Contributions


1. Added name and my alias to the Wikispace Alias page, to the Analysis and Reflection page-November 13th, 2006.
2. Added information on RFID for the cHiPS group project and collaborated on the cHiPS pages together with my three other members and
3. Assisted Lauren on the interview to a residence desk employee and typed it out on the wiki-November 14th and
4. Added quotes and information on the documentation wiki-November 27th-all the above for our (ChiPS) space.
5. Wrote my main contribution entry: 'Concerns of interactive system design'-November 23-
6. Added more information after a while in my main entry 'Concerns of interactive design'-November 23
7. edited the layout of main entry 'Concerns of interactive design'-November 23
8. Added a paragraph and design steps on 'Design Process'-November 23
9. Added a paragraph on context in 'PACT'-November 23
10. Added information on 'Conceptual model'-November 23
11. Added information on 'Mark Zuckerberg'-November 23
12. Added picture on 'Mark Zuckerberg'-November 23
13. Added information on 'Learnability'-November 25
14. Added sources on 'Learnability'-November 25th
15. Added more information on consistency in 'Learnability'-November 25th
16. Realized my link of my name was not connected to the right page (this page of analysis and reflection and contributions) so fixed that-November 29
17. Added information to 'Audience'-November 28
18. Added information to 'Youtube'- November 29th
19. Edited some spelling mistakes on Youtube- November 29th
20. Made links and answered the third question for Analysis and reflection-December 8th

Analysis and Reflection


1. When I first heard about wikispaces in CCT205, I was apprehensive about the nature of the wiki as it could be abused and because one could change any information that had been put. It can be insulting and frustrating when one's work is constantly changed and questioned and a fear that the information may not be fully accurate could surface. However I realized my prior assumptions had been pleasantly false because it proved to be an extremely efficient tool for collaborating information. Students would post notes on other courses, add information from the textbook that could be useful, and rather than just getting rid of previous information they mostly added to and enhanced the existing information. Information-wise it proved it to be very useful because one can see what others have written without having to be embarassed and ask. This motivates me to do better when I see the amount of work others have put in, and it gives me a good idea of how I can make myself a better student and what information I could add in comparison to others. Hence, the wikispace is collaborative but at the same time competitive and interactive as several brains come together and ameliorate the learning process.
My expectation for myself is to start in advance this time with the wikis. I want to add as much as I can in a longer period of time than I did last year and start early. As someone who is already familiar with the wiki, I can contribute the existing knowledge of how to navigate around the wiki. I can also change, add and re-arrange things quicker than a beginner would. The familiar atmosphere of wiki enables me to communicate more effectively to other group members. The problem with the wiki is since its an ongoing process people tend to think there is a lot of time to work on it and then one ends up procrastinating, not gaining as much from it as they would have if they had started earlier. Also the fact that we have group work on the wiki to do each week and we have another wiki for CCT300 to deal with does not leave as much time for the wiki as I would have liked. Having to do so much work using the wiki-for two subjects and the group project makes the wiki more of a chore which hinders the learning process. The magic of the wiki and the purpose of it is lost. I feel if we had the wiki only for one subject it would have been better and we would have more time to use the wiki to its full potential.

2. I choose which postings to contribute to by seeing how much information is added. Although length is not a direct determinant of quality it is definetely an indicator of how much information and how much knowledge the student has on a particular topic. If a topic as general as 'Interactive technology' is being written about, if there is only a little bit of information then I know I should add more. However, if it is something specific like the 'MosCow' rule of thumb then it may not need as much information on it. I am definetely for adding, rearranging and editing other people's work and I feel it helps the user know where he or she has gone wrong by seeing another perspective. However, deleting information is something which can infuriate others because I feel there is no need to delete information unless it is completely innaccurate or biased. I feel everyone has something to say and it does not have to be 100% fact for it to be eligible for the wiki. Wiki is an interactive tool which to me means not only communicating with others and working with other people's works but also sharing and developing several perspectives one one topic. Therefore, I feel everyone comes to the course and deals with the text with different assumptions and that variety of information should be sustained to emphasize the diversity of people in CCIT. Insofar I have not gotten my work deleted, atleast not that I am aware of since I do not regularly check my own postings but I have had parts of it changed and additions to it in the past which I think is great and I do not feel insulted by it in fact I feel happy that people want to share that information with me and that people are reading my work and consider it valid enough to 'discuss' it.
3. My views about the Wiki have not changed because I was already familiar with it from CCT205. I feel the encouragement to start early has made a lot of people put in more effort which has made wiki a more collaborative tool than last year. I was surprised at the amount of people who wanted to help each other with the exam by posting study notes, etc. The amount of valuable topics that were tackled in the wiki under the table of contents was also very interesting and definetely gave us a better knowledge of the course. As i have already mentioned in the CCT300 wiki and the exam, I think the wiki should notify people when their work is edited, perhaps by a toolbar or atleast by email. A spellcheck would be useful and a plagiarism detector. I feel what has been the most productive aspect of the wiki is the user-friendly, simplistic yet functional design that wiki has incorporated. It has fulfilled almost all the design rules, even the 10-minute rule (although the Gestalt law of proximity could be applied to the buttons which are irritatingly close together and I have lost work at times by clicking on preview instead of save when i meant to click on save.) On the whole, wiki is an excellent tool for communication but I do feel that the way it has been incorporated into the courses makes it a chore and it being based on a numerical value (i.e must do about 10 edits) is de-validating the point of the wiki. Telling us that we HAVE to start more than three weeks in advance is also a restriction which might help but doesnt help the flow of information because I feel people should not be forced to start early if they dont have much to write because then theyre editing for the sake of starting early and getting a mark. I think although the wiki is a great tool, it has been overused in CCIT. We have had it in almost every subject, so I think its losing its magic. In future, I think the wiki should be there like a substitution for webct and blackboard and not necessarily for assignment purposes.