Howard 197 - End

Design to Thrive

Technology Changes Rapidly; Humans Don't This last section of Dr. Howard's book discusses four important points that social communities can learn from the past. These are: copyrights and intellectual property, disciplinary control vs. individual creativity, visual, technological, and new media literacies, and decision-making content for future markets. Another important point to learn from communication technologies of the past, is that literacy rates are drastically affected by the cost of any given communication technology. The lower the cost the higher the literacy rate because the more readily available content is a larger amount of the public. I really enjoyed the anecdote of the Gutenberg press and what it did not only to literacy rates, but to the entire structure of the religious, economic, and social structures of the middle ages. This anecdote translates very well to digital social communities of modern times, although it might be difficult to notice. With on-demand publishing more and more people are able to get their thoughts and writing into print. With the invention of iTunes more and more people are releasing their music online for purchase. Also with the invention of Youtube more and more people are recording their own movies and posting them for the world to see. However this does not come without problems. One of the most prevalent, and the one I will choose to focus on, is the issue of copyrights/patents/trademarks. The issues here, in regards to social media, are quite different than someone downloading a song from Napster or ripping a DVD movie they rent from Blockbuster; the problem is much more complex. Although those issues are a problem (and pirated eBooks as well such as Kindle) social media communities, and the companies that run them, create complex problems. For example social communities (digital ones at least) can contain members from all over the globe. These members, from around the world, exist in countries with drastically different intellectual property regulations than the US. So are they allowed to post similar content as US citizens? Is the US social networking company responsible for foreign members? For example, can China come after Facebook (a US based company) for allowing a Chinese citizen to access content or contribute to content that would normally be ban in China? Does the IP system protect the company (facebook, twitter, etc.) or does it protect the individual who produced the content?

Historically the IP system has protected the publisher, simply because it was the least vague of the options. Like Dr. Howard states a newspaper highers a journalist to write something, if that content pushes someone to take legal action it would be against the newspaper not the journalist. It exists as a protection system against individual authors. However in the opposite way it also inhibits individual from getting the rights to their? Or does it? For example a person becomes famous because of Youtube and gets a job in Hollywood making millions of dollars. That person deserves all of what he/she earned right? But it is safe to say that if Youtube did not exist this person would never have "made" it. So should Youtube get a cut? You see where the complexities exist. I say these things not to express a certain opinion in any single view, but rather to show that it is much, much more complex than people think. It is also strange for anyone to think too that their video on Youtube, or song on itunes, or their twitter account will make them famous or rich. But it does happen and it is happening even more as the corporate world invests more and more into social networking and the communities people are involved in. I apologize I know this was haphazard and random but I do have a lot of thoughts where intellectual property is concerned and I think it is one of the most important and difficult topics facing our global economy today.

Laurel - Computers as Theatre

This is a theater generated completely by a computer.

Computers as Theater was a fantastic read. I found it incredibly interesting and engaging. As an actor in several theatrical and musical productions it was an interesting metaphor to examine something that is often thought as a technical science through the lens of Wicked, Phantom of the Opera, and the Lion King. Obviously this is a stretch, however the metaphor of a stage, actors, and other agents working together to define how one should approach human-computer interaction is a viable consideration. In the introduction to her book, the author discusses both direct-manipulation systems and direct engagement systems. The primary difference between the two is first interacting with a representation of an object (such as desktop icons) vs. the latter which is an engagement with applications whose design is simultaneously constructed with the design of the interface. This idea of direct engagement opens the possibility for ascetic considerations to enter the development conversation much early. Under this system the program or application (code) is creating alongside the interface. Thus it integrates usability into the architectural structure of programs. As the author stated before, as a theater student, she felt that she had no place working with computers in a design capacity, really in any capacity other than a user. I think this concept of usability in computer-human interaction is incredible important in the development of mobile computing technology. No longer are people sitting in front of a computer interacting with a desktop in the traditional sense of direct manipulation. Rather mobile devices such as the iPhone, iPad, and others create an experience of engagement with content rather than manipulating buttons and mouse clicks in order to complete a task. In addition to mobile operating systems the concept of a touch-screen has also drastically changed the way we interact with computer technology. Mobile computing, again such as iPhone, Droid, and other devices, has drastically changed the way we interact with content. Apple has created a new system called gestures for both their mobile technology and desktop computers. Gestures is a way that a user engages with content. The idea is an effort for a user to interact how he/she naturally sees fit in any given scenario. For example when viewing content in a web browser you can push, pull, swipe, pinch, and spread content the way you see fit. The purpose of these examples is to show that method of interaction allows a user (audience member) to engage with the content and control it in real time, rather than manipulating representations of content/objects.

Practices of Looking - Chapter 1 & 2/Kolko 9 - 51

Practices of Looking

The chapters entitled Images, Power, and Politics provides a basic overview of visual images and the myth of photographic truth. It explains that viewing an image is more than just a mechanical act of perceiving a replication of realty, but rather an event in which meaning is derived from socially constructed truths through cultural ideologies, personal experience, and countless other attributes. This is the second time I have read this text, first in visual communication, and the second time around its meaning is more profound. The myth of photographic truth implies that photographs are absolute representations of realty. Photographs are often used as indisputable evidence in criminal proceedings, as well as determining whether an event occurred in history or not. This viewpoint implies that photographs are taken without bias, perspective, or any other subjective means. In order for a photograph to be absolute representations of reality they must, by default, be completely objective. However photographs are taken by people, whether through the lens of a camera or through the programming and placing of surveillance cameras. Perspective is applied in each case, and with perspective comes subjectivity. That subjectivity is based on ideologies and conventions, which in turn is how images are created and perceived: both the signifier and the signified.

Kolko (9 - 51)

"Interaction Design is the creation of a dialouge between a person and a product, system, or service. This dialouge is both physical and  is manifested in the interplay between form, function. and technology as experienced over time." In short Interaction design is the design of interactions. It is a combination of human-centered design, usability, human-factors, cognitive psychology, art, engineers, computer science, ...you get the idea. Its sole purpose is that at the root of any design project is HUMANITY. Design is done for PEOPLE to use. (simply put) One of the most helpful sections of this reading was the chart on page 22 which lists out the project process by phase (according to Kolko). That process is: define, discover, synthesize, construct, refine, and reflect. Each of these different phases employ different "fields" and expertise to contribute. One of the fascinating aspects of this flow chart was the "discover" section. Kolko further explains that during the discovery phase a project will produce research on user mental models, user process models, user's relation to context, and a summary of current products meeiting needs. This portion, discovery, is one of the most difficult to accomplish. In my opinion it is because people do not know how to accurately articulate what they want, and even if they know what they really want. It is a difficult job for a designer to determine what an individual really wants/needs in any given product or experience. Being able to tune into the individual consumer's hidden needs takes a lot of research, time, and money. Something that most companies simply cannot do. Instead we witness a system of trial and error between companies and consumers. A company releases a project/device/service and consumers can respond through channels that the company allows, and through social media outlets. Every single retail website on the internet, has a location for user-reviews. This reviews are incredibly important not only to would-be-buyers, but also to the designers. What was wrong with this version? What could we update in the next version? Take even the book Kolko wrote. This book (at least the one I have) is the 2nd version. Kolko practiced what he preached. This is an ongoing process that shows a small glimmer of the potential of technology. "Yet these products - seemingly the best of the best - only hint at the capabilities of technology, if applied in a humanistic and aesthetically relevant manner." Think back to the first introduction of the iPod, which mind you was only 11 years ago (roughly). Compare that product to the current iPhone or iPod touch and the differences are staggering. Its easy to point to smaller battery size, faster processor, better screen, etc. as the obvious technology improvements. However that is not what makes the product so much better now than before, it is better because its better to USE.

Another section talks about the "over the wall" problem in businesses. Which basically means that separate departments, such as engineering, design, and marketing, are just that: separate. It is obvious that certain people are "married" to their given profession and believe that it is of upmost importance. It is the interaction designer's job to be sure that one of those "professional areas" is people and humanity. Which, in order to be effective, must permeate all aspects of product/service creation. The problem is that often times motives apart from the user push product creation. Hence why the world is cluttered with things that are pointless (at least fromt he perspective of a user-centered designer). This is an exmaple:
What do people need? Of course! A way to smoke 20 cigarettes at once!

Welcome to Digital Rhetorics

I figured I should make some sort of an introduction post just for introductions sake. So here goes:

I am a first-year student in the MAPC program. I earned my B.S. in Political Science with an emphasis on Global Politics and a minor in Chinese Language from Clemson University in May 2010 with high honors.

During my undergraduate studies, I was involved in the Clemson University Singers and Tigeroar, where I held leadership roles of marketing manager and President. I was also a lead role in Clemson's production of RENT and received an Irene Ryan acting nomination. I completed my general and departmental honors requirements for the Calhoun Honors College and graduated Magna Cum Laude. During the summers as an undergraduate I studied abroad in Dalian, China and interned with a lobbying firm in Washington, DC, The Livingston Group.

In the future I plan to pursue a PhD in the field of digital media. My research interests are digital media, digital communications & rhetorics, information design and how they have changed the landscape of global communication in the fields of pedagogy and not for profits. I have plans to complete my degree and teach at the college level or to work in the design industry.