Public Relations Review 32 (2006) 395–401

Online organization–public relationships:An experience-centered approach�

Mihaela Vorvoreanu ∗Department of Communication, University of Dayton, 300 College Park, Dayton, OH 45469-1410, USA

Received 24 October 2005; received in revised form 25 August 2006; accepted 1 September 2006

Abstract

This paper advocates an experience-centered approach to public relations websites. A conceptual framework of the publicrelations website experience is proposed. The framework is grounded in communication and reader-response theory, and integratesorganization–public relationship research as well as website usability findings. A new research protocol, website experience analysis,is derived from the conceptual framework. Applications of website experience analysis in public relations scholarship and practiceare discussed.© 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Online public relations; Usability; Experience analysis; Online relationships; Website experience

Many scholars agree that the purpose of public relations is to build positive, mutually beneficial relationshipsbetween organizations and stakeholders (Botan, 1992; Broom, Casey, & Ritchey, 1997; Grunig & Huang, 2000; Heath,2000; Kent & Taylor, 1998; Ledingham, 2003; Ledingham & Bruning, 1998). Organizations may engage in a varietyof relationship building strategies and tactics, but one important site of relationship building and maintenance is theorganizational website. Scholarship about public relations websites is still at the exploratory stage. Public relationswebsite research is still dominated by content analyses of websites. Few public relations website analyses are theory-driven, and even fewer studies advance theory or conceptual frameworks. This paper attempts to address this gap byproposing an experience-centered framework for analyzing public relations websites.

1. Literature review: public relations website research

Most public relations website research falls in one of the following three categories: (i) exploratory, atheoreticalstudies that employ content analysis to create inventories of common website features and characteristics of: corporatewebsites (Callison, 2003; Esrock & Leichty, 1998, 1999, 2000), political websites (Benoit & Benoit, 2000; Niven &Zilber, 2001) or personal homepages (Dominick, 1999; Papacharissi, 2002); (ii) theory-driven studies that examinewebsites in light of pre-existing communication theories, such as Jackson and Purcell’s (1997) analysis of represen-tations of former Yugoslavia, which employs media richness theory, Will and Porak’s (2000) analysis of corporate

� Note: The complete study, including a detailed literature review and WEA protocol, are available upon request.∗ Tel.: +1 937 229 5428; fax: +1 937 229 2055.

E-mail address: Mihaela.Vorvoreanu@notes.udayton.edu.

0363-8111/$ – see front matter © 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2006.09.007

396 M. Vorvoreanu / Public Relations Review 32 (2006) 395–401

communication on the Web, which utilizes a corporate communication model, McMillan’s (1999) study of healthwebsites, based on a conceptual definition of interactivity, and Kent, Taylor, and White’s (2003) and Taylor, Kent, andWhite’s (2001) studies of activist public relations websites, which draw upon dialogue and public relations theory;(iii) studies that propose and employ instruments for website evaluation. The body of research originating from theStanford Web Credibility Lab has produced an instrument for website credibility assessment (Fogg, Marshall, Kameda,Solomon, & Rangnekar, 2002) and a theory about website credibility (Fogg, 2002). Other website analysis tools arerating sheets—lists of criteria compiled without theoretical rationale, which researchers use to record the presenceor absence of various website content and design elements, such as information about specific products, informationabout the company, search engines, etc. (Benoit & Benoit, 2000; Huizingh, 2000).

The studies mentioned here share a fundamental perspective: they look at websites as texts to be examined andignore the experience of interacting with them. Websites are a pull communication medium that allows users to pickand choose the content they need, when they need it (Holtz, 2002). As a result, it is possible that no two visitors ofthe same website will attend to the same content. In a way, the message is constructed by each visitor as he or shechooses a path through information (Landow, 1997). Focusing on website content provides little information abouthow websites are perceived and used, and consequently, about the process of Web-based communication. If meaningis created interactively in the process of communication, it makes sense to study the process of interpretation andmeaning creation as it unfolds in time, not (only) the structural features of the text (Fish, 1980)—it makes sense tostudy the experience of visiting a website in addition to the website itself. The next section elaborates on this idea andproposes an experience-centered approach to studying websites.

2. An experience-centered approach to the study of websites

The terms “website experience” and “user experience” have recently emerged at the forefront of Web design andbusiness literature. Providing a positive user experience is the major guiding principle in website design (IBM, 2003;Nielsen & Norman, 2000; Shedroff, 2001). The costs of poor user experiences are great, say industry specialists,because users abandon sites they are frustrated with. On the other hand, a positive Web user experience is believedto hold the key to increased sales, return visits and good relationships with site visitors (Nielsen, 1997; Nielsen &Norman, 2000; Souza, Manning, Sonderegger, Roshan, & Dorsey, 2001).

For communication research, the focus on the website user’s experience implies a persspective shift in which thewebsite is not seen as a text, but as the space in which user experiences take place. This shift to an experience-centeredperspective has important theoretical and methodological implications for the study of websites. The framework of thepublic relations website experience proposed here discusses these implications.

2.1. A framework of the public relations website experience

Adopting an experience-centered perspective for the study of public relations websites raises many questions, themost fundamental of which are addressed here. First, it becomes imperative to define the website experience and toidentify its components and characteristics. Second, it is important to consider how this experience may be studiedempirically.

The website experience consists of user perceptions, cognitions, attitudes and behaviors, as well as website aspects.The numerous aspects of the website experience can be organized along the same fundamental dimensions that structurehuman perception and our experience in the world: time and space. Kant (1787/2003) posited time and space as apriori intuitions, internal senses that humans project onto external reality and outside of which human perception is notpossible (Scruton, 2001). Because the website experience is a particular case of human experience, the same organizingdimensions apply. Therefore, it can be argued that the website experience has a temporal dimension, which consists ofthe sequence of perceptions, cognitions and behaviors users go through as they visit a website; and a spatial dimension,which is the website itself—the virtual space in which the experience takes place.

Existing usability and online user behavior studies provide significant insight as to the temporal dimension ofthe website experience. After piecing together findings of several such studies, I propose a structure of the temporaldimension composed of three phases: first impression, exploration and exit. The first impression phase takes only a fewseconds, in which users quickly form expectations about the relevance and the quality of information on the website(Nielsen, 2001; Nielsen & Tahir, 2002).

M. Vorvoreanu / Public Relations Review 32 (2006) 395–401 397

The next phase, exploration, begins with an orientation step, in which users learn the structure and navigation of thesite (Brinck, Gergle, & Wood, 2002; Nielsen, 2000), followed by the engagement step, in which users actively engagethe content and navigation of the site, while at the same time trying to maintain their orientation (Eveland, Cortese,Park, & Dunwoody, 2004). The third phase is the exit, which can be either intentional or accidental (Brinck et al.,2002; Nielsen, 2000). By the exit phase, users have formed an overall evaluation of the site and have decided whetherto return to that specific site in the future (Kent & Taylor, 1998).

Each of the three phases of the temporal dimension has significant implications for public relations: the firstimpression determines whether the user will stay on the site; the exploration phase presents ample opportunities forrelationship management; the exit phase has an impact of the likelihood of return visits.

Sufficient research exists about online user behavior to allow a three-phase structure of the temporal dimension.However, this is not the case with the spatial dimension, or the website virtual space. Various Web design books listbasic website components such as links, texts, navigation, interactivity, graphics, audio and video elements. Thesewebiste components are not similar in nature—it is clear that interactivity and graphics are not equivalent and shouldbelong in different classes.

A systematic structure capable of outliving the rapid advances of technology could not be found in the literatureand therefore has to be built from the ground up. I have found that Manovich (2001) concept of modularity offfersan excellent conceptual foundation for the structure of the website virtual space. Manovich lists modularity amongthe defining principles of new computer media. He points out that in new computer media discrete objects are storedseparately in the machine’s memory, can be combined at will and can be individually modified without necessarilychanging the total product of which they are a part. This modular view can be applied to websites in order to betterunderstand their structure. Websites can be broken down into four major modules: navigation, content, graphic layoutand dialogue. These modules can assembled in various combinations to form websites. Just like in Manovich’s (2001)conceptualization, one website module can be changed without altering the others. For example, the graphic layoutof a page can be changed while keeping the content the same, or a new navigation scheme can be implemented on awebsite while keeping the content and graphic layout unchanged.

Modules are relatively large parts of websites and are in turn constructed of basic constitutive elements such asimages, text or links. A module may be a combination of any of these basic constitutive elements. For example, thenavigation scheme of a website may consist of words, images, a sitemap and other elements. An analogy with a buildingmight be useful in explaining the distinction between website elements and modules. Examples of basic elements outof which a house is built are bricks, mortar, pipes and wires. An example of a module would be the electrical systemthat runs throughout the building. An inventory of elements discussed in various Web design manuals points out tofour basic types of constitutive elements: text, graphics, audio and video.

Any given constitutive element – for example, a word – can belong to one or more modules. A word can be partof the content module and, if it is linked, of the navigation module as well. It is an element’s function that determineswhat module(s) it belongs to. In his book on the culture of graphic interfaces, Johnson (1997) states that text canbe encountered on the computer screen as content, or as command—for example, a link. Lemke (2002) proposed aframework for hypertext in which each type of sign (image or text) could make three types of meaning: presentational,orientational and organizational. Drawing on Johnson (1997) and Lemke (2002) I propose that on a website an individualelement can have one or more of the following four possible functions: symbolic (the element presents a state of affairs,a position, an argument, etc.), command (the element triggers an inter-action), organizational (the element contributesto the graphic or conceptual organization of the site) and metacommunication (the element contains overt or subtlemessages about the nature of the relationship and of the interaction between the website’s authors and the users).

This section has proposed a framework of the website experience structured along the two fundamental dimensionsof time and space. The temporal dimension, composed of three phases, describes the sequence of perceptions, cognitionsand behaviors users go through as they visit a website. The spatial dimension, composed of modules, basic elements andelement functions, describes the website virtual space. This structure, however, does not address the interconnectednessof the spatial and temporal dimension. I argue that it is during the lived website experience that the connections betweenthe temporal and spatial dimensions are activated.

These connections will be activated differently by different individuals. The activation of a connection means thatcertain components of the spatial dimension are noticed or interacted with during certain moments of the temporaldimension. For example, during the first impression phase, one individual might pay more attention to the graphic layoutmodule, while another might pay attention to the content module. Thus, the first person’s experience has activated a con-

398 M. Vorvoreanu / Public Relations Review 32 (2006) 395–401

nection between the first impression phase and the grapic layout module, and the second’s experience has activated a con-nection between the first impression phase and the content module. It is possible to map out a person’s website experienceby identifying the connections between the temporal and spatial dimensions. The problem is that different people willactualize different connections between the spatial and temporal dimensions. Therefore, it is impossible to create a uni-versal map of the website experience. However, members of the same public are likely to experience websites similarly.

A public is defined here as an interpretive community (Fish, 1980, 2001) who shares a set of assumptions, inter-pretations and values (Botan & Soto, 1998), interests (Dewey, 1927) and cognitions and behaviors (Grunig & Hunt,1984). Fish (1980, 2001) argues that an interpretive community tends to arrive at similar interpretations of the sametext, because its members use similar interpretive strategies. This argument can be extended to an organization’s public.It can be argued that because a public shares interests, assumptions, interpretations and values (in other words, becausea public is an interpretive community), it is likely that members of the same public will experience a website similarly.Therefore, it is possible, in theory, to map out a public’s website experience, but one should be cautious generalizingbeyond a public’s boundaries. The next section moves from theory to practice and explains how to map out a public’swebsite experience.

2.2. Website experience analysis

Website experience analysis (WEA) is a research protocol derived from the framework of the website experienceexplained before. The protocol requires research participants to use a website and answer a series of questions abouttheir experience. The questions address connections between the temporal and the spatial dimensions of the experience.The research protocol consists of five steps, which are briefly described here. This description of WEA assumes that theresearch protocol is used to analyze the experience of visiting a chosen website—for example, a specific organization’swebsite.

The first step is to select a sample of representative public members. Once the sample is selected, the next step isto decide the most appropriate way for research participants to use the website. They can be instructed to examine thewebsite and evaluate it, or they can be given specific information retrieval and evaluation tasks—tasks that they arelikely to perform as members of the organization’s public. For example, investors could be asked to find informationabout stock performance. The third step is to collect background information about the research participants, such asdemographics, data about computer and Internet usage, attitudes toward computers, the Internet and the organization,familiarity with the website—any data that might explain differences in the participants’ website experience. After thebackground information is collected, participants may start using the website.

A WEA questionnaire is used during this fourth step to identify connections between the temporal and the spatialdimensions of the website experience. The WEA questionnaire contains at least one pair of questions about each phaseand step of the temporal dimension. The first item in each pair addresses the temporal dimension and asks participantsto rate their perceptions. For example, an item would ask them to rate their first impression of the website. The seconditem in each pair addresses the spatial dimension and asks participants to discuss the website aspects their ratings arebased upon. The second item is open-ended. The following are examples of item pairs:

My first impression of this website is (very bad) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (very good).Please describe your first impression of the website. In your description, point out those website aspects thatyour first impressions are based upon (first impression).

Do you feel you can trust this organization? (Not at all) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (very much).What on this website makes you feel this way? (Exploration phase—engagement step).

Would you visit this website again? (Definitely no) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (definitely yes).Why, or why not? (Exit phase).

The questions about the first impression should be answered at the very beginning of the website experience.Usability research has shown that it takes website visitors just a few seconds to form a first impression (Nielsen &Norman, 2000). The researcher may interrupt the participants’ website experience after about 10 seconds, or at themoment of the first click away from the homepage, and ask them to answer the questions about the first impressionphase, then return to browsing the website. The questions about the exploration and exit phase can be answered afterthe website experience is over.

M. Vorvoreanu / Public Relations Review 32 (2006) 395–401 399

After Web experience data is collected this way, the fifth and last step is to analyze it. The answers to the closed-ended items can be compiled in frequency tables, and those to the open-ended items can be coded for common themes.The themes will reveal what website module(s), element(s) or element function(s) tend to be connected with eachphase and step of the public’s website experience. The answers will provide insights into the public’s perceptions andinterpretations of specific website aspects at different points of the website experience. In short, they will provide amap of this experience. This map can be useful to both public relations practice and scholarship.

2.3. Applications of website experience maps

A map of a public’s website experience has direct applications in public relations practice. The information can beused to modify the website and to improve the public’s experience. For example, the map might show that elementsof the dialogic module (such as “contact us” links) have a metacommunication function that influences the public’sperception of organizational commitment. Organizational commitment is an important dimension of the relationshipbetween a public and an organization (Bruning, 2002; Bruning & Ledingham, 1998, 1999, 2000; Ledingham & Bruning,1998, 2000). It is possible that the small size or the awkward placement of the “contact us” link might be interpretedby public members as an indication of the organization’s lack of interest in maintaining a relationship with them. Inthis case, the dialogic module can be modified to avoid these interpretations.

Mapping out the public relations website experience can be a useful endeavor for public relations scholarship aswell. The analysis of a public’s website experience provides useful insight into the process of building and maintainingrelationships online. Advocates of the relationship approach to public relations agree that it is important to addressorganization–public relationship dimensions when communicating with publics (Ledingham, 2000; Ledingham &Bruning, 2000). WEA enables researchers to identify the specific website aspects that influence the public’s perceptionsof each relationship dimension. A battery of items about organization–public relationship dimensions can be insertedin the WEA questionnaire. Thus, WEA can be a useful tool for advancing scholarship in the area of online publicrelations.

Applications of WEA are not limited to organization–public relationship building. It is possible to use WEAto study online risk, health and other types of communication. A series of questions about the communication ofrisk/health/etc. could replace the relationship questions in the WEA questionnaire. Many other modifications of theframework are possible, depending on research interests. The data obtained using WEA can be used to improve thesewebsite experiences, so that publics are better served, and to advance scholarship.

3. Limitations and directions for future research

An important limitation of WEA is that it is a one-time, isolated analysis of a public relations website experience.In real-life, a public experiences a website in time, over repeated visits. At this point, WEA is limited to one websitevisit and cannot tap into this long-term experience. Future research could address this limitation. Another limitation isthat WEA does not place the website experience in the context of a public’s overall experience with an organization. Itis very likely that a website experience could be influenced by other experiences related to the organization, and viceversa. For example, if the public really likes an organization’s product or the organization itself, is it possible that thepositive attitude is transferred to the website? Also, WEA does not address the importance of the website experiencein the organization–public relationship. How bad does a website experience have to be, to damage the relationship?These are questions that the framework of the website experience proposed here opens up, and that could be addressedby future research.

4. Conclusion

This article has proposed a framework of the public relations website experience structured along the dimensions oftime and space. The components of the two dimensions (phases, steps, modules, elements and element functions) wereexplained. It was also explained that the connections between the temporal and spatial dimension are actualized in theprocess of the website experience, and that these connections are likely to vary from public to public. A new researchprotocol, website experience analysis, was briefly introduced. WEA enables researchers to map out a public’s websiteexperience by identifying connections between the temporal and the spatial dimensions. It was shown that a public’s

400 M. Vorvoreanu / Public Relations Review 32 (2006) 395–401

website experience map has useful applications in both public relations practice and scholarship. The experience-centered approach to public relations research is grounded theoretically in communication and reader-response theory.The approach is valuable because it captures the immediate interpretations that emerge from that elusive interactionbetween the message and the public and as such it is one step closer to studying the communication process itself. Boththe framework and the WEA research protocol proposed here are in need of further refinement. They do, however,demonstrate that the experience-centered approach to websites is rich ground for future public relations scholarship.

References

Benoit, W. L., & Benoit, P. J. (2000). The virtual campaign: Presidential primary websites in Campaign 2000. American Communication Journal,3(3) [online].

Botan, C. H. (1992). International public relations: Critique and reformulation. Public Relations Review, 18, 149–159.Botan, C. H., & Soto, F. (1998). A semiotic approach to the internal functioning of publics: Implications for strategic communication and public

relations. Public Relations Review, 24(1), 21–44.Brinck, T., Gergle, D., & Wood, S. D. (2002). Usability for the Web: Designing websites that work (1st ed.). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann

Publishers.Broom, G. M., Casey, S., & Ritchey, J. (1997). Toward a concept and theory of organization–public relationships. Journal of Public Relations

Research, 9(2), 83–98.Bruning, S. D. (2002). Relationship building as retention strategy: Linking relationship attitudes and satisfaction evaluations to behavioral outcomes.

Public Relations Review, 28(1), 39–48.Bruning, S. D., & Ledingham, J. A. (1998). Organization–public relationships and consumer satisfaction: The role of relationships in the satisfaction

mix. Communication Research Reports, 15(2), 198–208.Bruning, S. D., & Ledingham, J. A. (1999). Relationships between organizations and publics: Development of a multi-dimensional

organization–public relationship scale. Public Relations Review, 25(2), 157–170.Bruning, S. D., & Ledingham, J. A. (2000). Perceptions of relationships and evaluations of satisfaction: An exploration of interaction. Public

Relations Review, 26(1), 85–95.Callison, C. (2003). Media relations and the Internet: How fortune 500 company websites assist journalists in news gathering. Public Relations

Review, 29(1), 29–41.Dewey, J. (1927). The public and its problems. Chicago: Swallow Press.Dominick, J. R. (1999). Who do you think you are? Personal home pages and self-presentation on the World Wide Web. Journalism and Mass

Communication Quarterly, 76(4), 646–658.Esrock, S. L., & Leichty, G. B. (1998). Social responsibility and corporate Web pages: Self-presentation or agenda setting? Public Relations Review,

24(3), 305–319.Esrock, S. L., & Leichty, G. B. (1999). Corporate World Wide Web pages: Serving the news media and other publics. Journalism and Mass

Communication Quarterly, 76(3), 456–467.Esrock, S. L., & Leichty, G. B. (2000). Organization of corporate Web pages: Publics and functions. Public Relations Review, 26(3), 327–344.Eveland, W. P., Cortese, J., Park, H., & Dunwoody, S. (2004). How website organization influences free recall, factual knowledge, and knowledge

structure density. Human Communication Research, 30(2), 208–233.Fish, S. (1980). Is there a text in this class? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Fish, S. (2001). Yet once more. In J. Machor, & L. P. Goldstein (Eds.), Reception study: From literary theory to cultural studies (pp. 29–38). New

York: Routledge.Fogg, B. J. (2002). Prominence-interpretation theory: Explaining how people assess credibility. A research report by the Stanford Persuasive

Technology Lab. Stanford University. Retrieved on 03/24, 2003, from http://www.webcredibility.org/pit.html.Fogg, B. J., Marshall, J., Kameda, T., Solomon, J., & Rangnekar, A. (2002). Web credibility research: A method for online experiments and early

study results. Retrieved on 03/20, 2003, from http://www.webcredibility.org/.Grunig, J. E., & Huang, Y.-H. (2000). From organizational effectiveness to relationship indicators: Antecedents of relationships, public relations

strategies, and relationship outcomes. In J. A. Ledingham, & S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public relations as relationship management: A relationalapproach to the study and practice of public relations (pp. 23–53). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston.Heath, R. L. (2000). A rhetorical perspective on the values of public relations: Crossroads and pathways toward concurrence. Journal of Public

Relations Research, 12(1), 69–91.Holtz, S. (2002). Public relations on the net: Winning strategies to inform and influence the media, the investment community, the government, the

public and more! (2nd ed.). New York: Amacom.Huizingh, E. K. R. E. (2000). The content and design of websites: An empirical study. Information and Management, 37(3), 123–134.IBM. (2003). IBM ease of use website: Business view section. Retrieved on 03/20, 2003, from http://www-3.ibm.com/ibm/easy/eou ext.nsf/Publish/

550.Jackson, M. H., & Purcell, D. (1997). Politics and media richness in World Wide Web representations of the former Yugoslavia. Geographical

Review, 87(2), 233–253.Johnson, S. (1997). Interface culture: How new technology transforms the way we create and communicate. San Francisco: HarperEdge.Kant, I. (1787/2003). Critique of pure reason (2nd ed., N.K. Smith, Trans.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

M. Vorvoreanu / Public Relations Review 32 (2006) 395–401 401

Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (1998). Building dialogic relationships through the World Wide Web. Public Relations Review, 24(3), 321–334.Kent, M. L., Taylor, M., & White, W. J. (2003). The relationship between website design and organizational responsiveness to stakeholders. Public

Relations Review, 29(1), 63–77.Landow, G. P. (1997). Hypertext 2.0 (revised ed.). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Ledingham, J. A. (2000). Guidelines to building and maintaining strong organization–public relationship. Public Relations Quarterly, 45(3), 44–46.Ledingham, J. A. (2003). Explicating relationship management as a general theory of public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 15(2),

181–198.Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (1998). Relationship management in public relations: Dimensions of an organization–public relationship. Public

Relations Review, 24(1), 55–65.Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (2000). A longitudial study of organization–public relationship dimensions: Defining the role of communication

in the practice of relationship management. In J. A. Ledingham, & S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public relations as relationship management: Arelational approach to the study and practice of public relations (pp. 55–69). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Lemke, J. L. (2002). Travels in hypermodality. Visual Communication, 1(3), 299–325.Manovich, L. (2001). The language of new media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.McMillan, S. J. (1999). Health communication and the Internet: Relations between interactive characteristics of the medium and site creators,

content, and purpose. Health Communication, 11(4), 375–390.Nielsen, J. (1997). Loyalty on the Web. Retrieved on 03/20, 2003, from www.useit.com/alertbox/9708a.html.Nielsen, J. (2000). Designing Web usability. Indianapolis, IN: New Riders.Nielsen, J. (2001). First rule of usability: Do not listen to users. Retrieved on 01/10, 2003, from http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20010805.html.Nielsen, J., & Norman, D. A. (2000). Web-site usability: Usability on the Web is not a luxury. Retrieved on 03/24, 2003, from

http://www.informationweek.com/773/web.htm.Nielsen, J., & Tahir, M. (2002). Homepage usability: 50 websites deconstructed. Indianapolis, IN: New Riders.Niven, D., & Zilber, J. (2001). Do women and men in congress cultivate different images? Evidence from congressional websites. Political

Communication, 18(4), 395–405.Papacharissi, Z. (2002). The presentation of self in virtual life: Characteristics of personal home pages. Journalism and Mass Communication

Quarterly, 79(3), 643–660.Scruton, R. (2001). Kant: A very short introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.Shedroff, N. (2001). Experience design. Indianapolis, IN: New Riders.Souza, R., Manning, H., Sonderegger, P., Roshan, S., & Dorsey, M. (2001). Get ROI from design. Forrester Research.Taylor, M., Kent, M. L., & White, W. J. (2001). How activist organizations are using the Internet to build relationships. Public Relations Review,

27(3), 263–284.Will, M., & Porak, V. (2000). Corporate communication in the new media environment. A survey of 150 corporate communication websites.

International Journal of Media Management, 2(3/4) [online].