The Web 2.0 can be considered a continually evolving artefact and social entity that is shaped by its individual users. Social networking applications are built upon the foundation of participation, and users of these platforms have the chance to share and create their own information, and consume the information created by others (Yoram, 2004). Moreover, as society progresses, it is apparent that we are increasingly communicating and accessing information through a variety of digital environments (Koltay, 2011). Taking this into account, it is no surprise that educational settings, social domains, and the workplace are requiring people to have at least some competency in digital literacy (Yoram, 2004). But digital literacy is not just about knowing how to use technology, it is about navigating and communicating through different digital environments, and we must ensure our application is useable to people with different levels of digital literacy.
As our application is tailored for the bereaved, it is important we consider the contrasting generations of our users, who are likely to fall into three main categories (Oblinger, 2003):
Baby Boomers: People born between 1946 and 1964, following the end of the Second World War, may not necessarily be technologically competent, but they are generally well established within their careers, holding positions of power and authority, and tending to be work-centric, goal-orientated and competitive.
Generation Xers: People born between 1965 and 1981, are usually technologically adept, individualistic and tend to put great value on the balance between work and life. This generation has an increased understanding of technology, as they have grown up during the age of computers and the advancement of the World Wide Web.
Millennials: Also referred to as Generation Y, people who were born in or after 1982 tend to gravitate towards group activities and identify with parental values. Millennials are much absorbed with new technologies, and their strengths include multitasking, goal orientation, positive attitude and collaborative style.
Whilst accepting that our users will probably be from all three generational categories, we will also be taking into account their digital competency, and this can be evaluated from the perception of Digital Natives and Digital Immigrants (Prensky, 2001).
Digital Natives: The generation of people born during or after the rise of digital technologies. Digital natives tend to see the world horizontally, in equilateral terms, rather than dividing the world into hierarchies. They see everyone on an existing and equal level, and embrace the benefits of sharing ideas with one another and, in doing so, will frequently cross boundaries. They are driven by values, and it is for this reason that many digital natives are distrustful of traditional culture and social institutions, including marriage, religion, and government. By choosing to opt out of these institutions, digital natives have declared themselves micro-segments or free agents (Guo, Dobson & Petrina, 2008).
Digital Immigrants: The generation of people born before the advent of digital technology, who have different worldviews that are not particularly focused around technology. Where digital natives imagine a world with little institutional structure, and open access to people of diverse backgrounds, the culture of digital immigrants is a meritocracy. Digital immigrants are a typically more aggressive, competitive and results obsessed generation, and they are seen as more cut throat by their younger associates.
| Digital Immigrants | Digital Natives |
| Adopters of Web Technologies | Born During or After the Digital Age |
| Prefer to Talk in Person | Frequently Attached to Technology Daily |
| Logical Learners | Intuitive Learners |
| Focus on one Task at a Time | Multitaskers |
| Prefer Interaction with one or few people rather than many | Extremely Social |
| Get Information from Traditional News Sites | Multimedia Orientated |
When it comes to creating an application that suits the needs of both these demographics, it may be a good idea to focus less on the technological aspects and more on the two-contrasting world views the groups represent.
Written by Ashton Kingdon
Guo, R, Dobson, S & Petrina, S. 2008. Digital Natives: Digital Immigrants: An Analysis of Age and ICT Competency in Teacher Education. Journal of Educational Computing Research. [Online]. 38(3), 235-254. [9 April 2018]. Available from: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.2190/EC.38.3.a
Koltay, T. 2011. The Media and the Literacies: Media Literacy, Information Literacy, Digital Literacy. Media, Culture and Society. [Online]. 33(2), 211-221. [9 April 2018]. Available from: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0163443710393382
Oblinger, D. 2003. Boomers, Gen-Xers, Millennials. Educase Review . [Online]. 500(4), 37-47. [9 April 2018]. Available from: https://www.naspa.org/images/uploads/main/OblingerD_2003)_Boomers_gen-Xers_and_millennials_Understanding_the_new_students.pdf
Prensky , M. 2001. Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 1 . On the Horizon. [Online]. 9(5), 1-6. [9 April 2018]. Available from: https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/10748120110424816
Yoram, E.A. 2004. Digital Literacy: A Conceptual Framework for Survival Skills in the Digital Era. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia. [Online]. 13(1), 93-106. [9 April 2018]. Available from: https://search.proquest.com/docview/205852670?pq-origsite=gscholar.
