In this weekly task we were required to complete a few things through the pda-banksite of Osuuspankki. The website is a low-bandwidth, ease-of-access aimed web bank portal (which Ville has used before on a mobile device). We evaluated the site according to SU-scale and we're also comparing the scale with ASQ-system.
First of all: the system does not have a link for changing the language AFTER logging in. After a strong debate we decided that although this is a mistake made by the user (read before do anything), they should include it in the system for the ease of use. Checking account balance and paying a bill was simple for us, but all of us encountered some problems while trying to purchase stocks. The purchase itself was done, but confirmation of it was never received and therefore it felt a bit odd. This could also be due the testing environment and it would work when using actual money.
Navigating around in the system wasn't that fluent, for example after paying the bill it would be nice to immediately have a link to the account side and vice-versa, but you had to move through the main menu (why?). Also the stock part is slightly confusing, but we thought that if you are buying stocks, you already know what to do.
Our SUS scores were 85, 62,5 and 55. According to this, the system works but it could do better.
When comparing SUS and ASQ, we found that ASQ is better. It's simpler, the questions are straight-forward and the results can be easily seen without calculations. SUS gives more information, though.
perjantai 17. syyskuuta 2010
perjantai 3. syyskuuta 2010
Weekly task one: File sharing networks
In this task we are considering file sharing networks from the viewpoint of business. It is very well known that piracy is a huge problem in ebusiness and now we are going to speculate about different aspects related to it.
File sharing networks could get money from advertising. This is usually the easiest choice: place advertisements on your website and hope to get income from them. Swedish music service Spotify also uses advertisements between playing songs in their service: this way the customer has to listen to the music (or pay to get rid of them).
Another way to gain money could be making user accounts and entry fees to the system. This, however, is a problem for some customers: they are not willing to pay this entry fee and the service provider does not get income or customers.
A third possibility could be that if the desired customers are working for a company, that company purchases accounts (or some material) for all the employees in that company. It is not exactly selling to a specific customer, but income is still gained.
We consider file sharing to be classified in business to consumer, since usually larger service providers purchase rights to sell music from labels and then sell the data forward to the customer. mCommerce is also possible, since some provides offer solutions to only mobile devices (iPhone, Android etc). If we consider file sharing as a larger concept including software, movies and games for example, the connection seems clearer: usually a single person does not have access or the possibility to sell data in such large scale, so peer-to-peer and consumer to consumer are outruled. Business to business could be possible, as we already mentioned above.
Is the record/movie/x-industry justified in their attempt to shut down file sharing networks? If the question is about illegal file sharing networks, yes. If considering all file sharing networks (for example linux-distribution, open source material), no. The people making the material should get paid, so the illegal-non-profit systems should be shut down, but the problem is how. All networks should not be shutdown, since some people do not want any money from their work, so therefore free sources of material should be always available.
In our opinion illegal downloading will not disappear totally, unless some brand new technology and inventions are introduced. 100% is very hard to get to, so very likely some illegalities will be going on. The rise of systems like Youtube (software scans for copyrighted material before letting it public), Spotify (free for customers at least in some depth), last.fm (same as Spotify) are decreasing the need for illegal systems, but they still do not cover all the needs of users, which leaves a spot for illegal networks.
File sharing networks could get money from advertising. This is usually the easiest choice: place advertisements on your website and hope to get income from them. Swedish music service Spotify also uses advertisements between playing songs in their service: this way the customer has to listen to the music (or pay to get rid of them).
Another way to gain money could be making user accounts and entry fees to the system. This, however, is a problem for some customers: they are not willing to pay this entry fee and the service provider does not get income or customers.
A third possibility could be that if the desired customers are working for a company, that company purchases accounts (or some material) for all the employees in that company. It is not exactly selling to a specific customer, but income is still gained.
We consider file sharing to be classified in business to consumer, since usually larger service providers purchase rights to sell music from labels and then sell the data forward to the customer. mCommerce is also possible, since some provides offer solutions to only mobile devices (iPhone, Android etc). If we consider file sharing as a larger concept including software, movies and games for example, the connection seems clearer: usually a single person does not have access or the possibility to sell data in such large scale, so peer-to-peer and consumer to consumer are outruled. Business to business could be possible, as we already mentioned above.
Is the record/movie/x-industry justified in their attempt to shut down file sharing networks? If the question is about illegal file sharing networks, yes. If considering all file sharing networks (for example linux-distribution, open source material), no. The people making the material should get paid, so the illegal-non-profit systems should be shut down, but the problem is how. All networks should not be shutdown, since some people do not want any money from their work, so therefore free sources of material should be always available.
In our opinion illegal downloading will not disappear totally, unless some brand new technology and inventions are introduced. 100% is very hard to get to, so very likely some illegalities will be going on. The rise of systems like Youtube (software scans for copyrighted material before letting it public), Spotify (free for customers at least in some depth), last.fm (same as Spotify) are decreasing the need for illegal systems, but they still do not cover all the needs of users, which leaves a spot for illegal networks.
Introduction
This blog is created for educational purposes. The creators are three students in the Mikkeli University of Applied Sciences and this material relates to a course called eBusiness.
The students are Bill Griffee, Pavlo Bazilinskyy and Ville Kontinen (whose Google account we are using).
The students are Bill Griffee, Pavlo Bazilinskyy and Ville Kontinen (whose Google account we are using).
Tilaa:
Blogitekstit (Atom)