Friday, April 30, 2010

This blog has moved

This blog is now located at
You will be automatically redirected in 30 seconds, or you may click here.

For feed subscribers, please update your feed subscriptions to

Friday, April 21, 2006


Aright folks,

I reworked the template and sliced it. Here's the link:

If this doesn't work (and with my luck it probably won't) you can email me ( or if you have AIM my sn is bsu ashley jo. I'm writin a paper today so I should be on even if I'm away.

Thursday, April 06, 2006

Final Presentation

Thursday, May 4th, 2006 is the final presentation of the project. The syllabus says that it is Thursday the 4th, but clearly the 4th is a Thursday. It also says that the presentation is at 6:30pm, but we will be at our normal time of 5:30pm.

Thursday, May 4th, @ 5:30pm.

Thursday, March 30, 2006


Montfort is essentially saying that Interactive Fiction (IF) is all of the following: story, game, storygame, novel, world, literature, puzzle, problem, riddle, and machine. My thought is simply this, IF is a category unto itself. Just like music and video are categories unto themselves, so is IF, and the subareas listed above are its genres.

Not mind-blowing or world changing, but neither was this compostion to me.

Wednesday, March 29, 2006

Elizabeth_Chapter 8_Hayles_Q

In her article, Hayles discusses Memmotts' Lexia to Perplexia, in which "Memmott devises an idiosyncratic language, a revisioning of classical myths, and a set of coded images that invite the reader to understand herself not as a preexisting self with secure boundaries but as a permeable membrane through which information flows" (292).
Sorry for the long quotation, but I'm a bit fuzzy on what exactly Hayles means by "inviting the reader to understand herself not as a preexisting self but as a permeable membrane". Does this just mean that technology is influencing us -- creating us -- even as we are creating technology? Any light that could be shed on this would be most appreciated! Thanks ...

Thursday, March 23, 2006


I have always had a problem with people shunning the real world for an online fantasy. Maybe this is because I love to go out and meet new people anytime I get the opportunity, or maybe because it's not real - I don't know.

In any case, after giving this crazy contraption a shot I found that Online Caroline is a lot like that clingy friend who tells you WAY too much up front. That annoys me.

I would however, LOVE to see an interface like this used in tutorials and so on. Depending on your level of knowledge in a program it could give you hints, e-mail instructions and so on. Maybe an internet mechanic type of thing. I also think it would be great for online retail - like a pop-up salesman or something.

An Online Caroline like interface can be used for very practival purposes, it just seems silly to me to waste such a promising technology on something like this.


I think Online Caroline is a good start to where gaming interaction is going. The user is what is important.

If games are able to relate to users on another level (emotional), people will be able to become more involved in the games. It will not be just a person knowing what is going on with characters in a game, but the characters in the game will know about the player. It is then a two-way means of communication, rather than just one-way.

I also was interested in the fact that Online Caroline did not just communicate with the user while the user is at the Online Caroline web site. The game sent emails to the user. Caroline gets upset if she does not here from the user in a certain amount of time. This is crucial to making the user think Caroline is a real person.

As the article stated, information such as this has been presented to users through marketing tactics for years. Nearly every piece of spam I receive is addressed specifically to Brandon. Web site IP tracking methods are also involving users in this method when they know what geographic location a user is in.

Games that are able to effectively connect with people on emotional levels are the ones that keep users involved in the games... making the user always come back for more.


Ok, I read the last chapter.. interesting articles..

Regarding, Walker's "Online Caroline," I want to ask you a question.
Can we say playing games where we can see other people's life on the internet to be open like a soap opera something like "voyeurism whcih is permitted?"

I see that even though this is virtual and seems cool, it will wear out like any other technology and pass it on to another level, where you will be able to control a persons life through the internet..A person faking his/her life on the net that can be manipulated by the player.

Don't you think this would start peoples fascination with voyuerism? I mean whats voyeurism? peeping tom? Umm.. MMS scandals and vouyerism has started lots of problems in india and with these games, i think people will only think its allowed and fun...
Monfort's reading was delightful because it was a short and sweet reading.
My question is:
What is interactive fiction is it isn't a story or a game? or a combination of two?
The author surely doesn't want it to be categorized it that way
" It's time to look beyond"Story" and "game" for those other figures........categories can be counterproductive." pg 316

Will we be seeing interactive soap operas in near future? what would that be then?


Online Caroline seems to be an interesting and challenging simulation. However, reading through the text I realized that playing through the game will make you feel responsible (as a good simulation should) and guilty. Online Caroline in particular doesn't not seem to have alternative endings ... if I know that from the beginning why even bother? Also I have enough "real" online friends that may be more important than Caroline.

I still think that Caroline could be the start of a successful concept of online games, because it seems to come close to reality. It still gives you the security of a fictional game but also some unsatisfying limitations. If I look at Carolines Website the whole thing seems real though. I can sign up and it says nowhere that this thing is fictional. "You don't play a simulation, it plays you".

Wednesday, March 22, 2006


I know flook posted something about this before me but I am being stubborn and writing it anyway. I want to quote a piece of this article. "My hair is still wet from the shower when I connect my computer to the network, sipping my morning coffee. I check my email and fint it there in between other messages an email from Caroline." I read it quickly and then visit her website. She's waiting for me. She holds up a shirt she's bought to the webcam, asking me after by whether I'd like to send it to her." I'm sorry but this is not my cup of tea. Yes the concept is kinda cool but on the same level its freaky. If you want interaction like this go outside and get a girlfriend/boyfriend. I just don't see why someone would be apart of this. But hell I'm not the most normal person either.

Ward_ch8_Montfort_no real purpose but you can respond and tell me I'm wrong

*please note, what you are about to read has been affected by too much sugar and a touch of adult ADD*

Interactive fiction (which the abbreviation IF gave me hella trouble because I kept reading 'if'), I feel is like the cross breed between narrative and game. Like a mule, the impotent offspring of horses and donkeys. I mean interactive fiction (note the refusal to use IF) is really an impotent form of both narrative and gaming. I feel like when you bring true interaction into a narrative much of it loses it's depth and deeper meaning. People become so enthralled with the interaction and the being 'right' that they lose sight of themes and symbolism. ESPECIALLY when you bring puzzles into it. I mean (and I'm gonna deduct coolness points from myself, so you guys don't have to) I love puzzles. I hate being wrong. So the second you introduce any sort of problem/puzzle/riddle into anything, you lose my ability to concentrate on the actual meaning of anything. Isn't that why books and movies are so great, you think you got it right. You're wrong and it moves on without you. I think if I were involved in an interactive fiction I'd get stuck and then get pissed and then say I hated it and perhaps cheat. And when I'm doing puzzles and such, I don't want it muddied up with storyline. I don't care about you fake people. I want to know if I was right or not.

As far as the article goes, I think that Montfort hit the nail on the head with the schitzophrenic examination of what elements are (and perhaps which aren't quite) part of interactive fiction. I know there are tons of folks who really enjoy this kind of interaction with a storyline, but I, personally, can't get into it.

PS - I enjoyed the reference to The Empire Strikes Back in the second paragraph.

PPS - here are some puzzles for those who enjoy word games


I think the idea of ONLINE CAROLINE is brilliant. The system uses a database to personally construct a narrative for the individual user. Although this particular narrative is not all that enthralling, I do believe it is a step in the right direction.

Furthermore, I think Jill Walker did a pretty good job explaining the whole process as a first hand witness/user/player/audience member. She wrote about her emotional response to the game as well as here interest in the moving through the narrative.

My Big Question is really not that big at all, kind of small really – the Willow of questions: Are there more advanced versions of ONLINE CAROLINE where the story develops more around user input, but essentially remains the same story?

Tuesday, March 21, 2006


First off, I enjoy metaphysical stuff and messing with ontology of things. So this article was cool.

Second, I searched for Lexia to Perplexia, but could not find a working version, so I was dissapointed. If any one found a working one please let me know where it is.

The last statement "these connections perform human subjects who cannot be thought without the intelligent machines that produce us even as we produce them." Hayles seems to be constructing a circle stucture of creation. Where we create the machines that create ourselves. The concept of 'God' within ourselves has always facinated me.

Thursday, March 16, 2006

630 Schedule

So the schedule NOW is:

March 16 - Chapter 7 Blog, Mark's thing (not THAT thing)
March 23 - "Normal" class, update on visit 1 to the CM, and optional Chesebro
March 30 - Sarah and gaming, blogging chapter 8.

This leaves us April free for construction.




I totally agree with Vesna's idea which is the physical and Net Spaces are interdependent.

We've seen articles about Net technology is influencing our phyical and it's even changed the way and time we using our body parts. As occasion data serching through the internet, human brains are losing their memorizing fuction slowly but surely by degrees.

The technology which provides fast and anytime accessability to information on this planet, has certainly changed us to get information by typing and clicking for serching instead of trying to memorize it.


I really liked Sack's article because its dealing with questions I have had with all the added information on the web. How can all this be organized and categorized. At the end of his article he states: "the group of participants involved in a VLSC need a means to recognize themselves as a socially, politically, or economically (in) cohesive entity for purposes of self-governance."

"The Conversation Map system is an attempt to provide one effort towards building tools for community self-recongnition and self-governance."

Do you think these are good tools for building community and self-governance? Is this replacing going down to the town meeting to find out what's going on? Is this a form of education, persuasion, or propaganda? How could this change the face of the government/economy/and communities as we know them?


Sack poses the question: “If I want to participate in one of these huge discussions, my problem is this: How can I listen to thousands of others?” “How can my words be hard by the thousands of other who might be participating in the same conversation?”

I would like to look at a popular means to these conversations that is used widely right now… message boards. Why are people able to use these message boards?

It is important to note that, as Sack previously states, “The boundaries of these spaces and the communities they support are not geographic boundaries.” I think that is a key factor when dealing with the design of these “VLSC’s.”

The design must be able to be understood by everybody who uses it. A system of categories is the best way to do this to be able to be understood by everybody who uses it. Message boards categorize messages into categories of their own (threads), and conversations are held in the topics of those threads. Multiple threads are part of larger groups called forums. When messages are posted by users, they appear hierarchically depending on the time the message was posted.

When geographies of users are not important, it is important to design the “VLSC’s” based on categories rather than geographies.

By this means of categorizing conversations, users are able to quickly find where they are in the conversations and where the conversations left off.


OK here is that piece, pg.264
"What's so special about voice chips?"

the entire segment talks about how talking boxes have been present for ages and how there is a distinction between voice and noise.
Yes, we all are aware that we have voice enabled gadgets, like um.. some computers and PDas and cell phones and security entrances..ect etc ( dont know exactly what else )
all these to have higher security probably.. or for physicall disabled people..

well, i am thinking if we had these hardwares speak for such a long time why has there been such a delay in exploring thier potential? Why don't we have the jetsons in real life? why does it seem such a long road to that time?

Is the answer noise? I mean imagine you walking to your home door and speaking, " Sally, door open." the door replies in a female voice, "Hi Robert, welcome home."
then you proceed and speak to your voice mail, " Hi, Betty, voice messages plz." (remember you need to be polite) Betty replies, " Hi Robert, 11 people missed you today."

I mean this sounds cool but everyday in that monotonous sound? probably voice becomes noise then.. I mean we went to CMD the other day to check the new Eye Tracking system.. the TV was on the voice recognition mode.. and well Betsy had to scream and shout three times at least, to make it work, that too when it was in a generous mood.
Boy! imagine Robert yelling outside his house, Sally, open the door! door open! (makes me laugh) Sally repeatedly responding, "Sorry, Robert isn't home."

Yes, it further discusses voice in consumer goods, its soo common with thier small jingles and one liners that I don't even consider it voice anymore.. its a tape playing .. its not interacting.. no human like quality can be heard from them..

I agree with the author in, " Do Marginal voices have any say in the market?" pg.267
She says that voice chip is not particualy intended to sell the product but probably give that marginal edge over its competitors.

so that was my question and my answer.. what about you?


As I read this piece on voice chips and the way that humans interact vocally with technology I was a little suprised. Though I am really familiar with many different types of technology, technology still frustrates me to no end. I, therefore, am never polite when talking to inanimate objects - I'm actually pretty rude (if you can call that rudeness). In reference to Ashley's post concerning Rosie the maid from the Jetsons, I'm pretty sure that I would treat my robot horribly and could still politely function outside of my home. Robots (as of right now) have no feelings and can be talked down to, but I know the same isn't true for people.
I think that this technology would be great for some sort of robot therapist/robot whipping boy. I would love to have something other than a human - sentient or not - to come home to and rip into after a day of work. A machine meant to take abuse, wouldn't that be wonderful?

Side note - There's this great game for the Nintendo DS called "Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney." It's a courtroom arcade sim where you play a lawyer, and pretty much anytime you feel like you can yell "Objection!" into the mic input and something will happen. I love it. Objection!

Elizabeth_Chapter 7_Jeremijenko

In her article, Jeremijenko discusses the "structure of participation" between humans and devices containing voice chips. The author theorizes about how human beings will utilize voice recognition technology in the future. In order to ascertain such possibilities, she advertised a "design your own voice chip-using device" competition to the members of a science fiction writer's mailing list. She then used the just-under 300 entries received to make some assumptions of how we will use such technology in the future.
Some competitors, for example, designed devices that would trigger electric shocks in order to help regulate a user's self-control. Others used voice-chip devices to promulgate propaganda. Almost all of the entries illustrated the "desire for social and individual envisioning and regulation" (280).
Although I believe that the author is concerned about the effects technology might exercise on social behavior, do you think that such concerns are warranted? Can the messages contained in a voice chip device effect the way we act/think/feel, or are such devices merely novel gadgets that save time? Are Jeremijenko's ideas science fiction or fact?


“By spending time navigating, participants add intervals that replicate from the initial tetrahedron shape. Memes are added only online when the intervals are created by people in site, and only by those invited by the owner to timeshare the body and add further meaning to it. Thus the physical and online spaces are interdependent.”

Victoria Vesna introduced the relationship – human body and time concept – which how to have been changed a traditional time and physical organism. It is very interesting. My thoughts, however, reaches the change steps walk more deeply. Though she said it is only meaningful that human’s body is related a time and shared each other, now technologies overcome the limitation of time barriers. For instance, human’s physical old methods for gathering information via web searching are belonged to visiting and exploring the reliable source – portal, news site, professional community, etc – by themselves. But nowadays tech, RSS, requires us to change this pattern.
What is RSS? - “RSS is a format for syndicating news and the content of news-like sites, including major news sites like Wired, news-oriented community sites like Slashdot, and personal weblogs.” (cited from ‘’)
The time I wake up and make an effort to find out some information is Vesna’s basic start for dissertation. But now we can pretend to wake up every time via new technology (if you know how to use this skill).
My idea after reading this article is that ‘knowledge’ is seemed traditionally to memorize something in our brain, but now it is changed as to how fast to find out the answer and how effective to posses the database in our PC.


"Ironically, the same technology that makes distributed community a possibility and promised to save us time also prevents us from actually having time". Vesna gives an interesting overview on different perceptions of time and looks at advantages and disadvantages of modern communication.

The best way of communicating always will be direct communication. That is why a technology that transmits all aspects of communication will always be the most advanced. I've made the experience that many collaboration projects fail because of really bad communication systems. A good example for that would be blackboard.


"We then ask the complimentary question: when we can talk to things, what do we say? ... Can we get some new insights into the old question, Is language uniquely human?"

When I started reading the beginning of the paragraph she's talking about politeness in relation to inanimate objects, I was instinctually thinking of the Jetsons. How they interacted with Rosie (the robot maid) and all thier other service-providing hardware. They were sure to say the pleases and thank yous. I guess I would, out of habit, also be polite to my speaking machines. Not because I would be afraid that I would hurt their feelings and then they would cry and rust. But snobby people aren't nice to thier human maids and gardeners. Do you become so accustomed to them that you start taking them for granted as other humans? I, having never employed a maid, do not know the answer. I guess it's really interesting to think of the socialization between animate and inanimate. Do you treat the interaction as a function of the object? Or do you treat the function as an interaction? I don't believe that language is uniquely human, I feel animals communicate just fine using hoots/ hollars/ whistles/ what have you. But can language skills be employed and understood by a machine. What does that do to the interaction between me and my iRobot vaccume thingy? Will it vaccume my room and carry on a conversation about my day or my toothache?

I suppose that the all-encompassing question is how will voice chips change our interaction or socialization with everyday objects?


No questions from me, the first 1/3 of this article was all rhetorical questions. Thank you for an interesting article for a change, albeit a long one. Simply put, this article deals with machine-human vocal interaction. Interpret "vocal" in any way you like and it was pretty much covered. The fun part about this is, I talked about this back on my famed "text is dying" post (spaceholder for later citation that I'll never look up). We interact with identifiable/associated and unique voice chips so much in our daily lives that we don't realize it anymore. Is it that much of a stretch to assume that our basic computer-human interactivity will be through this method also? Granted, as of now I can't imagine trying to draw out a concept in PhotoShop using only voice commands. Heck, I can't even master "Queen to E5, Check."

What if we take it a step further. Human-computer-computer-human interaction? The future chatroom: a user makes their own avitar that "represent" themself (who would really do it honestly though). Then they send this character out into a social gathering environment with other characters and have conversations with real, or voice-chip transformed human voices. It's not that far away. Now before you say, hey, sounds like a MMORPG ABCDEFG, I'm talking purely social. The people make the characters attractive so these people feel like they're really meeting. Then they can sit down on a bench and have a private talk, mouths moving, eyes blinking, sneezing, coughing, getting creeped out yet?


Wednesday, March 15, 2006


"As we expand our fields of communication and influence through the Net, so we compress the time we have. In The Condition of Postmodernity, social geographer and theorist David Harvey refers frequently to time-space compression: process that so revolutionize the objective qualities of space and time that we are forced to alter, sometimes in quite radicl ways, hpw we represent the world." I guess I dont really have an idea its more of a thought. I like to think of the Internet time as a Casino or a Grocery store. Minus you system clock you never know what time it is and you get lost in the moment. YOu could spend HOURS on the Net and not even know it. Maybe if people didn't focus so much on Internet time they could find real time during the day to get things accomplished.

Tuesday, March 14, 2006


"What is important to realize is that while there are such things as 'games' and 'stories,' many new media artifacts are neither of these, but employ elements from both." (p. 311)

This is essentially what I have been saying through out this whole book. I think most of these authors have been trying to examine nitches, which are admittedly very important, but I think they seem to be missing the big picture. Everything here is so new that I think we must examine the larger picture and not narrow it done and pigeon hole any of these new technologies in to one or two limiting categories. That is my big idea for this whole book, while all of this is important I think we must not try to limit or simplify any of these new media.


I really, really dig Warren Sack's theories on very large scale conversations. It is such an interesting theory, which seemingly combines a number of different organization structures into concise way to track larger community discussions. I found a couple of updated articles on the subject by Sack and are interested to see how he addresses how the internet has changed in the last 5 years. For instance, if he has a way to incorporate blogs and large community sites, such as or

Either way past this, my actual question is...does all this organization, filtering and narrowing of information cut down the possibility of random exposure to information that goes against a persons belief? Does this just bring out only information which confirms people's current beliefs?

Monday, March 13, 2006


Victoria Vesna’s chapter on time and community is a good article about where the future of networking might go. Instead of focusing on unrealistic and fictional accounts of where digital mediums might go, Vesna concentrates on concrete and realistic occurrences of today and how they might impact the future. She simplifies it here: “we have the option of collaborating with people whom we never even meet, and consciously plan projects in which the audience become an integral part of the piece and even play an important role in its development.”

My Big Question is simply this: how will future networks affect our lives? Today, the internet has a prominent role in people’s lives, but it still does not control (most of us). I think this might change, but (in relation to Vesna’s article) in what way?

Friday, March 10, 2006

Blog 3.4 - Posting Instructions

HEADS = Read the articles in a section FIRST to LAST.
TAILS = Read the articles in a section LAST to FIRST.
2) ONE POST per person PER UNIT (NOT the book's responses) by Wednesday PM.
3) Your first post may be an idea OR a question.
4) You may add up to TWO additional posts about CHAPTERS or RESPONSES per week.
5) Label each "Big Idea" post like this:
YourFirstName__CHAPTER_AUTHOR__I - Example: John__MURRY__I
6) Label each "Big Question" post like this:
YourFirstName__CHAPTER_AUTHOR__Q - Example: John__MURRY__Q
7) TOTAL NUMBER of Ideas Posts / Question Posts / Comments:
8) Blogger will automatically sign each post w/ your name.
9) Pick a favorite "thread" (your's or someone else's) by classtime.
10) Each week's discussion will BEGIN with an examination of these "threads."

Thursday, March 02, 2006


I Doubt any one reads this but I just tried to put a regular Xbox game into my 360 and it wont play it. I know some people wanted to play regular games so someone might want to bring a Xbox. See ya