Lippman argued that ideal interactivity could be achieved under three conditions:
- Neither participant could see the direction that the interaction was headed
- There should be no destined route for the conversation to follow
- The participants should believe there would be an infinite number of directions that the conversation could head
(Stone 1995 in Lister p. 42)
However, I firstly don’t quite understand the concept of “Ideal Interactivity”. Surely this is a subjective matter, and what I would consider to be ideal interactivity could be extremely different to what would constitute ideal interactivity to you.
To me, for interactivity to be ideal it doesn’t necessarily have to have a conclusion or an outcome as it were, much online interactivity in my experience is merely discussing for the sake of discussing, or putting out an opinion which may have a purpose, but not lead to any sort of finish. One of the good things about online discussions is the time scales, an interaction can last as long or as be as brief as it needs to be, involving any number of participants and responses. This means that a discussion is completely free and open, to go in any direction it is led and raise any point it pleases. Therefore to me the idea of ideal interactivity doesn’t really exist, the mere presence of it being interactive from the outset means that this isn’t really possible, as I see no distinction between a good or a bad interactivity.
Friday, 30 January 2009
Hypertext 2.3
To me, hypertext simplifies the process of extracting information from the Internet immensely. I rarely read the entirety of one page without finding something else which is more relevant to the information I’m looking up before I reach the end. Something I find with the Internet is that I’ll be looking for a specific topic, and simply typing vague key words into google doesn’t usually generate exactly what I’m looking for, by going to a web-site which is in the same general area, this allows me to become more and more specific, until I get exactly what I need. I’m sure, given the wealth of information out there, that if I were hoping to type something into google and for exactly what I want to be on the first page of results will rarely ever happen. Through hypertext I can find what I want much more simply as well as allowing me to then find something else relevant, and possibly even more relevant to the purpose than what I was originally looking for.
However, the large amount of hypertext on the Internet can also have a downside. For example, even after you’ve found what you were originally looking for, often more information and questions will still be swimming around in your mind, often doubling the length of time you intended to spend searching. Also, often through following endless hyperlinks you can end up reading about a topic you did not intend to learn about, for example, in looking up some information about what films are coming up recently, I ended up spending far too much time reading about film trivia as well as ruining the endings to films I haven’t seen yet by reading synopsises on the Internet Movie Database!
However, the large amount of hypertext on the Internet can also have a downside. For example, even after you’ve found what you were originally looking for, often more information and questions will still be swimming around in your mind, often doubling the length of time you intended to spend searching. Also, often through following endless hyperlinks you can end up reading about a topic you did not intend to learn about, for example, in looking up some information about what films are coming up recently, I ended up spending far too much time reading about film trivia as well as ruining the endings to films I haven’t seen yet by reading synopsises on the Internet Movie Database!
Interactivity in Online Gaming 2.2
An example of a web-site which invites the user to have an interactive role are gaming web-sites, for example playing poker online. One which I believe would be an interesting example of interactivity is http://www.pkr.com This I believe is interesting because it goes that little bit further in replicating real life, as their mission statement makes clear:
The interactivity of the game is prioritised, in their eyes setting them above the rest of the industry; it is possible to represent yourself in a large number of different ways, for example by selecting different emotions to convey and facial expressions. Moreover, real life is replicated through the 3D game play and ways of interacting with other players. However, I would argue that although it visually replicates real life to a high degree in comparison to its competitors, the interactivity is more limited than you would first assume from their mission statement.
I would argue that instead it is a form of “Consultational Interactivity”, as suggested by Graham Meikle, which is interactivity where the user is able to select and chose different interactions, however, there are a limited number of fixed choices. This could be seen as a form of ‘interpassitivity’, as really there is just a slightly wider choice of options, creating the illusion of being able to interact fully, rather than being able to create.
“PKR is more than just a pretty face. We use our advanced gaming technology to serve the game of poker and enhance our user’s experience in ways no other poker room can. PKR’s unique ‘Emote control’ technology, combined with a number of other one-of-a-kind game features mean players on PKR can interact and engage with the game and each other in way that’s personal, involving and highly entertaining. PKR is bringing the personality into online poker.” PKR website
The interactivity of the game is prioritised, in their eyes setting them above the rest of the industry; it is possible to represent yourself in a large number of different ways, for example by selecting different emotions to convey and facial expressions. Moreover, real life is replicated through the 3D game play and ways of interacting with other players. However, I would argue that although it visually replicates real life to a high degree in comparison to its competitors, the interactivity is more limited than you would first assume from their mission statement.
I would argue that instead it is a form of “Consultational Interactivity”, as suggested by Graham Meikle, which is interactivity where the user is able to select and chose different interactions, however, there are a limited number of fixed choices. This could be seen as a form of ‘interpassitivity’, as really there is just a slightly wider choice of options, creating the illusion of being able to interact fully, rather than being able to create.
Techno-determinism. 2.1
Whilst I would agree that the force of technology is outside of the control of society, I would argue that it isn’t quite on the same level as a ‘force of nature’ in that the force of nature is uninvited; we did not expect hurricane Katrina or the tsunami on Boxing Day in south-east Asia and I don’t think they can be compared to the effects of technology. Conversely, technology and its growth is something which we encourage and is assumed to be helping our lives, evidenced by the prevalence of technology in our day to day lives nowadays and the amount of money invested into developing new technologies. Whilst the individual may be powerless to resist the effects of these technologies, society itself shapes how they manifest themselves and how they are used. For example, the way in which technologies come to replace one another, with CDs replacing cassettes, mp3s replacing CDs and so on.
Socio-determinism seems the logical argument to me as the different technologies which replace one another are determined not by a whim or by chance, but by other social forces such as profit margins, distribution and marketing. For example, to go back to the music format example, mp3s were a more practical way to listen to music in that they weren’t physical in the same way that CDs and cassettes were, you can’t hold them or “give” one to someone as such. Therefore distribution was easier; it could come straight to you on your computer through ITunes, meaning that profit margins could potentially be higher (ignoring illegal file sharing) therefore the popularity of this format came about through social forces, as argued by socio-determinism.
Socio-determinism seems the logical argument to me as the different technologies which replace one another are determined not by a whim or by chance, but by other social forces such as profit margins, distribution and marketing. For example, to go back to the music format example, mp3s were a more practical way to listen to music in that they weren’t physical in the same way that CDs and cassettes were, you can’t hold them or “give” one to someone as such. Therefore distribution was easier; it could come straight to you on your computer through ITunes, meaning that profit margins could potentially be higher (ignoring illegal file sharing) therefore the popularity of this format came about through social forces, as argued by socio-determinism.
Sunday, 25 January 2009
Flux
One of the main things I picked up from reading Lister is the idea of digital being a state of flux, whereas analogue is much more fixed. When the change from analogue to digitial occurred it meant that data was much more malleable and wasn’t set in stone to such a degree. For example, when television was analogue you had a number of channels and you picked which one you wanted to watch. However, when it changed to digital the form became much more variable. For example, presenters are frequently inviting the audience to “Press Red” to find out more information on a cookery programme, or to see more detailed commentary and different camera shots during a football match, or to vote someone out of I’m a Celebrity Get Me out of Here.
This change I believe meant that the viewer was able to personalize their television watching experience to a greater degree, which I would argue meant that they were getting a better experience from it as it was less “one size fits all” and was more changeable to personal preferences and tastes.
This change I believe meant that the viewer was able to personalize their television watching experience to a greater degree, which I would argue meant that they were getting a better experience from it as it was less “one size fits all” and was more changeable to personal preferences and tastes.
My Experience of ‘New Media’.
In the broad sense I would consider New Media to include all media, because at some point it must’ve been new. However, more recently I would consider New Media to mainly be a term I would associate with the Internet and the new ways in which people can interact through it, and access it in more convenient ways, for example on your mobile or wirelessly thanks to Wi-Fi.
The main two purposes I use the Internet and New Media for are keeping in touch with friends and family and learning. Social networking, such as Facebook and Myspace mean that I am able to keep in touch with old school friends who now live too far away to be able to catch up with face-to-face. However, it is not limited to just far away friends, Facebook particularly means that I am able to share content with friends who live much closer and I see almost daily, by sharing pictures and moods etc. As the majority of people I know use it, I would consider it to be the simplest and most effective way of communicating with these people. Similarly, instant messaging and e-mails I also use to keep in contact with friends and family, simply because they are so quick and easy.
In terms of learning I use a number of blogs to find out about specific topics, for example, ones about new bands, existing bands (new songs, performances etc.) and for seeking what I would consider more “expert” information on a topic I do not know much about. Similarly, I use forums to find out up to date information as they are updated so frequently, regularly and by a large amount of people with a common interest.
Ways in which I prefer not to use New Media are for interacting with people I do not know in real life. Whilst I know this is possible through chat rooms and within forums and social networking, I prefer to distance myself from this. I would say that the main reason for doing so is because when speaking to someone face to face you are able to, to a certain degree, gauge who they are and what they are about, via online mediums it’s much easier to lie, and much harder to detect that you’re being lied to, which I feel has created a sense of distrust when meeting new people online.
The main two purposes I use the Internet and New Media for are keeping in touch with friends and family and learning. Social networking, such as Facebook and Myspace mean that I am able to keep in touch with old school friends who now live too far away to be able to catch up with face-to-face. However, it is not limited to just far away friends, Facebook particularly means that I am able to share content with friends who live much closer and I see almost daily, by sharing pictures and moods etc. As the majority of people I know use it, I would consider it to be the simplest and most effective way of communicating with these people. Similarly, instant messaging and e-mails I also use to keep in contact with friends and family, simply because they are so quick and easy.
In terms of learning I use a number of blogs to find out about specific topics, for example, ones about new bands, existing bands (new songs, performances etc.) and for seeking what I would consider more “expert” information on a topic I do not know much about. Similarly, I use forums to find out up to date information as they are updated so frequently, regularly and by a large amount of people with a common interest.
Ways in which I prefer not to use New Media are for interacting with people I do not know in real life. Whilst I know this is possible through chat rooms and within forums and social networking, I prefer to distance myself from this. I would say that the main reason for doing so is because when speaking to someone face to face you are able to, to a certain degree, gauge who they are and what they are about, via online mediums it’s much easier to lie, and much harder to detect that you’re being lied to, which I feel has created a sense of distrust when meeting new people online.
Thursday, 22 January 2009
Well hello.
This is my first post in my very first blog.
It's a shame I can't think of anything interesting to say.
It's a shame I can't think of anything interesting to say.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
