The essentials and characteristics of effective communication are mostly known to everyone. However, in order to tackle the subject matter with some degree of efficacy; the essentials of effective communication include a sender, message, encoder, channel of transmission, decoder, and a receiver. The characteristics of effective communication include: highly reliable, fast, and safe. In ensuring that communication if effective, there should be a source. The source is the instructor, speaker, sender, or transmitter. Source is the initializer of the communication and is followed by symbols. Symbols are in two forms; words or text. They are the message to be ferried across to the other end of the communication. On the other end is the receiver whose work is to listen or read the symbol and understand it. It’sonly through understands that similarity of ideas between the sender and the receiver is achieved(Neilson, 1994). Effectiveness of the communication depends on the level of similarity between the encoded message and the decoded message. Reliability and security are essentials of a transmitting channel.
Jacob Neilson in his documents on the ‘useit’ website feels that the second document is user-centered because of the kind of content and its placement. Placement in terms of writing can be in book or in web pages. As a matter of addressing the issue on web pages, Neilson feels that the second document is user-centered because it does not take the user’s time when finding the points. As he discussed in the documents, one of the problems of writing web pages is in knowing the exact effect the message or text will have on the users. Most users do not read information; according to Neilson they scan the webpages in search of the most appropriate points. In so doing, a user who visits a webpage and finds long texts; chances are he/she will not read. This the factor Neilson is referring to by singling out the second document. The summary nature of the work is appropriate enough to encourage users to read it. Accessibility, usability, and relevance are depicted on the second document.
Following the long version abstract, Neilson provided a highlighted section to warn the users on the kind of information and format the web page is written in. Given the nature of the general users in terms of reading, Neilson felt that his format of writing did not comply with the expectations of many visitors of the webpage. He did not write the document that way because he forgot the essentials of accessibility, relevance and usability. It is through his point of comparison that he needed to show an example of what he was talking about. Therefore the use of the highlighted section is to warn and encourage many of the readers who are not likely to read the document to consider doing so (Neilson, 2006).
Based on the two pages by Neilson it is likely that the long version would be read by scholars whose goal is get enough information to fill their assignment requirements. On the other hand, the shorter version of the page is like to be read by people working within strict deadlines. As a matter of fact, the pages are the same only that one is a summary version of the other. The nature of the two pages differentiates the kind of audience each will have based on how much time they have for reading. The two pages cannot have the same audience; this is because audiences differ in their degrees of patience. Accessibility and relevance are key elements of effective communication. The audience that is likely to read the long version will be seeking general knowledge on a number of aspects. The other that would prefer the short version will be seeking the points. They value accessibility and their time is essential.
Characteristics of an audience can be told through a scan on the kind of media they prefer and the nature within which the media is presented. For the long version page, the audience that would seek to read that one instead of the second can be characterized by age and taste. They are expected to be middle-aged with a taste in descriptive pages rather than brief. For the short version page, the audience can be expected to be young, easily distracted, and highly vulnerable to long descriptive pages. The level of vulnerability in this audience is caused by the fact that they do not believelong versions of pages deliver the points immediately. When reading these long pages, they are easily distracted and chances are they will stray in terms of concentration (Morkes & Neilson, 1998).