Our recommendations can be found at http://yellowpod.wikispaces.com/message/view/home/16429379
while the history of our discussions can be found: http://yellowpod.ning.com/
While I contributed to the discussions, the aforementioned personal issue took some attention away from my contributions towards the end. I hope my participation was sufficient.
Thank you
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Topic 9
Q1. Social networking as a business model.
A social network business model is prime ground for advertisers and really any business that intends to employ the crowd mentality for the sake of creativity and diversity. The amount of raw information generated from a social network as a bi-product of simply existing. It is, after all, how a great many of the web 2.0 tools we use today came to be. So why not find a way of harnessing it?
On the flipside however. "We are the angry mob, we read the papers everyday, we like who we like and we hate who we hate but we're also easily swayed." By this I mean, when you take on a social network you take on a group of people. Sometimes large groups of people. They'll love what you're doing until they don't and when that happens the results can be wildly unpredictable. Every time facebook makes an interface change a new group rises up opposing the change. There is also the question of whether social networks should even be considered a business model? True it's a weak question, but the moral and ethical considerations of running a for profit business around the personal information and social interactions of individuals does warrant a mention.
Q2. Government 2.0
Wiki Drafts: These are items set to be processed within the system of government that are open for discussion. It's like making a document an open forum so the majority can have a direct influence over what is happening in their parliament.
Twitter in government: It's a way for politicians to have a direct voice to their constituents. Uncensored information is able to make it from the hands of our government representatives straight to the people.
Do I support government 2.0? I don't know. Call me cautiously optimistic. I think being able to get more interaction and involvement happening between politicians and the people is a good idea but California have demonstrated an ability to over democratise the state to a point where nothing gets done. So yes, I guess I do support it as all things must evolve. I foresee in it an ability to stall government productivity (there's an oxymoron for ya) as well though.
A social network business model is prime ground for advertisers and really any business that intends to employ the crowd mentality for the sake of creativity and diversity. The amount of raw information generated from a social network as a bi-product of simply existing. It is, after all, how a great many of the web 2.0 tools we use today came to be. So why not find a way of harnessing it?
On the flipside however. "We are the angry mob, we read the papers everyday, we like who we like and we hate who we hate but we're also easily swayed." By this I mean, when you take on a social network you take on a group of people. Sometimes large groups of people. They'll love what you're doing until they don't and when that happens the results can be wildly unpredictable. Every time facebook makes an interface change a new group rises up opposing the change. There is also the question of whether social networks should even be considered a business model? True it's a weak question, but the moral and ethical considerations of running a for profit business around the personal information and social interactions of individuals does warrant a mention.
Q2. Government 2.0
Wiki Drafts: These are items set to be processed within the system of government that are open for discussion. It's like making a document an open forum so the majority can have a direct influence over what is happening in their parliament.
Twitter in government: It's a way for politicians to have a direct voice to their constituents. Uncensored information is able to make it from the hands of our government representatives straight to the people.
Do I support government 2.0? I don't know. Call me cautiously optimistic. I think being able to get more interaction and involvement happening between politicians and the people is a good idea but California have demonstrated an ability to over democratise the state to a point where nothing gets done. So yes, I guess I do support it as all things must evolve. I foresee in it an ability to stall government productivity (there's an oxymoron for ya) as well though.
Topic 8
Q1.
You know what? It's hot. It's f@$&ing hot. It's 8:30pm and it's still 36C outside. It's also overcast and dusty. So as I wander around submersed in the heat I can taste a fine layer of dirt forming in my mouth as I draw breath. The light from the streetlamps washes through the air with a certain haze only a Broken Hill dust storm can bring. The prickles crunch underfoot as I pass through the entrance to the terminally ill football field across from my home. I grimace at the thought of pulling them from the soles of my shoes later, or worse, finding them in my feet after one or two are smuggled into the house. I can smell rain in the air, albeit faint. The notion of rain mingled with all the dust in the air leads me to suspect the local car washes are going to have a few more lucrative days ahead of them. The hot wind blows in my face, my eyes narrow as flecks of dust obscure my gaze. It's almost like wandering around a fan forced oven. Now the rain starts. Big, hot, dirty rain drops intermingled with dust muddy up the world around me as I retreat back home. Back home to a balmy 27C. Feeling a little guilty that I'm privy to such a luxury.
Q2.
Do we need this many web 2.0 tools? I feel like I'm playing jeopardy having to come up with the question to an answer that I simply wish to give as a statement. I have begun to wonder where the line between want and need has been drawn. I can't help but suspect, through what I've learned about marketing and consumerism, is that many of the Web 2.0 apps have been developed before identifying a clear need. Sort of "It seems like a good idea, we'll figure out how to use it when we're done". Take twitter for instance. Do you honestly think someone was sitting on their computer one day and thought to themselves "You know what? There really needs to be a quicker way to tell people how much I like toast." And while twitter has seen widespread use, even to practical ends, it still feels like another contributor to a world saturated in methods of distr.... oooh shiny.
How much social interaction do we really need? So many apps are palmed off as methods of maintaining social interaction. But how many people mixed up in your networks are you really friends with? I begin to wonder if these facilities contribute to the erosion of socialization as a whole. Without sounding too much like a Luddite though I acknowledge that I do use several social networks and without web 2.0 applications I wouldn't be able to maintain my relationship with my fiance at the distance we are currently living apart. I guess my underlying concern is to do with excess. People are overdosing on social networks. Now a quick break to check facebook, brb.
What hazards are there in being saturated with web 2.0 applications? First point that my fiance raised while discussing this is how many children are using age restricted social networks? We are awash with so many options that it is impossible to police them all. It's unrealistic to want to police them all but it is still a concern.
Q3.
The difference between FOAF and semantic web confused me a little but the relationship between the two as I understand it is that FOAF allows us to roam with the same set of data across multiple services. Like we learn from normalising databases, reducing redundant information leads to greater efficiency, so this is the goal of FOAF and the semantic web.
FOAF in particular in this context runs along the social networking sites in such a way that members of different social networks have a means of connecting on a meta level via their FOAF information.
Q4.
a)
RSS or Really Simple Syndication is a a way of providing summarised news to subscribers. It is a form of syndication in that it automatically sends out information to interested parties as soon as there the information is published. An aggregator is a drunk alligator, but not really, it's not actually a word but I liked the joke. A site that provides aggregation services means that it collects headlines from many different locations and displays them, usually chronologically. DIG is a good example of this.
Swarm refers to the users subscribed to the RSS feed and stack refers to the news being provided.
b)
Delicious. It's an online record of your bookmarks. But it's SO MUCH MORE THAN THAT! It is also an online record of what everyone is bookmarking and keeps lists of what's the most popular. The tags for each bookmark refer to a word you assign to a bookmark. The tags allow the bookmark to be filed under that category. So if you have a video tagged as funny and video it will show up when your search criteria include funny or video.
c)
Web 2.0 repository's, now that I know they exist, will certainly feature in my future when looking for a tool for a particular project. I'm a little overwhelmed by the number listed but I honestly got a little excited when I saw how many there were and how diverse they were. I was a little disappointed to see so many twitter apps though. I am not a fan of twitter.
d)
Elgg.
When I read 'social engine' my immediate reaction was that it probably wouldn't be suitable for use in a workplace but after perusing the features offered I've come 180 and have to say this is almost the ideal application for the workplace. One could configure it around different departments in an office, share project files and perform interoffice collaboration and it's all easily moderated.
You know what? It's hot. It's f@$&ing hot. It's 8:30pm and it's still 36C outside. It's also overcast and dusty. So as I wander around submersed in the heat I can taste a fine layer of dirt forming in my mouth as I draw breath. The light from the streetlamps washes through the air with a certain haze only a Broken Hill dust storm can bring. The prickles crunch underfoot as I pass through the entrance to the terminally ill football field across from my home. I grimace at the thought of pulling them from the soles of my shoes later, or worse, finding them in my feet after one or two are smuggled into the house. I can smell rain in the air, albeit faint. The notion of rain mingled with all the dust in the air leads me to suspect the local car washes are going to have a few more lucrative days ahead of them. The hot wind blows in my face, my eyes narrow as flecks of dust obscure my gaze. It's almost like wandering around a fan forced oven. Now the rain starts. Big, hot, dirty rain drops intermingled with dust muddy up the world around me as I retreat back home. Back home to a balmy 27C. Feeling a little guilty that I'm privy to such a luxury.
Q2.
Do we need this many web 2.0 tools? I feel like I'm playing jeopardy having to come up with the question to an answer that I simply wish to give as a statement. I have begun to wonder where the line between want and need has been drawn. I can't help but suspect, through what I've learned about marketing and consumerism, is that many of the Web 2.0 apps have been developed before identifying a clear need. Sort of "It seems like a good idea, we'll figure out how to use it when we're done". Take twitter for instance. Do you honestly think someone was sitting on their computer one day and thought to themselves "You know what? There really needs to be a quicker way to tell people how much I like toast." And while twitter has seen widespread use, even to practical ends, it still feels like another contributor to a world saturated in methods of distr.... oooh shiny.
How much social interaction do we really need? So many apps are palmed off as methods of maintaining social interaction. But how many people mixed up in your networks are you really friends with? I begin to wonder if these facilities contribute to the erosion of socialization as a whole. Without sounding too much like a Luddite though I acknowledge that I do use several social networks and without web 2.0 applications I wouldn't be able to maintain my relationship with my fiance at the distance we are currently living apart. I guess my underlying concern is to do with excess. People are overdosing on social networks. Now a quick break to check facebook, brb.
What hazards are there in being saturated with web 2.0 applications? First point that my fiance raised while discussing this is how many children are using age restricted social networks? We are awash with so many options that it is impossible to police them all. It's unrealistic to want to police them all but it is still a concern.
Q3.
The difference between FOAF and semantic web confused me a little but the relationship between the two as I understand it is that FOAF allows us to roam with the same set of data across multiple services. Like we learn from normalising databases, reducing redundant information leads to greater efficiency, so this is the goal of FOAF and the semantic web.
FOAF in particular in this context runs along the social networking sites in such a way that members of different social networks have a means of connecting on a meta level via their FOAF information.
Q4.
a)
RSS or Really Simple Syndication is a a way of providing summarised news to subscribers. It is a form of syndication in that it automatically sends out information to interested parties as soon as there the information is published. An aggregator is a drunk alligator, but not really, it's not actually a word but I liked the joke. A site that provides aggregation services means that it collects headlines from many different locations and displays them, usually chronologically. DIG is a good example of this.
Swarm refers to the users subscribed to the RSS feed and stack refers to the news being provided.
b)
Delicious. It's an online record of your bookmarks. But it's SO MUCH MORE THAN THAT! It is also an online record of what everyone is bookmarking and keeps lists of what's the most popular. The tags for each bookmark refer to a word you assign to a bookmark. The tags allow the bookmark to be filed under that category. So if you have a video tagged as funny and video it will show up when your search criteria include funny or video.
c)
Web 2.0 repository's, now that I know they exist, will certainly feature in my future when looking for a tool for a particular project. I'm a little overwhelmed by the number listed but I honestly got a little excited when I saw how many there were and how diverse they were. I was a little disappointed to see so many twitter apps though. I am not a fan of twitter.
d)
Elgg.
When I read 'social engine' my immediate reaction was that it probably wouldn't be suitable for use in a workplace but after perusing the features offered I've come 180 and have to say this is almost the ideal application for the workplace. One could configure it around different departments in an office, share project files and perform interoffice collaboration and it's all easily moderated.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Topic 7
Q1. Mobile Touch Screens
A summary of how touch screens work:
The screens are able to sense and interpret the small electric charge given off by our bodies. So when we touch a touch sensitive device the electric field changes within the sensory grid. When this happens the area in which the touch occurred is processed in such a way that the relative center of the touch is established and it initiates the equivalent of a mouse click. Fascinating, I really didn't know that.
How do touch screens improve the efficiency of interactivity? The immediate answer to that is that it cuts out the middle man, a pointing device. The ability to do what comes intuitively to us and point at what we want on a device. Apple are the easiest examples of efficient use of touch technology. All their portable devices nowadays employ some use of touch technology. From the simple pressing of an icon on an iphone to open an application to the pinch gestures used to zoom in on pictures they have really made touch technology almost ubiquitous. One personal favourite of mine is ebook readers. The method with which you turn the page is to drag your fingers across the screen as if you were turning the page.
I would like to note though that an article I read in the sydney morning herald recently points out that intuitive design is only efficient for the culture this intuition is designed around. What is thoughtless habit for one person is a completely foreign practice to another. But for the majority touch screen technology is pretty efficient.
Q2. Technology and accessibility.
It's bland, it's almost common knowledge but it's still worth mentioning the accessibility features built into windows nowadays. Magnifiers to enlarge wherever the mouse pointer is positioned, narrator speaks whatever text is on the screen, there are high contrast modes that increase the visibility of all screen elements (admittedly at the cost of aesthetics) and there are methods of enlarging fonts well beyond the normal sizes. I'd like to note with the font enlargements that the operating system now is quite accommodating to larger fonts sizes reshaping itself around the larger font to retain ease of visibility. For more exotic advances there are now biometric monitoring devices that the elderly can wear and in the event of a dramatic change in their vitals emergency services can be automatically summoned as well as contact made with other nominated parties.
A summary of how touch screens work:
The screens are able to sense and interpret the small electric charge given off by our bodies. So when we touch a touch sensitive device the electric field changes within the sensory grid. When this happens the area in which the touch occurred is processed in such a way that the relative center of the touch is established and it initiates the equivalent of a mouse click. Fascinating, I really didn't know that.
How do touch screens improve the efficiency of interactivity? The immediate answer to that is that it cuts out the middle man, a pointing device. The ability to do what comes intuitively to us and point at what we want on a device. Apple are the easiest examples of efficient use of touch technology. All their portable devices nowadays employ some use of touch technology. From the simple pressing of an icon on an iphone to open an application to the pinch gestures used to zoom in on pictures they have really made touch technology almost ubiquitous. One personal favourite of mine is ebook readers. The method with which you turn the page is to drag your fingers across the screen as if you were turning the page.
I would like to note though that an article I read in the sydney morning herald recently points out that intuitive design is only efficient for the culture this intuition is designed around. What is thoughtless habit for one person is a completely foreign practice to another. But for the majority touch screen technology is pretty efficient.
Q2. Technology and accessibility.
It's bland, it's almost common knowledge but it's still worth mentioning the accessibility features built into windows nowadays. Magnifiers to enlarge wherever the mouse pointer is positioned, narrator speaks whatever text is on the screen, there are high contrast modes that increase the visibility of all screen elements (admittedly at the cost of aesthetics) and there are methods of enlarging fonts well beyond the normal sizes. I'd like to note with the font enlargements that the operating system now is quite accommodating to larger fonts sizes reshaping itself around the larger font to retain ease of visibility. For more exotic advances there are now biometric monitoring devices that the elderly can wear and in the event of a dramatic change in their vitals emergency services can be automatically summoned as well as contact made with other nominated parties.
Topic 6
Q1. Forum Experience.
Over the years I have participated in many forums. The instance that sticks out in my mind most strongly though was when I was developing little game mods for a game called Morrowind. It came with a very easy to use editing tool. I became very enthused about developing mods for this game, in particular the scripting language that was integrated into it. Because of the ease of use and the creative possibilities there was a large following of modders behind Morrowind. These modders would rally around modding websites that invariably featured forums. The morrowind modding website titled "Morrowindfiles" was where I dropped my roots for a time.
We were there with a common purpose, the development, distribution and appreciation of game mods. The people participating were all fans of the game, most people were merely there to download and use the mods that were being developed. Most were helpful and supportive towards the sites purpose. As far as size goes, it was big. Morrowind was a very popular game and as such there was a strong international following. I know I met people from every continent bar Antarctica while I was participating with this group.
Unfortunately, nothing is forever, and as I recall server hosting became too expensive for the admins as it was only a fan run site and they decided to close their doors. There were plenty of other sites doing exactly the same thing.
I remember feeling great disappointment over the closure of the site but the community dispersed and moved on. Another similar site rose in its wake called "Gamer's Roam" which inevitably followed the same fate. While participating though I loved answering peoples questions on development problems they had. As I had a pretty firm grasp of the scripting language I LOVED helping people realize their creative scripting ideas.
Q2. Wiki & Moodle
Design-wise I notice that wiki's rely more on a search premise while Moodles categorize their information. Apart from that difference they both have left boxed navigation and a centralised display for the requested information.
The thing that strikes me most about the differences between Wikis and Moodles is the way they present their content. A wiki feels like a broader general repository of knowledge used for reference while Moodle seems to have a goal in mind. What I mean by that is that Moodle facilitates information that will achieve a specified objective. They are both, however, facilitators of information. I could see a wiki being used to compliment the objectives of a moodle.
Q3. Trust and reputation.
You know what? Pop-ups. I've only got my own opinion to go on here but as soon as you ram a pop-up down my throat my respect for a site diminishes significantly. Then there's site design; if a site looks badly constructed then chances are it isn't as reputable as you'd like. I know this sounds judgmental but it's simply a rule of thumb. Personally, if I see flaming text for the title, I'm out of there. Fortunately, personal experience isn't the only thing one can do to determine a sites trustworthiness. Look for a privacy agreement, while boring to read they do hold very important information. Coupled with digital certificates of authenticity one has a good footing to begin trusting a website. You can also do a search on the site in question for forum opinions or any word of mouth information to further improve your stance.
Over the years I have participated in many forums. The instance that sticks out in my mind most strongly though was when I was developing little game mods for a game called Morrowind. It came with a very easy to use editing tool. I became very enthused about developing mods for this game, in particular the scripting language that was integrated into it. Because of the ease of use and the creative possibilities there was a large following of modders behind Morrowind. These modders would rally around modding websites that invariably featured forums. The morrowind modding website titled "Morrowindfiles" was where I dropped my roots for a time.
We were there with a common purpose, the development, distribution and appreciation of game mods. The people participating were all fans of the game, most people were merely there to download and use the mods that were being developed. Most were helpful and supportive towards the sites purpose. As far as size goes, it was big. Morrowind was a very popular game and as such there was a strong international following. I know I met people from every continent bar Antarctica while I was participating with this group.
Unfortunately, nothing is forever, and as I recall server hosting became too expensive for the admins as it was only a fan run site and they decided to close their doors. There were plenty of other sites doing exactly the same thing.
I remember feeling great disappointment over the closure of the site but the community dispersed and moved on. Another similar site rose in its wake called "Gamer's Roam" which inevitably followed the same fate. While participating though I loved answering peoples questions on development problems they had. As I had a pretty firm grasp of the scripting language I LOVED helping people realize their creative scripting ideas.
Q2. Wiki & Moodle
Design-wise I notice that wiki's rely more on a search premise while Moodles categorize their information. Apart from that difference they both have left boxed navigation and a centralised display for the requested information.
The thing that strikes me most about the differences between Wikis and Moodles is the way they present their content. A wiki feels like a broader general repository of knowledge used for reference while Moodle seems to have a goal in mind. What I mean by that is that Moodle facilitates information that will achieve a specified objective. They are both, however, facilitators of information. I could see a wiki being used to compliment the objectives of a moodle.
Q3. Trust and reputation.
You know what? Pop-ups. I've only got my own opinion to go on here but as soon as you ram a pop-up down my throat my respect for a site diminishes significantly. Then there's site design; if a site looks badly constructed then chances are it isn't as reputable as you'd like. I know this sounds judgmental but it's simply a rule of thumb. Personally, if I see flaming text for the title, I'm out of there. Fortunately, personal experience isn't the only thing one can do to determine a sites trustworthiness. Look for a privacy agreement, while boring to read they do hold very important information. Coupled with digital certificates of authenticity one has a good footing to begin trusting a website. You can also do a search on the site in question for forum opinions or any word of mouth information to further improve your stance.
Complicated.
These are late. Quite late.
I'm not sure what I was supposed to do, I'm pretty sure I missed a step somewhere but bureaucracy fails to make sense in the face of tragedy.
I lost a cousin to cancer recently. He had only just turned 20; scarcely out of his teens. It has... hampered productivity to say the least.
So following this, here it all is.
Be kind.
I'm not sure what I was supposed to do, I'm pretty sure I missed a step somewhere but bureaucracy fails to make sense in the face of tragedy.
I lost a cousin to cancer recently. He had only just turned 20; scarcely out of his teens. It has... hampered productivity to say the least.
So following this, here it all is.
Be kind.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Essay
Here we go, this is going to be awful: It's a day late, I've had barely any sleep the last few days and I go overseas tomorrow (for which I am yet to start packing!).
Wikipedia. (2009). Dave Winer. Retrieved 15th September from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Winer#Podcasting
Wikipedia, (2009). Daily Source Code. Retrieved 15th September from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Source_Code
Wikipedia, (2009). Adam Curry. Retrieved 15th September from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/adam_curry#podcasting
Wikipedia, (2009).History of podcasting. Retrieved 15th September from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_podcasting
Yes, it's pretty crap. Yes I'm the sod that left it this late. No I probably won't learn from my mistakes and get it done faster next time.
This essay will seek to compare and contrast the works and contributions of Adam Curry and Dave Winer to the world of online communications as we know it today. These two are arguably two sides of the same coin. Dave Winer is more responsible for the architectural development of many web features, such as blogs, RSS and podcasting. Adam Curry, while not credited with having any notable technical skills, is renowned for popularising podcasts. What we seek to examine here is how these two contributors to the popularisation of podcasting have brought to the table, how they brought it and where their efforts overlap.
The crux of the work Dave Winer is really responsible for is in RSS (Really Simple Syndication). Dave Winer’s contribution to podcasting stemmed from several requests for auidoblogs in 2001 (Wikipedia 2009). He answered this call by implementing audio components into his RSS feeds. He demonstrated that it was possible to stream music through RSS by enclosing a grateful dead song into his usual feed. Dave took this innovation and developed “Radio Userland” and challenged other developers to find a way to further support and advance his RSS music system. What evolved, through the contributions of Kevin Marks and Adam curry was a way to download an RSS and hand it to an iPod through iTunes.
Adam Curry is the man who made podcasting popular. Dave Winer set the groundwork, but Adam Curry gave the technology legs. Using Radio Userland Adam Curry launched a podcast called “Daily Source Code” (Wikipedia 2009) which basically operated as your standard radio show, just on the internet. It has been said (Wikipedia 2009) that Curry saw himself as the celebrity for this new medium. Curry has worked on numerous podcasts since Daily Source Code but has apparently kept it alive. He has also been sighted on second life advertising from “Curry Castle”.
What the analysis of these two contributors illustrates is the creative, innovative ways a seemingly arbitrary implementation can lead to. Dave Winer was given a challenge by his readers, developed a tool to deliver audio files in small increments and a system to utilise it. Adam Curry saw the potential and created material that was worth accessing through the medium. Now the internet has implemented all manner of different ways to implement streaming audio and video. The Canadian Prime Minister is a podcaster! (Wikipedia 2009)
Reflecting on what I have learned here I would say that I associate most with Adam Curry. I get excited when some new innovation hits the street (metaphorically speaking of course) and start thinking up ways to make use of it. Take virtual machines for example: With Windows 7’s implementation of an XP virtual machine I can’t stop thinking of ways to get more mileage out of my computer now!
References:Wikipedia. (2009). Dave Winer. Retrieved 15th September from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Winer#Podcasting
Wikipedia, (2009). Daily Source Code. Retrieved 15th September from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Source_Code
Wikipedia, (2009). Adam Curry. Retrieved 15th September from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/adam_curry#podcasting
Wikipedia, (2009).History of podcasting. Retrieved 15th September from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_podcasting
Yes, it's pretty crap. Yes I'm the sod that left it this late. No I probably won't learn from my mistakes and get it done faster next time.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Topic 5
Question 1:
The many faces of me.
Ok, to attempt an exhaustive list is a bit daunting but here with the major ones:
CSU (unified login)
Facebook
Skype
Email accounts
News webiste subscriptions
This blog (it's a Google login, so it extends to several other domains)
Steam (unified online games provider)
Do I practice multiple identities?
No. I have no interest in pretending to be something I'm not. As someone with a keen interest in existential philosophy, I can't say I'm that attached to the one identity I do practice :-P
What differs from community to community online is quantity of information I share. I've stated this before in earlier posts that Facebook holds the most information I'm prepared to divulge online and even that could be considered somewhat candid by some standards. For all other accounts it's usually the bare minimum that they ask for. This blog has been a bit of an exception, I put up a photo of myself.
What does it or should it not say about me?
Everything apart from my Facebook account is worksafe. I don't feel like I have a point to make through social commentary or a burning need to publicize an interest in genital piercings (that was hypothetical, for the record). So my online presence for the most part has been quite transparent. Even the content of my Facebook account is far from truly offensive (with consideration to which culture you're from and what actually offends you. A picture of me eating a ham sandwich is offensive in some cultures).
I do like to write a lot don't I?....
Anyway, I continues!
Question 2:
A social architect is the person responsible for engineering the foundations of a social network. They are the ones who establish what will happen and how it will happen. What actually happens usually exceeds the expectations of a social architect but they are the ones who get the ball rolling.
Who could go past world of warcraft for this one.
Objective: Level your avatar through the skills provided to you and by interacting with the social network of other people leveling their avatars. There are many secondary things you can do, including professions where you make and sell items or offer services to other players. But these all serve to assist in the advancement of your character level. Once level capped the quest for better equipment begins. In questing for better equipment you are forced into participating with 9+ other players to venture into team oriented dungeons. Which brings us to:
Rules of engagement:
The basic communication rules that permeate all other social networks apply here. Be polite and civil, no abuse or harassment. It's possible to report issues to in game moderators if there is a breach but the ques for attention can be so long that it's only worth bringing really serious issues to their attention.
Where the evolution of rules of engagement has really shone is in individuals capacity to organise themselves into groups to achieve tasks. All manner of class based techniques have come into existence that were never documented as a part of the original game. These instances of new rules have been picked up by the architects which I will now elaborate on.
The social architects here:
The game developers are constantly running the game through an evolutionary life cycle. From the start the grouping features provided were a meeting stone that you clicked on and it would randomly group you with other players. Now the feature has evolved to the point where you can interact with a database of players and their stats to assemble the most appropriate party you need.
Left 4 Dead
Because I like games...
Seriously though, Left 4 Dead is an online zombie killing shooter game.
The objective is simple, get to the end of the campaign alive using the resources provided. Simple?
Rules of engagement:
Don't shoot your teammates for one.
There are a lot of communication features built into this game that have made fast communication easy and efficient. There is even a voice over IP component that allows players to communicate vocally.
While playing the game there are a lot of unwritten co-operative rules that you learn as you play. Like rescuing your teammates when they're tangled with zombies, or healing them with a medkit to sharing supplies.
Unique features:
Left 4 Dead is run exclusively out of a meta-gaming program called Steam. Steam is a social network unto itself for gamers to form relationships with each other across games. The game itself really fosters a strong bond between you and your teammates by characterizing the avatars really well and by really making you care for them. You want to see them succeed. The urgency and companionship that accompanies it builds real relationships with real people. A lot of my friends play this game on a regular basis with the same group. None of them have ever met in person.
The social architect:
I have a great deal of respect for the architects behind Steam and games like Left 4 Dead. They really know what they're doing when it comes to online communities as they have been responsible for developing on of the biggest distributors of online games in recent years. They have made it cheap and easy and are ALWAYS listening to feedback and they make real changes in good time at no cost to the end user. It's a work ethic we don't see enough of to be honest.
The many faces of me.
Ok, to attempt an exhaustive list is a bit daunting but here with the major ones:
CSU (unified login)
Skype
Email accounts
News webiste subscriptions
This blog (it's a Google login, so it extends to several other domains)
Steam (unified online games provider)
Do I practice multiple identities?
No. I have no interest in pretending to be something I'm not. As someone with a keen interest in existential philosophy, I can't say I'm that attached to the one identity I do practice :-P
What differs from community to community online is quantity of information I share. I've stated this before in earlier posts that Facebook holds the most information I'm prepared to divulge online and even that could be considered somewhat candid by some standards. For all other accounts it's usually the bare minimum that they ask for. This blog has been a bit of an exception, I put up a photo of myself.
What does it or should it not say about me?
Everything apart from my Facebook account is worksafe. I don't feel like I have a point to make through social commentary or a burning need to publicize an interest in genital piercings (that was hypothetical, for the record). So my online presence for the most part has been quite transparent. Even the content of my Facebook account is far from truly offensive (with consideration to which culture you're from and what actually offends you. A picture of me eating a ham sandwich is offensive in some cultures).
I do like to write a lot don't I?....
Anyway, I continues!
Question 2:
A social architect is the person responsible for engineering the foundations of a social network. They are the ones who establish what will happen and how it will happen. What actually happens usually exceeds the expectations of a social architect but they are the ones who get the ball rolling.
Who could go past world of warcraft for this one.
Objective: Level your avatar through the skills provided to you and by interacting with the social network of other people leveling their avatars. There are many secondary things you can do, including professions where you make and sell items or offer services to other players. But these all serve to assist in the advancement of your character level. Once level capped the quest for better equipment begins. In questing for better equipment you are forced into participating with 9+ other players to venture into team oriented dungeons. Which brings us to:
Rules of engagement:
The basic communication rules that permeate all other social networks apply here. Be polite and civil, no abuse or harassment. It's possible to report issues to in game moderators if there is a breach but the ques for attention can be so long that it's only worth bringing really serious issues to their attention.
Where the evolution of rules of engagement has really shone is in individuals capacity to organise themselves into groups to achieve tasks. All manner of class based techniques have come into existence that were never documented as a part of the original game. These instances of new rules have been picked up by the architects which I will now elaborate on.
The social architects here:
The game developers are constantly running the game through an evolutionary life cycle. From the start the grouping features provided were a meeting stone that you clicked on and it would randomly group you with other players. Now the feature has evolved to the point where you can interact with a database of players and their stats to assemble the most appropriate party you need.
Left 4 Dead
Because I like games...
Seriously though, Left 4 Dead is an online zombie killing shooter game.
The objective is simple, get to the end of the campaign alive using the resources provided. Simple?
Rules of engagement:
Don't shoot your teammates for one.
There are a lot of communication features built into this game that have made fast communication easy and efficient. There is even a voice over IP component that allows players to communicate vocally.
While playing the game there are a lot of unwritten co-operative rules that you learn as you play. Like rescuing your teammates when they're tangled with zombies, or healing them with a medkit to sharing supplies.
Unique features:
Left 4 Dead is run exclusively out of a meta-gaming program called Steam. Steam is a social network unto itself for gamers to form relationships with each other across games. The game itself really fosters a strong bond between you and your teammates by characterizing the avatars really well and by really making you care for them. You want to see them succeed. The urgency and companionship that accompanies it builds real relationships with real people. A lot of my friends play this game on a regular basis with the same group. None of them have ever met in person.
The social architect:
I have a great deal of respect for the architects behind Steam and games like Left 4 Dead. They really know what they're doing when it comes to online communities as they have been responsible for developing on of the biggest distributors of online games in recent years. They have made it cheap and easy and are ALWAYS listening to feedback and they make real changes in good time at no cost to the end user. It's a work ethic we don't see enough of to be honest.
Topic 4: Question 2 & 3
Q2)
a) Three ways of providing users with more control:
1) Customization of their online identity within the community can help them build a confidence of self and individuality. This in turn contributes to the identity of the community at large.
2) Strong participants can be given moderator or leader positions on the proviso that they adhere to some guidelines. Giving control to respected community members can help bolster a networks confidence. Conversely appointing the wrong person can damage the interactions of a community. Much like appointing wrong people to managerial positions, something I've become all too familiar with lately... (Yes, I'll take shots at them in whatever medium to whoever will listen)
3) Allow user created content and modules to be integrated. Facebook are a shining example of this one. All manner of applications and games from quizzes to glorified RSS feeds; all user created.
b)
Big stand out point here for me was the information regarding hosts. I noticed in a lot of the sessions we had I often found myself falling into something of a host role. I'm not a domineering person, or not intentionally if anyone gets that vibe, but I often found myself assisting with the direction of the discussions or helping other users to work whatever program we were using at the time. We all deferred to Ken seeing as he's our lecturer but I got the feeling he wanted someone to sit in the hosts chair.
I know we were never in any one environment long enough for real hosting to occur. The kind of practices a long term host would need to develop though are more centered around mediating the moral code of the users: making sure that a pleasant environment is maintained.
The key to that is reinforcing civil exchanges and encouraging users to interact, usually by giving them purpose to interact. In our sessions everyone was polite and civil. I think it helps though that we are studying these environments from a meta level. Perhaps we would run into conflicts if we were immersed in a stronger, more long term community.
I'm sure there's three points mingled in there.
c)
The reasons one needs to develop a set of rules of engagement in these environments is primarily because so much power is automatically awarded to your average user. As we saw when we used LC-MOO there are a variety of different ways the content in the right pane could be manipulated so all other users were seeing something they didn't choose. It is also possible to create objects and leave them lying around which can be manipulated to a degree by others. All of this is possible at an entry level too. With this much power, when coming together to work on large scale open source projects, as I envisage might be a good use for these types of environments, it is integral that users know exactly how to behave so as they don't disrupt or destroy the work of another. Given how these environments can also be populated with varying numbers of people it is important to know the correct way to get someones attention and feedback and also how to respond in that environment.
In my mind I see these tools as sort of software construction sites, and on a construction site you need safety equipment and rules and protocols with how you conduct yourself on site. I feel this analogy translates well here.
The need for these rules, in the context of document sharing systems, is somewhat lessened, not so much in necessity but in contents. Less power equals less policy and procedure. An individual user can't be as potentially dangerous to a community when it's only documents being shared (true the contents of the documents is important).
Q3)
a)
I tried, I really tried to organise the list of sites into educational and non-educational. But I just can't do it in good conscience. They all have the potential to afford educational opportunities. True, some more than others. So for the sake of having a list:
More Educational: Yahoo!, YouTube, Ning, LinkedIn, Delicious, Teachertube, RevYu, Digg, bubbl.us & reddit.
These sites all offer immediate educational yield.
Of these, the ones that offer the most potential for an educational environment are:
Ning, Teachertube & bubbl.us
They appear to have the richest potential.
While still arugably possessing educational value these are the bottom runners that one could argue are better time wasters than educational tools. Having said that it does not necessarily diminish their value as social networking tools:
Bebo, Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, Flickr.
For professional development I'm going to stick with: Ning, Teachertube & bubbl.us
All of the other options feel a little too undisciplined to be truly effective in the workplace.
a) Three ways of providing users with more control:
1) Customization of their online identity within the community can help them build a confidence of self and individuality. This in turn contributes to the identity of the community at large.
2) Strong participants can be given moderator or leader positions on the proviso that they adhere to some guidelines. Giving control to respected community members can help bolster a networks confidence. Conversely appointing the wrong person can damage the interactions of a community. Much like appointing wrong people to managerial positions, something I've become all too familiar with lately... (Yes, I'll take shots at them in whatever medium to whoever will listen)
3) Allow user created content and modules to be integrated. Facebook are a shining example of this one. All manner of applications and games from quizzes to glorified RSS feeds; all user created.
b)
Big stand out point here for me was the information regarding hosts. I noticed in a lot of the sessions we had I often found myself falling into something of a host role. I'm not a domineering person, or not intentionally if anyone gets that vibe, but I often found myself assisting with the direction of the discussions or helping other users to work whatever program we were using at the time. We all deferred to Ken seeing as he's our lecturer but I got the feeling he wanted someone to sit in the hosts chair.
I know we were never in any one environment long enough for real hosting to occur. The kind of practices a long term host would need to develop though are more centered around mediating the moral code of the users: making sure that a pleasant environment is maintained.
The key to that is reinforcing civil exchanges and encouraging users to interact, usually by giving them purpose to interact. In our sessions everyone was polite and civil. I think it helps though that we are studying these environments from a meta level. Perhaps we would run into conflicts if we were immersed in a stronger, more long term community.
I'm sure there's three points mingled in there.
c)
The reasons one needs to develop a set of rules of engagement in these environments is primarily because so much power is automatically awarded to your average user. As we saw when we used LC-MOO there are a variety of different ways the content in the right pane could be manipulated so all other users were seeing something they didn't choose. It is also possible to create objects and leave them lying around which can be manipulated to a degree by others. All of this is possible at an entry level too. With this much power, when coming together to work on large scale open source projects, as I envisage might be a good use for these types of environments, it is integral that users know exactly how to behave so as they don't disrupt or destroy the work of another. Given how these environments can also be populated with varying numbers of people it is important to know the correct way to get someones attention and feedback and also how to respond in that environment.
In my mind I see these tools as sort of software construction sites, and on a construction site you need safety equipment and rules and protocols with how you conduct yourself on site. I feel this analogy translates well here.
The need for these rules, in the context of document sharing systems, is somewhat lessened, not so much in necessity but in contents. Less power equals less policy and procedure. An individual user can't be as potentially dangerous to a community when it's only documents being shared (true the contents of the documents is important).
Q3)
a)
I tried, I really tried to organise the list of sites into educational and non-educational. But I just can't do it in good conscience. They all have the potential to afford educational opportunities. True, some more than others. So for the sake of having a list:
More Educational: Yahoo!, YouTube, Ning, LinkedIn, Delicious, Teachertube, RevYu, Digg, bubbl.us & reddit.
These sites all offer immediate educational yield.
Of these, the ones that offer the most potential for an educational environment are:
Ning, Teachertube & bubbl.us
They appear to have the richest potential.
While still arugably possessing educational value these are the bottom runners that one could argue are better time wasters than educational tools. Having said that it does not necessarily diminish their value as social networking tools:
Bebo, Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, Flickr.
For professional development I'm going to stick with: Ning, Teachertube & bubbl.us
All of the other options feel a little too undisciplined to be truly effective in the workplace.
Topic 4: Question 1
Question 1:
a) How would I manage content in a blog?
A blog needs a purpose. An online community needs a purpose: a shared purpose. The blogs we have established and collaborated on are united in our efforts to understand and broaden our knowledge of social networks.
In this, our blogs could kind of be seen as meta-blogs: Blogging about blogs.
It’s our individual responsibility to make sure the content we include in our blog is accessible to our audience, o
We provide this accessibility through formatting and language choice.
Using blogger most of the formatting has been resolved for us in the way the entries are archived and the way feedback is provided. We do have control over how we space our content and where, in the swarm of posts, we insert an entry (via a backdating option).
Accessibility is also weighted on language choice appropriate to your audience. Given that this environment that we’re interacting in has been somewhat informal my language choice has been somewhat informal to match. Language choice helps to set the tone of a community and affect the way communication transactions take place.
b) Google’s blogger service is simple and useful for our current ends because of its simplicity. It contains enough versatility to manage a steady stream of blogs. One might argue that it meets its needs, if its needs are to provide a skewed flow of information from a dominant source to a listening, sometimes commenting audience. There isn’t a great deal of room for growth and change at a user level, but as the market evolves and users demand more the site owners will likely renovate the site. Community feedback, like I said, is limited in that comments are about the most that can be returned (although the content of those comments can be quite creative). Allowing members to gradually take more control isn’t something the author of the blog has a lot of say in. They can only do so much within the sites environment. Growth of the community is certainly possible, but will more likely be achieved through networking with other social network sites. (Some friends of mine regularly tout their blog on facebook)
Soooo tired....
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Topic 3
Question 1: The battle for wesnoth.
I'm afraid at this point I don't have the time nor the bandwidth to get the battle for wesnoth running. But as a veteran of World of Warcraft (I've been clean for almost two years now though) I am VERY familiar with online gaming. As a matter of fact I did an assignment in 2007 on the nature of interpersonal communication and socialisation in online games. What I discovered was that it was quite a difficult discourse to break into oftentimes. Most participants too impatient to assist the newbies. You find helpful people though and I know I did my best to educate newbies in the ways of the world (of warcraft). I participated in several guilds (sometimes simultaneously with different characters) and as a part of that involvement I met some very interesting people and had a great deal of real conversations with people, some of which I am still friends with even after having ceased playing. So if the point of this question was to personally evaluate the merit behind social interaction in online games then I say this: Some of the experiences and memories I've had in online gaming are just as fond in my mind as those I've had out with friends physically. We can debate the scientific and psychological merits or flaws in this environment but there is overwhelming evidence that complex, meaningful social interactions are happening in these environments nowadays.
Question 2: Mobile computing research.
Wifi technology advantages for E-Learning.
This article documents many ways in which mobile phones can be used in a learning environment. Some of the applications of this technology that jumped out at me were:
Use of a mobile device in the classroom:
This one is right at the bottom of the article but it really jumped out at me. Use applications on our mobile phones to submit feedback to the lecturer at the front of the class. This can extend beyond submission of text answers to diagrams or whatever detailed response is needed. It also helps to reduce the stigma of chirping up with completely the wrong answer or input. One other side effect is that with the mobile phones occupied with class interaction they won't be a distraction. The program exemplified here was 'classtalk'.
Gaming & Simulation:
The premise here is that students use a program on a hand held device that they use to view a digital layer of the world around them. A simulated quantity of data overlain on the real world that they are able to access in relation to where they are physically (done with GPS technology). The value for low cost simulated real world training here is quite noteworthy.
There are many other opportunities already, mostly involving ease of communication through social networks and sms. Those two points I found the most intriguing though.
Getting there... On to topic 4.
I'm afraid at this point I don't have the time nor the bandwidth to get the battle for wesnoth running. But as a veteran of World of Warcraft (I've been clean for almost two years now though) I am VERY familiar with online gaming. As a matter of fact I did an assignment in 2007 on the nature of interpersonal communication and socialisation in online games. What I discovered was that it was quite a difficult discourse to break into oftentimes. Most participants too impatient to assist the newbies. You find helpful people though and I know I did my best to educate newbies in the ways of the world (of warcraft). I participated in several guilds (sometimes simultaneously with different characters) and as a part of that involvement I met some very interesting people and had a great deal of real conversations with people, some of which I am still friends with even after having ceased playing. So if the point of this question was to personally evaluate the merit behind social interaction in online games then I say this: Some of the experiences and memories I've had in online gaming are just as fond in my mind as those I've had out with friends physically. We can debate the scientific and psychological merits or flaws in this environment but there is overwhelming evidence that complex, meaningful social interactions are happening in these environments nowadays.
Question 2: Mobile computing research.
Wifi technology advantages for E-Learning.
This article documents many ways in which mobile phones can be used in a learning environment. Some of the applications of this technology that jumped out at me were:
Use of a mobile device in the classroom:
This one is right at the bottom of the article but it really jumped out at me. Use applications on our mobile phones to submit feedback to the lecturer at the front of the class. This can extend beyond submission of text answers to diagrams or whatever detailed response is needed. It also helps to reduce the stigma of chirping up with completely the wrong answer or input. One other side effect is that with the mobile phones occupied with class interaction they won't be a distraction. The program exemplified here was 'classtalk'.
Gaming & Simulation:
The premise here is that students use a program on a hand held device that they use to view a digital layer of the world around them. A simulated quantity of data overlain on the real world that they are able to access in relation to where they are physically (done with GPS technology). The value for low cost simulated real world training here is quite noteworthy.
There are many other opportunities already, mostly involving ease of communication through social networks and sms. Those two points I found the most intriguing though.
Getting there... On to topic 4.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Topic 2
Question 1: Facebook.
I've had a Facebook profile since 2007 and I'd be lying if I said I wasn't concerned for my personal security the whole time I've been using it. I remember there being some controversy over who owns the rights to the media when it is uploaded to the site. I'm still not clear whether Facebook get ownership or we, the users, retain the rights.
a) I've always thought Facebook is a bit of an intimidating force. Recent news articles have reaffirmed this with Facebook hackers breaking into peoples accounts, locking out the owners then conning their friends into wiring money to overseas bank accounts.
I understand that there has to be a balance between ethics, security and usability. Without the ease of interaction facebook probably wouldn't have become the hit that it is.
There will always be security loopholes, there will always be people calling for tighter security and there will always be people breaking through the security. So I am of the opinion that we need to take some personal responsibility in learning as much as we can about how these networking sites operate and protect ourselves as much as we can without relying solely on the provider.
b) What do I think the difference is between social cognition and visual cognition? Is the word choice here deliberate? Am I being asked for my opinion here without 20 references and a verbose description given from the third person? If I were to hazard a guess right now, before looking up the definitions (as I'm going to shortly) I would say that social cognition is ones ability to comprehend and participate in social interactions. Visual cognition being ones ability to recognize and interact with visual stimuli. Now, be right back while I hit wikipedia and dictionary.com...
(time passes)
What do ya know? I was right (pretty much). The significance of this question I think though is to explore how our social interactions have drifted towards the visual interactions via a computer screen. So ones aptitude at visual cognition has little bearing on their social cognition. Which I guess is one explanation why the more socially inept have fewer problems interacting over the internet.
Question 2: Second Life
I have used second life in the past and my experience of it was rather unpleasant, so much so that I'd rather not revisit it just for the sake of this question. Mark me down if necessary but I'd sacrifice a few marks versus going back there. I found it to be an enormous egocentric chaotic mess. Peoples attention spans are so short for the most part if you can blurt out a life history within 12 seconds of them greeting you they get bored, insult you and fly away. There is user made content everywhere, which requires micro-transactions to build I might add. This user created content is, for the most part amateurish and haphazard. Forgive me if I'm being cruel here but the imagery that comes to mind when I think of second life is that of spoiled children. They have been provided an environment that can be developed completely by the whims of their ego. While I'm making sweeping generalisations here, I can only comment of my own experience, and those weren't great.
Question 3: Online Persona
I have done my best to be consistent in my online presence. I don't seek to misinform anyone of my identity. What I do practice from account to account is how much information I give away. For things like Facebook I have disclosed as much on that network as I am prepared to on an online environment. Every other online persona I own is a lite version of that. Even my facebook profile I do my best not to give anything of real value away (although one might argue some of my photos are incriminating). Because of how much I use facebook and because of the nature of the information I have been reticent to accept friend requests from people in this class that I haven't first spoken with to some length.
Question 4: Online identity and your state of presence.
At the time of writing this the document containing the reading was not available for reflection. As is the nature of the web I will improvise and pull the necessary information from another *cough* reliable *cough* source: Wikipedia.
Phising: This is the practice whereby fraudsters try to trick people into disclosing confidential information by masquerading as the organisations the user is involved with. Preventative measures involve educating the community at large of this threat and how to identify phishers. Usually it's just a good idea to err on the side of caution. If they really are from the group they represent they will respect your caution. Technological measures to prevent phishing are also available like digital certificates of authenticity and the like but ultimately these are really only an aid to the educated user.
Pharming: This is when a hacker re-routes internet traffic from one site to another through whatever means are available at the time. This coupled with phishing can be an effective way of swindling people out of their information.
Privacy invasion: As the name implies, this is the invasion of ones privacy. When personal information is posted on the internet under secure means, it is an invasion of privacy for someone else to access that without authorisation and a step worse to publish the information elsewhere or use it for their own ends.
Identity theft: This is where someone attempts to masquerade as someone else using the personal information of the person they are mimicking. This is prevalent only many social networking sites in regard to celebrities. There are usually a solid handful of accounts claiming to be the real deal. In more severe cases (not to trivialise pathetic fans or anything) people who invade privacy by using phishing and pharming can garner enough information to successfully thieve someone's identity. Using this information it can even be possible in some cases to persuade more organisations that you are who you are impersonating than the original victim. Is this a statement of our societal values? Hmmm...
I've had a Facebook profile since 2007 and I'd be lying if I said I wasn't concerned for my personal security the whole time I've been using it. I remember there being some controversy over who owns the rights to the media when it is uploaded to the site. I'm still not clear whether Facebook get ownership or we, the users, retain the rights.
a) I've always thought Facebook is a bit of an intimidating force. Recent news articles have reaffirmed this with Facebook hackers breaking into peoples accounts, locking out the owners then conning their friends into wiring money to overseas bank accounts.
I understand that there has to be a balance between ethics, security and usability. Without the ease of interaction facebook probably wouldn't have become the hit that it is.
There will always be security loopholes, there will always be people calling for tighter security and there will always be people breaking through the security. So I am of the opinion that we need to take some personal responsibility in learning as much as we can about how these networking sites operate and protect ourselves as much as we can without relying solely on the provider.
b) What do I think the difference is between social cognition and visual cognition? Is the word choice here deliberate? Am I being asked for my opinion here without 20 references and a verbose description given from the third person? If I were to hazard a guess right now, before looking up the definitions (as I'm going to shortly) I would say that social cognition is ones ability to comprehend and participate in social interactions. Visual cognition being ones ability to recognize and interact with visual stimuli. Now, be right back while I hit wikipedia and dictionary.com...
(time passes)
What do ya know? I was right (pretty much). The significance of this question I think though is to explore how our social interactions have drifted towards the visual interactions via a computer screen. So ones aptitude at visual cognition has little bearing on their social cognition. Which I guess is one explanation why the more socially inept have fewer problems interacting over the internet.
Question 2: Second Life
I have used second life in the past and my experience of it was rather unpleasant, so much so that I'd rather not revisit it just for the sake of this question. Mark me down if necessary but I'd sacrifice a few marks versus going back there. I found it to be an enormous egocentric chaotic mess. Peoples attention spans are so short for the most part if you can blurt out a life history within 12 seconds of them greeting you they get bored, insult you and fly away. There is user made content everywhere, which requires micro-transactions to build I might add. This user created content is, for the most part amateurish and haphazard. Forgive me if I'm being cruel here but the imagery that comes to mind when I think of second life is that of spoiled children. They have been provided an environment that can be developed completely by the whims of their ego. While I'm making sweeping generalisations here, I can only comment of my own experience, and those weren't great.
Question 3: Online Persona
I have done my best to be consistent in my online presence. I don't seek to misinform anyone of my identity. What I do practice from account to account is how much information I give away. For things like Facebook I have disclosed as much on that network as I am prepared to on an online environment. Every other online persona I own is a lite version of that. Even my facebook profile I do my best not to give anything of real value away (although one might argue some of my photos are incriminating). Because of how much I use facebook and because of the nature of the information I have been reticent to accept friend requests from people in this class that I haven't first spoken with to some length.
Question 4: Online identity and your state of presence.
At the time of writing this the document containing the reading was not available for reflection. As is the nature of the web I will improvise and pull the necessary information from another *cough* reliable *cough* source: Wikipedia.
Phising: This is the practice whereby fraudsters try to trick people into disclosing confidential information by masquerading as the organisations the user is involved with. Preventative measures involve educating the community at large of this threat and how to identify phishers. Usually it's just a good idea to err on the side of caution. If they really are from the group they represent they will respect your caution. Technological measures to prevent phishing are also available like digital certificates of authenticity and the like but ultimately these are really only an aid to the educated user.
Pharming: This is when a hacker re-routes internet traffic from one site to another through whatever means are available at the time. This coupled with phishing can be an effective way of swindling people out of their information.
Privacy invasion: As the name implies, this is the invasion of ones privacy. When personal information is posted on the internet under secure means, it is an invasion of privacy for someone else to access that without authorisation and a step worse to publish the information elsewhere or use it for their own ends.
Identity theft: This is where someone attempts to masquerade as someone else using the personal information of the person they are mimicking. This is prevalent only many social networking sites in regard to celebrities. There are usually a solid handful of accounts claiming to be the real deal. In more severe cases (not to trivialise pathetic fans or anything) people who invade privacy by using phishing and pharming can garner enough information to successfully thieve someone's identity. Using this information it can even be possible in some cases to persuade more organisations that you are who you are impersonating than the original victim. Is this a statement of our societal values? Hmmm...
LC-MOO session
As I said to anyone who would listen on the day, this reminded me of my MUD (Multi User Dungeon) days. Which was basically this environment but restricted the actions of the users in such a way that it could be considered a game.
While there is quite a learning curve for this kind of environment I could see this kind of environment as being extremely useful for educational purposes. Pre-build your environment, bring a class in and conduct a very interactive lesson. This would work pretty well with the class in the same location or dispersed, as we did.
I can see a necessity for a set of rules for communication and interactions sake. As there is limited screen space, too many people doing too much at any given time causes visual overload. Not to mention there are practices in those environments that are just plain rude. Like spamming (the repeated display of the same message) or any number of other character interaction mechanics, like the forceful display of pictures afforded from the picture viewer object.
So in summary, powerful, but potentially messy. Which is kind of a rule when you think about it. The more powerful and versatile a product, the more potential for mess there is.
While there is quite a learning curve for this kind of environment I could see this kind of environment as being extremely useful for educational purposes. Pre-build your environment, bring a class in and conduct a very interactive lesson. This would work pretty well with the class in the same location or dispersed, as we did.
I can see a necessity for a set of rules for communication and interactions sake. As there is limited screen space, too many people doing too much at any given time causes visual overload. Not to mention there are practices in those environments that are just plain rude. Like spamming (the repeated display of the same message) or any number of other character interaction mechanics, like the forceful display of pictures afforded from the picture viewer object.
So in summary, powerful, but potentially messy. Which is kind of a rule when you think about it. The more powerful and versatile a product, the more potential for mess there is.
Topic 1: Question 3
Subject: Sydney Morning Herald Website: Nielsen's Heuristic Evaluation
Sender: tbanks02@postoffice.csu.edu.au
From: tbanks02@postoffice.csu.edu.au (NHE)
system=Sydney Morning Herald Website
date=2009-08-20 04:11:43
comment=
q1=7
q2=7
q3=4
q4=7
q5=7
q6=7
q7=7
q8=5
q9=5
q10=3
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Catchup: Google Chat, CSU Chat & Skpe.
Ok, I'm a little (read: big) bit behind right now and the exercises are inaccessible on the day I was going to do the lot. So for the sake of getting something done here's a rundown of my experiences with the last three applications we used.
Google Chat:
First impression for this one is that it is really NOT designed for large scale interaction. By that I mean, the way we assaulted it with a dozen people trying to chat in the teensy window in the bottom right hand corner of the screen. It's true you could float the window out to make viewing easier though. Getting the chat started was a little confusing as I wasn't even quite sure how to start a conversation with anyone, but my fallback plan of "click stuff until something happens" got a chat window open with Ash. Then we invited a few more people into the fray, and I have to say the ability for anyone in the chat to invite more people in made it easier to keep things flowing (otherwise I would have had to moderate the whole bloody thing).
Sound and video operated like I thought it would. Some people seemed to have trouble finding the buttons to push; they were just in the config menu of the chat window.
I think google chat will probably only ever rest in the private casual domain. Email and chat: text, audio and visual is an attractive compilation. Web based interface with multifaceted user ID is less attractive. I for one prefer my interaction methods to be external of a browser.
CSU Interact Chat:
MESSY! Messy messy messy. I think the main issues I have with this chat program can be softened with the knowledge that we simply had too many people in there. In this day and age that isn't really an acceptable excuse though. The refresh rate of chat messages was too slow and as such, with so many people in there, sometimes when it did refresh you would end up with a dozen new messages to read in a matter of seconds. Useful for small scale collaboration within the CSU pen, but there are much better alternatives out there.
Skype:
I wasn't able to be there for the meeting last Wednesday but I do use Skype very regularly and I have nothing but praise for the handy little app. I keep a subscription with it to make international phone calls to 40 different countries at no additional cost (/end sales plug). My partner and I use it to keep in contact on a daily basis while we're apart. We also leave each other messages using the chat feature built into it. It's pretty much the cream of the crop when it comes to chat programs. Comparatively I've used AIM, Windows Messenger and ICQ. Skype does all the rudimentary things each of these other clients does (sans the myriad advertisements) and is the best option for video audio and voip telephone.
So obviously I like skype...
Will get the topic exercises up when the page resurfaces.
Google Chat:
First impression for this one is that it is really NOT designed for large scale interaction. By that I mean, the way we assaulted it with a dozen people trying to chat in the teensy window in the bottom right hand corner of the screen. It's true you could float the window out to make viewing easier though. Getting the chat started was a little confusing as I wasn't even quite sure how to start a conversation with anyone, but my fallback plan of "click stuff until something happens" got a chat window open with Ash. Then we invited a few more people into the fray, and I have to say the ability for anyone in the chat to invite more people in made it easier to keep things flowing (otherwise I would have had to moderate the whole bloody thing).
Sound and video operated like I thought it would. Some people seemed to have trouble finding the buttons to push; they were just in the config menu of the chat window.
I think google chat will probably only ever rest in the private casual domain. Email and chat: text, audio and visual is an attractive compilation. Web based interface with multifaceted user ID is less attractive. I for one prefer my interaction methods to be external of a browser.
CSU Interact Chat:
MESSY! Messy messy messy. I think the main issues I have with this chat program can be softened with the knowledge that we simply had too many people in there. In this day and age that isn't really an acceptable excuse though. The refresh rate of chat messages was too slow and as such, with so many people in there, sometimes when it did refresh you would end up with a dozen new messages to read in a matter of seconds. Useful for small scale collaboration within the CSU pen, but there are much better alternatives out there.
Skype:
I wasn't able to be there for the meeting last Wednesday but I do use Skype very regularly and I have nothing but praise for the handy little app. I keep a subscription with it to make international phone calls to 40 different countries at no additional cost (/end sales plug). My partner and I use it to keep in contact on a daily basis while we're apart. We also leave each other messages using the chat feature built into it. It's pretty much the cream of the crop when it comes to chat programs. Comparatively I've used AIM, Windows Messenger and ICQ. Skype does all the rudimentary things each of these other clients does (sans the myriad advertisements) and is the best option for video audio and voip telephone.
So obviously I like skype...
Will get the topic exercises up when the page resurfaces.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Topic 1: Question 2 Folksonomy
What is a folksonomy?
An internet enabled way for many people to contribute to the categorization of content.
Ironically, I found out what a folksonomy was from Wikipedia.
As for constructing one I honestly don't know where to start. Without the need or a reason to start one I'm at a loss...
An internet enabled way for many people to contribute to the categorization of content.
Ironically, I found out what a folksonomy was from Wikipedia.
As for constructing one I honestly don't know where to start. Without the need or a reason to start one I'm at a loss...
Monday, August 10, 2009
Etherpad
I thought I'd write up my experience of Etherpad before it gets too stale in my mind.
My initial impression of it was that it reminded me of the old telnet games I used to play in high school. I remember people describing them as "multiplayer notepad". That's basically what etherpad is.
I've already said a few time (in etherpad and the forums) that etherpad would be great for group project work in software development: load in a module of source code and let several coders go to town on it touching it up.
Or it would also be useful for editing pieces of literature.
Pretty much any collaborative piece of writing.
To summarize: I like it.
It's lightweight and powerful.
My initial impression of it was that it reminded me of the old telnet games I used to play in high school. I remember people describing them as "multiplayer notepad". That's basically what etherpad is.
I've already said a few time (in etherpad and the forums) that etherpad would be great for group project work in software development: load in a module of source code and let several coders go to town on it touching it up.
Or it would also be useful for editing pieces of literature.
Pretty much any collaborative piece of writing.
To summarize: I like it.
It's lightweight and powerful.
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Trying to get through topic 1
As you may have noticed I posted my responses to topic 1 question 1 just before this.
I'm working on the others as I write this (well not simultaneously, I only have two hands).
So far I have to say I really like how this subject flows: Learning by experience. Instead of studying endless manuals and readings about online communities and social networking. There is a bit that goes with it obviously. I love playing with new pieces of software and imagining their possible applications.
T. Banks
I'm working on the others as I write this (well not simultaneously, I only have two hands).
So far I have to say I really like how this subject flows: Learning by experience. Instead of studying endless manuals and readings about online communities and social networking. There is a bit that goes with it obviously. I love playing with new pieces of software and imagining their possible applications.
T. Banks
OLR Task 1
OLR Exercise 1:
What is social networking? How does it compare with your ideas about online communities?
A dictionary definition of social networking, obtained from dictionary.com:
“The use of a website to connect with people who share personal or professional interests, place of origin, education at a particular school, etc”
I know, “way to captivate an audience, use a dictionary definition as your opener!”
What do I know about social networking? I’ve been participating in social networks and online communities since I was 13 years old. It’s a little bit like asking: “what do I know about the things I do on a daily basis?” I take a lot of it for granted.
A history off the top of my head:
I used to play online multiplayer flash games on a 56k modem.
Multi User Dungeons via telnet clients.
ICQ & MSN Messenger to keep in touch with people I knew (and some I didn’t).
We got broadband at home then I started playing more bandwidth intensive games online. Granted this didn’t lead to much social networking initially.
I started using STEAM a gamer’s social network program developed by VALVE which gave gamers many more social networking options. I still use STEAM, almost exclusively for games nowadays.
My circle of friends use Teamspeak, a VOIP program that allows us voice communication regardless of what we are doing.
I played World of Warcraft for a couple of years during which I met many different people from many different countries, some of which I still have contact with even though I don’t play anymore.
I’m presently in a relationship with a lovely lady from Seattle whom I met through a geek oriented dating site. We converse daily using skype.
So you can see I’ve had a pretty online community saturated life so far.
What I hope to get out of this subject is opportunities to apply aspects of social networking to whichever field I end up working in. Hopefully teaching, but I’m open to possibilities.
The article I read for reference sake is:
Motivations for Social Networking at Work
Joan DiMicco, David R. Millen, Werner Geyer,
Casey Dugan, Beth Brownholtz, Michael Muller
This article is about using social networking tools within the workplace to enhance morale and productivity. A particular focus is on the difference between internet and intranet communication. This article paints social networking as a facility for social growth in the workplace. Co-workers that wouldn’t necessarily see each other in a typical workday have the opportunity to communicate. More ideas get circulated and the strength of the team may be enhanced.
A Life-Cycle Perspective on Online Community Success
ALICIA IRIBERRI and GONDY LEROY
Claremont Graduate University
This article examines what makes an online community tick. How they start and how and why they deteriorate. The factor that seems to play the biggest role in an online community’s lifecycle is its ability to evolve with the users to continually facilitate the social needs in accordance with the technology available at the time. I.e. Technology evolves our interactions. There are boundless opportunities for sociology studies wrapped up in this concept.
The process of social networking leads to the establishment of online communities.
The first facilitates the second.
I know it’s not enough to say that just having the technology means the demand will be there though. When using social networking to form an online community achieves a useful or at the very least, entertaining, end is, I think, the catalyst.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
