Sullivan
The readings this week I thought served as a good base for examining how technology affects the writing discipline, writing instruction, and first year composition. The two chapters discuss how "new" technology such as desktop publishing programs and word publishing programs (i.e. word, and pagemaker) are merging the profession of author and designer. That basic conversation is and should be at the forefront of discussion regarding pedagogical shifts in traditional English programs as well as interdisciplinary programs that combine writing, design, and many other fields in multi-modal composition. However I do feel that the articles are slightly out of date from a technology perspective. The argument that Sullivan discusses about these programs being to expensive to be implemented into curricula across the country is simply not the case any longer. Basic word programs now are capable of much more than desktop publishing programs of the 80's and usually come standard on any computer.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Bolter & Grusin
Immediacy, Hypermediacy, and Remediation
One of the quotes stuck out to me in the first chapter, "What designers often say they want an "interfaceless" interface, in which there will be no recognizable electronic tools - no buttons, windows, scroll bars, or even icons as such. Instead the user will move through the space interacting with the objects "naturally," as she does in the physical world." At first thought this is an obvious statement, a video game that makes you feel like you are really there and a part of the action is much better to play than one that does not. But to play a game without an interface (i.e. a controller) would mean that the entirety of the game would be done using the mind. In a way I understand what designers mean when they say this, but it is ultimately problematic. In order to feel like you are actually in a war fighting (Medal of Honor) there are interfaces you must interact with, whether digital or actual. The thing is humans interact with interfaces daily that are not digital at all. And to say that the ultimate goal of design is to have an "interfaceless" interface seems to be achieving the exact opposite goal of the designers, that is the game is even less like reality. In a sense consoles like Wii, and Playstation move are attempting to do just that. It is as simple as using a steering wheel remote to play a racing game vs. a controller. (same goes for rockband, action games, and other sports games). I think the goal, at least with shoot-em-up then becomes not to make interface interfaceless but rather make the interface (controller) used as close to the interface in reality (gun). Ok enough about a single quote.
Another quote towards the end of the introduction struck me as one of the most important of the book (which I have only read 2 chapters), which is "We will argue that these new media are doing exactly what their predecessors have done: presenting themselves as refashioned and improved versions of other media."
The first that came to mind when I read this quote was an Apple iPad commercial that claims to do just that.
If you watch the video you will see what I mean, and I couldn't agree with Apple more. They say that the iPad you can listen to a magazine, watch a phone call, cuddle up with a movie, and carry a library of books. All of these things are examples of previous media (photography, books, movies, etc.) that are made "better" through the medium of an iPad. Apple's goal here is minimalistic technology (immediacy) where the technology gets out of the way of someone engaging in content (media). The argument for the "better" part is that all of these things: music, books, movies, magazines, etc are all in one place. (and a quite thin place at that). Apple is not the only company following this trend. The eBook movement is doing the exact same thing. The Kindle and Nook are attempting to enhance the reading experience by making other media extremely portable. The same is the case with music and the iPod, same type of media (music) just in different formats (mp3, 8-track, CDs, etc. These technologies, like the iPad and the Kindle Fire, are prime examples of hypermediacy.
The goal of all of these technologies is to enhance the "interface" so that "other" media is seen and consumed in new and exciting ways. (immediacy, hypermediacy, and remediation)
 |
| "Interface" |
One of the quotes stuck out to me in the first chapter, "What designers often say they want an "interfaceless" interface, in which there will be no recognizable electronic tools - no buttons, windows, scroll bars, or even icons as such. Instead the user will move through the space interacting with the objects "naturally," as she does in the physical world." At first thought this is an obvious statement, a video game that makes you feel like you are really there and a part of the action is much better to play than one that does not. But to play a game without an interface (i.e. a controller) would mean that the entirety of the game would be done using the mind. In a way I understand what designers mean when they say this, but it is ultimately problematic. In order to feel like you are actually in a war fighting (Medal of Honor) there are interfaces you must interact with, whether digital or actual. The thing is humans interact with interfaces daily that are not digital at all. And to say that the ultimate goal of design is to have an "interfaceless" interface seems to be achieving the exact opposite goal of the designers, that is the game is even less like reality. In a sense consoles like Wii, and Playstation move are attempting to do just that. It is as simple as using a steering wheel remote to play a racing game vs. a controller. (same goes for rockband, action games, and other sports games). I think the goal, at least with shoot-em-up then becomes not to make interface interfaceless but rather make the interface (controller) used as close to the interface in reality (gun). Ok enough about a single quote.
Another quote towards the end of the introduction struck me as one of the most important of the book (which I have only read 2 chapters), which is "We will argue that these new media are doing exactly what their predecessors have done: presenting themselves as refashioned and improved versions of other media."
The first that came to mind when I read this quote was an Apple iPad commercial that claims to do just that.
If you watch the video you will see what I mean, and I couldn't agree with Apple more. They say that the iPad you can listen to a magazine, watch a phone call, cuddle up with a movie, and carry a library of books. All of these things are examples of previous media (photography, books, movies, etc.) that are made "better" through the medium of an iPad. Apple's goal here is minimalistic technology (immediacy) where the technology gets out of the way of someone engaging in content (media). The argument for the "better" part is that all of these things: music, books, movies, magazines, etc are all in one place. (and a quite thin place at that). Apple is not the only company following this trend. The eBook movement is doing the exact same thing. The Kindle and Nook are attempting to enhance the reading experience by making other media extremely portable. The same is the case with music and the iPod, same type of media (music) just in different formats (mp3, 8-track, CDs, etc. These technologies, like the iPad and the Kindle Fire, are prime examples of hypermediacy.
The goal of all of these technologies is to enhance the "interface" so that "other" media is seen and consumed in new and exciting ways. (immediacy, hypermediacy, and remediation)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)