”. Because of the transient nature of the Web, sometimes a site starts out strong but soon drops from sight. For the instruction to have relevance, the example sites needed to be strong and stable. I chose yahoo.com, google.com, and ask.com
The instruction was made up of examples based off of screen shots from the different sites, and ended with practice sessions that used each search site for a “live” guided search session.
Report
on Results
I initially built the site with the intent that people would really use
it. I demonstrated it in two ILT classes and received positive feedback
on its design an d usefulness. I then uploaded it to the CEO server and
tried to register its existence to different search sites.
However, the web moved on. My site never gained a foothold on search sites,
and other, more high-profile internet use sites came out with their own
versions of How to Use a Search Site. I moved onto other projects and
did not devote much time in site upkeep.
Fortunately, I chose good sites for my examples, and the site has held
up well.
Evidence
of Value
Even though this project has been in mothballs, almost all the external
links work. The sites I picked to showcase are still running, and the
instructions I wrote still apply today. I have shown the pages to people
who have reported that the guidelines and examples are still relevant.
I may updated some of the pages and repurpose the site by including it
as part of the Kullerstrand Elementary website that I am redesigning.
Reflections
This site was my first application of design theory and principals. It
was also the first site that was designed completely for learning. I redesigned
the site twice, applying things I was learning at the time. I also revamped
the instructions, making the examples clearer and more straightforward.
Initially
I had included lots of fancy rollovers and graphic elements, but my final
design let the content be the start of the site. I did keep some rollover
elements, but removed a lot of the unnecessary elements, keeping just
navigation and example graphics.
I had hoped to revisit the site again to complete the glossary. If I move
my instruction to the Kullerstrand site I’ll either add more entries
or simply remove that option, depending on needs analysis.
Responsibilities
Met
Responsibility 1: continued improvement of professional practice that
requires critical inquiry, professional development, and reflective practice.
Developing this site required that I learn in detail the operation of different types of search sites. I researched a large number of sites, determining which ones were quality and representative of each type. I also taught myself to become an expert in each site I was reviewing, exploring and using different features so I could provide a complete picture of each site’s use and function.
Responsibility 2: Designs instruction or human performance strategy to meet the needs of learners.
This site was built to be a stand-alone instructional system that would not only guide a learner through a series of modules, but also provide knowledge refreshers for those learners who only wanted to learn or review one small section. I also took into account the fact that people using the site would not have a “live” person to interact with – all the instruction had to be present on the page, and any questions needed to be anticipated and addressed in the design process.
Responsibility 4: Understand how to capitalize on the capacities and abilities of each learner.
This site combines step by step instruction with practice sessions. An inexperienced learner can read and process the lessons, then apply what he or she learned in an authentic setting. More experienced learners can jump to areas that best address their learning needs and extract the specific knowledge they require, without having to page through lessons that are not relevant.