I think it's important if you work in the industry!

Posted by: Tom on April 17, 2003 09:11 AM

---

 

I think it's important 'cause I believe it's an accurate measure of how educated/progressive a demographic/country is. I make this relation because I believe that those who lack a certain amount of education/culture have no clear idea of what kinda information/services is available on the Internet, nor do they have the desire to know.

Posted by: Francis Wu on April 17, 2003 12:03 PM

---

 

That may be true, but I think you're coming from a biased position: the notion that it's only uneducated or otherwise "unaware" people who don't use the Internet. C'mon, it's not THAT universally wonderful. Plenty of people simply have no real interest or desire for what it offers, and that doesn't make them ignorant.

Apologies if that's not what you meant.

Posted by: Calybos on April 17, 2003 01:23 PM

---

 

I think it's important 'cause I believe it *will* be an accurate measure of how technologically intoxicated a culture is. (Naisbitt's term). I make this comment because those who are overeducated tend to apply a certain amount of magical thinking to everything from the record to television and now the internet. The history of this delusion is constantantly repeated (no thanks to the knowledge work industry).

There is a growing number of people who have been on for awhile, saw what was available, and simply disconnected. Let's face it, most people overestimate what's on the internet and mistake it for the sum total of human knowledge. I would agree with Wu - if the libraries all burned down.

Posted by: on April 17, 2003 01:59 PM

---

 

Well, I personally am interested, just from a cultural/anthropological standpoint. I am not surprised at their findings, really, but that doesn't make them less interesting.

I can see computer manufacturers and broadband sellers being interested in this data. Businesses who are considering an online presence would certainly be interested, especially if their target audience is the same as the audience of disinterested parties.

Posted by: Lydia on April 17, 2003 03:19 PM

---

 

Perhaps Calybos is right, that I do have a biased position. My opinion comes from my experiences with inexperienced users who visit my site and ask me where I find my crazy content, to which I can only reply, "It's the Internet... aren't you curious to know what else is on it besides news and porn?" In retrospect, I'd like to retract my hasty generalization. While I don't really believe the Internet is the sum total of human knowledge (yet... in the end, that's really up to the Vatican and the Pentagon), its vast indexes makes it the easiest route there :).

Posted by: Francis Wu on April 17, 2003 04:03 PM

---

 

NY Times article just up talks about a demographic: internet evaders. Part of this group lives in an connected house, and often with a 'net connected spouse. Some have been there, and found no real 'there' there.

You have to admit even with broadband, it is easier to get a Discovery Channel documentary blasted through tv than 'net. Then most of the stuff is still postage stamp sized and moves like a mailman in a coma. A tv remote surfs multiple bit dumps of media channels what, twenty times faster or maybe fifty? Most people are just too practical when the bits are mostly flowing one way anyway.

Posted by: on April 17, 2003 10:15 PM

---

 

I think it is a nice sobering message for all of us in the industry that it is not the most important thing to everyone and that the Internet has not changed everyone's world :)

Posted by: JB on April 18, 2003 11:18 AM

---

 

I think the Pew stuff is really valuable. I'm interested in this because folks who don't have the "literacy" skills necessary to find and use the information and services on the WWW may be at a disadvantage compared to those who do. BTW, one thing that is probably worth mentioning is that the data for this survey were collected a year ago (spring of 2002)...that's a long time in the timeline of general consumer use of the Internet/WWW.

Then again, the UCLA study (which happened around the same time) reports different results for Americans online (71% compared to Pew's 58%). Interestingly, UCLA reports this in a positive way: "More than 70 percent (71.1 percent) of Americans in 2002 went online" while for Pew looks at the opposite view: "While 42% of Americans say they don’t use the Internet, ..."

But I agree with Pew that to some extent the story is in the folks who won't go online, even when they have easy access (which is new to this year's version). They write:

"Non-users say they feel no need or desire to use the Internet, or that going online is not a good
use of their time. This nonchalance and resistance is often related to a general misconception of
what the Web and email have to offer. In other cases, reluctance is connected to specific
obstacles, fears, or previous online experiences."

So, IMO, the reason to care is the extent to which you think that it's worth it to address these misconceptions, fears, and general reluctance.

BTW, the UCLA report is here: http://ccp.ucla.edu/

Posted by: Beth on April 18, 2003 12:49 PM

---

 

I missed the section on leading misconceptions in the UCLA report. And, as no technology reaches 100% saturation and few even get close, is worrying about non-users productive? Unless we can use it as incentive to substantially improve user experience in some way.

It is more interesting by far to study those who care about the number. I still don't see a lot of sophisticated use of the web or mail, it is probably this lack which has to be dealt with first.

Posted by: on April 18, 2003 02:41 PM

---