Irene's COM 300 Blog

Final Blog Post

2006-03-09T22:46:00.000-08:00

1) What is the most important thing you learned in this course? Why?

Until this course, I took digital media for granted. I’ve always been under the naive assumption that everyone was privileged to the same technologies as I am. The most important thing I learned in this course is the fact that this is not the case– the digital divide is existent. Out of all the topics we have discussed, I feel that this is most important because this particular subject had me ‘step out of the box.’ There are a plethora of people who can’t even access or afford these technologies. This certain topic allowed me to realize truly how lucky and privileged I am.

2) What would you like to have had more time to study? Why?

Because the issue of the digital divide was so intriguing, I wish we could have had more time to study this issue. I think it is amazing how privileged we are to be able to access the numerous technologies available. I would love to do further studies with the digital divide because it would be interesting to study the specific obstacles that prevent people from access and possible ways to bridge the gap.

3) What topic was the least interesting to you? Why?

Though for the most part, the quarter was enjoyable, the topic that was least interesting to me was discussion about the GNU Manifestos. I had a difficult time reading and completely comprehending the articles. Because of my unfamiliarity with the subject and complexity of the material, I had very little interest in that particular issue. Personally, it took me a while to completely grasp the concept of “free as beer”, etc.

Week 9: Emerging Technologies

2006-02-25T17:04:00.000-08:00

Ironically, to go perfectly with the article, I began using VoIP this week. My boyfriend is in North Carolina and when we talk during the weekday, we absolutely hate eating away at our daytime minutes on our cell phone and paying long distance on a land line. As a result, he suggested the VoIP– and it works amazing. It works exactly like the telephone, but at no cost.

The VoIP is no doubt amazing and will most definitely impact cable and telephone networks. Like with all new technologies, with time and popularity, the new may eventually replace the old, such as print to the web, land lines to mobile phones, etc.. VoIP may replace society’s options such as the land line, with exception of those caught in the digital divide. Perhaps with time as this technology is welcomed and integrated into our lives, land lines and other phone alternatives may disappear– after all, for now, this is free. However, the only obstacle I see for VoIP is the inconvenience by having to connect to a computer– though with a fee, mobile phones are mobile. If VoIP somehow conquers this obstacle, this may entice an increase in consumers.

Discussion Questions:
1. Currently, how popular is VoIP? Has it been integrated a lot of homes?
2. Could VoIP eventually replace landlines? What about those caught in the digital divide– will they be left behind?
3. In the future, would it be fair for telephone companies to somehow charge for VoIP usage? What are possible ways telephone companies can make profit off this free technology?

Week 8: Access and Digital Divide

2006-02-21T18:43:00.000-08:00

There is no doubt that technology is empowering. With how innovative technology is becoming (i.e. WiFi instead of being directly hooked to a line), there is no doubt that there are attempts to make easy accessibility in order to bridge gaps from those caught in the digital divide. The article discusses the idea of granting Internet access with an affordable cost for those in rural, undeserved communities. By giving these communities this access, they are not “left out.” Seeing how much public communication is taking place in cyberspace, it seems almost necessary that all of the public should be given accessibility to join in regardless of circumstance. However, though cyberspace and new technologies allow a public place for individuals to communicate, there are further ‘obstacles’.

The relationship between cyberspace as a public space and accessibility standards seem to have a very rocky connection. While cyberspace is a public space accessible to anyone, not everyone has accessibility. Though the article discusses attempts to bridge gaps with Internet access in smaller communities, what about much poorer places? Accessibility standards are not the same everywhere. If there are smaller, poorer countries who do not have access to telephones, how will they have access to the Internet? Accessibility standards solely depend on the development of a country. Sure, the Internet is accessible to everyone and gives individuals the opportunity to interact in a public space, but not many countries are as technologically advanced (such as the United States). How public is cyberspace if the only ‘public’ participating is just the United States– what about the rest of the world?

Discussion Questions
1. What would happen if everyone had equal opportunity to access to cyberspace?
2. Will the Digital Divide ever disappear?
3. Eventually, will everyone be able to have Internet access?

Week 7: Extra Credit

2006-02-09T19:42:00.000-08:00

Who knew how heavily the Internet impacted politics? Even candidate web-sites can make or break votes. This article is a discussed assessment about the websites of John Kerry and George W. Bush during the 2004 election. The author (our professor, yay) explores both web-sites as an unbiased voter and judges the quality of the candidate by the quality of their website. In the end, it is concluded that although John Kerry’s website ‘wins’, both web-sites require work in order to efficiently persuade. I feel that this article brings much attention to our technologically dependent society. Everything is incorporated with Internet– shopping, communicating, and even politics. Politicians now have to work hard at having quality speeches, public appearance and even their technologies– their web-sites included. Now, politicians have to work twice as hard demonstrating appeal both in the physical and the online world. Before the introduction of these technologies (years, and years ago), politicians didn’t need to worry about their web-sites– they didn’t have one. Considering I grew up with Internet technology, I can’t imagine what it would be like living during that time. Candidates? Without web-sites? Impossible!

I think it is interesting that though technology can bring ease and encourage two-way communication between the voter and candidate, it also has the dual ability of making and breaking the candidate.

Week 7: Online Politics

2006-02-09T19:35:00.000-08:00

For as long as I can remember, I’ve been taught that politics and political discussion make impacts– in society and in our perceptions. Now, politics being impacted? This was an eye-opener for me.

In the readings, it has been clearly illustrated that Internet does indeed impact politics. In Scheiber’s article, Joe Trippi managed a campaign “without having to make a single phone call, knock on a single door, or send a piece of direct mail.” The Internet changes political campaigns completely– things no longer have to be physically done, it can be done through the convenience of the world wide web– and not only does it cost less, it is even more efficient– it is an digital ‘upgrade’ for campaigns. In addition, Internet technology allows a complete role reversal. Rather than politicians having to seek out (and probably annoy) potential voters and supporters, with Internet, supporters come to the politician through chat rooms, weblogs, etc. In the article, Trippi created a weblog during the Dean campaign where supporters could post thoughts, and in turn receive feedback from the campaign. This is opposed to the ‘old ways’ where during the question-and-answer session, only a select few were able to voice their questions and comments– now, anyone and everyone with access to the Internet are able to be heard. In turn, candidates have the ability to answer these burning questions– and perhaps depending how efficient and ‘good’ a candidate’s answers, votes can be swayed. Internet now allows two-way communication.

I agree with the premise of these two authors. The Internet does have an amazing impact on politics and our political knowledge. Weblogs, such as Dean’s campaign in the first article, can be amazingly successful and beneficial– it breaks traditional means of campaigning and if it wasn’t influential, people would not have bothered to make monetary donations or volunteer their time to the campaign. In the second article, the study’s conclusion suggests that though Internet news sources are currently only a supplement to our traditional media, Internet news may act as a substitution of our traditional source of political news. I whole-heartedly agree. With Internet making so many appearances in homes and newspapers being available online, why wouldn’t the Internet take over? Nowadays, everything seems to somehow connect with our computer and the world wide web– as time and society progresses, we seem to become more dependent on these technologies.

Discussion Questions:
1. In the future, do you think that politicians will “e-campaign” more than regular campaigning?
2. What are the negatives of e-campaigning?
3. Do you feel that e-campaigning is more efficient than regular, offline campaigns?

Week 6: Online News

2006-02-05T22:35:00.000-08:00

Blogging has exploded in recent years. In fact, it has posed improvement and positivity in our current society. It has served as an alternative form to distribute news (no longer from the words of a journalist) and as a medium to vent emotions (such as the occurrence of 9/11). It has allowed different voices from our community to be publicly heard.

Although there are several forms of media that allow general opinions to be voiced out publicly, not all forms allow everyone’s voices to be heard. However, with blogs, almost anyone can publicly express their opinions. As a result, blogs have diversified media– you hear thoughts, stories, etc. from different angles, different individuals, different voices– not strictly through the voice of a journalist. Blogging has created better journalism. Rather than hearing news from strictly journalists, through blogging, we now have an alternative source for information and news– we have our own printing press.

Regardless of its growth, blogs do have the problem of credibility– anybody has the ability to post– who and what is credible? Because of the reliability issue, blogging will not pose a threat to bigger, established forms of media. Society will continue to trust ‘reliable,’ well-known, public journalists rather than any bloggers. But maybe one day, blogging will serve as a threat and one day, be the most trusted form of news.

Discussion Questions
1. How credible do you think blogs are?
2. How do you judge a blog’s crediblity?
3. How have podcasts affected our society?

Week 5: Extra Credit

2006-01-29T19:19:00.000-08:00

Let’s face it, social software seems to be everywhere on the Internet– from Facebook to group forums, it seems to be taking over the world wide web, and is welcomed by a plethora of users. “Social Software and the Politics of Groups” speaks of its evolution as well as issues surrounding this software. The article discusses the creation of boundaries from these groups to prevent misuses. Though there are several social softwares I use, Myspace has attempted to create some sort of boundary– you cannot view a person’s blog or pictures unless you have a Myspace account. This may limit group membership, but regardless, anyone possesses the ability to sign up– even those with malicious intentions.

So why is this software so popular? I think because the ability to make connections with other people (regardless whether you know each other in person or even on the other side of the country). People possess the ability to be social and to express ideas without time and space holding anyone back. And most importantly, users feel like they belong– and are a part of a larger whole.

Week 5: Networks - Social and Technological

2006-01-29T13:49:00.000-08:00

It is a must for communication scholars to study the open source software movement because whether the government or anyone opposes this largely growing movement, it is happening. Scholars should take advantage of this movement because it offers a positive perspective of our community if we were more open and shared (thus, better and positive communication amongst each other)– and weren’t solely in it for profit. It is a world of programmers sharing (therefore eliminating competition) and working together resulting in the improvement of software as well as the price of software being less costly or free. This would not only benefit corporations, but everyone would benefit– with elimination of competition through prices and quality, harmony will be promoted– and with this harmony, society (and our communication) will be strengthened.

This strengthening as a result of a sharing and cooperative environment is definitely worth the time of communication scholars–a sharing and non-competitive environment is not typical of our society, however, all its repercussions appear to be positive– yet, our environment continues to be selfish and competitive. Why exactly? This would be an interesting topic for scholars to explore.

Discussion Questions:
1. Do you think the Open Source Software movement will truly benefit society? Will it hinder it?
2. With this movement, is there such thing as a “happy medium”?
3. Do you think programmers will sacrifice monetary profit for social contribution?

Week 4: Human-Computer Interaction

2006-01-22T19:16:00.000-08:00

I had read Zuckerman and McLaughlin’s article first and by the first few pages, amidst the explanation of networks and connections, I was completely lost. Throughout that particular reading, I had incredible difficulty comprehending all of the technology speak being thrown at me, even in much more simplified terms. By the end of the “Introduction to Internet...” reading, I felt my knowledge about technology was inadequate and was not up to par with the rest of the world.

However, by the time I read, “Being Analog,” my view of the man-machine relationship changed. I had originally believed that maybe I was technologically incompetent. I had expected myself to naturally understand all tech-speak because I had grown up with the computer. However, my view has shifted as a result of “Being Analog.” Humans are not naturally mechanical. Through the article, it was a relief to hear that humans are possibly ‘mismatched’ with the current design of the computer– with the design, humans to be under the terms of the computer– not the other way around.

I completely agree with Norman’s suggestion: “To redesign the system to fit the people who must use it.” I mean, with how rapidly technology is advancing, if I (personally), cannot have a complete understanding of all this technological information, I’m going to have one heck of a time comprehending technology’s future developments.

I think the man-machine relationship is not as ‘perfect for each other’ as I originally thought. People do not operate like computers– we’re not machines. My view of being the ‘defective’ one in the man-machine relationship has changed– man and machine just don’t perfectly complement each other.

Discussion Questions:

1. Out of our class, who honestly, 100% completely understood the article?
2. What are some ways to redesign our technology system to make it more understandable to man?
3. In the future, will we still be dependent on computers?

Week 3 Post

2006-01-17T15:17:00.000-08:00

Before coming across the readings, I had no doubt in my mind that the world had tons of information. I just never realized exactly how much– really, an overload? The articles for this week have caused me to step back and critically evaluate how much information is actually being thrown at society: too much. Nelson and Carlson’ readings have shed light on the amount of excess information that are being presented to us through the use of Internet. Rather than immediately receiving correct and needed information instantaneously, now we must ‘sift through’ the junk in order to find the information we actually need.

Because of this overload, I admit that I am extremely overwhelmed with all of this excess information. Nelson mentions in his writings the concept of information anxiety which is “the overwhelming feeling one gets from having too much information...” This anxiety most certainly takes over me when I’m assigned a research project. With so many search engines and matching search results, I never exactly know where to start– it is in fact, too much for me. In addition, with so many duplicate articles, at times I find difficulty determining whether an article is credible. On top of this, because the Internet offers so many articles, etc. I never know when to stop researching– the amount of information seems endless. I constantly question whether there’s more information I could and should be gathering. I constantly question whether I have too little. Nelson even mentioned:

“In every 24-hour period approximately 20,000,000 words of technical information are being recorded....and at the end of that period, he [the reader] would have fallen 5.5 years behind in his reading!”

With all this incoming (and excess) information, it feels as though research for information is a non-stop process.

I would think that since I’ve grown up with Internet and all of its research technology, that I would be able to effortlessly research and gather information through Internet research without stumbling across any problems or constantly questioning whether I have ‘enough.’ This is definitely not the case because I always do.

Discussion Questions:
1. How could we possibly remedy this Information Overload? Will it continue in the future?
2. Is there a way that we can educate users to proficiently perform Internet research and be able to ‘sift through’ the unnecessary information?
3. Have there been recent attempts to fix this problem of Information Overload?

The wonders of new media.

2006-01-08T20:00:00.000-08:00

Call it oblivion, but I have never given technology much of my attention. I believed it was as easy as dreaming up an idea, physically creating it and then after a short period of time, BOOM it's done. Who knew that communication media had a two century history? Obviously, not me. I found myself amazed learning how our current media built on past ideas from telegraphs to telephones, to radio, television and internet. Call it naive, but I would never made a connection. It was interesting to learn of Fidler's idea of the 'evolution' of human communication. Embarassingly, I had initially treated each technology as completely separate and unrelated-- I'm able to make the connection now. However, with Fidler's evolution (and its 'survival of the fittest'), if at one point in time the phonograph was a remarkable invention and is now no longer in existence (hello, MP3s), in the future with the development of other technologies, maybe one day the Internet will be too 'unfit' to exist. Sure, today the Internet appears to be the newest form of communication media, but who knows what could be dreamed up years from now.

Additionally, I learned that connection simply does not stop there. "Networks of Remediation" opened my eyes to learn of the 'connections' the entertainment industry aims to make-- by stimulating all the senses by 'networking' forms of media. The reading offers the example of the little Batman-obsessed child who watches the Batman video, wearing a Batman cape and playing with a Batman toy all at the same time. This is almost a mirror image of my five-year old sister-- except replace Batman with Dora the Explorer and Batman's cape with Dora's knowledgeable talking backpack. I had originally believed that these obsessions were solely a result of a child's unexplainable desire to be a cartoon character. But apparently, connections and networking were concocted purposely for that very reason. Look what New Media can now do.

Connections are amazing.

Although, what's even more amazing is Vannever Bush's "Memex." His 1945 description is almost a replica of the personal computers and the Internet of today. Bush describes Memex storing records, memos, etc. in the system's 'memory.' He described Memex also consisting of a keyboard, buttons and screens and the ability to extract saved information when needed-- almost a perfect description of today's PC. As far as the comparision between Bush's "Memex" and the Internet, he remains consistently accurate. In his explanation of the Turkish bow, he speaks of the dozens of books and articles he can sort through (which mirror today's search engines) and the ability to keep an article projected (today, this would be keeping one Internet window open) while looking at another related article. Bush also proposed the idea in 1945 of the searcher's ability to insert his own comments, which sounds awfully like the wonders of Wikipedia. Vannever Bush's ideas are so strikingly accurate that it's a surprise he wasn't a psychic on the side.

With how quickly technology is changing, anything can happen in 2045. To present date, Internet-users can shop for clothes, buy groceries, eBay, access movies, manage their bank accounts, e-mail, IM, order flowers, etc. all online. However, the internet will probably be even more unbelievable in 39 years. Perhaps in 2045 when we log on the Internet, when we log onto Starbucks.com, we'll be able to smell lattes and ground coffee beans. Maybe we'll be able to have virtual taste samples of new flavored espressos, be able to touch the fabric of the cashmere sweater on Nordstroms and have the ability to instant message with everyone regardless whether you have MSN or AIM. Ideally, I'd like the Internet of 2045 to have unwanted 'distasteful' pop-ups invading my computer screen. Obviously, I'm no Vannever Bush and cannot concoct a similar mind-blowing prediction about the Internet in 2045, but with technology's fantastic history, the Internet in 2045 will be no doubt astonishing.

Testing

2006-01-04T12:43:00.000-08:00

Testing 1, 2, 3...