TUTOR MARKED ASSIGNMENT 1

Course T171 - Tutor Marked Assignment 1 -  PI U2648576

QUESTION 1


Microsoft Home page : A review of http://www.microsoft.com

This is the official website of the Microsoft Corporation containing information about all aspects of their business and product ranges from the foundation of the company to the present day. It covers a broad spectrum of subject areas, from trailers for forthcoming computer games through to downloadable system upgrades, training and certification through to website development tools.

With specific reference to Microsoft history, there are subsections on the evolution of Windows and a Microsoft museum including a comprehensive timeline although the history of the company is definitely is not the sole purpose or main focus of the site.

The site has an up to date and interesting look to it, with a vibrant blue navigation bar across the top of each page, and a more complex grey navigation system running top to bottom across the left hand side. These two systems link the reader through to the various subsections of the website which also carry the unifying colour scheme and navigation methods. Through the use of an inbuilt search engine it is easy to locate specific information from deep within the site through keyword searching.

The audience for this site is extremely varied. Just from examining the front page of the site one can see that there are different areas created for teachers, technical professionals, journalists, home users, developers and businessmen to name but a few. It is for this reason that the content of the site is written in neutral, factual language to make relevant information easily accessible and clear to understand.

The content of the site is authentic and reliable, due to being ‘straight from the horse’s mouth’, although it would be fair to say that there may be some bias involved as it is unlikely that any commercial entity would write anything negative about their company or products on their own website.

To conclude, this is a vast and detailed website offering comprehensive information on a full range of products written for a very varied audience.

(Word count 329)


Freedom to Subjugate : A review of http://t171.open.ac.uk/t171/free2subj/index.html


This is an anonymously written site providing information about Microsoft’s business practices and the ongoing antitrust accusations against the company.  It covers a broad range of information, from a timeline on the development of computers and Microsoft, through to links to recent news articles on related subjects. The site is not directly focused upon the history of Microsoft and mainly contains articles and quotes voicing opinions over Microsoft’s alleged monopoly.

The site has a fairly simplistic look to it, with a consistent navy-blue navigation bar on the left hand side. This serves to link the reader through to the various subsections of the website.  The presentation is predominately text-based with few graphics and illustrations to detract from nor illuminate the points being made.

The audience for this site is most likely to be those who are somehow involved in the computer industry and sympathise with the Anti-Microsoft cause. The site would also be of interest to those who were as yet undecided and wished to read up on the current arguments. The presentation of the site would probably appeal to these individuals in that it is clean and concise, on top of being well-designed and comprehensive in content.

It would be fair to say that there is a definite bias involved in this Site.  The authors clearly state “As is obvious in everything presented on this site, our opinions are behind the actions of the federal government and the nineteen states in the ongoing antitrust trial." (see http://t171.open.ac.uk/t171/free2subj/whoarewe.html ) and in the majority of the site these opinions are made clear.  However, within the ‘Common Arguments’ section, room is allowed for a more balanced ,approach discussing some of the frequently aired arguments for and against Microsoft in the antitrust investigation.

To conclude, this is an informative and well-designed site offering one side of an obviously two-sided argument.

(Word count 305)

QUESTION 2

Selected FirstClass Message for Discussion:

03 March 2003  08:49:36
T171 ng264 There group
From: Lucy Andrews
Subject: re(2): Federico faggin co-ordination
To: T171 ng264 There

Hi,

I've just caught up with how we're going to divide this work out, so can I clarify that I've got it straight in my head?

Clive - layout, colour and design ideas plus background research
Mike - biography and referenced image
Lucy - Review of an existing site on Federico

I've just seen that Dom's off work or on holiday throughout the exercise, so I suggest we get cracking and if people manage to post later we can add extra features or delegate some of the work out.

So, how do we go about assembling this site?  Do we each post up what we've written and one person assemble it into a site, or do you (Clive) want to tell us how you want it laid out and we can each do our own page?  I personally think for consistency of style and navigation it would be easier to have one person assembling the site, but am open to comments etc.

In the meantime, I'll find a site to review and get on with it!

Lucy
The above message was posted to my Online Writing Tutorial group on the 3rd March 2003 as part of a group project to produce a web page on a significant personality from module one. 


Why do you consider this post successful?
I consider this posting to be successful as it helped the group come to a collective understanding of how the work was to be allocated.  As is stated in Gary Alexander’s paper ‘Netiquette, or the social conventions of computer conferencing’, “the main principle is the intention to come to a shared understanding or consensus" . The above message offered one potential solution to the task and asked for responses from other group members, so as to aid reaching a consensus on the division of labour.

The message went on to acknowledge what could have been a potential problem – the absence of one group member for the duration of the task – and offered a solution to this problem.  It was unknown at the time whether or not the 'missing' group members were to collaborate in creating the webpage so the suggestion left the task open for expansion should the missing members eventually contribute.

The post was written in fairly informal English, from the perspective of my own opinion (as is recommended by Alexander) and was to the point and concise, aiming to get my point across without rambling. It acknowledged prior comments by group members, such as Clive’s desire to work on layout and design, and made suggestions for how his interests could be integrated into the work of the group.

This message was ultimately successful because following its posting and the ensuing discussion, and without argument, the group members quickly assembled their assigned material and the group web page was completed to our satisfaction before the deadline


How did this message contribute towards the group task?

This message contributed towards the group task by focusing the members and laying out a framework for collaborative working.   It asked for clarification on some points, thus prompting the group for feedback, and also suggested one possible method of reaching the end target  through each taking different tasks and later compiling individual sections to form the webpage.

Problems were encountered in that two group members were not involved in the conference process because of holidays, although the remaining group members divided the tasks between three people rather than five so as to stick to the deadline.

The task was essentially achieved through coming together for discussion, going away to do personal research or writing html, then reconverging in the conference to share our work and to comment upon the final page which was assembled by Clive from our contributions.


With reference to paper, how could message be improved?
In his paper ‘Netiquette’ mentioned above, Gary Alexander refers to three practical communication principles (PCPs).  The above posting lacks the thanks and acknowledgement mentioned in Alexander’s 'PCP1'.  As he says, “If you don’t receive acknowledgement of a message, you may feel ignored”.  If the task were to be repeated, I would make a point of thanking other group members for their opinions before voicing my own and would offer increased encouragement to others.

I would also consider making my ideas on proposed division of labour into a table in a word processor such as Microsoft Word and attaching it to the conference message to save people time and effort in reading and to give them a permenent version to save onto their computers for reference.



(Word Count 546)

REFERENCES

Question 1

http://www.microsoft.com

http://www.microsoft.com/museum/mustimeline.mspx# [accessed 3/3/03]

http://t171.open.ac.uk/t171/free2subj/index.html [accessed 3/3/03]

http://t171.open.ac.uk/t171/free2subj/whoarewe.html [accessed 3/3/03]


Question 2

Alexander, Gary: 1996: "Netiquette, or the social conventions of computer conferencing" available online at http://t171.open.ac.uk/t171/resources/03364E2A-F409-47F6-B5E7AE563C30A5ED.cfm?DisplayMode=live&CFID=197156&CFTOKEN=72214824 [accessed 11/3/03]

Valid HTML 4.01!