Preface

Bio: Hello, that's me, Uwe Ramm. I was born in 1946, and live in the beautiful town Bremen in Germany. The last time I worked as an official in an American Company in Frankfurt/Main. My hobbies are Computer, animals and friendships. I am the Webmaster of this homepage (online since 1998) and the owner of this award program.

Award Mission Statement: Uwes Award Program wishes to reward webmasters who have invested their time into building a website that offers useful content and an excellent design. Uwes Award is an appreciation for your homepage and has to be deserved.

Friends Remembering Uwe

The day after Uwe's death friends were notified by Vicky and Petra and a condolences book was online.  One remembrance by Bix is below.  He wrote as all who knew Uwe thought of this wonderful man and friend.

The book started with, the Friends of Uwe given the option of something to write about him, a few thoughts on leave or just a candle to ignite on. If you have a Candle and/or wants to write his thoughts, please send an e-mail, they will as soon as possible on this page.

Than me today (23 February 2006) the sad news reached, it was like a slap in the face, the sad lines to read. I am crying for a dear friend, a loyal "Awardie," you because I am grateful for so much! You always back and were reinforced for me. Always knew you an answer and if not, then you are understood to listen.

The large gap you leave me pain, because if I think that I never again with "Grandpa Uwe" write, so I am in the soul hurt. A candle in the lantern Melaniebäumchen under fire for you. Light that will show you how much I miss you and how much it hurts because you're no longer there.

I wish your family strength and love thinking of you. Because as long as we think of you as long as you will be forgotten. I will never forget you and I am grateful for the happiness, you know it.

I will never forget you! Bix

 

eusable Learning (RL) from a practical standpoint, expedites updating and a host of other otherwise time consuming efforts when maintaining a web presence.

Those who are interested in reuse and re purposing of learning materials see the advantages of learning objects as part of the change process in website evaluations and actual teaching models of the AP owner. Moving away from teaching as being about content toward learning as a process of both ease and support.

A Case Study of Reusable Learning (RL) Applied By Sheltiestar used with permission

Moving away from teaching as being about content toward seeing learning as a process to facilitate and support. Is a quote from my husbands article on RL. He and I talked at length about this concept and because my Heatherway Shelties was the recipient of an excellent review by O.N.Z.C.D.A I thought to write my opinions.

But first a stark contrast. I did apply some while back for an award, seeking a objective review, only to find that I had one broken internal link and the review stopped. I was informed that I should have to wait 120 days before a new submission. To be very frank, that...well it made me grit my teeth, with the thought that no matter how carefully I proceeded over the 120 day waiting period what would be the real benefit for a new submission? Needless to say I did not return!

Then reluctantly I volunteered my website as a "test" for O.N.Z.C.D.A's Site of the Decade. What I received was in stark contrast to the above. Not only was the review totally objective, following the stated criteria to the letter, but the comments were an eye opener. Those comments were and the critique was Reusable Learning.

No one said, this is what I would do or this is how you should proceed. I will not detail everything which was involved in my revisions, except two.

One being certificates which were not "useable" in their current form. So I reused the graphics. Simply put, the originals served as a thumbnail with a link for a full page view of the graphic.

Secondly, the website was bland and one of the comments was not favorable about my tabbed navigation system. Truly not wishing to spend a great deal of time but wishing to employ "reusable learning" my CSS proved to be the perfect vehicle for change. A background was added to the CSS, my header was changed and some tinkering with the "hover" attribute of my CSS. Still trying to find a reasonable answer to "visited" for my "unordered list."

Sorry for being "long winded" so let me end on a note of why I elected to be listed with "a precious few award rating groups."

These groups were investigated thoroughly. What I found was a unique character of "web presence" especially among the upper rated award programs. They were not merely clones, which suggested to me that these rating groups honored and encouraged individuality, while applying their criteria's.

I know very well that there are other award rating groups, than those where our Heatherway Shelties holds membership and a rating. But for my purposes, not wishing to jump through hoops to satisfy a totally different set of requirements by a larger group which might prove to be dissimilar to my three memberships, I selected three which are similar. Hence any changes I made will be truly reusable learning.

I would never, ever suggest to anyone that they should not apply elsewhere, nor dissuade if asked application with any specific award rating group. That practice seems to be common and to me is completely unethical, undermines the award community and only furthers the aspirations of individuals hell bent on the destruction of any particular award rating group.

he standard presentation of AP owners, not withstanding the excellent criteria rubric of WA, is to list DQ items at the first of a criterion. Generally a AP owner states that they will not review a website which contains one or more or all the listed DQ items.

The question is whether listing DQ items is really necessary, required, good practice or a fall back to the infancy of award programs in the early 1990's?

First: When a list of DQ items might possibly exceed the list of "good practices" or the elements of the owners criteria, the negativity stands out like a sore thumb.

Secondly: While some revisions are necessary, which is a good reason to think about a skill level rubric, either a simple yes or no scoring method can be constructed as purely objective. A revision of existing criteria is merely a "good practice" and as such a specific DQ item would fall within the major elements of the criteria, like coding, content and so forth. Not listed in a group as they were before your revision.

That in itself simplifies the review process and enables a person off the street to be involved rather than simply taking a reviewer from a small pool of active AP's.

Thirdly, an example: Take three DQ items and four criteria items, one concerning content; another HTML skill level; another copyright issues and lastly privacy considerations.

There are seven elements in the example. The three DQ items answered with a no (or no points) the four criteria items with a yes (or one point each)

Say the applicant earns four points which correspond with your highest level. Then three points for silver, two points for bronze and one point for merit.

The example above accentuates the positive. Yes you complete a review. Yes the applicant has feed back from you as a reputable AP owner who touts his or her independent skills as a reviewer. You win because of your commitment to make the internet a better place for everyone.

Finally consider the requirements of the various AP rating groups. If a group specifically states that you must keep DQ items separate from your actual criteria and another which does not make that statement.

Choose to be rated by the group which you consider follows "good practice." Leaving your individuality intact and free to express your wants and desires for your AP, not those of any particular group. Except for the one which follows in your mind, "good practices."

ome of the mystery surrounding rubrics and AP criteria's involve answers for a few questions. Like is a rubric just like a self-test; Is a rubric just another way to present a AP criteria; What will the AP owner gain by going through the effort of altering their criteria (non linear) to a rubric (linear) presentation?

First, rubrics are performance-based assessments that evaluate performance. So, that relates to what we go through when we look at a website as a result of applying skills that are presenting in our AP criteria's.

So, rubrics are used for a given task, it's not about the applicants or AP criteria's as a whole, but about a specific task. In these tasks-in the end of these tasks-you have a final product that you are looking at, and before that, you have the expectations for that product outlined very clearly.

For rubrics you use specific criteria as a basis for evaluating performance.

Most AP owners do not have formerly written rubrics, but I am certain they all have their rubrics in their heads, then partly or near completion wrote as a non linear criteria. I mean when we sit down to evaluate any kind of assignment, we have an expectation built inside us. It's true, also, that sometimes we have expectations. Those expectations kind of slightly move from looking at them in a comparative way. But at least, a minimum of items that we want our applicants to perform, we have those in our minds, even if they're not written down.

I think there is a benefit of not only having your criteria and standards in your head but also of having them formally written down. You will probably only then see differences between what is in your head and what is written down. The aspect of writing them down-and this is why I think the rubric makes a difference-when you write them down, sometimes you will confront yourself, "Well, this is not really it," you know, when you put it on paper.

So, it is a great benefit to actually reflect on the process of grading or assigning a value to your reviews.

 

uring the web site review, find a disqualifying item stated in a criteria and terminate the review.  Inform the applicant of the DQ and specify a waiting period before reapplication.

We could continue the review after satisfactory elimination of the DQ and upon completion send the reviewers and scoring notes which are the basis for applying the stated criteria and level of performance along with either a web site award or rating, which ever applies.

In our critiques simply detail non conformity with a stated criteria or offer help, guidance, or layman's language informationals pertaining to a specific item addressed in the critique.

Recommendations: Consistency and objectivity are touchstones which tests ethical standards and usability results of a web site evaluation rubric. Hix and Hartson classify usability into initial performance, long-term performance, learn ability, retain ability, advanced feature usage, first impression, and long-term user satisfaction. Hix and Hartson are unique in that they take one step farther to differentiate performance and satisfaction into initial and long-term measures .²

Responding to an applicant with a complete evaluation requires continuance of the web these reviews even after a disqualifying (DQ) item is found. Results are parallel to the rubric, along with notations and remarks. Being careful to separate objective from subjective components.

 

ou have possibly read about "proofing your AP criteria's" in one form or another in the past. Now that our Talking Hands Award has finished its second year, "proofing" I thought to mention the topic again.

So what does the above really mean? Quite simply it involves taking someone at random off the street who does not have a AP. Knows little if anything about AP's and could in all probability care nothing either. Then with some persuasive discussion, enlisting them to be a reviewer for a short period of time. Usually not more than three months. Introducing them to your AP criteria, but no actual formal training. Then having their scoring of an applicant or nominated website (in our case) compared to at least one seasoned and trained reviewer. Finally fine tune if necessary.

No they would never be left on their own. But in our case with six seasoned reviewers, that would give some relief and gain an involvement which otherwise would have been nil. In the process perhaps, just perhaps kindle in interest in the joyful part time endeavor of Award Giving.

The value of the above should be quite obvious to anyone, so I will not elaborate but one point. You think perhaps that you have reached perfection. Well put yourself to the test, that is if you really want a honest answer.

nline users either rarely comment, are merely being content to read and or observe, or comment upon occasion until a critical critiques which accentuates a "general conception" among those wishing to embrace accessibility, HTML excellence, writing skills or creating a web site which is truly beautiful with the feeling that as a group, they are among elitist snobs.

To say that objective criticisms are devoid of negative notations implies that a group is unanimous in having found the perfect website. That will never happen.