Almost two-thirds of New York City residents lack one or more of the three basic computer skills needed for working in today’s information-technology based economy, according to survey data released by the Center for New York City Affairs at the New School’s Milano Graduate School of Management of Urban Policy. The survey looked at the proportions of New Yorkers who know how to use three key types of computer software: electronic mail, word processing, and spreadsheet programs. Only 34 percent of adults reported that they know how to use all three types, while 39 percent cannot use any.

In her article, Computer Illiteracy still common in NYC, Emelyn Tapaoan states, “Among those in the labor force-excluding the retired, housewives, and students–26 percent of those with no computer skills were unemployed, compared to 7 percent of labor force participants who had one or more computer skills. People with no computer skills are three or four times as likely to be unemployed depending on how you measure it” (1). The survey demonstrates that lacking computer skills, will most likely contribute too employment. Without employment, there is a good chance people would not be able to afford computers or Internet access.

I feel as though there are many Americans who adapted to technology quite easily. However, there are many more who haven’t. Computer illiteracy is one of the causes of the digital divide, especially amongst older people. It wasnt’ to many years ago, when people were typing up memos in the office, writing letters, and doing research in the library. In a few short years, all of that has changed, and people were expected to change over night, practically without warning. Anyone over the age of 30 didn’t grow-up with technology. No cell phones, no text messaging, and no Internet access. How can anyone reasonably expect proficiency over night?

The article also points out that college-educated and younger New Yorkers are the most likely to use all three types of programs. Tapaoan also states, “Among city dwellers between the ages of 18-24, almost half know how to use all three programs, compared to just over one-third among those over 35″ (2). It is pretty clear that the generation gap as it pertains to computer illiteracy exists.

I feel as though most people do not recognize the degree of computer illiteracy between the generations. Because so many older people have adapted; using cell phones and computers on a regular basis, I feel as though the others have become lost in the shuffle. I myself have struggled with technology, and that is why I chose this topic. Although I sometimes struggle, it hails in comparison to my mother or some of my co-workers. My mother is retired and has never used a computer. She has no understanding of technology, and why would she? She retired before computers were in her workplace. She has never had the opportunity or accessibility to be able to learn. There are many seniors finding themselves in the same position. Of course there are many different reasons why people are computer illiterate in today’s society, but no one seems to be talking about them. We seem to be more focused on who has a computer, and using this as an explanation for the gap. If you don’t learn, you fall through the cracks. If falling through the cracks diminishes a persons chance to find a job, ultimately a further gap will be created in the digital divide. I feel as though equal attention needs to be paid to computer literacy and how we can ensure people get the skills they need! 

Bibliography

Tapaoan, Emelyn (2004). Computer illiteracy still common in nyc. The Filipino Express, 18, Retrieved March 12, 2008, from http://proquest.umi.com.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/pqdweb?index=14&did=755641811&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1205457540&clientId=2302

The Fresno Bee was fairly good. I was able to find the RSS link and go right to the different feeds. I was able to maneuver easily through the categories, and found it user friendly. I didn’t find any link to video or pod-cast. It appears as they are a bit behind on new media technology. They probably should at least institute video clips.

The worst site was The Birmingham News. I found it very confusing and difficult to navigate. I had to click several times to even find the RSS feed. The home page did not show the RSS link. They should change this immediately since most news organizations are placing the link on the home page, making it easy to locate. I also did not like the fact that I had to enter my information to be able to access the RSS feed, especially after the difficulty I had locating it. I would have left the site immediately under any other circumstance. They should immediately address this problem making it easier for the user to use.

The Lexington Herald Leader was also a site that needs some major work. I didn’t like this site either. When you hit the RSS link it took you to a page with commentaries. You had to navigate through to find the categories highlighted with orange, indicating they were RSS links. The RSS link only connected you to the jobs page. It did have video, but no pod-casts. This site, like The Birmingham News needs drastic improvements to compete with other on-line news organizations. I believe both of these sites to be the worst sites of the six I analyzed. They need a complete overhaul from their RSS feeds, to navigating ability, and visual content.

MSNBC overall was good. They had many RSS feeds and featured video and pod-casts. It was the most technologically advanced site. In addition, they featured many different types of video. Almost every category had several videos that pertained to the subject. I didn’t like the fact the RSS feed was at the very bottom of their web page. They might want to move it up, making it easier to locate. Another criticism is that they had too many RSS feeds. I feel as though it may have to do with the fact they are such a big news organization. Overall, I feel as though they do a fairly good job, they are much better than the previous two news media organizations. They by far are the best on their video features.

In comparison, my other two news sources were by far the best. They Arizona Daily, which was my favorite, and The San Francisco Examiner. They both had several RSS feeds, but not to many, (121 & 70). This made it easier to navigate and find the particular news that an individual user might be looking for. I really liked the fact that the Examiner linked other news sources across the country, giving the user a wide variety of opportunity for news, with a one stop location. Similarly, the Daily linked news directly to zip codes within Arizona. This is something I felt the users in Arizona would find useful. They can go to one news site and link up to find out what is going on in different parts of their state. I think if the Examiner and Daily each had links from their states, as well as other states, it would be even more beneficial to the user. Both organizations had video, but no pod-casts, something they may want to add soon. These two sites did the best job with their home page, RSS feeds, desirability, content, and ability to navigate through. The only negative I found was there inability to provide pod-casts. The only thing I would change about either of these sites, is to possibly integrate them, presenting the best of both while allowing more viewable content for the user.

When analyzing Senator Clinton’s website, I found it to be typical of a presidential candidate. It was decorated with traditional red, white, and blue colors, and of course the American flag. At the top left in bold letters it states, “Hillary for President”. I found it interesting she used her first name instead of her last name. I felt as though she was trying to feminize herself and possibly trying to distinguish herself from her husband. I actually like the fact that she uses her first name. I feel as though it individualizes her and emphasizes that she is the first woman who has the potential to become President. The sites main toolbar has standard links such as: contribute, issues, news, communities, blogs, and video. When you click on an item in the toolbar, it displays a quick drop-down menu allowing you to choose sub-categories. She provides and overview of her background and her issues. Furthermore, with another click, she provides extensive details of her plan. Additionally, she has a link called “Fact-Hub” which provides rebuttals for false or misleading information. For the most part I felt her website to be user friendly and straight forward. It plainly describes who Hillary is and her positions. There were a multitude of other links categorizing endorsements and supporters, but overall, fairly straight forward. There was one video on the homepage that stated “Women across Texas stand up and speak out for Hillary”. In this video she was purposely targeting women voter’s in Texas. I also found the homepage a bit over crowded. The layout could be more interesting and simple.

Comparably, as I analyzed Senator Barack Obama’s website I found it to be similar to Clinton’s. However, when you go to his website you go to an opening page, showing him with his family. Interestingly, the color is a light blue, over a darker blue over-lay, and a white light shinning through; the word “change” in bold letters. His logo is a circle, with red, white, and blue in the middle. When you click on the “learn more” button, you then go to his main page. At the top left corner there is a picture of him looking up with this same blue light peaking through as though it was a sun. I feel as though he is trying to protray his candidacy as something coming from a higher power. The caption reads, “I’m asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington…I’m asking you to believe in yours”. I found this part of his website to be propaganda. He even asks you to “join the movement”, something I find a bit disturbing. Besides this, he has the same type of toolbar; listing links to issues, contributions, blogs, video, endorsements, and even an RSS feed. He also has the quick drop-down menu allowing for easy access to information. He also gives an overview of himself and the issues.

Overall, I didn’t find much difference between the two Democratic candidate’s websites. They were both easy to navigate and their links provided typical information that the average voter would be seeking. They both focus on contributions to their respective campaigns. I feel as though Hillary’s site gave a slightly better representation of who she was and her issues, whereas Obama’s website seemed to be more focused on the movement. I also feel as though his was more appealing to the eye. Hers was cluttered, and a bit boring. Comparably, they both target the same demographics; a typical voter who is looking for well constructed websites containing informative content about the candidate. I think both candidates achieve their goal. 

Bibliography

www.hillaryclinton.com

www.barackobama.com

However, I do realize that we live in a capitalist society, and then everyone, including businesses has the right to advertise, and use whatever mechanism they can to create more revenue. I really don’t have a problem with that either. I understand why the have sponsors, and what makes their on-line business work. If I were a on-line business or entrepreneur, I would do the same thing. It is just my personal preference to visit sites that accommodate my individual needs. If I want to buy airline tickets to Hawaii, I go right to the site. If I want to buy a camera, I would go to Circuit city. Only if I wanted to buy a book that I couldn’t  find anywhere else, would I go to Amazon (which I have done). My point is, I don’t want to waste a lot of time looking at cameras when I am looking to buy airline tickets. If I want to socialize, I don’t want someone trying to sell me something; I want to socialize.

First, The Lexington Herald Leader, or at least I hope it is the Leader. The spreadsheet said “Ledger”, but “Leader” was the only thing to come up in my search. I didn’t like this website at all. I believe I gave it a 2 out of 10 rating. When you hit the RSS link, it took you to a comments page where people had posted on different stories. You had to navigate through just to find which categories were highlighted with orange. The RSS link only connected to you to”jobs”. The other orange links were on the homepage. It was the worst of the sites that I visited. It did have video but no pod-cast. Overall, they need to completely redo their website. There is to many ads and it is too busy.

Secondly, The Arizona Daily. This was my favorite. I gave it a nine out of ten. Although it had ads also, not as many and not as busy. It had several RSS feeds, 121. The feeds were for a variety of different topics. I especially liked the fact that they had many local issues. Items such as, border concerns and immigration, which were of particular interest to the people of Arizona. They also had feeds by zip codes, for local issues in the state. I thought that was a interesting thing and unique to their site. Additionally, they had pictures (cartoon like) next to the blogs, demonstrating a different way of labeling them. They had a variety of video links, however, no pod-casts. Overall, not much I would have them do differently.

Thirdly, The San Francisco Examiner. This site was my second favorite.  I rated this site 8 out of 10. The RSS feed was right at the top of the page and they had 70 feeds. I especially liked that so many of their feeds were to other news sources across the country making it easy for you to access without having to go to each one of those sites. The state’s ranged from New York to New Mexico. They had a good majority of the states listed from all over the country, giving you the opportunity to get different perspectives easily. This sites blogs also had pictures, but the pictures were of the individuals who’s blogs they were. This was different from the Arizona Daily. I liked it, however, I feel as if the Arizona Daily’s was more creative with their blog pictures. I think if you combined the best of these two sites, you would have an excellent site. They also had a variety of video and web-cams, but again, no pod-casts.

Fourthly, MSNBC. I think this site was probably average. I did not like the fact that the link to the RSS feed was at the very bottom corner and difficult to find. I rated this site a 7 out of 10, but I think they are more like a 6 now. I am not particularly fond of MSNBC, so that may have something to do with it. Additionally, I thought they had to many RSS feeds, 167. Not only that, but you had to click on different pages to get to them. The editorials were difficult to define because they did not list them under a heading, but mixed them throughout. Some of the confusion may have to do with the fact that MSNBC is so big. One thing they do have is pod-casts. My other five reviews did not, and I was beginning to think I must of been missing it, until I reviewed them and seen it clearly. They also had video. I felt they were the best in this area.

Overall, I feel that The Arizona Daily had the best site, followed closely by The San Francisco Examiner. I did not like The Lexington Herald Leader or MSNBC. MSNBC is okay, it just needs work. The Lexington Herald needs to have a major overhaul, especially with their RSS feed.

The second site was the Birmingham News. I did not like this site at all. I found it very confusing and more difficult to maneuver. I had to click several times to find the RSS feed. The home page did not show a orange link or anything marked RSS. I had to click to the home web page before I found it. Once I clicked on that, it brought me to a blog page with several different news stories and comments. From there I had to enter my zip code and birth year to be able to go to the RSS page. There was entirely to many RSS links, 92. If I was searching for news, I would of left this site before I even got to the RSS feed. I did not find any video or pod-casts links. Overall, I wouldn’t recommend this site. I preferred the Fresno Bee.

While I was able to purchase a computer and provide my daughter with Internet access, the article nicely points out that not everyone has the same opportunities. This is unfortunate, but nothing new in our society. It is nice to know that most schools in America provide Internet access, however, it still doesn’t address the digital divide amongst income levels. I think it is pretty well known that if you aren’t using a computer on a regular basis, you do not gain many skills. My daughter, barely gets to use the Internet at school. She needs hours at home just to do her homework. With so many people having busy lives, it is almost unrealistic to expect them to be able to go to the library and wait for one hour of Internet time. I feel that if there isn’t more time and availability for computer use to children, then it is also unrealistic to thing that the digital divide won’t grow.

The federal regulations that are in place with the cable companies and telephone companies are there for a reason. Some may view their mandates as policies to stabilize price control and the ability to have governmental control over the industry. However, in my opinion, there is another reason. Simply, profit! As stated in the article, “VoIP is basically a clever reinvention of the wheel” (1). They also go on to say that several markets around the U.S. and the FCC is looking seriously at the potential ramifications of VoIP service. I think this speaks volumes. I do not believe the government will allow a service to bypass charges. They will find a way to intervene and charge the consumer. As new technologies invaded the cable market, it did not lead to the deregulation of cable companies. They just found alternative ways to circumvent technology within their system. As you can see, Comcast, is still the leader in cable, even with the addition of Direct TV, and other satellite companies. The reality is, that even though the technology may be cheaper and change the telecommunications industry, it will not probably ever become cheaper for the American consumer.

Questions

1. In what ways would converting to phone via the computer effect you?

2. In what ways is this new VoIP technology limiting to some people?

3. In what ways might reliability issues prevent the use of mainstream use of VoIP?

According to the article, the technology is in place to, “Begin to weave together a patchwork of universal access where little or no telecommunication services existed before” (1). The technology can make rural and poor markets profitable, affordable, and sustainable. As with any other type of market, profitability seems to be the main stumbling block to universal access for those in rural areas or third world countries. However, this article clearly shows that by using new and low-cost technologies, micro and small enterprises, and having supportive public policy, these areas will effectively be able to achieve universal access, and maintain profitability. Taking profitability out of the equation, (profitability as it pertains to an individual company providing universal access) is also seems as though governments would benefit in socio-economic ways within their country and directly to their country, if they provided universal access. I feel as though individual governments and countries around the world have a responsibility to connect their citizens, through cyberspace, to the rest of the world. In addition, the article uses different models to demonstrate that by using newer technology and creative ways to distribute access, it can still create profits. If the government’s provided subsidies to the technological improvements required to achieve universal access, it seems likely profits would follow.

Questions

1. In what ways do Wi-Fi and other related wireless technologies contribute to public access?

2. Even if universal access is non-profitable to companies, in what other ways can it be achieved to ensure accessibility?

3. Who is responsible for making sure universal access is available to everyone?