This panel defined folksonomy and the current state of tagging. During the course of the conversation there were a few suggestions on ways to improve upon the current state of affairs, which is what the panel was really about. I wanted to expand on that part of the conversation.

It seems to me that every time a cool new technology or idea comes around, we jump on the bandwagon with such enthusiasm that we leave behind everything that came before. When the discussion repeatedly turned to letting non-power-users rely on or draw from the knowledge of the group, either in the form of automatic tagging or keyword suggestions, people questioned how any one person could rely on the opinions of another. While I agree that no system is perfect (systems are, after all, created by imperfect humans), it seems to me that we’ve been developing methods of quantifying trust for a long time.

When I buy something on eBay I’m reasonably assured that I’m buying from a reputable seller. The same goes for opinions on Epinions. Does anybody remember when Epinions was the cool new kid that would empower the masses? I still use the site when making purchasing decisions. For that matter, look at any peer-to-peer network.

Simple ideas tend to be the best ideas. That’s my corollary to Occum’s Razor. Simple methods of user ranking can create a trust mechanism that would allow novice users to rely on the wisdom of experts. This could easily allow for experts in specific areas (Jazz was mentioned during the panel).

I want to repeat one suggestion that was brought up during the panel: tagging should be incorporated directly into the browser (and operating systems). Regular bookmarking should take advantage of tags. This should not replace categorization but rather be offered as an option to it. Just because you think it is better doesn’t mean it has to replace something people have already learned to use. There is something to be said for the efficiency of knowledge already learned.

That suggestion led directly to something that I have not heard mentioned by anyone despite it being extremely obvious. In fact, it hadn’t occurred to me until the panel. Tagging has been around since the early days of the web. It has been done by the experts in each subject area and it has been done to a vast quantity of what is out there. I’m talking about keywords. Remember meta-tags?

Why has nobody created a bookmark plugin or web utility bookmarklet that automatically includes meta-data with the link URL? This should be automated in every browser and bookmarking website and, at the very least, include the two most common meta-tags: description and keywords. Relying on past lessons learned: bookmark searching should be able to very easily include or exclude metadata in order to deal with keyword spamming (there we go re-using past knowledge to enhance the trust of the system…).

I’ll leave off there. Hopefully other attendees (and the panelists themselves) can offer more suggestions or point out the flaws in mine. The evolution of ideas is best accomplished through collaboration.

Related Links:
Panel Listing on SXSW
Beyond Folksonomies (great resource page)

On a mailing list the following question was asked:

Does anyone have links to any usability studies comparing 2-column layouts (1 column with navigation + ancillary information, 1 column with content) against 3-column layouts (2 columns with navigation + ancillary information, 1 with content)?

As an independent web developer I don’t get to do usability studies for my websites. I have to rely on published studies and common sense. That’s okay: most small businesses can’t afford usability studies but they can, and should, have the best website they can afford.

The question piqued my interest so I did a quick Google search for “web design usability study two-column three-column“. The first result led me through a virtual wonderland of usability studies that provided a lot of really interesting information:

Is Multiple-Column Online Text Better? It Depends!

Large high-resolution displays can now have resolutions of over 1900 pixels, resulting in extremely long lines of text. One way to resolve the problem of very long text lines is to divide the text into multiple columns, thus decreasing the width of each individual line. Some sites even allow users to customize pages into one, two, or three columns…

Effects of Link Arrangement on Search Efficiency

Results indicate that column treatments of a large numbers of links has an effect on search time. - This statement could imply that if the designer is given no choice with regards to page depth, that no tested improvement can be made on the search time. In other words, nothing shows that arranging many links in particular formats is going to generate lower search times, so choose the best one from a design point of view.

I found this study to be particularly interesting because it determined that users were able to find links quicker when they were spread across multiple columns whereas I would have expected people to more easily scan a single vertical list.

What is the Best Layout for Multiple-Column Web Pages?

An important issue regarding the physical layout of a web page is the use of space or in this case, how the contents of a web page should be placed within the confines of a window. Web designers have dealt with this issue by using several different methods…

This study found that fluid layouts are preferred by users. Left justified layouts (fixed to the left of the window) are least preferred. None of the tested layouts caused a significant difference in usability. Unlike the previous study regarding link columns, the results of this study are exactly what I would have expected.

Where Should You Put the Links? A Comparison of Four Locations

Online newspapers and journals, as well as many other types of informational sites, are invariably confronted with the question of where to place links associated with the online document. Currently, many informational sites place associative links below (as seen with CNN.com) or on the side of the document (as seen with techreview.com), while a shrinking number of sites embed associative links within their documents, such as scientificamerican.com.

This one studied link locations. Again, no significant difference in
usability based on location of the links. Users preferred links embedded in
the content. I’m with the users and, despite the findings, disagree on the usability aspect. Embedded links appear within a context. I know what they’re about and that makes them more useful to me.