Doing this assignment was a great refresher for me as I really haven't had a reason to use Access since 2008. Upon completion of the project, I gained some useful tools. I never knew about text qualifier and the text delimiter from my past experience with Access. Knowing this now, will be great for future reference. Another thing I didn't know about Access in my past experiences was the validation rule. I saw it before, but I didn't know how it worked.
Some ways I could enhance my database would be to have different queries, forms, and reports. There are so many unique views of the data that I could create using these options. For example, I could do a 6 month Departed Family Member query or report to go along with the Individual one. Another thing I could do is to create a macro for my database. A macro would help my queries, forms, or reports look more professional and give any user some easy options.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Tutorial Blog 3: Learning about Wiki's
In 1995 the first Wiki page was placed on the internet under the name WikiWikiWeb created by Ward Cunningham. From then on Wiki pages have flourished in the age of information. Corporations inserted them into their work environments for intranets and collaborated projects. Educational institutions use Wikis to enhance student's education.
A Wiki is a piece of server software or a website that allows the creation and editing of a number of different intertwined pages.
A Wiki has to follow three guidelines according to Ward Cunningham:
I would like to point anybody to this website first on "How to Start a Wiki." There are a few sites that support the making of a Wiki page. Popular sites include Wikispaces, Google Docs, PBWiki, PikiWiki, and Wetpaint. Google Docs isn't an entirely dedicated Wiki site, but allows many of the same options that a user would find on other Wiki sites.
Since Wikis allow any user to edit a page, sometimes the editor isn't editing that page for your betterment. Vandalism often happens and has been a problem on sites like Wikipedia.org, the most famous Wiki on the internet. These acts will often go unnoticed for a period of time. Many educational instructors find that Wiki sites are not creditable for these same reasons. Unfortunately, vandals will even put malware in links found on the Wiki page.
Comedian Stephen Colbert even had his audience exploit Wikipedia.org. He asked his audience to edit a page related to elephants to include, "Elephant population in Africa has tripled over the past six months." Even though this information was false, the flaw is that if enough users agree, the wiki has no choice but to accept the idea.
Whether working on a business project, performing research, or for catching up on your favorite band's history, Wiki's are a valuable source. Even with the flaws of a Wiki, nobody can deny their usefulness. These days, should we really trust what we read on the internet?
Sources:
http://wiki.org/wiki.cgi?WhatIsWiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_impact_of_The_Colbert_Report
http://conovermedia.blogspot.com/2006/03/campaign-against-wikipedia.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki
http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI7004.pdf
http://www.surfnetkids.com/how_to_create_a_wiki.htm
Picture taken by using Jing software on Wikipedia.org
Video found on http://www.commoncraft.com/video-wikis-plain-english
What is a Wiki?
A Wiki is a piece of server software or a website that allows the creation and editing of a number of different intertwined pages.
(This video created by www.commoncraft.com)
A Wiki has to follow three guidelines according to Ward Cunningham:
- a Wiki allows any user to edit a page or to create a new page within the Wiki.
- a Wiki promotes meaningful topics associated by using links that a user will instantly recognize.
- a Wiki isn't created for a causal user. Its goal is to promote the visitor of the site to its never ending process of creation and collaboration that changes its site's landscape.
 |
| Wikipedia allows many editing options and abilities. It even allow you to view the history of the page |
Creating a Wiki
I would like to point anybody to this website first on "How to Start a Wiki." There are a few sites that support the making of a Wiki page. Popular sites include Wikispaces, Google Docs, PBWiki, PikiWiki, and Wetpaint. Google Docs isn't an entirely dedicated Wiki site, but allows many of the same options that a user would find on other Wiki sites.
Criticism of a Wiki
Comedian Stephen Colbert even had his audience exploit Wikipedia.org. He asked his audience to edit a page related to elephants to include, "Elephant population in Africa has tripled over the past six months." Even though this information was false, the flaw is that if enough users agree, the wiki has no choice but to accept the idea.
Closing Thoughts
Sources:
http://wiki.org/wiki.cgi?WhatIsWiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_impact_of_The_Colbert_Report
http://conovermedia.blogspot.com/2006/03/campaign-against-wikipedia.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki
http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI7004.pdf
http://www.surfnetkids.com/how_to_create_a_wiki.htm
Picture taken by using Jing software on Wikipedia.org
Video found on http://www.commoncraft.com/video-wikis-plain-english
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Presentation Blog
My presentation: Donating to the Florida Museum of Natural History
To start off with, it is very hard to critic myself, but I tried to be as honest as possible with my work. I felt that there was logical flow and sequencing to my content. I answered a majority of anticipated questions, and I referred them to get in contact with the museum. I thought I performed a decent job at grabbing the attention of the audience. I probably could have come up with a better introduction or used a picture on the title slide.I thought I asked question and sparked curiosity and that I was clear in with what I was trying to share.
When it came to validating any claims, it really comes down to: did I convince the viewer to donate to the museum. I did avoid inconsistencies and errors, typos and unbelievable claims. I definitely had some clutter on some of my pages, but I did that so I didn't use more slides. To ensure readability I used a black font for my titles and used a lite color against a dark background, also I organized a majority of my content against a dark background. I usually said it and then showed my content, but occasionally due to accidents, it looked like I read straight from the slides. In conclusion, I thought I did a great job with my project. I wish I had more time to work on it and I could have done better with the audio as there is a lot of static in it which is probably due to my microphone. I could have probably used more multimedia.
I critiqued some of the other projects and think everybody did a fantastic job. I noticed everybody had their own unique way of presenting. A variety of multimedia was used as some focused more on picture, audio clips, or videos. My favorite presentation was learning about trombones by Kevin
Doing this project has allowed me to see that certain projects fit certain people. Some people excel in certain areas compared to others. In the business world this is key, to pick topics appropriate to your strengths and knowledge. I think doing the presentation via Web 2.0 doesn't have the same affect as doing the project in front of an audience. I would like to reference back to the trombone presentation as I think it would have been better to see in person the different trombones. As for a business sense, I would prefer to do my presentations in person instead of on the web.
To start off with, it is very hard to critic myself, but I tried to be as honest as possible with my work. I felt that there was logical flow and sequencing to my content. I answered a majority of anticipated questions, and I referred them to get in contact with the museum. I thought I performed a decent job at grabbing the attention of the audience. I probably could have come up with a better introduction or used a picture on the title slide.I thought I asked question and sparked curiosity and that I was clear in with what I was trying to share.
When it came to validating any claims, it really comes down to: did I convince the viewer to donate to the museum. I did avoid inconsistencies and errors, typos and unbelievable claims. I definitely had some clutter on some of my pages, but I did that so I didn't use more slides. To ensure readability I used a black font for my titles and used a lite color against a dark background, also I organized a majority of my content against a dark background. I usually said it and then showed my content, but occasionally due to accidents, it looked like I read straight from the slides. In conclusion, I thought I did a great job with my project. I wish I had more time to work on it and I could have done better with the audio as there is a lot of static in it which is probably due to my microphone. I could have probably used more multimedia.
I critiqued some of the other projects and think everybody did a fantastic job. I noticed everybody had their own unique way of presenting. A variety of multimedia was used as some focused more on picture, audio clips, or videos. My favorite presentation was learning about trombones by Kevin
Doing this project has allowed me to see that certain projects fit certain people. Some people excel in certain areas compared to others. In the business world this is key, to pick topics appropriate to your strengths and knowledge. I think doing the presentation via Web 2.0 doesn't have the same affect as doing the project in front of an audience. I would like to reference back to the trombone presentation as I think it would have been better to see in person the different trombones. As for a business sense, I would prefer to do my presentations in person instead of on the web.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)