This blog has moved

This blog is now located at http://icom630sp06.blogspot.com/.
You will be automatically redirected in 30 seconds, or you may click here.

For feed subscribers, please update your feed subscriptions to
http://icom630sp06.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default.

Flook_Ch8_Walker_Q

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?

Betsy_Ch.8_Hayles_I

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.

RAFAEL_CH-7_JEREMIJENKO_I

CAN U CAPTURE A VOICE?
VOICE IS THE ICON OF PERSON. "TO BE GIVING A VOICE" IS SHORTHAND FOR THE FUNDAMENTAL UNIT OF DEMOCRACY: VOTING, "BEING REPRESENTED," OR PARTICIPATING. A DEVICE OF SOCIALITY AND THEREFORE INTERACTION, IT IS USED TO INTERPOLATE A SUBJECT(PRESUMABLY A PERSON) INTO SOCIETY, OR AS A PERFORMATIVE DEVICE TO INSTANTIATE SOCIAL AGREEMENTS AND IDENTITIES.
WHAT ABOUT VOICELESS PEOPLE? I DISAGREE HERE WITH THE REFERENCES FROM THE WRITER OF THE BOOK.
ALSO, I DO NOT THINK VOICE IS THE FUNDAMENTAL UNIT FOR DEMOCRAY. DEMOCRACY CAN BE ACHIVE WITH OUT VOICE. THE WRITER GOES TO FAR TRYING TO MIX A TOPIC CLEARLY OUT OF THE BOUNDS WHEN IT COMES TO THE BOOK. INFORMAL AND FORMAL COMMUNICATION ARE BLEND TOGETHER, THEY NEED EACH OTHER IN OTHER TO SURVIVE, USING ONLY "VOICE" AS A FUNDAMENTAL SOURCE ITS WRONG FROM MY PERSPECTIVE.

Betsy_Ch.7_Sack_Q

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?

Nick_Ch8_Montfort_I

"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.

Nick_Ch7_Sack_Q

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 myspace.com or facebook.com.

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?

Flook_Ch7_Vesna_Q

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?

Blog 3.4 - Posting Instructions

1) TOSS A COIN.
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.
2) THREE OR MORE COMMENTS TO POSTS by 5:30 PM Thursday.
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:
4+/person/week
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."

Betsy_Ch6_Cayley_Q

"I'm trying, as it were, to turn our attention from lines of verse to the letters of literal art and to place the latter in a significant contructive relationship with the pixels of digital graphic art." (213-214)

Cayley is trying to create a meaningful relationship between letters and pixels. --- I think.

"My argument is that the material manipulation of pixels derives, culturally, from an underlying gasp of the manipulation of letters." (214)

Is he trying to say people have been holding their breath to finally be able to manpulate letters??

RAFAEL_CHAPTER 6_CAYLEY_I

I TOTALLY DISAGREE WITH MR CAYLEY. IN PAGE 210 HE CITES THE FOLLOWING: THE WORLD OF LETTERS HAD PLAYED A CRUCIAL ROLE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF DIGITAL ART AND CULTURE.
THEN HE GOES ON: TEXT IS INDEED "THE WEB'S PRIMARY FOUNDATIONAL MEDIA"
I DISAGREE HERE. A BOOK PRIMARY FOUNDATION IS TEXT (PHONEMES), IN MAGAZINES TEXT (PHONEMES) BECOMES THE SECONDARY SOURCE AFTER PHOTOGRAPS. I THINK "EFFICIENCY" IS THE PRIMARY FOUNDATION OF THE NEW MEDIA.
VIVA ZAPATA!!!!!

Nick_Ch6_Seaman_Q

"Thus text presents one field of meaning force that can only be understood contextually in relation to other "neighboring" meaning forces - other media elements and living processes" (p. 230).

I know this is probably getting old, but Seaman states the above example, like many other comments in his article, as if it is something new and revolutionary. I don't understand when it was that context wasn't important in any type of visual art or narrative?

I also don't like that there is an advertisement for Seaman's upcoming work, funded by Intel, in the article.

FLOOK_CH6_UTTERBACK_I

One day, technology's interactivity will be at a point to allow artists to create some of the greatest works we have ever seen. I can only imagine how sophisticated artists of the future will manufacture work that allows viewers to transform to participants. Instead of viewing or reading art, we will become active in its rendering.

Camille Utterback shares what I see. As she so narcissistically proclaims, “In this essay I discuss interactive works by myself and others that incorporate poetic rather than practical interfaces to text or spoken language.” I think the idea of the body interacting with artwork is great. It goes beyond using one or two senses and (has the potential) to pull in all five to experience artists' expressions. We are moving in that direction and I can’t wait to see what happens.

However, none of Utterback’s fabulous examples are anything to note. Her and others’ "artwork" really are nothing more than technical novelty. We are given conventional physical objects (i.e. a ladder, see-saw, mirror, video camera) and we use them to interact with text. TEXT RAIN, for example, is stupid and is something that I would expect to find at a mall in Carmel, “Using a video camera as an input device allows the letters in [TEXT RAIN] to respond to a wide variety of human gestures and motions.” How is dancing with text art? I was not impressed by the giant piano in BIG and I am not impressed by people dancing with text.

DRAWING FROM LIFE is neither art nor intelligent. Utterback attempts to make it sound impressive with complex sentences and by employing her diverse vocabulary, “Upon entering the installation space, participants encounter a live video projection of themselves, but their images are completely transformed [into DNA letter code]…By abstracting live imagery of a viewer’s body into the letters that compose DNA, the installation raises questions about our embodiment and the code that is both part of, and helps produce our “selves” ” She has to be kidding. Abstracting live imagery and having it redisplayed as DNA raises no questions, it just looks cool. This really is nothing special and is something that I would expect to find at a children’s museum. “…entering the installation space, participants encounter…” come on, you stand in front of a camera!

Unusual Positions – Embodied Interaction with Symbolic Spaces

actually…

Usual Positions – Neat, Yet Non-Clever Ways To Dance With Text: Video Installations that Represent By-Products from a Stage in the Evolution of Interactive Technologies and Belong in Every White – Middle Class Mall In America.

All flash and no substance. I hate this book.


www.camilleutterback.com

Betsy_Ch.5_Strickland_Q

This question is close to what Taco was saying with how we learn to read/interpret differnt symbols.

Strickland says, "We shift differently, we censor differently, we move differently, to sound, to text, to image, and to animation. Today, perforce, we are learning to oscillate differently, in new 'ratios..'" With this change in ratios is our brain really keeping up? I'm not a brain expert, however I would enjoy some brain research to see if brains are changing along with the technology to keep up. Is it that kids now, who are growing up with computers are faster because they can interpret faster?

How is our brain adapting to these new faster technologies?

RAFA_Ch.5_Douglas&Hargadon_I

" PG 196.- WHETHER BY ACCIDENT OR DESIGN, EARLY GAMES DEVELOPERS HAD HIT DIGITAL PAYDIRT BY FOUNDING THEIR FIRST VENTURES ON THE BEDROCK OF TWO ESSENTIALS: A RECIPE FOR INTERACTION THAT ALL BUT GUARANTEED A DEEPLY IMMERSIVE EXPERIENCE AND STRONG, NORMATIVE SCHEMAS BORROWED FROM ALREADY FAMILIAR FORMS OF ENTERTAINMENT". I DISAGREE HERE, I DO NOT THINK THE "PRIMITIVE" STYLE OF ARCADE GAMES HAS ANYTHING TO DO WHIT THE IMMERSIVE EXPERIENCE. PERSONALLY REGARDLESS THE GAME I'M PLAYING THE IMMERSION IS THE SAME, DOES NOT MATTER IF THE GAME IS A "RETRO" GAME OR ONE OF MY GAMES FROM MY X-BOX, PS2, NINTENDO, OR SEGA.

Nick_Ch5_Bernstein_Q

I really like the idea of Card Shark. I think it is a simple organization system, but would work. It really seems to make the whole idea of hypertext or interactive narrative simple. It breaks it all down to a bunch of If-Then loops, which makes sense to me from the ol' C++ programming. My question is simple...is it this simple? Card Shark has spawned alot of ideas in my head...I just don't understand what I am missing.

FLOOK_CH5_Douglas_and_Hargadon_Q(s)

I think Douglas and Hargadon did a splendid job breaking down interactive media into the path of immersion, engagement, and flow. The authors use schemas and scripts to explain how digital stories are constructed. However, I don’t think the authors provided anything new. They did not bring anything new to the table. I know that interactivity is media where the user immerses, engages, and follows the narrative (potentially). People can and often do get pleasure out of it. They just wrote down what we already know. There main question is why.

One of their main points was how, “To date, most studies of reading and hypertext have focused almost entirely on readers’ physical and cognitive encounters with texts…not from the affective pleasures readers derive from their encounters.” Great. Thanks.

They go on to say that because of schemas and scripts in other media, readers can focus on other things instead of the minutiae of the text. Again, great, thank you. I guess my big question is this: why are the authors in this book so hell bent on using traditional terms to describe a revolutionary medium(s)? Furthermore, why are they so concerned about defining “texts” on interactive media? Douglas and Hargadon go to great lengths to compare many books to hypertexts. Why? There is so much more to the internet, gaming, and digital storytelling worlds. I think they should have focused less on pleasure and more on emotion.

RAFA_Ch4_ZIMMERMAN_Q

IN THIS ESSAY, ZIMMERMAN TALKS ABOUT NARRATIVE, INTERACTIVITY, PLAY AND GAMES.
THE PRODUCT IS EASY TO READ. MR. ZIMMERMAN CUT MY ATTENTION (NOT AN EASY TASK
SINCE I'M ADD POSITIVE) IN THE WAY HE DESCRIBES NARRATIVE AND I TOTALLY AGREE
WITH HIS VIEW (PG 156)
2. A NARRATIVE IS NOT MERELY A SERIES OF EVENTS BUT A PERSONIFICATION OF EVENTS THOUGH A MEDIUM SUCH AS LANGUAGE. THIS COMPONENT OF THE DEFINITION REFERENCES THE REPRESENTATIONAL ASPECT OF NARRATIVE.
HE ALSO GOES ON TO DESCRIBE GAME AS FOLLOWS: (PG 160)
A GAME IS A VOLUNTARY INTERACTIVE ACTIVITY, IN WHICH ONE OR MORE PLAYERS FOLLOW RULES THAT CONSTRAIN THEIR BEHAVIOR, ENACTING AN ARTIFICIAL CONFLICT THAT ENDS IN A QUANTIFIABLE OUTCOME.
I TOTALLY DISAGREE HERE WITH MR. ZIMMERMAN, "GAME CAN BE VOLUNTARY UNTIL A GAME NO LONGER IS A GAME AND BECOMES A ADDICTION OR A WAY OF LIFE" DO YOU AGREE WITH ME? DO POKER PLAYERS ARE PLAYING A GAME? OR ARE POKER PLAYERS NO LONGER PLAYERS BUT WORKERS?

Nick_Ch4_Pearce_Q

Pearce states, "the largest controversy has to do with the use of 'cut-scenes' also known as 'cinematics'" (p. 148). This is where the game stops and there is a segment of high quality video or graphics, usually used as the major narrative section of the game. My problem is that it stops the game dead in its tracks. You could be completely immersed in the energy and action of the game, but then you get to the cut-scene and bang-o* all action stops. I think this is also a major problem in many of the ideas of interactive television or DVD's.

So, how can we tell a story and keep the action going? Is this a technical limitation in the gaming world or something else?

*ha

Betsy_Ch.4_Zimmerman_I

Zimmerman says, "It's important to note that the "story" of the Ms. Pac-Man game-story certainly does not provide the same pleasures of a novel or film. But why should we expect it to? The question is, what pleasures can it provide that books or films cannot?"

Here is my attempt to answer:

Playing a Ms. Pac-Man game is very simple, I would think many people know the story of Ms. Pac-Man and what you have to do to survive, eat the yellow things and stay away from the ghosts. It's not as deep or as rich in a plot line such as a novel or a film. However Ms. Pac-Man adds a dimension, sort of like Mystery Science Theater 3000, in which you can add your own comments. You can laugh, yell, make fun of, talk, or not talk. You can do all these other actions that you cannot do in a movie theater or with reading a novel.

If someone has not read the novel you are reading, then any reactions will fall on deaf ears. Yet with Ms. Pac-Man you can 'play' and exagurate dying by a ghost and really get emotional with the game. So in summary, I think they pleasures it provides that books and films cannot is the emotional exprience that can be shared quickly with many.