Lessig: Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy
My
senior year at Miami I took a business ethics capstone course. We were
assigned a large project based on the issues of intellectual property,
copyrights, trademarks, etc. We had to make a handbook guiding how our
company would implement measures to protect our company's intellectual
property. I learned a great deal about the legal issues with copyright,
but it made sense. At the time I was planning to go to law school.
Fast forward to teaching for 3 years. Everything I
created while teaching disregarded intellectual property. I shared it
all for free, uploading it to lesson plan exchange portals online. I did
this knowing it would benefit students, even if they weren't mine.
Students were my top priority, not retaining rights to a lesson or
activity I'd spent awhile creating and honing based on student
reactions. Every now and then throughout teaching I stopped to think
about the irony of being so stringent with intellectual property issues
and how teaching disregarded that. As such I found Remix to be fascinating. It mixed both aspects: the legality and the learning issues.
The
law truly limits the benefits that come from RW culture. I'd never
thought of it until Lessig mentioned it, but why is there such a
discrepancy between using text and using media in RW culture? Lessig's
use of his friend Ben introduced this well. I think nothing of quoting
from a text as long as I give credit. It makes me think of my distance
education videos. I thought nothing of quoting from Universal Principles of Design as long as I cited what I used. When it came to using images or music in them, I
was paranoid. Even when I found something that was clearly marked with a
Creative Commons license, I was wary. But a fundamental component of
our education system deals with creating and applying. Think about
Bloom's Taxonomy (There's a link in my 10.27.11 post). If a student can
create something, she demonstrates that she understands a concept. The
same goes for being able to apply a concept discussed in class to
something else. However, she can only legally create using something
that isn't her own with text. Other forms of media are an entirely
different picture. It makes no sense!
To me this is a matter of certain industries inability to adapt.
They thought they were in control and failed to account for changes in
media distribution and consumption. Think about Lessig's example of the
2007 Academy Awards. He wanted to watch two of his friends win their
Oscars, but because he was in Germany was unable to. He tried every
legal way imaginable to do that. He looked at the Academy Awards
website. It didn't provide any access to watching the ceremony. iTunes
didn't have it, even though Lessig was willing to pay to watch it. Enter
the scandalously illegal YouTube streaming. It offered the awards
ceremony, allowing Lessig to watch his friends receive their rewards
(45). When there isn't a legal avenue that gives access to media you
want, you'll turn to illegal ones. I see that as an industry failure.
Something needs to change. Lessig has it right when he says, "My sense
is that digital technology will enable market support for a much wider
range of 'free' content than anyone expects now...and digital
technologies will continue to resist models that depend upon the heavy
policing by its owners to protect against 'unauthorized use'" (47).
A final note: It should come as no surprise that I'm not
the biggest fan of Henry Jenkins' work. I mentioned in an earlier post
that I was unimpressed with his long-winded writing style. It proved
tedious to read. The exasperation that came from his writing style took
away from valuable points he was making. Lessig's use of Jenkins
throughout Remix demonstrated that Jenkins has some excellent points to make. For me, at least, those got lost when reading Jenkins firsthand.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
10.27.11 - Response to Buxton
Buxton: Sketching User Experiences
Buxton seems to get it. His book provides an excellent example of images that support his text. The images used aren't superfluous; they compliment what he's discussing. He makes things more concrete for me. With my background in education, I can't help but appreciate the effectiveness of Buxton's writing style and use of examples.
It seems to me that Buxton picked up where Kolko left off. Whereas Kolko gave us a big picture overview of user experience and the process of implementing it, Buxton gives details. He makes things concrete. He gives examples. I appreciate example so found myself thinking Kolko could take some pointers from Buxton. Then again, when the books are read in conjunction, it works. Kolko sets the tone. Buxton gives some of the specifics.
Overall, I appreciate how simplicity is at the heart of Buxton's suggestions. Don't overdo things, which makes perfect sense when you're still in the early stages of the design process. I've heard not to get too specific early on in the process before, but the approach Buxton used further buttressed this design advice. Buxton's sketches and user simulations all kept this in mind. It's ideal for qualitative research before too much is invested in product development. Prototypes don't have to be expensive as long as they convey the experience of the product to the user. Buxton's examples of the Airline Ticket Kiosk, The Listening Typewriter, and the Video Whiteboard all were used to demonstrate this well.
But I do want to go back to discuss sketches; after all, they aren't the prototypes I just discussed. They're ideal for ideas and for sharing. Sharing sketches among a design team (or any team for that matter) makes so much sense. As Buxton notes, "Sketches are social things" (53). As he continues, "...the act of creating a sketch can help an individual designer work through concepts and refine ideas. And sometimes, that is all that is required....But more often than not, a significant--if not the greater--part of the values comes in encouraging its social life" (153). This leads in perfectly to Buxton's argument for posting sketches on bulletin boards. The Portfolio Wall used by GM was also an interesting adaptation of posting digital sketches. I understand how it has some downsides but appreciate how the Portfolio Wall adapted based on its needs.
I was surprised that Buxton's arguments seem incredibly applicable for teachers. Not only does he use the example of Design Echoed in Elementary School with figure 57, but also considers how people learn. For 3 years, Bloom's Taxonomy dictated how I structured units and individual lessons within them when I planned for my 7th graders. If you're unfamiliar with Bloom's Taxonomy here's a link with information: http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/bloom.html. As the website indicates Bloom's only accounts for the cognitive domain. I found it interesting to compare Bloom's Taxonomy to Buxton's use of Gibbons and Hopkins' Scale of Experience in Learning (232). It seems as if Bloom's cognitive levels, spanning from knowledge to evaluation, align with the Scale of Experience. The exception there, however, is levels 9 and 10 of psychosocial experience. What I like about the Scale of Experience is its use of 2 axes. Not only does it show levels of experience, it contrasts them against degrees of learner's responsibility. It seems intuitive that being able to define something (knowledge level) requires less responsibility than being able to critique or justify something (evaluation level). But I like that the Scale of Experience shows this visually.
With Buxton I appreciate how he does not assume that readers already know something (yet another aspect of teaching!). A great example of this is, of course, his telling of The Wizard of Oz story. "For those who know the story and initially thought it strange that I was going to tell it, let this be a lesson to you...about the importance of not making assumptions when designing something that is intended to span cultures" (235). Not only did the story provide context, but it also provided a connection. Had Buxton just mentioned The Wizard of Oz Technique, I don't believe it would have been nearly as effective as his telling of the story (even if the story was just a review).
Buxton seems to get it. His book provides an excellent example of images that support his text. The images used aren't superfluous; they compliment what he's discussing. He makes things more concrete for me. With my background in education, I can't help but appreciate the effectiveness of Buxton's writing style and use of examples.
It seems to me that Buxton picked up where Kolko left off. Whereas Kolko gave us a big picture overview of user experience and the process of implementing it, Buxton gives details. He makes things concrete. He gives examples. I appreciate example so found myself thinking Kolko could take some pointers from Buxton. Then again, when the books are read in conjunction, it works. Kolko sets the tone. Buxton gives some of the specifics.
Overall, I appreciate how simplicity is at the heart of Buxton's suggestions. Don't overdo things, which makes perfect sense when you're still in the early stages of the design process. I've heard not to get too specific early on in the process before, but the approach Buxton used further buttressed this design advice. Buxton's sketches and user simulations all kept this in mind. It's ideal for qualitative research before too much is invested in product development. Prototypes don't have to be expensive as long as they convey the experience of the product to the user. Buxton's examples of the Airline Ticket Kiosk, The Listening Typewriter, and the Video Whiteboard all were used to demonstrate this well.
But I do want to go back to discuss sketches; after all, they aren't the prototypes I just discussed. They're ideal for ideas and for sharing. Sharing sketches among a design team (or any team for that matter) makes so much sense. As Buxton notes, "Sketches are social things" (53). As he continues, "...the act of creating a sketch can help an individual designer work through concepts and refine ideas. And sometimes, that is all that is required....But more often than not, a significant--if not the greater--part of the values comes in encouraging its social life" (153). This leads in perfectly to Buxton's argument for posting sketches on bulletin boards. The Portfolio Wall used by GM was also an interesting adaptation of posting digital sketches. I understand how it has some downsides but appreciate how the Portfolio Wall adapted based on its needs.
I was surprised that Buxton's arguments seem incredibly applicable for teachers. Not only does he use the example of Design Echoed in Elementary School with figure 57, but also considers how people learn. For 3 years, Bloom's Taxonomy dictated how I structured units and individual lessons within them when I planned for my 7th graders. If you're unfamiliar with Bloom's Taxonomy here's a link with information: http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/bloom.html. As the website indicates Bloom's only accounts for the cognitive domain. I found it interesting to compare Bloom's Taxonomy to Buxton's use of Gibbons and Hopkins' Scale of Experience in Learning (232). It seems as if Bloom's cognitive levels, spanning from knowledge to evaluation, align with the Scale of Experience. The exception there, however, is levels 9 and 10 of psychosocial experience. What I like about the Scale of Experience is its use of 2 axes. Not only does it show levels of experience, it contrasts them against degrees of learner's responsibility. It seems intuitive that being able to define something (knowledge level) requires less responsibility than being able to critique or justify something (evaluation level). But I like that the Scale of Experience shows this visually.
With Buxton I appreciate how he does not assume that readers already know something (yet another aspect of teaching!). A great example of this is, of course, his telling of The Wizard of Oz story. "For those who know the story and initially thought it strange that I was going to tell it, let this be a lesson to you...about the importance of not making assumptions when designing something that is intended to span cultures" (235). Not only did the story provide context, but it also provided a connection. Had Buxton just mentioned The Wizard of Oz Technique, I don't believe it would have been nearly as effective as his telling of the story (even if the story was just a review).
Thursday, October 20, 2011
10.20.11 - Response to Kaplan and Sullivan
Kaplan: "Ideology, Technology, and the Future of Writing Instruction"
I found myself identifying with the Henry Giroux statement that Kaplan with which Kaplan opened her article.
"Curriculum in the most fundamental sense is a battleground over whose forms of knowledge, history, visions, language, culture, and authority will prevail as a legitimate object of learning and analysis" (11).
Having taught in a Title I school I encountered a great deal of students who moved around a lot. Case in point: the day our end of year standardized testing started a new student was placed on my class roster. She'd moved from Virginia and hadn't been exposed to any of North Carolina's curriculum standards. She'd been in Honors classes in Virginia but hadn't learned what was on the North Carolina test. Her scores came back saying she was below grade level. This example demonstrates the battleground of curriculum with the clash in North Carolina's and Virginia's curriculum standards.
This example helped me internalize how Kaplan outlines that "Tools work for users, but they also influence the shape of users' work, affecting how users understand their world and their scope of action within it" (11). The day I had to tell that student her score, she dissolved into tears. She told me she'd always been good in math and felt stupid. By changing the curriculum she was expected to master, the tools she'd used to understand math in Virginia were no longer relevant in North Carolina. She'd always been successful in math in Virginia. The tools she'd learned no longer worked to help her understand her world and the action she had to take in it. This was her first failure in math and she didn't know how to deal with it. This is one of the many reasons I support a national curriculum, but I digress.
Having made this connection I was able to apply it to the argument Kaplan makes for how technology is changing writing instruction. It's a Foucault field day with regard to power relations. Inclusion of Ohmann's statement, "technology...is itself a social process, saturated with the power relations around it, continually reshaped according to some people's intentions" (23) points this out. I felt the clash in curriculum example is brought full circle to connect with writing technology when Kaplan noted, "Only when hardware, software, and the multiple literacies enabling their use are available equally to all, of course, can the 'free' information flow freely, and even then only as freely as systems designers and the companies who own the software will allow" (26-27). Virginia won't teach North Carolina's curriculum and vice versa. Standards students learn in one state aren't available to students in others. It's yet another way that tools confine users.
Sullivan: "Taking Control of the Page: Electronic Writing and Word Publishing"
As soon as Sullivan mentioned that "the writer is entering an era where the published page is more directly under her or his control" (44) I thought of Dr. Palmquist's presentation about the Future of the Book. It was interesting that Dr. Palmquist had already addressed one of Sullivan's concerns. Sullivan brought up that "writers currently are trained to think little about the look of the text. That problem is increasingly important" (55). Dr. Palmquist's work with WAC Clearinghouse still considers text layout and formatting by hiring and training grad students to work on it. The method used by WAC Clearinghouse does not, however, work toward teaching the writer how to mediate between "the text driven perspective of a writer and the spatial-aesthetic perspective of a designer" (58). The jobs remain separate. Nonetheless, I believe a case study of WAC Clearinghouse is directly applicable to continuing the discussion of issues that Sullivan brings up about word publishing.
I found myself identifying with the Henry Giroux statement that Kaplan with which Kaplan opened her article.
"Curriculum in the most fundamental sense is a battleground over whose forms of knowledge, history, visions, language, culture, and authority will prevail as a legitimate object of learning and analysis" (11).
Having taught in a Title I school I encountered a great deal of students who moved around a lot. Case in point: the day our end of year standardized testing started a new student was placed on my class roster. She'd moved from Virginia and hadn't been exposed to any of North Carolina's curriculum standards. She'd been in Honors classes in Virginia but hadn't learned what was on the North Carolina test. Her scores came back saying she was below grade level. This example demonstrates the battleground of curriculum with the clash in North Carolina's and Virginia's curriculum standards.
This example helped me internalize how Kaplan outlines that "Tools work for users, but they also influence the shape of users' work, affecting how users understand their world and their scope of action within it" (11). The day I had to tell that student her score, she dissolved into tears. She told me she'd always been good in math and felt stupid. By changing the curriculum she was expected to master, the tools she'd used to understand math in Virginia were no longer relevant in North Carolina. She'd always been successful in math in Virginia. The tools she'd learned no longer worked to help her understand her world and the action she had to take in it. This was her first failure in math and she didn't know how to deal with it. This is one of the many reasons I support a national curriculum, but I digress.
Having made this connection I was able to apply it to the argument Kaplan makes for how technology is changing writing instruction. It's a Foucault field day with regard to power relations. Inclusion of Ohmann's statement, "technology...is itself a social process, saturated with the power relations around it, continually reshaped according to some people's intentions" (23) points this out. I felt the clash in curriculum example is brought full circle to connect with writing technology when Kaplan noted, "Only when hardware, software, and the multiple literacies enabling their use are available equally to all, of course, can the 'free' information flow freely, and even then only as freely as systems designers and the companies who own the software will allow" (26-27). Virginia won't teach North Carolina's curriculum and vice versa. Standards students learn in one state aren't available to students in others. It's yet another way that tools confine users.
Sullivan: "Taking Control of the Page: Electronic Writing and Word Publishing"
As soon as Sullivan mentioned that "the writer is entering an era where the published page is more directly under her or his control" (44) I thought of Dr. Palmquist's presentation about the Future of the Book. It was interesting that Dr. Palmquist had already addressed one of Sullivan's concerns. Sullivan brought up that "writers currently are trained to think little about the look of the text. That problem is increasingly important" (55). Dr. Palmquist's work with WAC Clearinghouse still considers text layout and formatting by hiring and training grad students to work on it. The method used by WAC Clearinghouse does not, however, work toward teaching the writer how to mediate between "the text driven perspective of a writer and the spatial-aesthetic perspective of a designer" (58). The jobs remain separate. Nonetheless, I believe a case study of WAC Clearinghouse is directly applicable to continuing the discussion of issues that Sullivan brings up about word publishing.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
10.13.11 - Response to Bolter & Grusin and Buxton
Buxton: "Design for the Wild" and "Case Study: Apple, Design, and Business"
First I must say that the timing of reading the Apple case study in relation to the death of Steve Jobs last week was surreal but incredibly appropriate. Buxton's case study of how Jobs encouraged a design focused environment at Apple was a wonderful way to remember his contributions. I hope that Apple doesn't lose that vision as it moves forward.
When I finished these chapters I didn't want to put the book down. I wouldn't have but for a busy reading schedule of other assignments. I very much respect and appreciate how Buxton provides real life examples (avalanche rescue and arctic navigation of the Inuit) to tie into his points about design in the business world. Wonderful connections. He also mixes visuals well with the text. The figures he's chosen to include helped me understand the point he was making. They, in fact, enhanced his point. It's a well written book that keeps the reader's attention in mind. Buxton definitely considered his users when writing this book, and I truly appreciate that.
Buxton's point that "the representational power of the tool is meaningful only within the larger social and physical context within which it is situated" (33) resonated with me. His use of the 3-D wooden maps to support this point was excellent. Technology can't always be replied upon, as Buxton showed in contrasting the cell phone and computer maps with the Ammassalik's wooden maps. As Buxton notes, "Without informed design, technology is more likely to be bad than good" (38). Don't underestimate the power or research. Know the context in which the design will be used. This led in perfectly the Apple case study. (Something tells me Kolko would appreciate this case study.) I was most drawn to the focus on the iPod's evolution. I hadn't realized it'd taken 4 generations for the iPod to "tip" even though I lived through it. This draws you right into the environment and understanding the context. The user's feel and experience was continually improved because "Le bon Dieu est dans le détail" (51). Meanwhile the social environment dictated a great deal about the iPod--getting people to buy songs when they expected to download them for free. That Jobs also thought to turn the Gillette model on its head was another wonderful leveraging innovation, one that understood the context that people wouldn't pay large amounts for music. In regard to applying this to my social media analysis, I plan to make sure that the tool or recommendations I make to the library encompass the context.
Bolter and Grusin
"Our culture wants both to multiply its media and to erase all traces of mediation: ideally, it wants to erase its media in the very act of multiply them" (Bolter & Grusin 5). It is a double logic that took awhile to fully wrap my mind around. Elaboration and the examples provided for immediacy and hypermediacy helped to illustrate this point. Interestingly, they continue to apply as the media employed by advances in technology evolve. I would like to hear how Bolter and Grusin would approach changes to media since writing this article and how each uses immediacy and hypermediacy. YouTube? Smartphones? These two examples alone contribute to the act of multiplying media while erasing mediation, especially from the amateur perspective.
I also feel that Bolter and Grusin's distinction about how immediacy removes the programmer/creator from the image is something to note. Its sets the tone well for the approach they take that sets up photography, film, virtual reality, etc. for transparency. After studying and analyzing the myth of photographic truth in ENGL 853 and reconciling with the idea that truths from photographs are constructed by the photographer with her choice of framing, with what images from a series of takes are shown, etc. it was quite a contrast to read that Bolter and Grusin approach photographs as reality, as transparent. Bolter and Grusin use the example of Alberti's On Painting to illustrate this point well. "'On the surface on which I am going to paint, I draw a rectangle of whatever size I want, which I regard as an open window through which the subject to be painted is seen.' If executed properly, the surface of the painting dissolved and presented to the viewer the scene beyond" (25). I can see why they make the argument that these examples of media achieve the real. Denying mediation, however, seems like something I will no longer be able to do. Truth in images is the truth that the creator is allowing viewers to see. Things will be eliminated. The entire context is not present. If a photographer takes 12 frames of one situation, in choosing one of the 12 to publish or share, they're in a way manipulating the truth the viewer can see. The same applies to film and computer programming. Thus Bolter and Grusin were unable to fully convince me that immediacy achieves placing viewers in the truth of reality. I will agree with them that "Mediation is the remediation of reality because media themselves are real and because the experience is the subject of remediation" (59). It is real, but I don't believe that it allows for a pure truth or pure reality--with what creators choose to show and not show truth is manipulated.
While reading Bolter and Grusin I tried to think how their findings might be relevant to my upcoming cyberpoem. I can't say that I'll strive for complete immediacy or that I'll be fully able to achieve the sense that the medium will disappear entirely. Hypermediacy will certainly be employed; my cyberpoem will encompass multiple acts of representation. Since I haven't finalized everything, I can't yet say if I'll make use of sound, but I hope to consider and experiment with it. That of course will be paired with animation and the words forming the lines of my poem. There will be mediation among the various elements brought together to achieve the cyberpoem. I find that my finished cyberpoem may end up illustrating how remediation helps us interpret other forms of media. As Bolter and Grusin note "No medium...can now function independently and establish its own separate and purified space of cultural meaning" (55).
First I must say that the timing of reading the Apple case study in relation to the death of Steve Jobs last week was surreal but incredibly appropriate. Buxton's case study of how Jobs encouraged a design focused environment at Apple was a wonderful way to remember his contributions. I hope that Apple doesn't lose that vision as it moves forward.
When I finished these chapters I didn't want to put the book down. I wouldn't have but for a busy reading schedule of other assignments. I very much respect and appreciate how Buxton provides real life examples (avalanche rescue and arctic navigation of the Inuit) to tie into his points about design in the business world. Wonderful connections. He also mixes visuals well with the text. The figures he's chosen to include helped me understand the point he was making. They, in fact, enhanced his point. It's a well written book that keeps the reader's attention in mind. Buxton definitely considered his users when writing this book, and I truly appreciate that.
Buxton's point that "the representational power of the tool is meaningful only within the larger social and physical context within which it is situated" (33) resonated with me. His use of the 3-D wooden maps to support this point was excellent. Technology can't always be replied upon, as Buxton showed in contrasting the cell phone and computer maps with the Ammassalik's wooden maps. As Buxton notes, "Without informed design, technology is more likely to be bad than good" (38). Don't underestimate the power or research. Know the context in which the design will be used. This led in perfectly the Apple case study. (Something tells me Kolko would appreciate this case study.) I was most drawn to the focus on the iPod's evolution. I hadn't realized it'd taken 4 generations for the iPod to "tip" even though I lived through it. This draws you right into the environment and understanding the context. The user's feel and experience was continually improved because "Le bon Dieu est dans le détail" (51). Meanwhile the social environment dictated a great deal about the iPod--getting people to buy songs when they expected to download them for free. That Jobs also thought to turn the Gillette model on its head was another wonderful leveraging innovation, one that understood the context that people wouldn't pay large amounts for music. In regard to applying this to my social media analysis, I plan to make sure that the tool or recommendations I make to the library encompass the context.
Bolter and Grusin
"Our culture wants both to multiply its media and to erase all traces of mediation: ideally, it wants to erase its media in the very act of multiply them" (Bolter & Grusin 5). It is a double logic that took awhile to fully wrap my mind around. Elaboration and the examples provided for immediacy and hypermediacy helped to illustrate this point. Interestingly, they continue to apply as the media employed by advances in technology evolve. I would like to hear how Bolter and Grusin would approach changes to media since writing this article and how each uses immediacy and hypermediacy. YouTube? Smartphones? These two examples alone contribute to the act of multiplying media while erasing mediation, especially from the amateur perspective.
I also feel that Bolter and Grusin's distinction about how immediacy removes the programmer/creator from the image is something to note. Its sets the tone well for the approach they take that sets up photography, film, virtual reality, etc. for transparency. After studying and analyzing the myth of photographic truth in ENGL 853 and reconciling with the idea that truths from photographs are constructed by the photographer with her choice of framing, with what images from a series of takes are shown, etc. it was quite a contrast to read that Bolter and Grusin approach photographs as reality, as transparent. Bolter and Grusin use the example of Alberti's On Painting to illustrate this point well. "'On the surface on which I am going to paint, I draw a rectangle of whatever size I want, which I regard as an open window through which the subject to be painted is seen.' If executed properly, the surface of the painting dissolved and presented to the viewer the scene beyond" (25). I can see why they make the argument that these examples of media achieve the real. Denying mediation, however, seems like something I will no longer be able to do. Truth in images is the truth that the creator is allowing viewers to see. Things will be eliminated. The entire context is not present. If a photographer takes 12 frames of one situation, in choosing one of the 12 to publish or share, they're in a way manipulating the truth the viewer can see. The same applies to film and computer programming. Thus Bolter and Grusin were unable to fully convince me that immediacy achieves placing viewers in the truth of reality. I will agree with them that "Mediation is the remediation of reality because media themselves are real and because the experience is the subject of remediation" (59). It is real, but I don't believe that it allows for a pure truth or pure reality--with what creators choose to show and not show truth is manipulated.
While reading Bolter and Grusin I tried to think how their findings might be relevant to my upcoming cyberpoem. I can't say that I'll strive for complete immediacy or that I'll be fully able to achieve the sense that the medium will disappear entirely. Hypermediacy will certainly be employed; my cyberpoem will encompass multiple acts of representation. Since I haven't finalized everything, I can't yet say if I'll make use of sound, but I hope to consider and experiment with it. That of course will be paired with animation and the words forming the lines of my poem. There will be mediation among the various elements brought together to achieve the cyberpoem. I find that my finished cyberpoem may end up illustrating how remediation helps us interpret other forms of media. As Bolter and Grusin note "No medium...can now function independently and establish its own separate and purified space of cultural meaning" (55).
10.6.11 - Response to Jenkins
Henry Jenkins: Convergence
Culture
I appreciate Jenkins' point but really just wanted him to make it and wrap it up. However, it seems it could be made sooner. Stop reiterating the same point that's already been made. Just as he did when he spoke to use in the Class of 1941 Studio, he got long-winded. The information he presents is interesting. Even though it's not at the cutting edge of convergence culture, compliments of the delay in publication, the information is relevant. Relevant, but not engaging. I'm neither a fan of American Idol nor The Matrix, but I don't think that's the problem. Usually as I read I can find multiple points of interest, things I want to come back to. I highlight them so I can find them easily later. This happened 4 times throughout this reading. That may be an all time low. Lacking any other inspiration, I'll discuss the 4 sections I marked.
In his chapter on American Idol Jenkins notes that "Researchers have found that such shared rituals or mutual evaluations are central to the sense of affiliation members feel to the group, and it makes sense that similar rituals would be played out in individual households" (81). But wait a minute. Didn't Howard recommend that we use rituals as part of the Influence component of RIBS? It's helpful to have example to support ritual, but really Jenkins?
Also in his American Idol chapter Jenkins looks at the effects of "a time when networks and sponsors are joining forces to shape the emotional context through which we watch their shows" (93). At the same time "consumers are also scrutinizing the mechanisms of participation they are being offered. If the rhetoric of lovemarks emphasizes the audience's activities and investments as a central source of value in brands, then the consumption community may well hold the corporations accountable for what they do in the name of those brands and for their responsiveness (or lack thereof) to consumer demands" (93). Takeaway: strategies can always backfire with audience backlash. Then again, it seems that Jenkins already made this point with his Survivor example. Yes, the idea of how sponsors play into this is new; it wasn't in the Survivor case study. Okay. Consider how sponsors can be affected. Also weigh that you may bring new viewers to the show due to "heat" around it with losing dedicated viewers.
Yes, this chapter about American Idol was a lot more about creating rituals and being aware of what happens when networks and sponsors work together. It failed to prove relevant for me though.
In terms of The Matrix Jenkins looks at how different uses of media can bring in consumers from different niches. Sounds good. I like the idea. It may work for the library social media campaign on a smaller scale. use various forms of social media, not just one. We may be on to something here. With respect to The Matrix Jenkins notes: "The economic logic of a horizontally integrated entertainment industry--that is, one where a single company may have roots across all of the different media sectors--dictates the flow of content across media. Different media attract different market niches....A good transmedia franchise works to attract multiple constituencies by pitching the content somewhat differently in the different media" (98). So this is a gem. Work with different media sectors and use the niches of each to compliment one another.
Finally, Jenkins uses a comment from Ed Sanchez about transmedia storytelling surrounding The Blair Witch Project. "If you give people enough stuff to explore, they will explore.... If people have to work for something, they devote more time to it. And they give it more emotional value" (105). Emotional connections are good. They help build loyal consumers. Working for something also ties into the user's experience. I'm still, however, considering how I could implement this in something like the library's social media campaign. There's something here that just needs to be considered further.
I appreciate Jenkins' point but really just wanted him to make it and wrap it up. However, it seems it could be made sooner. Stop reiterating the same point that's already been made. Just as he did when he spoke to use in the Class of 1941 Studio, he got long-winded. The information he presents is interesting. Even though it's not at the cutting edge of convergence culture, compliments of the delay in publication, the information is relevant. Relevant, but not engaging. I'm neither a fan of American Idol nor The Matrix, but I don't think that's the problem. Usually as I read I can find multiple points of interest, things I want to come back to. I highlight them so I can find them easily later. This happened 4 times throughout this reading. That may be an all time low. Lacking any other inspiration, I'll discuss the 4 sections I marked.
In his chapter on American Idol Jenkins notes that "Researchers have found that such shared rituals or mutual evaluations are central to the sense of affiliation members feel to the group, and it makes sense that similar rituals would be played out in individual households" (81). But wait a minute. Didn't Howard recommend that we use rituals as part of the Influence component of RIBS? It's helpful to have example to support ritual, but really Jenkins?
Also in his American Idol chapter Jenkins looks at the effects of "a time when networks and sponsors are joining forces to shape the emotional context through which we watch their shows" (93). At the same time "consumers are also scrutinizing the mechanisms of participation they are being offered. If the rhetoric of lovemarks emphasizes the audience's activities and investments as a central source of value in brands, then the consumption community may well hold the corporations accountable for what they do in the name of those brands and for their responsiveness (or lack thereof) to consumer demands" (93). Takeaway: strategies can always backfire with audience backlash. Then again, it seems that Jenkins already made this point with his Survivor example. Yes, the idea of how sponsors play into this is new; it wasn't in the Survivor case study. Okay. Consider how sponsors can be affected. Also weigh that you may bring new viewers to the show due to "heat" around it with losing dedicated viewers.
Yes, this chapter about American Idol was a lot more about creating rituals and being aware of what happens when networks and sponsors work together. It failed to prove relevant for me though.
In terms of The Matrix Jenkins looks at how different uses of media can bring in consumers from different niches. Sounds good. I like the idea. It may work for the library social media campaign on a smaller scale. use various forms of social media, not just one. We may be on to something here. With respect to The Matrix Jenkins notes: "The economic logic of a horizontally integrated entertainment industry--that is, one where a single company may have roots across all of the different media sectors--dictates the flow of content across media. Different media attract different market niches....A good transmedia franchise works to attract multiple constituencies by pitching the content somewhat differently in the different media" (98). So this is a gem. Work with different media sectors and use the niches of each to compliment one another.
Finally, Jenkins uses a comment from Ed Sanchez about transmedia storytelling surrounding The Blair Witch Project. "If you give people enough stuff to explore, they will explore.... If people have to work for something, they devote more time to it. And they give it more emotional value" (105). Emotional connections are good. They help build loyal consumers. Working for something also ties into the user's experience. I'm still, however, considering how I could implement this in something like the library's social media campaign. There's something here that just needs to be considered further.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
9.29.11 - Response to Shirky and Howard
The Power Law that Shirky mentions is toying with my entire understanding of measures of central tendency and using them to represent a sample. So disregard everything I understand about market research when working with numbers pertaining to online communities. That will take conscious effort on my part. Shirky's point that "We're used to being able to extract useful averages from small samples and to reason about the whole system based on those averages" (128) describes me well. Where he goes next is new to me.
When we encounter a system like Wikipedia where there is no representative user, the habits of mind that come from thinking about averages are not merely useless, they're harmful. To understand the creation of something like a Wikipedia article, you can't look for a representative contributor, because none exists. Instead, you have to change your focus, to concentrate not on the individual users but on the behavior of the collective (128).
Shirky's point has me re-thinking how I plan to go about researching students' feelings regarding Cooper Library. A community is like the Wikipedia contributors - there is no representative user. I was initially thinking of creating a survey for student. If we need to worry about the behavior of the collective, how do you research that exactly? Do I research similar collectives and learn how to apply it to Cooper? Or does my initial reaction to create a survey still work as long as I map out how all the responses would play off one another. What if I just don't use the means of my results but factor in the medians and modes as well. That has me analyzing all components of my data and accounting for how drastically outliers can skew a mean. In fact, the mean doesn't seem too incredibly relevant when working with the Power Law. It's more the mode and median. Or, do I go for a qualitative study to account for behavior practices.
The various roles in online communities have me looking back to Howard's influence chapter and the various needs of different types of users. Keeping in mind Li & Bernoff, Kim, and Wegner's approaches to understanding community members will be key in this. They make up the collective that Shirky discusses, and their behavior plays off each other to bring about the collective behavior.
After speaking with Ms. Reid last week, it sounds like she almost wants her efforts with Twitter and social media to reach a Broadcast-like relationship. She wants audience numbers to go up; when that happens interaction will become more difficult, and with that forming a community. She says that she tries to respond to every tweet that mentions the library. Will this still be plausible with an increase in followers? This is where I feel Shirky clarifies the difference between audience and community well. "An audience isn't just a big community; it can be anonymous, with many fewer ties among users. A community isn't just a small audience either; it has a social density that audiences lack" (85). This distinction is key when considering our work for Cooper Library. To achieve a sense of community, there must be that social density. Applying the components of Howard's RIBS can help get there.
Another point of Shirky's that had me referring back to one of Howard's techniques was his vignette about how you'd find a specific book if they were all dumped out on a football field. The prior knowledge is eliminated once the books are strewn across the field. Shirky's use of Esther Dyson's statement sums this up well, "When we call something intuitive, we often mean familiar." And I thought of the Visitor Center that Howard recommends for new users. Let's face it, Cooper Library is new to most students. When I was a freshman at Miami one of my professors gave each person in her class the assignment of telling her what color the carpet was in the library to make us get over our fear of a new setup and get in there to start figuring it out. Could this also be capitalized on to have students create library horror stories in almost a comical light of times they struggled to navigate the library and what they eventually learned from it? Would this serve as a way of teaching students new to the library, especially freshman, of its services and how to go about doing something that seems confusing?
Finally, because I wouldn't want to ignore Howard's final chapter, his point about decision-making contexts struck me. I agree entirely with him that "the scarce resource and principal commodity in the future will be attention. The ability to connect everybody with everybody isn't going to sell the network for much longer" (221). Students are busy and prioritize on what captures their attention. It's why procrastination is so commonplace. The assignment fails to capture their attention until it's almost due. Whatever is implemented for Cooper will have to account for students' attention. Therein lies their remuneration. Being part of the community of Cooper Library cannot require a tremendous amounts of user attention. (Then again, there may be those outliers who want to give it plenty of attention. How do we differentiate to account for those few?) The decision-making context will be key for library patrons. Like Howard has been saying all along, we'll need RIBS to get there.
When we encounter a system like Wikipedia where there is no representative user, the habits of mind that come from thinking about averages are not merely useless, they're harmful. To understand the creation of something like a Wikipedia article, you can't look for a representative contributor, because none exists. Instead, you have to change your focus, to concentrate not on the individual users but on the behavior of the collective (128).
Shirky's point has me re-thinking how I plan to go about researching students' feelings regarding Cooper Library. A community is like the Wikipedia contributors - there is no representative user. I was initially thinking of creating a survey for student. If we need to worry about the behavior of the collective, how do you research that exactly? Do I research similar collectives and learn how to apply it to Cooper? Or does my initial reaction to create a survey still work as long as I map out how all the responses would play off one another. What if I just don't use the means of my results but factor in the medians and modes as well. That has me analyzing all components of my data and accounting for how drastically outliers can skew a mean. In fact, the mean doesn't seem too incredibly relevant when working with the Power Law. It's more the mode and median. Or, do I go for a qualitative study to account for behavior practices.
The various roles in online communities have me looking back to Howard's influence chapter and the various needs of different types of users. Keeping in mind Li & Bernoff, Kim, and Wegner's approaches to understanding community members will be key in this. They make up the collective that Shirky discusses, and their behavior plays off each other to bring about the collective behavior.
After speaking with Ms. Reid last week, it sounds like she almost wants her efforts with Twitter and social media to reach a Broadcast-like relationship. She wants audience numbers to go up; when that happens interaction will become more difficult, and with that forming a community. She says that she tries to respond to every tweet that mentions the library. Will this still be plausible with an increase in followers? This is where I feel Shirky clarifies the difference between audience and community well. "An audience isn't just a big community; it can be anonymous, with many fewer ties among users. A community isn't just a small audience either; it has a social density that audiences lack" (85). This distinction is key when considering our work for Cooper Library. To achieve a sense of community, there must be that social density. Applying the components of Howard's RIBS can help get there.
Another point of Shirky's that had me referring back to one of Howard's techniques was his vignette about how you'd find a specific book if they were all dumped out on a football field. The prior knowledge is eliminated once the books are strewn across the field. Shirky's use of Esther Dyson's statement sums this up well, "When we call something intuitive, we often mean familiar." And I thought of the Visitor Center that Howard recommends for new users. Let's face it, Cooper Library is new to most students. When I was a freshman at Miami one of my professors gave each person in her class the assignment of telling her what color the carpet was in the library to make us get over our fear of a new setup and get in there to start figuring it out. Could this also be capitalized on to have students create library horror stories in almost a comical light of times they struggled to navigate the library and what they eventually learned from it? Would this serve as a way of teaching students new to the library, especially freshman, of its services and how to go about doing something that seems confusing?
Finally, because I wouldn't want to ignore Howard's final chapter, his point about decision-making contexts struck me. I agree entirely with him that "the scarce resource and principal commodity in the future will be attention. The ability to connect everybody with everybody isn't going to sell the network for much longer" (221). Students are busy and prioritize on what captures their attention. It's why procrastination is so commonplace. The assignment fails to capture their attention until it's almost due. Whatever is implemented for Cooper will have to account for students' attention. Therein lies their remuneration. Being part of the community of Cooper Library cannot require a tremendous amounts of user attention. (Then again, there may be those outliers who want to give it plenty of attention. How do we differentiate to account for those few?) The decision-making context will be key for library patrons. Like Howard has been saying all along, we'll need RIBS to get there.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
9.22.11 - Response to Howard
Howard: Design to Thrive
While we haven't yet heard the parameters and specific task for our next client, I found myself applying RIBS techniques to various strategies that may be employed for Cooper Library. I suppose this serves more as a brainstorm that will need to be tailored once we speak with Micki Reid. ,I hope that it helps frame her presentation in class this evening.
Remuneration should be considered first and foremost. Howard's use of AltaVista v. Google is a good example to demonstrate how critical remuneration is. If users don't gain an experience or a benefit from being part of the Cooper Library community, they either won't join or remain members. Most research can be performed from students' dorm rooms or apartments.What's in it for them to be part of the Cooper Library community? During his presentation about the future of the book Dr. Palmquist discussed that libraries are no longer the first place students go when they have to research something. Their first instinct is to go to Google. Their second instinct is to go to Google. With Dr. Palmquist's point in mind, Cooper Library's community must remunerate its users with experiences that a Google search cannot provide. Humans are social beings. Howard states, "We humans have a deep-seated, primal need to be part of a social experience because that's how we make events meaningful" (56). Thus the remuneration we create for Cooper Library must capitalize on this need. To successfully do this we will need to determine what users of the libraries "want and need to understand and then create an environment so they can socially construct that understanding" (57). Techniques that will support this then need to be tailored to the meaning and experience users seek from the library community and balanced with the client's wishes. I am hoping that a competitive dimension can be introduced based on these considerations.
Once remuneration has laid the groundwork for the business model and how it will function to support a user experience, influence must be considered. Li & Bernoff, Kim, and Wenger help outline what to consider when planning for the various influence needs of community members. The diagrams used to show Kim's life cycle and Wegner's trajectories on page 101 are especially helpful. Techniques will be needed that cater to these various needs. Hello, differentiation. The physical bulletin board on the wall asking students for input about a particular question is a great way to give students influence. This is one component that should be adapted to the online community. I also think it's important to note that due to the nature of a university, we'll be dealing with many outbound members as they graduate. Each year there will also be a mass entrance of novices and/or inbound participants (definite reason to have a visitor's center). Understanding the structure of the university will be critical when planning for the influence needs of community members.
I agree with Howard that belonging allows for the most fun and creativity. Initiation, origin stories, rituals, mythologies, symbols, and protocols/routines/schemas are all important to consider. Certain components seem as if they will work better for a library community than others. It will also depend on what the client hopes to achieve. I see how buzz can be created from well told stories or myths--Youtube video potential? (It could also tie into the contest techniques mentioned under significance.) I also feel it's important to remember that Howard's techniques are not an all inclusive list. Using them as a starting point is wonderful; moving beyond them to create belonging is even better since it can allow for customization to a specific community.
I appreciated how significance has such strong ties to marketing techniques! I feel that creating significance all boils down to branding and how successfully the brand is recognized. The tools used to do this are limitless. The paradox of exclusivity is a definite concept to leverage. The RIBS components should not be treated as silos. Certain strategies can contribute and support several components at the same time. And social capital provides such potential for opportunity. A parallel that may be a successful strategy for Cooper Library is Gmail's kickoff. To create a Gmail account you had to receive an invitation from a member. You then became significant because you could invite a limited number of others to join. Hubs or connectors were critical in disseminating Gmail. Exclusivity was established since you had to know someone and could not just join. Not only was it exclusive, it utilized influentials.
While we haven't yet heard the parameters and specific task for our next client, I found myself applying RIBS techniques to various strategies that may be employed for Cooper Library. I suppose this serves more as a brainstorm that will need to be tailored once we speak with Micki Reid. ,I hope that it helps frame her presentation in class this evening.
Remuneration should be considered first and foremost. Howard's use of AltaVista v. Google is a good example to demonstrate how critical remuneration is. If users don't gain an experience or a benefit from being part of the Cooper Library community, they either won't join or remain members. Most research can be performed from students' dorm rooms or apartments.What's in it for them to be part of the Cooper Library community? During his presentation about the future of the book Dr. Palmquist discussed that libraries are no longer the first place students go when they have to research something. Their first instinct is to go to Google. Their second instinct is to go to Google. With Dr. Palmquist's point in mind, Cooper Library's community must remunerate its users with experiences that a Google search cannot provide. Humans are social beings. Howard states, "We humans have a deep-seated, primal need to be part of a social experience because that's how we make events meaningful" (56). Thus the remuneration we create for Cooper Library must capitalize on this need. To successfully do this we will need to determine what users of the libraries "want and need to understand and then create an environment so they can socially construct that understanding" (57). Techniques that will support this then need to be tailored to the meaning and experience users seek from the library community and balanced with the client's wishes. I am hoping that a competitive dimension can be introduced based on these considerations.
Once remuneration has laid the groundwork for the business model and how it will function to support a user experience, influence must be considered. Li & Bernoff, Kim, and Wenger help outline what to consider when planning for the various influence needs of community members. The diagrams used to show Kim's life cycle and Wegner's trajectories on page 101 are especially helpful. Techniques will be needed that cater to these various needs. Hello, differentiation. The physical bulletin board on the wall asking students for input about a particular question is a great way to give students influence. This is one component that should be adapted to the online community. I also think it's important to note that due to the nature of a university, we'll be dealing with many outbound members as they graduate. Each year there will also be a mass entrance of novices and/or inbound participants (definite reason to have a visitor's center). Understanding the structure of the university will be critical when planning for the influence needs of community members.
I agree with Howard that belonging allows for the most fun and creativity. Initiation, origin stories, rituals, mythologies, symbols, and protocols/routines/schemas are all important to consider. Certain components seem as if they will work better for a library community than others. It will also depend on what the client hopes to achieve. I see how buzz can be created from well told stories or myths--Youtube video potential? (It could also tie into the contest techniques mentioned under significance.) I also feel it's important to remember that Howard's techniques are not an all inclusive list. Using them as a starting point is wonderful; moving beyond them to create belonging is even better since it can allow for customization to a specific community.
I appreciated how significance has such strong ties to marketing techniques! I feel that creating significance all boils down to branding and how successfully the brand is recognized. The tools used to do this are limitless. The paradox of exclusivity is a definite concept to leverage. The RIBS components should not be treated as silos. Certain strategies can contribute and support several components at the same time. And social capital provides such potential for opportunity. A parallel that may be a successful strategy for Cooper Library is Gmail's kickoff. To create a Gmail account you had to receive an invitation from a member. You then became significant because you could invite a limited number of others to join. Hubs or connectors were critical in disseminating Gmail. Exclusivity was established since you had to know someone and could not just join. Not only was it exclusive, it utilized influentials.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)