Image resolution needed: 300 dpi for printing, 72 dpi for computer screen

Handholding the camera: most people can handhold no slower than 1/60th second. Some can go down to 1/30th.  Safest is to stay at 1/125th or above.  (If the shutter speed is too slow, camerashake will make the picture blurry.)

Rule of thirds: composition is more attractive if key elements are not centered, but 1/3 of the way from an edge.

When there are people in the picture, focus on their eyes.  That’s the part of the picture that people most care about.

When there are people in the picture, expose for their faces.  Ditto.

Size of image: despite the current discussion about how megapixels don’t matter, that’s only when you get to large numbers.  Larger image files = more pixels = you can  crop  and still have a good image.

Never ever ever use digital zoom, only optical.  Digital zoom just makes the pixels bigger.  (Most p&s cameras will do optical zoom up to a point, then zoom further with digital. Turn off the digital.)

Good summary of the literature and main advantages and disadvantages to online focus groups (for all purposes):

BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009 Mar 3;9:15.

Online focus groups as a tool to collect data in hard-to-include populations: examples from paediatric oncology.

Tates K, Zwaanswijk M, Otten R, van Dulmen S, Hoogerbrugge PM, Kamps WA, Bensing JM.

NIVEL (Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research), BN Utrecht, The Netherlands. k.tates@nivel.nl

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this article is to describe and evaluate the methodology of online focus group discussions within the setting of paediatric oncology. METHODS: Qualitative study consisting of separate moderated asynchronous online discussion groups with 7 paediatric cancer patients (aged 8-17), 11 parents, and 18 survivors of childhood cancer (aged 8-17 at diagnosis). RESULTS: All three participant groups could be actively engaged over a one-week period. Respondents highly valued the flexibility and convenience of logging in at their own time and place to join the discussion. Adolescent patients and survivors emphasized that the anonymity experienced made them feel comfortable to express their views in detail. The findings indicate a strong preference for online group discussions across all participant groups. CONCLUSION: The findings show that online focus group methodology is a feasible tool for collecting qualitative data within the setting of paediatric oncology, and may offer new opportunities to collect data in other hard-to-include populations. The evaluations seem to indicate that the online group discussions have given participants an opportunity to articulate their experiences and views in a way they might not have done in a traditional group discussion.

Just ran across this —

Preview of the Usability Body of Knowledge — Usability Professionals’ Association is creating this reference work.

Ran across this — I haven’t seen a site publish these figures.  I assume it’s because they’re a gov’t site — and want to show how useful they are.

Statistics Canada Website Traffic and Vistor Satisfaction

Silverstone, Roger and Leslie Haddon. 1997. “Design and domestication of information and communication techologies: technical change and everyday life.” in Communication by design : the politics of information and communication technologies, edited by R. Mansell and R. Silverstone. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press.

Haddon, Leslie. 2007. “Roger Silverstone’s legacies: domestication.” New Media and Society 9:25-32.

Woolgar, Steve and John Law. 1991. “Configuring the user: The case of usability trials.” Pp. 57-99 in A sociology of monsters: essays on power, technology, and domination. London: Routledge.

Suchman, Lucy A. 1994. “Working relations of technology production and use.” CSCW 2:21-39. .

Latour, Bruno 1995″Mixing humans and nonhumans together: The sociology of door-closer.” Pp. 257-277 in Ecologies of knowledge: work and politics in science and technology, and Susan Leigh Star ed. SUNY Press.

Katz, James E. and Mark A. Aakhus. 2002. “Conclusion: Making meaning of mobiles — a theory of  Apparatgeist ” Pp. 301-318 in Perpetual contact : mobile communication, private talk, public performance. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

Syllabus