The World Online How UK citizens use the internet to find out about ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Figure 2: BBC ‘have your say’ and Yahoo! questions and answers“How do I know who and what to believe when I don’t knowanything about this area?”Once respondents had clicked on a website, the decisionabout whether to use it or move on was made in a matter ofseconds. Choices were often made on superficial aspectssuch as site aesthetics, for example colours, use of pictures,the amount of white space, ease of navigation around thesite and the appropriateness and quality of advertising.Although the delivery of content was assessed, the quality of the actualinformation was rarely questioned. The cynicism applied to traditionalmedia (the political or organisational agendas accredited to papers orprogrammes) was less apparent in the online context. The source itselfwas rarely queried, particularly if unknown. For example, respondentswere more likely to question Oxfam’s agenda than the agenda ofAntidictatorshipcom. As one respondent recalled “It was hard knowingwhat was reputable and what might be more biased and why peoplewere posting stuff, if there was some reason behind it, rather thanjust them wanting to give you information” (Young Person, 19-21).“I’ve found out a lot, but I can’t remember where I got it from.”Relatively little attention was paid to the source of information.This was indicative of the low interest in this area, but also of thecomplex nature of trails. In a matter of a few minutes four of fivesites may have been visited and respondents were often clickingfrom one site to another as well as going back to the initial Googlepage. Respondents were not always sure where they were andoften reported reading information without paying any attentionto which site they were accessing or where they had been.However, a few sites were named by individuals without referencingtheir notebooks. These tended to be sites that had answered questionsquickly and effectively (for instance DFID was mentioned for clearlyspecifying how their money is spent) or had provided a useful service(Intelligent Giving was mentioned for enabling savvy charity donations).If an organisation can get key areas of interest right on its website itstands a better chance of becoming part of the repertoire in this area.Successful online communication and content deliveryThere were clear examples of effective communication andcontent delivery that engaged and interested respondentsonce they had been encouraged to explore this area online.The people’s perspective: forums, Q & As(and blogs to a lesser extent)Respondents were interested in the voices ‘on the ground’ asthey felt free of agenda and spin (Figure 2). Forums and Q & Asprovided a sense of immediacy and honesty rather than a calculatedargument. Blogs tended to be less warmly received as they wereto some extent regarded as being driven by self-interest.Because all the information currently received around developmentissues is top down (from charities or government or the media)and respondents rarely had conversations about these issuesamongst their peer groups, there was a sense that they wantedto know what the dominant perspective was ‘on the ground’.They were interested in knowing more about what ‘peoplelike me’ thought so they could have a ‘savvier’ opinion.Another example of this desire for an alternative perspective emergedfrom the respondents more interested in development who citedthe independent expert opinion on sites such as Intelligent Givingand TED.Main Findings9
Figure 3: DFID and Poverty.com mapsIllustrating a sense of place and people: maps and storiesMaps immediately provide a sense of scale and geography. Theyare also innately intriguing and encourage further exploration. Mostrespondents had little idea where developing countries were andmaps provided them with a context that allowed them to relatecountries to where they’d been or which they knew about.The Poverty.com map with its personal stories tied to geographywas immediately emotive in terms of both scale and story.Respondents reported being drawn to clicking on the images tofind out more about the people. However, on discovering thatphotos and stories were composites, respondents felt misled.Seeing it for yourselves: filmFilm is highly effective in engaging an audience in a storyand in getting across a common humanity or telling a projectsuccess story. One respondent recalled “I found a link to areally interesting YouTube video about how bad it was in theMaldives, just about people living on a dollar a day. It was sogood I tweeted about it. It could have been a set-up but it wasdone as an amateur video and it was how it was reported. It wasjust information from a real person” (Interested Mainstream)However, although films were often effective once watched,getting respondents to watch them in the first place was thebigger challenge. In general, only the most engaged said theywould watch a film on these issues. For the majority, a film wasa step too far in terms of commitment – there were too mayunknowns at play such as how long it would be or how interesting.As one respondent said “I think with videos it’s a time issue,you can’t skim read a video, you can’t skip through it and pickout a key word” (Young Person, 19-21). With such low patiencelevels, it’s important that films are immediately engaging.Government sites as a source of informationIn general, respondents did not think of visiting governmentwebsites even if their search was related to government aid.Directgov and DFID emerged via some Google searches, withDirectgov more likely to be accessed first as it was the onlygovernment site which people were aware of. Respondentsreported being surprised that Directgov didn’t have any informationon international aid, as they had little idea where else theymight find it. Neither site necessarily appeared near the topof search pages even if the key words ‘government’ and ‘aid’were typed in, which meant that DFID in particular was oftenmissed. As one respondent said “I couldn’t believe I couldn’tjust go onto a government website with a question about howmuch the UK gives to Africa. I would have thought that was quitean easy question to answer somewhere” (Active Enthusiast)However, for those who did access the DFID site, responses werepositive. One of the key strengths of the site was that it didn’t feellike a government site. Where government sites were expected to bestaid, serious and boring, this was regarded as fresh, engaging andmodern. In addition, government and politics were often regarded asintertwined and therefore any government site immediately engenderedscepticism. However, this site was felt to be well designed and provideda sense of scale and expertise. As one teenager said “it was actuallyquite a decent website, it wasn’t boring and everything was easy tosearch out – like it had a sidebar which had all the recent news andFigure 4: PLAN and Fairtrade filmsThe World Online How UK Citizens use the internet to find out about the wider world10
Page 1 and 2: The World OnlineHow UK citizens use
Page 3 and 4: forewordWe live in the age of the i
Page 5 and 6: introductionBackgroundThis qualitat
Page 7 and 8: “I think you get a bit lazy with
Page 9: “If I did want to find out about
Page 13 and 14: conclusions and recommendations•

The World Online How UK citizens use the internet to find out about ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?