On Page 32 of Joseph Walther's article, he asks the question "Will virtual reality systems replace standard CMC?" This article was written in 1996, and to me, recent developments in ICTs seem to answer that question affirmatively. Text-based communications, while still a major part of the material exchanged over the web, are also accompanied by more images and video. As human beings, we need to make eye contact to pick up nuances of language and meaning. And text, while it gets the job done, often leaves you wondering what lies beneath.
Early attempts at communicating the delicate balance between things such as sarcasm and insult probably began with emoticons. The smiley stood for the smile on the senders face that reassured the reader that the comment was meant in jest. So the increase in multimedia messaging, and the ease with which we can video conference and upload pictures and videos are all a way of creating a reality on the Web that matches real ways of communicating: through gesture, appearance, and tone of voice.
I have never played in Second Life (is that the right term, "played in?" Or should it be "entered," or "used") but I'm interested in what one's choice of Avatar says about the person. As an aside, I'm also interested in the use of the word "Avatar" because it's a Hindi word meaning "Incarnation." It certainly seems apt for the purpose but I'm curious about how it got selected. Because the avatar is the manifestation of the player in this other world, other avatars (i.e. the players behind them) probably make assumptions about the player based on appearance. For instance, assumptions about race, gender etc. A virtual world can't be very different from the real one, with all its prejudices and biases. And what about the conscious and unconscious choices one makes in selecting one's avatar. I would certainly be tempted to pick one that's drop-dead gorgeous!
The HNM artice cites the Pew 2000 poll, that found that Americans feel that they can be more honest in email with loved ones and friends over email than they can be conversation. It suggests that rather than making us less like our embodied selves, CMC allows us the freedom to be more true to ourselves. I found myself agreeing with the idea of context playing such an important part in how we construct our identities online. Just like real life, we show what we need to of ourselves depending on the situation. In some cases the anonymity emboldens us to reveal more, in others it allows us to be the people we aspire to be.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Are we alone out there?
The one sentence that stayed with me in this week's set of readings was Norman Nie's statement that "The internet could be the ultimate isolating technology that further reduces our participation in communities even more than television did before it." (Prologue: The case for multimedia research, James Witte)
The television has been everyone's favorite scapegoat, blamed for the breakdown of communication in families and in general reducing our minds to mush. However, more than 50 years since televisions became ubiquitous, human beings have not turned into asocial beings incapable of talking to each other. And, while television viewing could still be largely considered passive, Web 2.0 is all about users interacting with web content and adding to and subtracting from it. It seems to me that it offers endless possibilities for building social relationships based on your interests and backgrounds.
But then I paused for thought. In my own case, I'm more of a Web 1.0 user, in that I access the knowledge on the Internet but don't contribute much to it. And the same is true of a lot of people I know. I also wonder if most of the social connections that I maintain through the Internet are not with people I would have made an effort to keep up with anyway. So while I don't think the Internet is an isolating technology, I can't be sure that the opposite is true either.
As the rest of the article says, the jury's still out on how much of an impact the Internet has made, because of the difficulty of conducting truly representative surveys. My mind hasn't been made up either.
The television has been everyone's favorite scapegoat, blamed for the breakdown of communication in families and in general reducing our minds to mush. However, more than 50 years since televisions became ubiquitous, human beings have not turned into asocial beings incapable of talking to each other. And, while television viewing could still be largely considered passive, Web 2.0 is all about users interacting with web content and adding to and subtracting from it. It seems to me that it offers endless possibilities for building social relationships based on your interests and backgrounds.
But then I paused for thought. In my own case, I'm more of a Web 1.0 user, in that I access the knowledge on the Internet but don't contribute much to it. And the same is true of a lot of people I know. I also wonder if most of the social connections that I maintain through the Internet are not with people I would have made an effort to keep up with anyway. So while I don't think the Internet is an isolating technology, I can't be sure that the opposite is true either.
As the rest of the article says, the jury's still out on how much of an impact the Internet has made, because of the difficulty of conducting truly representative surveys. My mind hasn't been made up either.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Starting out
So here I am with my first blog post. I guess it took a graduate school class to get me try to this out. Well, whatever the impetus, I can see how liberating this can be. No editors or publisher approval or even an audience needed to get your words out there. Which brings me to my first thought about the web. The Internet makes amateur authors, photographers, and filmmakers out of us all. But is it always a good thing? I think we'd all agree that a lot of the videos on Youtube range from the bizarre to the well... mundane, with most of them in the former category. Does the relative ease of reaching out to people through the Web also make it easier for people to misuse it to shock, grab attention, or maybe even harm someone? While it's true that it's almost impossible to define art and creativity, I think it's worthwhile to think about how the Internet has changed our perspective of what constitutes legitimate self-expression.
Last evening, I saw a TV ad for parental controls for cable television. I found myself laughing, not just because the ad was a funny one, but because it occured to me that there has never been a parental control of any kind that kids haven't found their way around. But it also made me think about children using the Internet. The idea of children making the Web an integral part of their education is a highly desirable one, and is being strongly encouraged in most schools for its collaborative and creative potential. I personally hope to be a part of this transformation, creating educational material for the web. But I do wonder how we can ensure that kids access the knowldge on the web, while keeping them safe from its dangers.
The Internet, for all its flaws and perils has been a wonderful way for me stay connected with my family. My sister lives in New Zealand and my mother in India and the three of us decide on a time that works across the 18-hour time difference and get online for a family gossip session. But while I am delighted with how easily we can exchange news instantly, my father, who is not very Net-savvy, feels left out. My mother also complains that she would rather recieve a letter with my handwriting on it. It makes me think about people who are left out of the Internet revolution. It may be by choice - as in the case of my father, who says he is too intimidated to learn- or by economic and political circumstances. People claim that the Internet is representative of the real world outside. But if large sections of the planet's population do not have access to it, how can it be representative? For instance, there are several websites in regional languages. Yet, the predominant language of the Internet is English. Is that representative of the world?
Last evening, I saw a TV ad for parental controls for cable television. I found myself laughing, not just because the ad was a funny one, but because it occured to me that there has never been a parental control of any kind that kids haven't found their way around. But it also made me think about children using the Internet. The idea of children making the Web an integral part of their education is a highly desirable one, and is being strongly encouraged in most schools for its collaborative and creative potential. I personally hope to be a part of this transformation, creating educational material for the web. But I do wonder how we can ensure that kids access the knowldge on the web, while keeping them safe from its dangers.
The Internet, for all its flaws and perils has been a wonderful way for me stay connected with my family. My sister lives in New Zealand and my mother in India and the three of us decide on a time that works across the 18-hour time difference and get online for a family gossip session. But while I am delighted with how easily we can exchange news instantly, my father, who is not very Net-savvy, feels left out. My mother also complains that she would rather recieve a letter with my handwriting on it. It makes me think about people who are left out of the Internet revolution. It may be by choice - as in the case of my father, who says he is too intimidated to learn- or by economic and political circumstances. People claim that the Internet is representative of the real world outside. But if large sections of the planet's population do not have access to it, how can it be representative? For instance, there are several websites in regional languages. Yet, the predominant language of the Internet is English. Is that representative of the world?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)