One of the things we have discussed this semester is how the internet and web 2.0 in particular is based a lot on participation. The first two of the art pieces that I clicked on that sounded interesting and enticing to me, such as Qubo Gas’s Watercouleur Park and Martin Wattenberg’s IdeaLine where examples of how different people’s participation has led to one product. However for me they were both too cluttered for me – When I clicked on Liliana Porter’s Rehearsal piece, I liked it – and settled on that.
The first thing that stood out to me in this piece was the “Chick Solo” aspect of it. While my first instinct for Porter’s very simple assembly of chicken figurines was that it was just that – a few chicken figures put together because she happened to have them around. But looking at symbolism and applying Porter’s piece to Web 2.0 made me think that in a sense these chicks represented Web 2.0 – together they produced this musical piece but once you clicked on them separately they each sang their own tune; Web 2.0 is created from the participation or ‘solos’ from many people to create a finished product.
The introduction mentioned Porter’s focus on “questioning the boundary between reality and its representation,” but that “Porter sensed that after a certain degree of social evolution of technology, the idea that there is something real and something virtual, the surprise and magic of producing connections between these planes, would cease to be meaningful." This brought back a connection to one of the earlier readings we had this semester, discussing virtual reality, and then different realities there are. Porter’s idea that eventually it won’t be an issue, and that people will not be so excited over connecting the two, is certainly an interesting one, as everyday there seems to be a new announcement of how something has been made easier by now being available online instead of offline.
Another way that I found Porter’s piece interesting was that it used old art to create new art. In the text introduction to the piece it says the song is from an old opera and that the chicken figurines themselves are ones that Porter collected over the years, so also older than the actual art piece on the webpage. By using a simple digital medium like this, where there are not a million things going on at once, and while being interactive it is not overly so having you click on 500 objects etc, it is a good way to open up more art to people. I had never heard of the opera Rigoletto, and yet by reading the introduction and hearing the music, I learned about the opera. Overall I felt that Porter’s piece was a good example of how sometimes the simpler ways, and less flashy ways, are a better approach than trying to put out all the stops and overwhelm the audience.
Showing posts with label response. Show all posts
Showing posts with label response. Show all posts
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Reading Response: Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites
In Boyd’s piece, she focuses on discussing certain questions that have arisen in response to the rise of the use of social network sites by teenagers in the United States as well as other countries. Some of the questions raised appear to be easily answered at first, such as “why do teenagers flock to these sites” (as many teens might answer, because “it’s cool.”) but when looked at in more depth, they raise some of the other questions, such as what exactly are they expressing on them, and are like face-to-face friendships; are they different or complementary? One of the ones I found most intriguing was what they learn from their participation, as the question of what is gained by using the internet is asked by many. A question Boyd left out which is just as important though, is what do they contribute by using these websites.
In reflecting on past readings, one thing these social networking sites enable is Warschauer’s idea of social capital, and the contribution of it. All three types of social capital are demonstrated when teenagers use websites like Facebook, MySpace, Friendster etc. The bonding of social capital occurs among groups of friends when they connect online, such as the two girls mentioned by Boyd who made fake profiles for their parents to see and had other profiles that they kept active. The bridging of social capital I felt was exemplified by the girl quoted at the start, saying how she posts things on her Xanga that she doesn’t feel she is able to share in class, because “I think if kids in school read what I have to say and how I say it, they'll want to be my friend.” This provides the opportunity for members of other social groups to reach out to her, and therefore bridge social capital. The norm related social capital is also shown in Boyd’s piece, when she describes how often when starting a profile online, teenagers will look to other profiles of their friends to see what they said, and what is acceptable to post.
In asking what exactly is it that they are expressing on these websites and if these are different or complementary to face-to-face friendships, I would have a month ago said that they are very different at least in regards to those who have not met online. That being said, after learning about virtual as fake and virtual as potential, it brings me to reconsider that question.
Boyd’s concept of networked publics was also an interesting one, as she describes a networked public as being mediated, the network mediating the interactions between members of the public. This made me think of websites like Wikipedia, or even Google chat, and if Boyd would consider them to be a networked public, as the argument could be made that there are not enough rules and boundaries for chatting that could make it considered to be mediated. Many of the parents of teenagers who are using these social networking sites would most likely also not consider them to be mediated by the network, and in need of more regulations.
Overall, while Boyd’s piece was intended to answer questions, for me it ended up raising more questions about the usage of the social networking websites and how it benefits those who use them, and perhaps also how it might provide a disservice to those who use them.
In reflecting on past readings, one thing these social networking sites enable is Warschauer’s idea of social capital, and the contribution of it. All three types of social capital are demonstrated when teenagers use websites like Facebook, MySpace, Friendster etc. The bonding of social capital occurs among groups of friends when they connect online, such as the two girls mentioned by Boyd who made fake profiles for their parents to see and had other profiles that they kept active. The bridging of social capital I felt was exemplified by the girl quoted at the start, saying how she posts things on her Xanga that she doesn’t feel she is able to share in class, because “I think if kids in school read what I have to say and how I say it, they'll want to be my friend.” This provides the opportunity for members of other social groups to reach out to her, and therefore bridge social capital. The norm related social capital is also shown in Boyd’s piece, when she describes how often when starting a profile online, teenagers will look to other profiles of their friends to see what they said, and what is acceptable to post.
In asking what exactly is it that they are expressing on these websites and if these are different or complementary to face-to-face friendships, I would have a month ago said that they are very different at least in regards to those who have not met online. That being said, after learning about virtual as fake and virtual as potential, it brings me to reconsider that question.
Boyd’s concept of networked publics was also an interesting one, as she describes a networked public as being mediated, the network mediating the interactions between members of the public. This made me think of websites like Wikipedia, or even Google chat, and if Boyd would consider them to be a networked public, as the argument could be made that there are not enough rules and boundaries for chatting that could make it considered to be mediated. Many of the parents of teenagers who are using these social networking sites would most likely also not consider them to be mediated by the network, and in need of more regulations.
Overall, while Boyd’s piece was intended to answer questions, for me it ended up raising more questions about the usage of the social networking websites and how it benefits those who use them, and perhaps also how it might provide a disservice to those who use them.
Reading Response: O’Reilly’s What is Web 2.0
According to O’Reilly, Web 2.0 has many key characteristics, such as being very user interactive, with users sharing the data, hypertexting and increasing the popularity as well as the speed of the service. The service also being a key characteristic, instead of packaged software, such as Netscape which quickly was overshadowed. Another key characteristic O’Reilly mentions as uses Amazon as an example of, is having ‘hard to recreate’ data sources, where he then compared Amazon to Barnes and Noble – same products but through using the actual users and tagging, or folksonomy, the product sold on Amazon has more users either backing it up or not. Interestingly enough, though these are some of what O’Reilly states are “Core” competencies of Web 2.0, he also states right after listing them that “excellence in one area may be more telling than some small steps in all seven.”
Throughout the entire article, O’Reilly makes Web 2.0 sound like it is far better than Web 1.0, as it is a step forward, and yet in some of his comparisons, it is questionable. Marketing wise Web 2.0 appears much for targeted and therefore successful. That said, one of the “Web 1.0 v. Web 2.0” comparisons O’Reilly makes is Brittanica Online v. Wikipedia. While perhaps Wikipedia is more Web 2.0 as it allows users to make entries, update them etc, “with enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow," he quotes. With some non controversial ‘topics’ or entries that may be the case, but as someone who was an intern and had to check and edit the definitions of “Veal” & “Foie Gras” on Wikipedia on a daily basis, it really depends on who had a faster server and more time (or employees) to devote to the issue. (In my case, Hudson Valley Foie Gras won out.)
Some other quotations he had jumped out at me, the first one being that “Shakeouts typically mark the point at which an ascendant technology is ready to take its place at center stage.” This made me think of in the past, when DVD’s first started taking over, where you could barely find VHS versions of anything, and even now, where analog televisions will no longer work and everything has been switched to digital. Even now, everyone has seen commercials for Blue Ray discs, and it has frequently sparked discussion that often begins with “why would we use that when we have DVD’s” and yet it’s the same argument used for tapes v. CD’s, and PC v. laptop, and now it makes me look at the current standoffs or shake ups, between DVD’s v. Blue Ray, or even Windows Vista v. Mac. While one of the characteristics of Web 2.0 was that users didn’t have to upgrade constantly and buy new software (as with Netscape) it seems that in the big picture, we are having to upgrade in order to stay with what is now Web 2.0, and in the future I’m sure 3.0 and all those that follow
Throughout the entire article, O’Reilly makes Web 2.0 sound like it is far better than Web 1.0, as it is a step forward, and yet in some of his comparisons, it is questionable. Marketing wise Web 2.0 appears much for targeted and therefore successful. That said, one of the “Web 1.0 v. Web 2.0” comparisons O’Reilly makes is Brittanica Online v. Wikipedia. While perhaps Wikipedia is more Web 2.0 as it allows users to make entries, update them etc, “with enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow," he quotes. With some non controversial ‘topics’ or entries that may be the case, but as someone who was an intern and had to check and edit the definitions of “Veal” & “Foie Gras” on Wikipedia on a daily basis, it really depends on who had a faster server and more time (or employees) to devote to the issue. (In my case, Hudson Valley Foie Gras won out.)
Some other quotations he had jumped out at me, the first one being that “Shakeouts typically mark the point at which an ascendant technology is ready to take its place at center stage.” This made me think of in the past, when DVD’s first started taking over, where you could barely find VHS versions of anything, and even now, where analog televisions will no longer work and everything has been switched to digital. Even now, everyone has seen commercials for Blue Ray discs, and it has frequently sparked discussion that often begins with “why would we use that when we have DVD’s” and yet it’s the same argument used for tapes v. CD’s, and PC v. laptop, and now it makes me look at the current standoffs or shake ups, between DVD’s v. Blue Ray, or even Windows Vista v. Mac. While one of the characteristics of Web 2.0 was that users didn’t have to upgrade constantly and buy new software (as with Netscape) it seems that in the big picture, we are having to upgrade in order to stay with what is now Web 2.0, and in the future I’m sure 3.0 and all those that follow
Peer Teaching Reflection
Alison and I were at first both stumped over what topic to use for our peer teaching. Finally we asked each other, what are we good at? Alison mentioned she had recently helped a friend of her dad’s set up a profile on one of the dating sites, called gofish.com. I had also had some experience with the online dating world, having tried it out myself, so we decided, why not teach others how to successful use online dating sites! Both of us had been to main dating sites such as eHarmony and match, however once we started to research, we found out there were plenty more than we realized. There was no way to compare them all, so we decided to focus on certain ones.
Since we could not afford to pay for memberships to each site, we were fortunate in that many sites allowed you to have a free trial, and several were actually free. At first we just browsed the sites to see how they worked, but then we narrowed our focus. We asked ourselves what we would want to know about online dating if we didn’t have a clue what it was about – which is how we came up with the idea of the WWW theme – Who (can you meet and how), What (can you find), and where (do you go to meet them).
We took notes on what our findings were, and then prepared the power point to guide people through. We wanted the handout to be something useful, to contain something people would want to hold onto and could use in the future should they decide to go and try online dating. While searching reviews of dating sites we came across the site that had tips for taking better photos of yourself for online profiles. Now this may seem like a silly idea, however when putting dogs and cats up for adoption, the photo you put up I know is extremely important, and there are definitely do’s and don’ts for that as well as how to write their biographies. Because of this, I thought that perhaps many people are not aware of how much of a difference a good photo or biography can mean, so we decided to give people a copy of those tips. In addition, we felt that a list of the sites we had checked out would be helpful, along with safety tips, as many people seem to underestimate the problems that can result from an unhealthy match made online. We decided then to try to find something funny for the last part of our handout, and settled on a “lingo” cheat sheet, as some of the ads we found were hard to decipher!
In reflecting on the assignment as well as reading the responses, I feel overall we did a good presentation as people seemed genuinely interested in what we had to say. I wish we had rehearsed the actual presenting more, while we had an outline we had made for presenting, we both felt that it was important to have the presentation be more conversational than strictly formatted. I felt that this may have hurt our presentation somewhat, because Alison and I both have different speaking styles, and unfortunately neither one of us has psychic capabilities, so are not able to know what the other person is about to say or tell the other person what to say. That being said, I felt that though there may have been some stumbling during the presentation, that it was overall successful, and the responses we received seemed to reflect that as well.
Since we could not afford to pay for memberships to each site, we were fortunate in that many sites allowed you to have a free trial, and several were actually free. At first we just browsed the sites to see how they worked, but then we narrowed our focus. We asked ourselves what we would want to know about online dating if we didn’t have a clue what it was about – which is how we came up with the idea of the WWW theme – Who (can you meet and how), What (can you find), and where (do you go to meet them).
We took notes on what our findings were, and then prepared the power point to guide people through. We wanted the handout to be something useful, to contain something people would want to hold onto and could use in the future should they decide to go and try online dating. While searching reviews of dating sites we came across the site that had tips for taking better photos of yourself for online profiles. Now this may seem like a silly idea, however when putting dogs and cats up for adoption, the photo you put up I know is extremely important, and there are definitely do’s and don’ts for that as well as how to write their biographies. Because of this, I thought that perhaps many people are not aware of how much of a difference a good photo or biography can mean, so we decided to give people a copy of those tips. In addition, we felt that a list of the sites we had checked out would be helpful, along with safety tips, as many people seem to underestimate the problems that can result from an unhealthy match made online. We decided then to try to find something funny for the last part of our handout, and settled on a “lingo” cheat sheet, as some of the ads we found were hard to decipher!
In reflecting on the assignment as well as reading the responses, I feel overall we did a good presentation as people seemed genuinely interested in what we had to say. I wish we had rehearsed the actual presenting more, while we had an outline we had made for presenting, we both felt that it was important to have the presentation be more conversational than strictly formatted. I felt that this may have hurt our presentation somewhat, because Alison and I both have different speaking styles, and unfortunately neither one of us has psychic capabilities, so are not able to know what the other person is about to say or tell the other person what to say. That being said, I felt that though there may have been some stumbling during the presentation, that it was overall successful, and the responses we received seemed to reflect that as well.
Responses from Peer Teaching Assignment
1. What did you learn from the presentation?
I really enjoyed it!
I really liked your presentation and I wouldn’t change anything. Great Job!!
No real recommendations, you guys had a pretty solid presentation. Good handout, good power point, good overview of information.
More interactiveness
Videos or pictures more frequently
To ask us questions and allow for feedback, not a straight up lecture style lesson
Call out the “before” and “after” photos
What’s “ISO”? I know it as Industry Standards Organization.
There is actually an art to online pictures
ISO – the do’s and don’ts
90 people a day married from eHarmony! Wow!
They actually reject people….
You have to be straight…… Very interesting!!
The different sites that are out there
It’s not cheap to use most of the sites
It’s better to be an active member if you join the site
The online lingo section was very interesting some I was able to learn some was new lingo. It was also that you covered the safety issue some. You do want to be safe in your online interactions. Also very good that they talked about pic collectors, some people could lie online.
I learned that online dating has its pro’s and con’s. I had no idea about the dating lingo. I honestly do not know a whole lot about online dating, but in general you guys pretty much summed it up. I can’t think of anything more I would like to learn about. It’s pretty straightforward. My one recommendation would be to maybe show people some of the websites directly.
P.S. The tips on taking the “perfect picture” were very helpful.
Profile is the most important thing
To do/what makes a good picture
Online lingo
Craigslist is used for hooking up
Safety tips for online/offline
Taking the perfect picture for dating online
Online dating lingo
Importance of a catchy and unique pick-up line
Designing the perfect profile/biography – appropriateness
Safety and security tips for online/offline relationships
Online dating is not for me. It’s a whole other world.
2. What would I have liked to learn more about?
Nothing! Great Job!
Overall you covered a lot of information but it would have been more interesting if you could have shown some screen shots of the actual profiles. However this was a great presentation.
How effective is online dating is – offline dating
What the prices for services are ( a comparison of all sites prices)
I really enjoyed it!
I really liked your presentation and I wouldn’t change anything. Great Job!!
No real recommendations, you guys had a pretty solid presentation. Good handout, good power point, good overview of information.
More interactiveness
Videos or pictures more frequently
To ask us questions and allow for feedback, not a straight up lecture style lesson
Call out the “before” and “after” photos
What’s “ISO”? I know it as Industry Standards Organization.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
