After briefing The Hunger Coalition organization and their site, I found some important components to keep in mind when detailing whether or not this organization is successful at maintaining powerful social media connections. Thus far, The Hunger Coalition has done a decent job at intriguing and informing others through the use of social media. When I refer to the Hunger Coalition doing a “decent” job at using social media, I mean that they utilizing the online community well, but there is room for improvement in…Other organizations that are similar with the Hunger Coalition is Feed The Children and RockCANroll.
I took more of an aesthetical and usability approach at first glance. I felt that the site was extremely engaging and very easy to navigate. As far as usability, everything seemed fairly well organized in organizing information. Various uses of text in larger headings, and displayed in a hierarchy help navigate their audience. The color scheme with the site matched their logo’s colors, and is also heavily consistent throughout their space with social media devices. Matching color schemes throughout social media devices will also enhance their which also keep an easily identifiable organization for reliable users.
The Hunger Coalition site also contained a plethora of information that linked you to corresponding YouTube videos, Facebook pages, and their own blog spot on Blogger. I would have to agree with both Gladwell and Mirani because it seems as if they have done all the right steps in terms of getting their organization on social media sites and known with local citizens of Blaine County, but have failed in gaining a larger collective effort from users around the nation.
While reading Mirani's article, I had an extremely affectionate and positive outlook (being a committed DTC major) on the power of social media and how it truly can diversify and open up opportunities for those with non confrontational personalities to speak up. Of course Mirani uses various examples, including India's recent Internet boom where it recently allowed truthful insight of rarely reported humans right abuses, which generally never received coverage. In a simple sense, sure, Mirani proves that regions in the world where the internet and access to social networking sites is minimal, the ability to know what is really going on can be difficult and discourage those who want to voice. Where regions with access to social networking sites know, and have shown a dramatic increase with online involvement, collaboration, collective intelligence, etc. to benefit a particular cause.
However, my not so technological side came out of me when I read Gladwell's article. The dude is right. For centuries humans have learned to overcome struggle. It is shown in American history time and time again. Regardless of social networking sites and the internet, Gladwell proves we have overcome more important things, and uses the Civil Rights movement as an example. While Mirani may argue that Gladwell fails to acknowledge the fact that its the freaking 21st-century and it is just the way it is, more and more people must adapt to use the internet to help a cause, I feel there is a misunderstanding. Gladwell is just pointing out that stronger ties are made with face to face connections and some sort of stratified community to physically engage, and if for centuries humans have been accomplishing this (SNS's only been around for a decade or more), then why change the method now?
Mirani=must adapt to the tools we now have, its the 21st century.
Gladwell= what has worked for centuries can still work, so get over it.
Both articles seem to catch my attention in either way.
However, my not so technological side came out of me when I read Gladwell's article. The dude is right. For centuries humans have learned to overcome struggle. It is shown in American history time and time again. Regardless of social networking sites and the internet, Gladwell proves we have overcome more important things, and uses the Civil Rights movement as an example. While Mirani may argue that Gladwell fails to acknowledge the fact that its the freaking 21st-century and it is just the way it is, more and more people must adapt to use the internet to help a cause, I feel there is a misunderstanding. Gladwell is just pointing out that stronger ties are made with face to face connections and some sort of stratified community to physically engage, and if for centuries humans have been accomplishing this (SNS's only been around for a decade or more), then why change the method now?
Mirani=must adapt to the tools we now have, its the 21st century.
Gladwell= what has worked for centuries can still work, so get over it.
Both articles seem to catch my attention in either way.
