2009/09/28

Top 10 User Experience Myths

Myth #10: If the Design is a Good One, You Don’t Need to Test It

This myth states basically that if you are experienced, and you know what you’re doing, then you won’t need to do any user experience testing. The parallel myth to this is that Great Designers create finished products in one shot, with less need to mockup, prototype or user test. If there’s one theme I’ve noticed when studying experienced and successful design firms and approaches, it’s that user testing is absolutely key.

IDEO are known to create dozens of prototypes for testing during a product’s development. Apple’s Jonathan Ive has admitted his love of prototypes – and you can attribute part of Apple’s recent success to their willingness to spend the time, money and energy to prototype and test everything, even their stores.

I’ve been enjoying the trend in the software industry towards SCRUM and agile design, where quick turnaround, testing and redesign are key.

One of the reasons why user testing is often delayed, or skipped, is because of a tendency to think that testing needs to ‘formal’, ‘proper’ or extensive. When doing UX design on software applications Comic Life and Skitch, my co-UX designer and I often approached random people at our cafe hangout and asked them if they would take a few minutes to try our latest build. Because our applications are used in education, we also asked teachers and students to use our try our software. You’d be surprised how helpful an independent experience of your design can be, and with minimal expenditure of time and money. My one tip is to make sure you’re being clear that you’re not testing them, just the product.

Myth #9: People Don’t Change

OS X Preference window includes a how-to video on using the trackpad.

This myth assumes that the population’s understanding of a technology stays the same. I remember using an early Macintosh and watching the tutorial on how to use a mouse. Particularly how to double-click, and how to pick up the mouse and move it to the edge of the mouse pad if you run out of room. (I’ve seen computer users who would still benefit from this tutorial.) In its place on a modern Mac is a video demonstrating multi-touch gestures.

There was an early time on the web when everything important needed to be ‘above the fold’; the area seen in a typical browser before any scrolling took place. This is now much less relevant. Here are some more myths that are not necessarily true anymore:



My point is that there is a history of cultural change that you can draw on. “Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is black” works for a while, and then grows old. Soon, people that use what you work on are no longer captivated or mentally constrained by the newness of the technology. (Of course, I’d still love those mouse tutorials back, and so may your customers.)

Myth #8: Design to Avoid Clicks
“Everything should be made as simple as it needs to be, and no simpler.” Albert Einstein.

While we’re talking about reducing clicks, there is a myth, or perhaps it’s closer to an intuition, that the number of steps of interaction should always be reduced. But my experience leads me to believe that sometimes the result of an overly ‘optimized’ design is actually harder to use, and the user would have been much happier just doing a few more steps.

One example I’ve seen is the concept of ’styles’ in word processing and graphic design software. Styles offer the powerful ability to define a visual look once, and apply and update it for many objects. However, I’ve seen users struggle with the concept and resort to changing each element separately. Alternately, they multi-select objects and change attributes in this fashion. At at guess, it seems the time-saving ability of styles costs more mental effort than the physical effort it saves.

Interestingly, the study of ergonomics owes much to pioneering industrial designer, Henry Dreyfuss. If you ever think you’ve got it tough in the new field of User Experience Design, find solace in the fact that Industrial Design was in the same position in the 1930s—and Henry Dreyfuss was at it’s forefront. And if you’ve never heard of Henry Dreyfuss, then you’ll probably enjoy reading about another influential Industrial designer Dieter Rams and comparisons made to modern day Apple products.

Also, there is an interesting story on the work of another pioneer Walter Dorwin Teague when consulting for Kodak. In an effort to sell more Kodak cameras to women, the ‘Vanity Camera’ was released in five distinct colors. The iPod, decades later was to use the same trick (and with a very similar color palette.)

Myth #7: UX Design Stops at the Edges of the Product
Interestingly, the ‘Vanity Camera’ mentioned above came in a satin-lined box colored to match the camera. If you’ve got this far, then you’re probably also the kind of geek who’s seen “unboxing” videos posted for many new shiny pieces of tech, and understand how appealing good packaging can be.

In my world of software, the equivalent of unboxing is often the download and installation of software. Popular Linux distros like Ubuntu seem, in my opinion, to be offering one of the best virtual ‘out of the box’ experiences when finding, installing and updating applications. This Ubuntu screenshot demonstrates the app installer; a built in utility that makes it easy to search for applications by their description, knowing that they have some measure of safety, pick one you like based on it’s popularity (for example), automatically check that your system can run said application and if not, install the necessary pieces, install the application, and keep it up-to-date in future. Nice.




The Linux approach, in my opinion, is the best of any platform. Other platforms don’t offer such a seamless experience; I’m looking at you OS X, and your confusing virtual disk image installation method.

From a services perspective: I’ve read that Disneyland employees make note of your car and where you park it on your arrival—if you come back dazed at the end of the day and can’t find it, they’ll happily locate it for you.

IDEO provides another great story in it’s redesign of the hospital experience. One of the IDEO staff pretended to be a patient, lying on a gurney with a video camera and recording a typical visit in it’s entirely. The result? Patients on their way to, and from treatment spend the majority of time staring upwards; confused, disconnected and disoriented by constant motion between rooms all with a uniform vista of impersonal ceiling tiles.

These are all examples of the value in the ‘outer edges’ of a user experience. Often overlooked, in both product and service design.

Myth #6: If you Have Great Search, You Don’t Need Great Information Architecture
Or, “If you have great information architecture, you don’t need great search.”

After years of battling it out, the best practice seems to be to always offer BOTH a well-fitting structured information space, and also great search. Search is not the sole answer: Dr Williams Jones, Author of Personal Information Management and key member of the Keeping Found Things Found research team discusses the weaknesses of a pure search approach in a (fitting) tech talk to Google.

Conversely, you can’t get away without having search: There’s increasing integration of sophisticated search into areas which traditionally were organized hierarchically or spatially. For example, the OS X System Preferences window is searchable in a reasonably sophisticated way.


Notice the search for ‘wallpaper’ that revealed ‘Desktop & Screen Saver’

Myth #5: Can’t Decide? Make it a Preference
So, from myth number #4 you can tell that the user mental model can differ, and there’s not always a one-size-fits-all. In my experience, designing what preferences your product has, and how they will be presented, is long and challenging task.

I look at it like this:

Every preference which is not really needed is a design choice that I’m offloading to all the users of my product or service.

They’re all having to do the work I should have, and duplicate work at that. I know in the designs I’ve worked on, deciding on just what will have a preference is a massive issue worth paying attention to.

On simplicity:

Trust is increased by caring enough to unburden the user from extraneous decisions. Working on Skitch and Comic Life taught me an unexpected lesson: when a customer/user has total trust and familiarity with a product they cross a threshold of use: it starts being used innovately.

For example, we once received an email from a user who had used the drawing capabilities of our little screencapture and markup tool to design large, real-world signage for a restaurant. Sure, Skitch was designed to output smooth vector lines, but this was not quite the use-case in mind! The lesson was that when a product becomes very familiar to a user, they’ll often reach for it first when trying to solve a problem.

I tend to think of it like using a screwdriver to open a tin of paint. It’s actually not the best tool for the job (because it has a tendency to bend over time), but it’s the first thing that comes to mind for many people to use, and is something they are very comfortable with. Similarly, we once had a nice email from the forensic department of a Police force who wrote to say how handy they found Comic Life to be for laying out (gruesome, I imagine) crime scene photos. The simplicity of the tool meant it was applied in many contexts for which it wasn’t designed.

On choice:

A few months ago my girlfriend went looking on Dell.com for a new laptop. She was so overwhelmed with choices that she gave up. This topic’s been covered widely, but if you’re not familiar with it then enjoy the research and storytelling of Barry Schwartz who discusses how too many options can not only lead to your customers making no choice, but (counter-intuitively) resenting the choices they do make.



The extension of this myth here is that “Pro” users need and want more choices. In my opinion there is some truth to this, but at the same time it’s a slippery slope to preference/choice hell.

Myth #4: Design Always with Implementation in Mind


This one is easy to interpret as ‘dream up anything and have someone else worry about the building of it”, which is not the case. Instead, I increasingly see it as the skill of having a split personality. On one hand, ‘the users experience is everything’ guy, and on the other ‘how can we implement this with the most sensitivity and understanding of the building materials?’

Good reading: 37signals’ Ryan Singer on separating design from implementation.

Myth #3: People Know What They Like
For background on this one, have a read of Predictably Irrational by Dan Ariely and Yes! 50 Scientifically Proven Ways to Be Persuasive by Robert B. Cialdini — you’ll soon see the hard scientific evidence that our ‘tastes’ can be quantitatively swayed by external situations, environs or people. (By the way, the latter book is much more research driven, and much less cheesy than its title implies).

There is also the infamous story of ‘chunky spaghetti sauce’ told by Malcolm Gladwell (Here’s a TED talk where he retells the story) imploring that market research (asking people what they want) won’t always reveal the products they do want. This one is also easy to misinterpret — asking what people want is a great thing—it might just take you some detective work to find out their real needs, and imagine how to fufil and surpass them.

Myth #2: People Read
Short: They don’t. :-)

Long: The thinking usually goes something like “If the user is confused, some text explanation will help.” Or you, or someone in your team will think that a dialogue box, page of instructions, or a warning sticker will help clarify a situation.



OK, I just invented the above equation, but it seems pretty close to the truth. Eye Tracking studies I’ve seen from the Nielsen Norman Group highlight that many web surfers are only reading the links on pages. So the point is to make sure that linked text actually says something, instead of [click here]. And that text is concise. And readable.

It’s not sexy, but improving the text in your site, application, product design, service script etc. can have the biggest payoff for effort. 37signals have written about the relation of copywriting to UX design, but I wish good copywriting got more coverage in User Experience texts.

In my opinion dynamic text (dialogue boxes, popups) seems most readily ignored/confused by users. For example, most users seem not to see Skitch’s popup help tip.


However, this small piece of static and useful text in the Comic Life interface(below) seems to work well.

Myth #1: The Design Has to be Original
Truthfully, I don’t know if this one is a myth, or just a hard lesson for me to learn. I love to solve problems, to come up with the ‘aha!’ moment of inspired UX design. However, if I’ve learnt anything in UX design it’s that the great design solution you seek is probably already out there in the corner of someone else’s product or service, and they’ve done the usability testing for you! Look for ’standards’ or memes in design, assess their UX suitability and quality, and use them.

Source: Keith Lang

Do you own your SaaS website?: Copyright Myths Debunked

Your SaaS website represents an important investment. It may produce income for you - maybe even a lot of income... either now or in the future.

What if someone made you an offer to buy your website - an offer you can't refuse? Do you really own your website and all of its components? Could you transfer clear ownership to the buyer? Or does the deal fall through because, upon close examination, you really don't own it - or key parts of it?

Your Website's Components If you want to analyze the ownership of your SaaS website, you need to think in terms of its component parts. These include:

* web pages - these are the pages that you navigate on your site;

* content - the text, images, audio, and video that you integrate into your web pages;

* background software - software that runs in the background that provides functionality to your web pages, such as the software that generates your online service, shopping cart software, affiliate tracking software, toolbars for maneuvering between pages, search engines, Java applets, and ActiveX controls; and

* opt-in and customer lists. Except for your opt-in and customer lists, copyright plays a significant role in the ownership all of these components - so, it's a good place to start.

In simple terms, copyright ownership is really important because the copyright owner controls the exclusive right to copy, modify, distribute, and display the works of authorship that are embodied in your website.

Perhaps the best way to approach copyright ownership as it relates to your website is to debunk some of the myths that are floating around.

Myth No. 1: To Be a Copyright Owner, You Must Register With The Copyright Office

Not true.

How copyrights are created is really simple, and that's why it's so often misunderstood.

The Copyright Act states that a work is "created" when it is fixed in a tangible medium of expression. This means that a copyrightable work of authorship is created when pen hits paper, or keystrokes are recorded into the RAM of a computer.

Creation of copyrights happens automatically when an original work of authorship is fixed; no registration or other act is required. You might think of this as the "Rule of Automatic Copyright".

What does this mean to you? The author of a copyrightable work is the copyright owner. And since ownership happens automatically, if the work is not registered, there is no paper trail stating who the author is. This fact has significant ramifications if you need permission from the copyright owner.

Myth No. 2: I Paid My Website Developer To Develop My Site, Therefore I Own It

Not true in most cases.

The general rule is that the creator of the original expression in your website is the author and copyright owner.

An exception to the general rule lies with the "work made for hire" rules which come into play when a person hires another to create a copyrightable work of authorship. This is the situation that is most common with website development.

Facts are critical regarding the operation of the "work made for hire" rules. The key determination is the status of the website developer -- was the developer your regular employee, or was the developer a contractor? In most cases, the developer is a contractor.

The "work made for hire" rules are quite different depending on the status of the developer as employee or contractor, as follows:

* if the developer is an employee acting within the scope of employment, the hiring party (you) will be deemed to be the author and copyright owner of the work product; but

* if the developer is a contractor, then the contractor will be deemed to be the author and copyright owner unless there is a written agreement, signed by the contractor, specifying that the work is a "work made for hire".

What does this mean to you? Typically, the developer is a contractor. For this reason, to be the author and copyright owner of your website, you must have a written agreement, signed by the developer that specifies that the work product is a "work made for hire". Failing any of these requirements, the developer will be the author and copyright owner of the work product (i.e. your website).

Myth No. 3: It's OK to Use Materials I Copy Off The Web Because They're In The Public Domain

Not true.

The Internet is a public medium, but materials published on the Internet are not necessarily in the public domain.

Under the Rule of Automatic Copyright, the author of any original work of authorship will be the copyright owner. The author-owner has the exclusive right to control the copying, modification, distribution, and public display of the work. Anyone who exercises any of these exclusive rights without permission (i.e. a license) from the copyright owner, is liable for copyright infringement.

Public domain works are not subject to copyright. These include works for which copyright protection has expired.

What does this mean to you? Copyrights for most works published on the Web are owned by someone. You might be tempted to grab text or graphics on another site for use on your own site, but you'll need permission (i.e. a license) from the copyright owner to use these materials, else you'll be an infringer.

Myth No. 4: It's OK to Use Anything That Doesn't Have a Copyright Notice.

Not true in most cases.

A copyright notice is not required for works created and published since 1978.

What does this mean to you? For post-1978 published works, you must have permission from the copyright owner to use the work.

Myth No. 5: It's OK to Use Anything If I Give the Author Credit or Include The Author's Copyright Notice

Not true.

In the academic world, if you use someone else's ideas, you must give credit, usually in the form of a footnote.

In the commercial world, the issue is not whether you give credit or provide the owner's copyright notice; rather, it's whether you have permission (i.e. a license) to use.

What does this mean to you? If you use someone else's copyrighted work, get permission first. Sometimes permission is difficult to obtain because as pointed out in Myth No. 1, if the work is not registered, there is no paper trail stating the identity of the copyright owner.

Conclusion

Ownership of your SaaS website is relatively complex - you must consider all of the components of your site and determine ownership for each separately.

Copyright is the fundamental intellectual property protection scheme for website components. Understanding the difference between copyright facts and myths is critical to understanding who owns these components.

Copyright © 2009 Chip Cooper

2009/09/27

2 SEO Myths: Revealed

What is SEO? SEO stands for Search Engine Optimisation, which basically means a technique applied to get a high search results ranking on search engines like Google, Yahoo! Etc. Since many users search information using search engines for their queries, getting a high ranking leads to high traffic and thus high profits for businesses.

The complexity of SEO is that many of such techniques and tips have already been used all over the internet, and one can say that using the existing techniques will at most put you on par with the rest and not above the rest, which is what you are trying to achieve since you want a higher than average search result ranking. Worse still, there are SEO firms that use practices that are violating the rules of search engines, leading to the user being banned. The following are some myths of SEO.

One of the myths is to use meta tags to boost your research results. This is proven to be useless because while keywords are still essential, meta keyword tags are ignored by search engines since a long time ago. Another myth is that pay per click advertising methods has some sort of impact on the search rankings of certain search engines. This is a gross misunderstanding as pay per click has absolutely no effect on the ranking of search results.

Another tip that turns out to be merely a scam is the use of link farms. Link farms are sites that hyperlink to every other websites in the 'farm' and were banned on many search engines a long time ago. Yet, many SEO consultants still give this tip out to people who may not be technologically savvy.

To avoid receiving the above mentioned poor advices from novice SEO firms, one should choose a reputable SEO firm with a good knowledge on the acceptable and unacceptable practices. Do not risk your company integrity with a lousy SEO company.

As a social media specialist, Roderick Low strive to define and deliver user and community needs, business goals, and web technology to craft and deliver long term successful social media programs for companies.

His informative blog teaches marketers and small business owners how to take advantage of the new media to connect, engage and interact with their target audience. Visit Expeditus Media for more information and free resources regarding social media marketing.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Roderick_Low

2009/09/25

Blogging Myths Shattered

by Harry Constantine
A huge trail of controversies and myths still continue to exist within the blogosphere. This article was written to dispel some of the blog myths outlined below.

The simplest of all people can start a blog.
I don’t think so! Though you don’t have to be super technical when it comes to blogging, you still should know how to use the computer, need an Internet connection and blog hosts (free or paid), some experience using the Internet and most importantly a passion for writing and communicating your thoughts.

Anyone can set up a blog. It all depends on your blog hosts. Some blogs hosts have simpler user interface and in minutes your blog will be up in minutes. But there are others that get far more technical than the average users may be ready for.

Blogging is grade-school. When in comes to blogging, it’s the actual writing that’s the toughest nut to crack. The more engaged and knowledgeable you are with your subject, the easier and more interesting your writing will be.

Most blogs are political. Nope, only some. Many blogs focus on political topics but most blogs are just bloggers discussing their lives, loves and travels. A list of the 50 most visited blogs at BlogHub (http://www.bloghub.com/top50blogs.htm) shows very few political blogs.

Blogs are in competition with the main-stream media. This is true in a few cases (not as many cases as bloggers would have you think). Just recently, there have been some very popular and influential social and politically-oriented blogs that have caused main-stream media outlets to back-track and change their coverage of important events.

Bloggers are just having fun criticizing everyone and everything and have no new information to add. True in some cases. Today, blogging is much more than the personal activity it used to be. Corporations, media outlets, public personalities, politicians and experts in almost every field have now joined the ranks of blog producers. Considering all this expertise, one would have to say that bloggers have a lot of new information to add to any debate.

Blogs don’t always tell the truth. That’s a bit of an overstatement. You may read bad information and even intentional untruths in blogs but, for the most part, bloggers who state facts are stating what they honestly believe to be fact. It is always up to the reader to verify that any information they receive is accurate information.

2009/09/24

Web Design Myths

Website design is the first step towards registering an online presence. There are many myths surrounding it. Some of the common myths surrounding the web design are:

1.Use of maximum colours will help in making the site beautiful.
Pleasing website design is important to attract a web visitor. But many times web designer believes that using maximum colours will add value to the website. Whereas in reality myriad of colours may spoil the outlook of website. Also there are chances of these web visitors getting irritated with the use of too many colours. So the website designer should always use the colours that go well the theme and purpose of the website. Maximum 2 or 3 colours should be used to during web design and always those colours should not hinder the visibility of the website.

2.Adding too much graphics is helpful.
It is true that graphics will make communication easier, but over use of graphics may make it difficult. Many times website developer believes that using too many graphics will add believability to their website. Graphics can be utilised to lend the believability to webpage but more of it may prove intrusive. The page carrying heavy graphics takes lot of time to load. Web design which is spun around simple and easily loading graphics is always loved by the visitor.

3.Flash is necessary to add attractiveness to the website.
Flash is widely used to create advertisement banners and animations during website design. Flash banners can serve their desired purpose only if they are used efficiently and sparingly. As these flash banners may add believability to particular web design, but they have many disadvantages as well. Flash banners can be easily downloaded only if you are connected to high speed connection. When web designer uses too many frames to describe a simple animation then it doesn’t enhances the purpose of website rather it hinders it. A bad decision from website developer is enough to convert the site into trash like using too many frames or duplicating the background in every frame etc. Web designer should remember that not all people have flash pluggins installed in their computer so people may lose their patience if they are asked to download pluggins first to view your site. So web developer should provide the option of non flash version along with the flash version, which allows the web visitor to browse through the information.

4.Website will look same in all browsers.
Even after designing some successful websites many web developers love to believe that the website will look same everywhere as it appears on their pc. Whereas in reality different website browser perceive HTML pages in different manner. So website developer should always make it sure that the website is optimised with web standards adopted by different browsers. Also the web resolution varies from pc to pc. Some may prefer to view the website in 1024 X 768 resolutions whereas some may view the website in 800 X 600 resolutions. Most of the web visitors love to view the website in 800 X 600 resolutions, so the web designer should ensure that the website looks good even in that resolution. The width of the tables should be set in percentage rather than in pixels. If the website designer decides to use pixels in any of the website design then it becomes difficult for the viewer to scroll left and right to view the website properly. So to avoid such circumstances during web development the website developer should use percentage while giving assigning the properties to the table because it will help the viewer to view the website properly in any resolution.
The website designer should always remember that website is designed for the visitor.

2009/09/23

Top 5 Myths About Phishing

There are several myths and misconceptions that abound when it comes to Phishing. These are the top 5 most common ones:

Myth #1

Anti-spam software can detect phishing email

While anti-phishing and spam filters can decrease the number of phising emails that get into your inbox, they are not 100% effective. Whenever anti-phishing technology keeps improving, the phishers are always devising ways to get around them. It truly is a cat-and-mouse game.

Secondly, because spam email and phishing email are different (phishing email spoofs a legitimate business), a different set of rules and criteria are required to detect the phisher.

Myth #2

As long as I don’t give my password and user-name, I won’t be Phished

Phishers are getting increasingly sophisticated. They now employ several variations on the original spoofed email that once requested your password and user-name.

They will, for example, instruct you to click on a link so as to update your information at a website. If you do click on the link, malware such as a keylogger or syware wil be downloaded to your computer.

The link may take you to a spoofed website, but it may also link you to the actual website of the legitimate business. Once there, a pop-up or overlay is activated, directing you to log in. You will probably be unaware that your access information has been compromised.

Myth #3

Most Phishing attacks originate from outside

With all the time and effort that has been poured into the Nigerian 419 spam scams, it is commonly assumed that phishing originates from emerging countries outside America. However, a study by Symantec shows that the majority of phishing attacks actually originate within the U.S.

Myth #4

Phishing is a problem that we can solve by educating users

This is not true. There are various ways the phisher can camouflage an IP address. In fact, a large proportion of phishing attacks are enabled through common misconfigurations in a web application. Phishers can manipulate internet technology to redirect you from a real and legitimate website, in such a way that although the original web address points to this real web site you are taken to the phisher’s web site.

As the incidents of phishing and identity theft have increased, people have become more aware, and better able to identify phishing emails. The percentage of phishing victims has gone down. However, even though users are getting better educated and informed about phishing, there is always still a chance that someone will mistake a well-crafted phishing email for the real thing.

Myth #5

I will know one when I see one

This is another misconception regarding phishing, and a potentially dangerous one at that, especially in our digital world. With all the time, talent and technology available to them, these cyber crooks have more than ample resources to create and execute increasingly realistic email spam, web site spoofs or other electronic means by which to scam you out of your confidential financial data and wreak havoc on your financial affairs.

Vigilance is, in fact, your number one protection against the phisher’s hook. Underestimating the phishers may cost you.

Source

The Seven Viral Myths


Myth: An anti-virus scan will resolve any virus problem that you have.

Uh, no. The thing that you must keep in mind is that this is one of the reasons why an anti-virus industry exists: There is no single piece of software that can clean up every single virus that you encounter. (Similarly, there's also no single piece of software that can shield you from every single virus out there.)

For that matter, the business of anti-virus software is reactive by nature: Anti-virus solutions are created in response to existing infections, not in anticipation of them. This means that anti-virus software almost always lags behind the most cutting-edge viral threats. It takes a while for people to identify any new strains, longer to come up with a safeguard against them, and even longer to clean them up completely. And by the time all that is said and done, the new generation of malicious code may already be spreading.

Anti-virus software will do a fair job of cleaning any older threats that your computer may have caught. Just don't automatically assume that it'll also handle any newer viruses that manage to sink their tendrils into your technical setup.


Myth: Your USB drive / external storage unit can't be infected by a virus.

This is one of the most appalling assumptions I've come across. Of course your external storage unit can be affected by a virus; in fact, USB drives, flash drives, portable hard drives, and data storage devices (like that iPod of yours) have a reputation as virus carriers.

I think that this goes back to the fact that, in pre-Internet days, the humble floppy disk (and its 3 1/2-inch successor) was the choice medium of transmission for most viruses. Now that diskettes are on the brink of death, however, and more viruses are being transmitted via computer networks (Internet and otherwise), the idea of virus transmission via storage unit has fallen by the wayside. In fact, modern Windows systems inadvertently contribute to this issue by automatically accessing these devices the moment you plug them in.


Myth: Macs (and other non-Windows-based units) can't be infected by a virus.

The anti-Windows lobby has long used this as a self-congratulatory point, but it's inaccurate for the most part. While the vast majority of viruses indeed target Windows-based systems, that doesn't necessarily mean that absolutely no viruses are written for any other setup.

Macs have their own viral problems too, as well as any other operating system that makes it to the general public. They just happen to run into far less attacks and incidences of infection — certainly a good selling point, but a far cry from implying that you're perfectly safe.

That said, I find it an interesting method to "cleanse" data storage units that are infected with Windows viruses by plugging them into a Mac and cleaning them out there. Hopefully there aren't any "modal" viruses that can hit both types of computers at once.


Myth: The purpose of a virus involves "breaking" your computer for no reason at all.

While some viruses exist to define the skills of their creators (mostly by fooling around with security settings), it would be foolish to assume this for the entire roster. In fact, it's tantamount to saying that a virus is more an annoyance than a major security threat.

Quite a few viruses nowadays were built with specific purposes in mind. The most common one involves stealing secure data by either screening the files that you open, logging the keys that you press, and tracking the applications or sites that you use. Other viruses steal processing power in some way, often to try and bring down a specific online site or service by overloading it with feedback. I imagine that there are a lot more of these purposes built into the modern viral generation, almost certainly enough to question the assumption that these things don't do anything but try to "break" your computer.

The bottom line, I think, is that any incident where a virus makes it into your computer should be seen as a good-sized security threat. Either your system should have been able to ward this off through its built-in settings, or it should have been caught by any counterintrusion measures that you have installed. Anything that bypasses these should be taken as a sign that something's wrong with your setup.


Myth: Your average virus creator is a young, teenage kid who likes fooling around with malicious code.

The media seems to like this stereotype, but it's not a good one to propagate. There are almost certainly some young virus writers out there, but to say that they're all pimply-faced kids working from their parents' basements is just laughable.

Virus writing shouldn't be underestimated. The whole business of writing, modifying and upgrading code is a pursuit that demands time and attention, especially when you consider that you're looking for ways to bypass existing security setups. In a sense, it's like an artistic hobby: You won't be much good at it unless you put in some effort and craftsmanship.

In fact, the prospect is even more removed when you consider that techncially-savvy adults may have more extensive backgrounds, better expertise, and greater resources to fool around with malicious code. There are definitely some younger programmers here (a lot of them, mind you), but one shouldn't make the mistake of assuming that they're all young and immature.


Myth: Your average virus creator is an expert computer programmer who knows how to break into secure systems.

On the other hand, one also shouldn't automatically assume that they're all expert computer programmers. Most bleary-eyed corporations fall into this trap: They think that a person is a technical expert just because he or she is capable of creating a virus (or has created one in the past).

Some people simply don't create viruses for the infamy and the prestige; they do so because they just want to toy around with a bit of code. Heck, there are more than a few amateurs out there who simply take existing viruses (or parts of viruses) and end up making variants that pose a much lesser threat than their original counterparts.

One interesting thing to note is that a lot of viruses don't actually work as intended. Either some configurations are too foreign for them to handle, or some anti-virus shields are too difficult to crack, or some sections of code don't function correctly at all. It's not as though every single virus creator strictly follows a set of guidelines for good programming conventions, after all; this is still a rather independent and informal setting.

A good virus that actually works as maliciously as intended is rare. You'll probably know them when you hear about them; These are the ones that usually make the news.


Myth: The anti-virus software companies are actually the ones creating the viruses, because it gets people to continue buying their product. The more viruses are out there, the more they're guaranteed some form of return business.

And of course, this article wouldn't be complete without the inevitable conspiracy theory. While I won't discount the possibility that a computer virus may end up finding its origins in an anti-virus collective, it would be absurd to say that this happens on a regular basis.

One good way to look at it involves asking yourself how many computer viruses you've ever encountered in your lifetime as a computer user. This is most likely a relatively small number, perhaps ten or so. Twenty would probably be your upper bound here.

In contrast, Wikipedia's list of computer viruses is so long that it has to be split into four or five sections. And even considering that I wouldn't necessarily trust Wikipedia on this matter, you can look up your favorite anti-virus provider's list of security threats and see just how long the list is. The truth is that, historically, only a small percentage of these viruses have infected a large portion of the population... which is really what you'd like a virus to do if you're an anti-virus company looking to drum up some business for yourself.


Despite everything that I've written here, I recognize that I still have a lot to learn about viruses and other security threats in general. I'm not too knowledgeable on how to recognize them, and I'm even less knowledgeable on how to remove them. (Like I said, I'm not a technical resource at all.)

Regardless of that, however, I think that we would benefit from a less stereotypical and more practical view of these things. It would certainly help us the next time we find that we've been infected in some way... although it's already too late for me to get that one hour of my life back.

Cal Net Technology Group Busts Top 3 Myths About IT Support In Recession 2.0

LOS ANGELES, CA, Mar 04 (MARKET WIRE) --
Cal Net Technology Group (www.CalNetTech.com), a Southern
California-based computer support and I.T. consulting firm that offers
affordable and dependable services to businesses throughout Southern
California, wants business owners, CFOs, office managers, and controllers
to understand the advantages of engaging external computer support and
I.T. consulting during the recession.

Zack Schuler, President & CEO of Cal Net Technology Group and whose
business survived during the dot-com crash, debunks what he views as the
Top 3 Myths about I.T. during economic downturns:

Myth 1: Playing the "freeze" game is wise for both CapEx and OpEx.

Schuler says: "If investments in I.T. systems are frozen, this doesn't
mean everything should remain stagnant. I recommend investing in 'people
infrastructure' which may mean replacing or reducing headcount. I.T.
support firms play a huge role in assessing real I.T. needs during
downturns, and can provide solutions for a fraction of the cost."

Myth 2: Internal I.T. staff should be a "jack of all trades."

Schuler says: "Untrue! This approach to I.T. can often lead to disastrous
consequences. When budgets are tight companies often opt to hire staff
that can fix little bits of everything, but fail to understand deep,
specific needs. Consultants can often be hired for a fraction of the cost
with expertise in your area of need."

Myth 3: We don't need I.T to be competitive.

Schuler says: "If there is any time to beat your competition, it is RIGHT
NOW. Far too often, companies view I.T. as 'overhead' as opposed to
'competitive advantage.' Most companies have the hardware and software in
place to compete, but lack the strategic component on how to leverage what
they've got. Engaging experts to craft I.T. strategies should be the
focus."

About Cal Net Technology Group

Founded in 1995, Cal Net Technology Group provides Southern California's
businesses with technology solutions expertise ranging from outsourced
I.T. services to ongoing support and consultation. Their signature
service, TECManage, is designed to provide a cost-effective option for
companies who need the services of full-time I.T personnel.


Contact:
Rebekah Iliff
SGC
Phone 310-770-8338
Email: Email Contact

Copyright 2009, Market Wire, All rights reserved.

Source link:http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS161944+04-Mar-2009+MW20090304