## 3 Results
### Comparison of the Communication Tools and Interactivity Levels of NGOs  
Considering the interactivity of both unidirectional tools and bidirectional resources employed by each of the studied social organizations, the organizations with higher interactivity on their websites were ranked in descending order (see Table 6). This allows for the verification of which NGOs exhibit high, medium, or low levels of interactivity and if there is consistency between different types of monologic and dialogic resources, in addition to reviewing the differences among them. In this regard, only two of the analyzed organizations--Direct Relief, dedicated to improving the lives of people experiencing poverty or in emergency situations by providing them with appropriate medical resources, and Action Against Hunger, which aims to end world hunger--achieved the maximum level of interactivity in both types of resources. Most NGOs exhibit monologic interactivity with a maximum score of 3 points, but in terms of dialogic interactivity, they are usually at the intermediate level with a low score of 1.4 points. Cases like ActionAid International (M = 2; D = 1.4), Acumen Fund (M = 1.8; D = 1.4), Plan International (M = 1.6; D = 1.4), and Ashoka (M = 1.6; D = 1.4) fall within intermediate levels in both categories of resources. Anti-Slavery International is positioned as the NGO with the lowest interactivity because, although it is at the intermediate level in terms of monologic tools, it achieved this \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**NGO** & **Interactivity Monologic Tools** & **NGO** & **Interactivity Dialogic Tools** \\ \hline Direct Relief & 3 & Direct Relief & 2.4 \\ Action Against Hunger & 3 & Action Against Hunger & 2.4 \\ CARE International & 3 & Wikimedia Foundation & 2.4 \\ Doctors Without Borders & 3 & Heifer International & 2.4 \\ Transparent Hands & 3 & Transparent Hands & 2 \\ BRAC & 3 & BRAC & 2 \\ Mercy Corps & 3 & Root Capital Handicap & 2 \\  & & Internacional & \\ Ceres & 3 & Landesa & 1.6 \\ Partners in Health & 3 & Partners in Health & 1.4 \\ Apopo & 3 & Apopo & 1.4 \\ Barefoot College & 3 & Barefoot College & 1.4 \\ One Acre Fund & 3 & One Acre Fund & 1.4 \\ Oxfam International & 3 & Oxfam International & 1.4 \\ World Vision & 3 & World Vision & 1.4 \\ Save The Children & 2.6 & Save The Children & 1.4 \\ International Rescue & 2.4 & International Rescue & 1.4 \\ Committee & & Committee & 1.4 \\ Clinton Health Access & 2.4 & Clinton Health Access & 1.4 \\ Initiative & 2.4 & Initiative & 1.4 \\ Catholic Relief Services & 2.4 & Catholic Relief Services & 1.4 \\ Amnesty International & 2.4 & Amnesty International & 1.4 \\ Danish Refugee Council & 2.4 & CARE International & 1.4 \\ Root Capital Handicap & 2.4 & Ashoka & 1.4 \\ Internacional & 2.4 & Doctors Without Borders & 1.4 \\ Landesa & 2.2 & Mercy Corps & 1.4 \\ Cure Violence Global & 2.2 & Ceres & 1.4 \\ Heifer International & 2.2 & ActionAid International & 1.4 \\ AticonAid International & 2 & Plan International & 1.4 \\ Wikimedia Foundation & 1.8 & Acumen Fund & 1.4 \\ Acumen Fund & 1.6 & Danish Refugee Council & 1 \\ Ashoka & 1.6 & Cure Violence Global & 1 \\ Anti-Slavery International & 1.6 & Anti-Slavery International & 1 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Ranking of NGO websites according to their level of interactivity based on their use of monologic and dialogic tools. attribution with the lowest score of 1.4 points, and in dialogic resources, it is at the lowest level of interactivity, with 1 point. Several cases are worth highlighting, such as that of the Wikimedia Foundation, whose interactivity in the use of bidirectional resources related to dialogue is high: 2.4 points. However, for unidirectional tools, it is positioned at an intermediate level, with only 1.8 points, which is uncommon.