Thanks everyone for a great trip to the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition. It was great to meet Executive Director Brian Wiedenmeier and Membership Assistant Kelsey Roeder (you can read their bios on the sfbike.org.
For Thursday, here are your 4 tasks:
- Your first talk in front of the class is coming up next week. It’s time to think about some of the things we said we value in public speakers: confidence, eye contact, body language, volume & variety of voice — all the things that count as delivery. To continue our conversation about this, watch this video of author and speaker Malcolm Gladwell (I also invite you to look at some of his pubic lectures or TED talks and read some of his published writing). So, Task 1: watch.
- B.J. Fogg is an instructor at Stanford and a persuasion guru. As a graduate student, he researched the idea of credibility in computing design. Read this short research article co-written by Tseng and Fogg, “Credibility and Computing Technology” (library login required). Alert! This is an article written for an audience of specialists, so parts of it may be hard to follow. Our focus will be on the concept of credibility (not on their methodology or on computing technology). Come to class ready to talk about their ideas about credibility. Task 2: read.
- Spend 15-30 minutes on the website of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition. Look around in the tabs at the top of the page: News, Events, Resources, Our Work, About… As you poke around, think about Horner’s ideas of credibility as well as Tseng and Fogg’s ideas. Task 3: surf.
- Write a comment (use the comment function, below), making a connection between at least 2 of the 3 tasks (above). For example, how does Gladwell’s position relate to Tseng and Fogg? Or, how do Tseng and Fogg’s ideas apply to the SFBC site? Your comment can be informal, can include questions, criticisms, examples, etc., and should be about 50 words or so. Task 4: write.
In the research article co-written by Tseng and Fogg, “Credibility and Computing Technology,” it addresses surface credibility. I am able to connect SFBC to the article because yes, the site is very well designed, I didn’t question their credibility because of it. But the more I explored SFBC website, the more I found it credible.
One way Tseng and Fogg’s ideas applied to the SFBC site was that the theory that the appearance of the site can affect the credibility. Because the SFBC site is easy to navigate and user friendly. If the site looks like the internet was just made people will see it as not creditable. On their site they have a lot of information which correlates with being intelligent about the subject. Another thing that could make people think the SFBC site is credible is that it has a .org at the end.
Gladwell describes public speaking as a performance, rather than an act of extroversion, clarifying that public speakers are often introverts. Public speakers and the Bicycle Coalition are often prejudged and misinterpreted. When I first heard about the Bicycle Coalition I immediately assumed the place was boring, unnecessary, and only in San Francisco to fulfill government regulations. However, when I visited the website and office I began to realize that the coalition was useful in a city that has a variety of issues relating to bikes and their riders. Likewise, whenever I watch a decent public speaker I usually assume that the presenter is a charismatic and extroverted person. Public speakers and certain obscure organizations occasionally need to prove their worth to break the vanity and selfish stereotypes that can be associated.
The San Francisco Bicycle Coalition appears to contain many commands such as “donate” “volunteer” “shop for gear,” etc. In order for the organization to keep running, they would presumably need an abundance of member support. In order to do this, they would need to appear credible to their members and potential members. Presumed credibility can go either way in this situation; people may either see non-profit organizations such as these to be scams that are merely trying to make money for themselves and would thus find no credibility in their cause. On the other hand, people may see the goodwill of the non-profit organization and find credibility in their cause. Since over 10,000 people are a part of SFBC, their large following may create reputed credibility. Because SFBC has been able to achieve many different/obvious works around the city, however, such as pushing for more protected bike lanes, these acts may create experienced credibility.
From the video “Sarfraz Manzoor meets Malcolm Gladwell,” I find it interesting how “speaking is not an act of extroversion. People think it is, but it has nothing to do with extroversion. It’s a performance, and many performers are hugely introverted.” I wonder what is speaking an act of, in regards to personality. How do introverted people present their speeches effectively and how do we overcome nervousness?
Something that stuck with me in the article “Credibility and Computing Technology” was the semantic issue of credibility and trust; these two words seem to be interchangeable. Nonetheless, credibility is believability and trust is dependability. Just because something is believable, that does not mean it is true. This ties with Gladwell saying how speaking is a performance, like an act, truthful or not, that captivates the audience’s attention.
Credibility serves as one of the most important parts of public speaking. Manzoor and Foggs both agree that credibility is also seen as a quality that is mostly perceived. Manzoor proves this theory when he discusses the new persona that he becomes while public speaking. While Foggs explains this through the comfort people around the world feel when they put all of their trust in their computers.
Watching the video on public speaking and reading about the credibility article has opened my eyes to the extreme amount of credibility that the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition has. The efforts that Mayor Ed Lee has made to make the streets of San Francisco a welcoming place for everyone, including bike riders displays and example of presumed credibility that we can feel when we hear a mayor of the city talk about a topic. There is also another sample of their credibility where the women bike september club exhibit an example of surface credibility as they create a welcoming group for the minorities of women, trans and femme-identifying people. The San Francisco Bike Coalition gives clear examples of credibility that gives the biking community a believable and trustworthy platform to
In Tseng and Fogg’s short article, they debrief on consumerism especially in the more technological aspect and how with the services and easy accessed information we can receive from computers, they are more credible and more reliable sources than actual humans. I think the main points they make really apply to the San Francisco Bike Coalition’s website because there is a lot of information laid out in little tabs and its being constantly updated with a stream of mini articles that continuously prove the teams credibility even with the information given inside the tabs, “Our Work” and “About”.
The Bicycle Coalition has done a lot to ensure they fit the mindset of a credible organization in line with Foggs main premise of believability. As a largely community run organization, reputed credibility of the coalition can be easily confirmed by asking members of the population, rather than take what the coalition has to say one can ask a citizen member for their opinion of the work the group does. How can one tell the credibility of the SFBC? Ask a member.
I think that Tseng and Fogg’s ideas do not really relate to the SFBC website. They are saying that computers are not necessarily credible when they are producing information such as when a user uses a calculator or when computer is used as a tutor. But when one is scrolling through or exploring the SFBC website the computer is not doing anything it is just the source which one uses to access the website. If this is the case then by scrolling through the website the computer still retains its credibility.
Something that caught my attention is that as soon as you enter the SFBC site you are reassured with many different elements that strengthen the credibility of the Bike Coalition. For example; Visual aids showing happy families with bikes, photos of events organized by them. Articles showing not just information from them but also third parties backing them up (Reputed credibility). Lastly the layout of the webpage also gives a sense of credibility by being simple but informative (surface credibility).
I think it is interesting for an object like a computer can have credibility. Computers, phones and other electronics can now be hacked leaving them vunerable to people who might change or steal information. But like when you log onto the SFBC site your are reassured that credible people made the site and the credibility still lies with whoever is on the other end of the computer.
According to Tseng and Fogg’s four types of credibility, it is easy to understand why the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition has built the reputation it has today, and remains to prevalent in the bicycle culture in the city. Presumed credibility was me knowing that the SFBC was a non-profit whose mission was attuned to the bicycle experience and culture itself. In regards to surface credibility, my first reaction walking into their space, is realizing that they know there “stuff” – they had maps on the walls, bicycle (parts) around, various handouts outlines regulation and safety.