the relationship between makers and users is not something i've ever really considered before this week's reading assignments. david norman states that the reader will not look at anything the same after reading his book, and after reading the intro and a chapter, i believe this is true.
the concept that user error is often not the fault of the user is brilliant and something i've never considered. humans are inherently hard on themselves and so our natural inclination is to blame ourselves and feel stupid if we can't operate an "everyday thing." but when there are no visual cues as to how to operate said thing, it is no surprise that it might baffle us. i think norman is fair in giving credit to designers, highlighting the difficulty in creating something that is easy to use, aesthetically pleasing, affordable, and facilitates pleasure of use.
he argues that it is when something (a button, switch, etc) is arbitrary, there is greater room for user confusion. the more functions something (a button, switch, etc) can perform, the more confusing that something is. when things have one distinct purpose, it is simple, elegant and easy to use -- all elements of good design.
norman writes, "if people keep buying poorly designed products, manufacturers and designers will think they are doing the right thing and continue as usual." so true. but we do keep buying poorly designed products. sometimes in the name of thrift, sometimes because there isn't an alternative that has been designed well.
i take a lot of aspects of the design of everyday things for granted. for instance, norman discusses the importance of the principle of feedback: "sending back to the user information about what action has actually been done, what result has been accomplished." feedback is something i take for granted. it is something that sometimes annoys me: the noise made when pushing a button on the microwave; the pop-up dialog box asking if i'm sure i want to delete something, etc. but if these feedback features didn't exist, i would make many mistakes, i am sure.
i'm currently interning at a media solutions/video production company. my supervisor has been working with a team of developers to create a custom content management system for a major client. it entered the beta phase of testing the second week i was there. my task is to stress-test the system, finding and reporting bugs, and to make suggestions for workflow enhancement. essentially, i am a test-user. when norman discusses the lack of testing prior to the implementation of the unintuitive phone system, it shocked me. it would be similar to my supervisor just throwing this CMS to the client without making sure 1.)the bugs were worked out and 2.)it was designed well enough for someone with basic understanding of CMS, but without training, to be able to hit the ground running with.
i have already found myself examining the design of everyday things and thinking about the ways that they have likely evolved from their original design, due to user influence.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
interview with andrew feenberg
it was interesting to read what feenberg had to say about user influence on design. as a user, i tend to take for granted that designers/technicians design and create with me in mind. apparently, i tend to be wrong. his anti-deterministic view of technology brings to mind my own thoughts on free will and destiny.
feenberg explains that, often, designers have a pretty narrow view of the functions of the technologies, designing them for one use. users then interpret the new technologies to suit their needs, finding new uses that were never conceived of by the designers. specifically, he says "people who design technologies don't think about human communication in the first instance. They think about other things and communication is added on later under the influence of users." Feenberg gives the example of the Internet's original intended use revolving around information and its evolution into a nexus of communication.
in this way, users contribute to the design of technologies, though it is almost always after the fact.
when feenberg discusses his views on critical theory of technology as a "critique of domination exercised through the organization of technically mediated institutions," he gives the example of broadcasting's allowance for one point-of-view to dominate information dissemination (rupert murdoch is named). he says that broadcasting doesn't allow much room for infiltration of independent voices, but the internet does. this ties into his idea of viewing technology as a "quasi-political institution." when he brings this up he is referring to the feedback loop between user and designer. users' abilities to communicate their needs and the designers' meeting these needs corresponds to the level of democracy found in that technology. when designers fail to meet these needs, users find their own ways to do so, creating "hacks."
he poses the question: "what is going to turn out to be more significant - the momentum of this mass culture of the Internet, or the lobbying and the bribery that corporations will use to get it under control?" i think that we are on the brink of finding out the answer to this question. we're hearing talk of media outlets charging for content, which i think will have major implications as far as the answer to this question. the struggle between free access to information and the ability for organizations who provide this information to survive financially will likely not end anytime soon. users will have to decide whether they want free information that may be of lower quality or if they'd rather pay for high-quality content. this is difficult because it sort of goes against the grain of the beginning of the Internet, when everything was vast and free. it seems the honeymoon is nearly over.
feenberg explains that, often, designers have a pretty narrow view of the functions of the technologies, designing them for one use. users then interpret the new technologies to suit their needs, finding new uses that were never conceived of by the designers. specifically, he says "people who design technologies don't think about human communication in the first instance. They think about other things and communication is added on later under the influence of users." Feenberg gives the example of the Internet's original intended use revolving around information and its evolution into a nexus of communication.
in this way, users contribute to the design of technologies, though it is almost always after the fact.
when feenberg discusses his views on critical theory of technology as a "critique of domination exercised through the organization of technically mediated institutions," he gives the example of broadcasting's allowance for one point-of-view to dominate information dissemination (rupert murdoch is named). he says that broadcasting doesn't allow much room for infiltration of independent voices, but the internet does. this ties into his idea of viewing technology as a "quasi-political institution." when he brings this up he is referring to the feedback loop between user and designer. users' abilities to communicate their needs and the designers' meeting these needs corresponds to the level of democracy found in that technology. when designers fail to meet these needs, users find their own ways to do so, creating "hacks."
he poses the question: "what is going to turn out to be more significant - the momentum of this mass culture of the Internet, or the lobbying and the bribery that corporations will use to get it under control?" i think that we are on the brink of finding out the answer to this question. we're hearing talk of media outlets charging for content, which i think will have major implications as far as the answer to this question. the struggle between free access to information and the ability for organizations who provide this information to survive financially will likely not end anytime soon. users will have to decide whether they want free information that may be of lower quality or if they'd rather pay for high-quality content. this is difficult because it sort of goes against the grain of the beginning of the Internet, when everything was vast and free. it seems the honeymoon is nearly over.
Monday, October 19, 2009
pew internet report: measuring our online footprint
this pew report explores a shift in perceptions and realities of privacy in a digital and transparent age. as we register on more and more social and media sites, we reveal more and more about who we are. as the report states early on, "the more content we contribute voluntarily to the public or semi-public corners of the Web, the more we are not only findable, but also knowable."
i was thinking, while reading, that the statistic that "it is still the case that most internet users are not social networkers or bloggers" was a reflection of the datedness of the study. true, it's only about 2.5 years old, but that is a long time when discussing social media trends. then i read brad's blog post about the study -- he points out that we are the "confident creatives." since i have been pretty participatory on the web since we got AOL at our house, it is hard for me to imagine that the majority of internet users aren't of the same mindset and practices as me.
i don't think i was particularly shocked by any of the findings in the report.
i have been afraid to google my name for the last 5 or so years. once in 2004ish, a friend and i googled ourselves and the top result for me was a scathing review of an article i had written freshman year for the student magazine i wrote for at university of buffalo. the website was some juvenile venture and i didn't take it too hard, but i decided to never google myself again because i'm too sensitive. but in the spirit of participation, i googled myself this weekend. and, like a decent portion of those surveyed for the pew report, i was surprised at what turned up.
i thought that since i blog about 4 or 5 times a week, there would be a bevy of links to my blog, but i was wrong. since i don't use my first and last name on my blog, posts on friends' blogs that use my first and last name appear at the top of the stack of results. my linkedin profile is the first result, a profile i haven't touched in about two years.
there is a certain sense of creepiness and big-brotherness to being able to type your name into a search engine and have results pop up. at the same time, we find it useful when we need/want to find out about other people. it has to work both ways.
i was thinking, while reading, that the statistic that "it is still the case that most internet users are not social networkers or bloggers" was a reflection of the datedness of the study. true, it's only about 2.5 years old, but that is a long time when discussing social media trends. then i read brad's blog post about the study -- he points out that we are the "confident creatives." since i have been pretty participatory on the web since we got AOL at our house, it is hard for me to imagine that the majority of internet users aren't of the same mindset and practices as me.
i don't think i was particularly shocked by any of the findings in the report.
i have been afraid to google my name for the last 5 or so years. once in 2004ish, a friend and i googled ourselves and the top result for me was a scathing review of an article i had written freshman year for the student magazine i wrote for at university of buffalo. the website was some juvenile venture and i didn't take it too hard, but i decided to never google myself again because i'm too sensitive. but in the spirit of participation, i googled myself this weekend. and, like a decent portion of those surveyed for the pew report, i was surprised at what turned up.
i thought that since i blog about 4 or 5 times a week, there would be a bevy of links to my blog, but i was wrong. since i don't use my first and last name on my blog, posts on friends' blogs that use my first and last name appear at the top of the stack of results. my linkedin profile is the first result, a profile i haven't touched in about two years.
there is a certain sense of creepiness and big-brotherness to being able to type your name into a search engine and have results pop up. at the same time, we find it useful when we need/want to find out about other people. it has to work both ways.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
What value do users derive from social networking applications?
as a user who is pretty much totally opposed to facebook applications (with the exception of a month-long bout of Scramble addiction), i entered this reading from a pretty cynical mindset.
i enjoyed the concept of defining "cool" because isn't that the age-old question? what is cool? apparently sex and the city RPG on facebook is cool. who'd'a thought?
like the social media revolution video assigned this week, i believe the intended audience for this study would be business owners, marketers and advertisers. i am none of these things and don't know that i ever will be. although, this is exactly the reason i have an aversion to apps: i believe they are all (okay, maybe not all) subversive tools of marketers trying to use us as pawns in the game of Turning a Buck. i do all in my power to rise above these sneaky mindgames. also, most facebook apps seem kind of silly to me.
I'm not sure what new information the study really revealed. in the Conclusion section, the authors state, "There is no global solution to developing and application that will be widely encouraged and used." they admit that their findings were not surprising. does this mean the study was unsuccessful? i'm not sure.
i believe that it is important to establish definitions for concepts that are relatively new but aren't going anywhere. i believe that it is important to conduct research now that can be used as a reference point for comparison in future studies.
interestingly, after finishing reading this piece, i scanned my facebook homepage and saw this link in a friend's status update. his status said something to the effect of "now you'll all understand why i don't accept your application invitations."
i enjoyed the concept of defining "cool" because isn't that the age-old question? what is cool? apparently sex and the city RPG on facebook is cool. who'd'a thought?
like the social media revolution video assigned this week, i believe the intended audience for this study would be business owners, marketers and advertisers. i am none of these things and don't know that i ever will be. although, this is exactly the reason i have an aversion to apps: i believe they are all (okay, maybe not all) subversive tools of marketers trying to use us as pawns in the game of Turning a Buck. i do all in my power to rise above these sneaky mindgames. also, most facebook apps seem kind of silly to me.
I'm not sure what new information the study really revealed. in the Conclusion section, the authors state, "There is no global solution to developing and application that will be widely encouraged and used." they admit that their findings were not surprising. does this mean the study was unsuccessful? i'm not sure.
i believe that it is important to establish definitions for concepts that are relatively new but aren't going anywhere. i believe that it is important to conduct research now that can be used as a reference point for comparison in future studies.
interestingly, after finishing reading this piece, i scanned my facebook homepage and saw this link in a friend's status update. his status said something to the effect of "now you'll all understand why i don't accept your application invitations."
Social Media Revolution video
this video was so intense. immediately, the van halen song "right now" came to mind. and then the female singer started singing "right here, right now, right here, right now." i lost it.
i imagine the intended audience for this video would be businesses that haven't quite made the jump to digital and social marketing. it is hard to imagine that anyone out there doesn't realize that social media is not just a fad and is "a fundamental shift in the way we communicate."
the presentation seemed a bit abrasive and urgent to me. the statistics presented were, indeed, interesting. and i suppose if you're trying to convince a stodgy, stuck-in-his/her-ways business owner, the message might need to be presented so strongly.
aside from my aversion to the unnecessary intensity of the video, i do think it was well-produced. it had some of the same stylistic elements of "the machine is us/ing us:" e.g. typing in a twitter interface while discussing twitter.
one argument made took me aback: "Generation Y and Z consider e-mail passe." really? i'm not sure which generation I'm in, but i consider e-mail awesome.
i imagine the intended audience for this video would be businesses that haven't quite made the jump to digital and social marketing. it is hard to imagine that anyone out there doesn't realize that social media is not just a fad and is "a fundamental shift in the way we communicate."
the presentation seemed a bit abrasive and urgent to me. the statistics presented were, indeed, interesting. and i suppose if you're trying to convince a stodgy, stuck-in-his/her-ways business owner, the message might need to be presented so strongly.
aside from my aversion to the unnecessary intensity of the video, i do think it was well-produced. it had some of the same stylistic elements of "the machine is us/ing us:" e.g. typing in a twitter interface while discussing twitter.
one argument made took me aback: "Generation Y and Z consider e-mail passe." really? i'm not sure which generation I'm in, but i consider e-mail awesome.
Monday, October 12, 2009
professional investigation
after reading Hey unemployed media professionals!, i am shocked that the author does not mention online identity.
my online identity is something i am constantly waffling about. my blog is a really important part of my self-expression and i often don't contemplate the content/message of a post before clicking "publish." there is occasionally questionable material and i will be reminded of this by emails from my father. most of what i write is not really worthy of being read by anyone, it's just catharsis for me. over the last year, i've started a few side-blogs, none of which made it past a few posts: holiday mantis, we hate you, i can't stop.
i think that if there is one thing standing in the way of me getting a totally killer job as a video producer for a local news organization (that would be the ideal position for me) after earning my MA in new media studies, that thing will probably be my online identity.
and this is where the struggle comes in: do i sacrifice self-expression in the name of finding a job? i don't think that is something i can justify. this is a murky area ridden with fine lines and slippery slopes. i suppose the job determines the amount of importance on online identity. but much like i think drug testing for jobs is silly, discounting me as a potential job candidate because i write a blog about synchronicity and am often saracastic is silly.
anyway, back to the blog post and things she actually did mention:
i think her 5 main points hold true. you gotta be in it to win it and you can't expect to win fame and fortune by maintaining a blog.
online media as a career field is still new. no one really knows any sure-fire secrets to securing a job. this isn't law school or med school. and i think that's part of what makes it so exciting. we can do whatever we want. we can create a new job that has never existed before to suit our desires. to me, that sounds much better than taking the bar exam.
my online identity is something i am constantly waffling about. my blog is a really important part of my self-expression and i often don't contemplate the content/message of a post before clicking "publish." there is occasionally questionable material and i will be reminded of this by emails from my father. most of what i write is not really worthy of being read by anyone, it's just catharsis for me. over the last year, i've started a few side-blogs, none of which made it past a few posts: holiday mantis, we hate you, i can't stop.
i think that if there is one thing standing in the way of me getting a totally killer job as a video producer for a local news organization (that would be the ideal position for me) after earning my MA in new media studies, that thing will probably be my online identity.
and this is where the struggle comes in: do i sacrifice self-expression in the name of finding a job? i don't think that is something i can justify. this is a murky area ridden with fine lines and slippery slopes. i suppose the job determines the amount of importance on online identity. but much like i think drug testing for jobs is silly, discounting me as a potential job candidate because i write a blog about synchronicity and am often saracastic is silly.
anyway, back to the blog post and things she actually did mention:
i think her 5 main points hold true. you gotta be in it to win it and you can't expect to win fame and fortune by maintaining a blog.
online media as a career field is still new. no one really knows any sure-fire secrets to securing a job. this isn't law school or med school. and i think that's part of what makes it so exciting. we can do whatever we want. we can create a new job that has never existed before to suit our desires. to me, that sounds much better than taking the bar exam.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
microvlogging
so i just learned about microvlogging this morning and immediately opened an account.
i am pretty anti-twitter, at least for my own personal use. i don't really care what other people do, but i have been against it from the very beginning.
but. i'm a big fan of the vlog. i am guilty of recording and editing vlogs, but not posting them to the internets because they make me feel self-absorbed.
anyway, i think robo.to is pretty fun. i don't know if it really serves a purpose, but it makes me giggle.
i am pretty anti-twitter, at least for my own personal use. i don't really care what other people do, but i have been against it from the very beginning.
but. i'm a big fan of the vlog. i am guilty of recording and editing vlogs, but not posting them to the internets because they make me feel self-absorbed.
anyway, i think robo.to is pretty fun. i don't know if it really serves a purpose, but it makes me giggle.
Multimodal Discourse/ Remediation
my first impression upon completing this reading, was that multimodality allows for individualization and the ability to convey a message more effectively than in a monomodal form.
the overlapping functions of the four semiotic strata kress and van leeuwen define (discourse, design, production and distribution) brought to mind the dimensions of media from the turnley paper we read earlier this semester. it seems to me that without defining the discourse, design is impossible. and of course without the design, there is nothing to produce or distribute.
the discussion of provenance and experiential meaning potential interested me. inspiration and what springs forth from it is something i think about a lot. a few months ago i wrote a blog post about how sometimes i resent art because it makes everything seem inauthentic. i feel like everything is cliche and nothing is genuine because it is this endless cycle of provenance and experiential meaning creation. i received comments, and i have gone back and forth in my own mind, saying that it is okay and that is what art is for and that is just how the world works.
this, i think, ties into the reading by bolter and grusin from "Remediation." remediation is defined as the process of new media (specifically, in this case, digital media) defining themselves by borrowing from and/or repurposing old media. the reading also focuses on immediacy and hypermediacy. immediacy is the "perfection, or erasure, of the gap between the signifier and the signified, such that a representation is perceived to be a thing itself [via]." hypermediacy's goal is make the viewer aware of the medium/media in use.
essentially, the argument made in Remediation is that new media is necessarily derived from old media. and it can never escape that or hide it or transcend it. "Repurposing as remediation is both what is 'unique to digital worlds' and what denies the possibility of that uniqueness." This quote reminds me of my blog post about resentment for art. Because everything is derivative, nothing is pure. And i don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, but it can get me down on days i'm feeling particularly uncreative. i think the lesson to be taken away from this reading is that it's okay to build upon the past and make it better; make it your own.
so basically, the provenance of an old medium can lead to the experiential meaning potential of a new medium being realized and help to form the new medium until it takes on its own "personality," if you will.
the overlapping functions of the four semiotic strata kress and van leeuwen define (discourse, design, production and distribution) brought to mind the dimensions of media from the turnley paper we read earlier this semester. it seems to me that without defining the discourse, design is impossible. and of course without the design, there is nothing to produce or distribute.
the discussion of provenance and experiential meaning potential interested me. inspiration and what springs forth from it is something i think about a lot. a few months ago i wrote a blog post about how sometimes i resent art because it makes everything seem inauthentic. i feel like everything is cliche and nothing is genuine because it is this endless cycle of provenance and experiential meaning creation. i received comments, and i have gone back and forth in my own mind, saying that it is okay and that is what art is for and that is just how the world works.
this, i think, ties into the reading by bolter and grusin from "Remediation." remediation is defined as the process of new media (specifically, in this case, digital media) defining themselves by borrowing from and/or repurposing old media. the reading also focuses on immediacy and hypermediacy. immediacy is the "perfection, or erasure, of the gap between the signifier and the signified, such that a representation is perceived to be a thing itself [via]." hypermediacy's goal is make the viewer aware of the medium/media in use.
essentially, the argument made in Remediation is that new media is necessarily derived from old media. and it can never escape that or hide it or transcend it. "Repurposing as remediation is both what is 'unique to digital worlds' and what denies the possibility of that uniqueness." This quote reminds me of my blog post about resentment for art. Because everything is derivative, nothing is pure. And i don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, but it can get me down on days i'm feeling particularly uncreative. i think the lesson to be taken away from this reading is that it's okay to build upon the past and make it better; make it your own.
so basically, the provenance of an old medium can lead to the experiential meaning potential of a new medium being realized and help to form the new medium until it takes on its own "personality," if you will.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
homeless tv
i recently started an internship at a web video production house and this youtube video was sent around by the head producer. it's pretty funny:
on a related note, have y'all heard about the newest american girl doll? she's homeless! and costs just shy of $100.
on a related note, have y'all heard about the newest american girl doll? she's homeless! and costs just shy of $100.
Monday, October 5, 2009
check out danah boyd's research
So this post is about a study/speech that I wanted to use for the Pew report assignment but I wasn't sure if it was statistics-laden enough. I figured I should write about it anyway.
The woman who gave this speech/performed the research is really awesome. A friend turned me on to danah boyd's work a handful of months ago and I like what she's doing. She focuses on how teens use the internet and social networking to socialize and how it reflects their real life interactions.
I got really pumped when I saw this article on the root (an off-shoot of one of my top 3 sites, slate) because i saw danah's name.
what i gather from essays i've read by danah boyd is that the online social networks are often reflective of what the teens are trying to project in real life (meatspace) social circles. her argument with this research is that the same class and racial segregation that occurs in the cafeteria and study hall occurs online on myspace/facebook. she says in the root interview: "[Social media] is their hanging out after school. It reflects all kinds of things back at us that mirror and magnify what we like to pretend doesn’t exist."
and it's not just saying that only one race has a significant presence on one site and a different race has a significant presence on another site. she also looks at friending trends. online, as in real life, she has found a lot of segregation.
i have a 14 year-old niece and i keep a pretty vigilant watch over her myspace and facebook pages. it is smack-you-in-the-face clear that teens' online identities are a huge part of their real life identities. she is constantly begging for picture comments and posts about 7 versions of the same photo. she broadcasts who her best friend is that week and what boy she's in love with.
i think the research danah boyd is performing is really relevant and useful. this is a whole new animal for parents of teens to deal with, what with cyberbullying and cyberpervs and predators. since parents of today's teenagers didn't grow up with the internet, let alone facebook, they need all the insight they can get.
The woman who gave this speech/performed the research is really awesome. A friend turned me on to danah boyd's work a handful of months ago and I like what she's doing. She focuses on how teens use the internet and social networking to socialize and how it reflects their real life interactions.
I got really pumped when I saw this article on the root (an off-shoot of one of my top 3 sites, slate) because i saw danah's name.
what i gather from essays i've read by danah boyd is that the online social networks are often reflective of what the teens are trying to project in real life (meatspace) social circles. her argument with this research is that the same class and racial segregation that occurs in the cafeteria and study hall occurs online on myspace/facebook. she says in the root interview: "[Social media] is their hanging out after school. It reflects all kinds of things back at us that mirror and magnify what we like to pretend doesn’t exist."
and it's not just saying that only one race has a significant presence on one site and a different race has a significant presence on another site. she also looks at friending trends. online, as in real life, she has found a lot of segregation.
i have a 14 year-old niece and i keep a pretty vigilant watch over her myspace and facebook pages. it is smack-you-in-the-face clear that teens' online identities are a huge part of their real life identities. she is constantly begging for picture comments and posts about 7 versions of the same photo. she broadcasts who her best friend is that week and what boy she's in love with.
i think the research danah boyd is performing is really relevant and useful. this is a whole new animal for parents of teens to deal with, what with cyberbullying and cyberpervs and predators. since parents of today's teenagers didn't grow up with the internet, let alone facebook, they need all the insight they can get.
Pew report: Networked Families
October 2008, Networked Families, by Barry Wellman, Aaron Smith, Amy Wells and Tracy Kennedy
This report is an examination of how new technologies, namely cell phones and the Internet, play a role in family relationships and closeness. The researchers examined a few different types of households for their study: married without children, married with children (ages 7-17), multiple non-married adults and children in one house, multiple non-married adults and no children in home, and single parents.
Ultimately, the researchers found that most people feel new technologies have had a positive impact -- if any -- on their familial relationships. The majority of those surveyed said they think the closeness in their families are equal to or greater than the levels of closeness they experienced growing up.
Before reading this report, I thought of a current commercial for a cell phone service provider (the company escapes me now). Two little girls are texting each other: "what r u doing?" "eating, lol. u?" then the camera pulls back and the viewer sees that they are sisters, sitting next to each other at a dinner table with their mother and father. father rolls his eyes in exasperation. i have no doubt this happens at many dinner tables in real life.
I also thought about the family I used to be a nanny for and how the kids would, if allowed, spend hours upon hours online. They were really into webkinz, and would get completely hypnotized by playing in this online world. All three of them would crowd around the computer and argue over whose turn it was to man the controls.
A major point in the study is: "The internet enables shared 'Hey, look at this!' experiences." This point is made in conjunction with the finding that 52% of those surveyed that fall into the married-with-children category go online with another person at least a few times a week. This refutes the assumption that internet use can be isolating. I thought this was an interesting point to make and at first I balked at it. I wrote in my notes, in fact, "This is still passive interaction," comparing it in my mind to television. But upon further reflection I think maybe there is some validity to the point that sharing "hey look at this" experiences can nurture closeness. As with any kind of media (books, magazines, radio programs, television), digital media can spark robust conversation and debate and help people learn more about each other.
The wording about the finding that people surveyed claimed they watch less television "thanks to the internet" was troublesome to me. Not all television is bad. Most of it is bad, but there is worthwhile, enriching programming out there. There is also a lot of bad, unproductive internet content. I'm not convinced that watching less television and using more internet is a positive thing. Not to say it is negative, but I found the wording to suggest the former.
The study notes that spouses often keep in touch throughout the day via cell phone calls. Most of their calls are just to say hi and check in with each other, rather than making major plans.
A few points made in this study brought to mind McLuhan's argument that we ignore and/or understate the amputations caused by new media. One sentence in particular stands out: "Roughly nine in ten internet users say that the time they spend online has had no impact on the amount of time they spend with friends, family or at social events." I don't know if I buy that. I do believe that people responded that way, but I don't believe it to be true. I know that I have been distracted and then been late to meet with friends/family because I was on the Internet. I also have been victim to the iphone: I'm out to dinner/drinks/whatever with a friend who has an iphone and he will look something up on wikipedia mid-conversation. When this happens, while we're all physically together, we aren't mentally in the same place. I think this is more detrimental to interpersonal relationships than being too busy with work to go out to dinner. I think people are in denial of their abilities to forget that they are spending time with someone and that it is rude to surf the internet on your phone or text with other people.
In the end, the study argues that for most families, cell phones and the internet have been mostly good additions to the households.
This report is an examination of how new technologies, namely cell phones and the Internet, play a role in family relationships and closeness. The researchers examined a few different types of households for their study: married without children, married with children (ages 7-17), multiple non-married adults and children in one house, multiple non-married adults and no children in home, and single parents.
Ultimately, the researchers found that most people feel new technologies have had a positive impact -- if any -- on their familial relationships. The majority of those surveyed said they think the closeness in their families are equal to or greater than the levels of closeness they experienced growing up.
Before reading this report, I thought of a current commercial for a cell phone service provider (the company escapes me now). Two little girls are texting each other: "what r u doing?" "eating, lol. u?" then the camera pulls back and the viewer sees that they are sisters, sitting next to each other at a dinner table with their mother and father. father rolls his eyes in exasperation. i have no doubt this happens at many dinner tables in real life.
I also thought about the family I used to be a nanny for and how the kids would, if allowed, spend hours upon hours online. They were really into webkinz, and would get completely hypnotized by playing in this online world. All three of them would crowd around the computer and argue over whose turn it was to man the controls.
A major point in the study is: "The internet enables shared 'Hey, look at this!' experiences." This point is made in conjunction with the finding that 52% of those surveyed that fall into the married-with-children category go online with another person at least a few times a week. This refutes the assumption that internet use can be isolating. I thought this was an interesting point to make and at first I balked at it. I wrote in my notes, in fact, "This is still passive interaction," comparing it in my mind to television. But upon further reflection I think maybe there is some validity to the point that sharing "hey look at this" experiences can nurture closeness. As with any kind of media (books, magazines, radio programs, television), digital media can spark robust conversation and debate and help people learn more about each other.
The wording about the finding that people surveyed claimed they watch less television "thanks to the internet" was troublesome to me. Not all television is bad. Most of it is bad, but there is worthwhile, enriching programming out there. There is also a lot of bad, unproductive internet content. I'm not convinced that watching less television and using more internet is a positive thing. Not to say it is negative, but I found the wording to suggest the former.
The study notes that spouses often keep in touch throughout the day via cell phone calls. Most of their calls are just to say hi and check in with each other, rather than making major plans.
A few points made in this study brought to mind McLuhan's argument that we ignore and/or understate the amputations caused by new media. One sentence in particular stands out: "Roughly nine in ten internet users say that the time they spend online has had no impact on the amount of time they spend with friends, family or at social events." I don't know if I buy that. I do believe that people responded that way, but I don't believe it to be true. I know that I have been distracted and then been late to meet with friends/family because I was on the Internet. I also have been victim to the iphone: I'm out to dinner/drinks/whatever with a friend who has an iphone and he will look something up on wikipedia mid-conversation. When this happens, while we're all physically together, we aren't mentally in the same place. I think this is more detrimental to interpersonal relationships than being too busy with work to go out to dinner. I think people are in denial of their abilities to forget that they are spending time with someone and that it is rude to surf the internet on your phone or text with other people.
In the end, the study argues that for most families, cell phones and the internet have been mostly good additions to the households.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
