## 3 Results
### Comparison of the Communication Tools and Interactivity Levels of NGOs
On the other hand, the opposite case was observed for organizations like the Danish Refugee Council and Cure Violence Global, whose interactivity regarding tools related to information dissemination is high, amounting to 2.4 and 2.2 points, respectively, while in terms of bidirectional interactivity, they rank last, with the lowest score, i.e., one point in the very-low interactivity level. Regarding the information dissemination tools used by the top two NGOs in the ranking (see Table 7), which correspond to the highest scores obtained, both organizations have most resources falling into this category. However, the two organizations agree that they do not have events calendars to inform web users, and neither of them have a blog for which responses be left. On the other hand, only Action Against Hunger has a press room for the media where informational material such as press releases can be found. Thus, Action Against Hunger has the highest number of unidirectional tools, specifically, 83.33% (\(n=10\)), compared to Direct Relief, which utilizes 75% of the resources in this category (\(n=9\)). Regarding the resources for dialogical communication used by these NGOs (see Table 8), although both achieve the same level on the scale, Direct Relief (50%, \(n=10\)) has more tools on its website than the website of Action Against Hunger (40%, \(n=8\)). In this regard, it can be observed that they share the same bidirectional resources, such as subscription to content through newsletters, web searches, file downloads, social media sharing buttons, space for inquiries, donation possibilities, economic support or sponsorship, space for user proposals, and even co-creation of the website space with users through content uploads. However, there are two tools that Direct Relief uses and Action Against Hunger does not. The first, related to the \"Connect\" category, is the option to join the association, and the second, corresponding to the \"Share\" category, is a button to share content not only on social media but also on an external site. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Typology of Tools**} & **Direct Relief** & **Action against Hunger** \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{1.1. Expository} & Publications: studies, thematic reports, books, & \multirow{2}{*}{1} & \multirow{2}{*}{1} \\  & articles, etc. & & \\ \cline{3-3}  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Information brochure (ONG presentation)} & 1 & 1 \\ \cline{3-3}  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Institutional yearbooks (annual reports)} & 1 & 1 \\ \cline{3-3}  & Text/Graphics & Events calendars & 0 & 0 \\ \cline{3-3}  & \multirow{2}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} Text/Graphics \\ \end{tabular} } & Online press room (press releases) & 0 & 1 \\ \cline{3-3}  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Blogs on which users cannot comment} & 0 & 0 \\ \cline{3-3}  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{News published on websites} & 1 & 1 \\ \cline{3-3}  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Photographs and images} & 1 & 1 \\ \cline{3-3}  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Embedded multimedia files on websites} & \multirow{2}{*}{1} & \multirow{2}{*}{1} \\  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{(audio, videos)} & & \\ \hline
1.2. Hypertextual & External links to other websites or institutions & 1 & 1 \\ \hline
1.3. Interactivity & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Interactive resources (graphics} & \multirow{2}{*}{1} & \multirow{2}{*}{1} \\  & and infographics) & & \\ \hline
1.4. Participative & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Participatory resources, such as ‘follow on social networks’ buttons/tools} & 1 & 1 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Monologic tools used by the websites with the highest levels of interactivity. However, even though these are the organizations that have scored the highest in interactivity, there are others that use a greater number of both monological and dialogical resources, although the category type of resources to which they belong does not result in a higher level of interactivity.