summerclass

Question 2 on the final

2005-06-19T11:40:00.000-07:00

For this essay, I decided to compare the websites of two different food products that I eat a lot. I chose to look at Nalley chili’s website and Vlasic pickles’ web site. I decided to explore these two because I thought it would be interesting to see the “politics” involved in them. I thought they would be fun to analyze because really, I don’t think two very well-known food brands need to have websites, especially these two products. I know that I never surf the web in search of the perfect pickle to eat. That is what the grocery store is for. However, I am sure one of the reasons they do have a site is because they are so well known. They have to stay in the competition and never let anyone get a leg up on them. Although, regarding these two products, I would have to say that they might be better off without any site at all.

First I want to talk about the Nalley site. To me, this site was very poor in quality. To look at it yourself, use the link, http://www.birdseyefoods.com/nalley/ The first thing I noticed, from the URL is that Nalley’s actually owned by a bigger company called Bird’s Eye View. When I saw this, my first reaction was, ”well that figures”. I think I have learned in the past couple weeks that almost every brand name is owned by a “higher power”. So, it makes me wonder if this site really even represents the real idea behind what Nalley was created to be or if someone from Bird’s Eye View just threw together a site to stay competitive. I actually hope the answer is the latter of the options because this site is just so horrible!

The first paragraph written off to the right makes me want to cry in shame for this company! I will just copy and paste it here: “Nothing screams sports, tailgate parties, and reclining chairs louder than Nalley’s chili. It’s the #1 chili in the Northwest-that’s where it comes from and that’s where you live. So grab a few cans of Nalley’s and a can of face paint. You’ve got your own brand of chili now. And it’s called Nalley’s.” Oh my gosh! How can I even begin to pick that paragraph apart? I guess I will go line by line, since every one is atrocious. First of all, take the first line. Surprisingly enough, when I am at home eating my bowl of Nalley’s, rarely do I ever start wishing there was a tailgate party I could go to and take my chili to as well. Secondly, what do reclining chairs have to do with anything? So either this chili makes you want to run out and play sports, go to a wild party, or sit on you butt and do nothing. I guess they figure that should about cover all the people that live in the Northwest. I know that those are the only three things I ever do.

Then we can look at the second sentence. Obviously Nalley’s has no worries about including any other people in the whole country except those in the Northwest. This makes me wonder if Nalley’s is only sold in the Northwest. For the sake of the ad, I hope so. However, when you put your ad on the web, you can’t format it so that it only appears to those in the Northwest. Without a doubt it secludes any other region. It makes it seem like they are trying to bring out our pride about living in the Northwest. “Yeah, I’m not only an American, but I am a Northwesterner! And we all know that we are the best kind of Americans there are. After all, we get to eat Nalley’s.”

Next we look at sentence three. “So grab a few cans of Nalley’s and a can of face paint.” That line makes me envision a bunch of barbaric guys running around screaming and holding their Nalley’s cans in their hands. It is so much cooler to eat Nalley’s while your face is painted! Yeah! That whole paragraph just makes me ask, ”what is going on here?” Honestly, it makes me a little ashamed to admit that I eat Nalley’s. I would have to guess that my reaction is actually the opposite of what they hoped that Northwesterners would feel.

Besides that awful introduction, I think that the Home page is bland. I like how it doesn’t go below the fold, but the whole graphic part of it looks more like a larger pop-up ad than it does a specific web site. And I don’t know about you, but I do not like pop-ups and so it kind of turns me off to the site right away. Then of course there is the use of the brown, orange, and yellow Nalley’s colors, but I wonder a little about the blue. I don’t think that it mixes very well with the graphics portion of the site and it just kind of seems to engulf the site. I notice this ocean of blue before I notice anything else about this page. I realize that the colors of Bird’s Eye View are red, blue, white, and gold and I realize that Nalley’s, a.k.a Bird’s Eye View, obviously supports and/or endorses the Seattle Sea Hawks, but I just don’t think the mix of all the colors is very aesthetically pleasing. Yet, in a way, you can kind of look at the ocean of blue as a type of metaphor. It seems as though the blue takes over the page and is the color that is most prevalent. This is sort of the way it is for Nalley and Bird’s Eye View also. Although the product is called “Nalley”, Bird’s Eye View is really the one in charge. It makes all the final decisions and is really the dominant force. I am sure they push their politics on Nalley all the time. The one good thing I will say about the color scheme is that it is very consistent on all pages. At least you always know what to expect.

Next, if you look over to where the passage talked about above is, you will notice a question that says, “Are you a Nalley Chilihead Fan?” When I first read that, I was like,”What the heck is a Chilihead?” Then when I looked over to the picture of the guys wearing those hats, I asked myself, ”Why would you ever want to be a chilihead?” And let me tell you that obviously this trend has not taken off because I have never seen one of these hats in real life, ever! Not even at sporting events, nor have I ever seen anyone with cans of chili at sporting events; quite shocking! However, now that my attention is on the picture of the three boys, it makes me think three things.
1.) Nalley’s is obviously intended for males. I mean girls don’t play sports, go to tailgating parties, or sit in recliner chairs, do they? Obviously in the Northwest, women don’t eat such foods as chili. I get this impression because nowhere on this site is there a picture of any female. However, there is one truth to this depiction; girls would never be stupid enough to wear bowls of chili on their heads and paint their faces in chili colors.
2.) Either Nalley’s chili makes you fat or that little boy isn’t playing too many sports because if I were making a site to promote my food product, I wouldn’t have a picture of a fat little boy with his shirt off on it.
3.) In the Northwest, chili lovers are only white males who love sports. No wait, not just sports, the Seattle Sea Hawks. There are no pictures of any other ethnicity on this page. Also, there are no links available for any Non-English speakers to view the site in any other language. I feel that this secludes a whole demographic of people. The Northwest has one of the largest growing ethnic populations. Bad move Nalley, bad move.

Oh Nalley, such a sexist company. You will notice that if you place your mouse on any of the links at the top of the homepage, a little description of that link comes up in the center of the page, right above the bowl of chili. Well, if you place your mouse over the link titled “Eat This Way”, you will notice a very interesting synopsis. It reads, ”Once you’ve opened a can of Nalley’s chili, your work is pretty much done. But if you really want to impress the guys (girls), try one of our quick and simple recipes. Go ahead, we dare you!” So the gist of that passage is that obviously girls would be the ones cooking the recipes, but remember, girls don’t eat this chili. So, the girls would obviously be making this food for the guys. But just so that they didn’t get slammed with complaints, they put in parenthesis (girls). It is almost like a little joke. Like guys would ever be cooking! Oh the errors of Nalley. I know that personally, I NEVER cook anything! My boyfriend cooks dinner and breakfast. So maybe Nalley should step into the 21st century.

The next thing I noticed about this site is that their “contact us” link is tiny! Not only is it almost too small to see, but it is way off in the corner as well. This gives me the message that Nalley really doesn’t want to hear from me. It puts the link on the page because it would be a major faux-pa not to, but they are crossing their fingers that no one will want to say anything to them. Not even their chilihead fans.

This site then has common links letting the public know what other food products Nalley makes and a link where you can get recipes. These are typical links that all food sites have. However, on both of these pages, there is a huge picture of a can of chili right in your face. It is not a big picture, it a huge picture. It kind of almost looks like it is coming out of the site. I guess they want to make sure that you won’t forget what product this site is about. Although I think if someone went looking to find the Nalley’s site, they wouldn’t forget why they were there.

Next there are the links of N-Zone and About Nalley. I have to say that I do like the placement of the links. I like that they are on top of the screen, easy to use, and their titles pretty much clue you in to what you are about to look at. The N-Zone link takes you to a place where you can get your very own “free” chilihead hat! Just what I’ve always wanted! However, the stipulation is, it is free with the purchase of 8 cans of chili and $4.95 shipping and handling. Therefore, your real grand total would be about $15 or so. What a great deal! Or not. But these kinds of advertisements are always made to hook the children into wanting that product so bad that the parents give in and fulfill the requirements. I mean, they were probably going to buy 8 cans of chili anyway right? Then the “About Nalley” link just takes you to a page that gives a short history on how Nalley was founded, etc. I actually like when food sites have the history of their brand. I find these interesting.

One annoying continual graphic is at the top of every page. It is a flashing ad that goes back and forth between pictures of the Blazers and the Sea Hawks. Obviously these are the two big Northwest teams. Well, they are the big team that Nalley and/or Bird’s Eye View likes anyway. Maybe if they keep flashing the words Blazers and Sea Hawks across your screen, you will somehow become a fan too! I mean if these are the teams Nalley likes, then we should all like them too right? Talk about promoting an agenda. I am sure all four names are benefiting from this. Although, I have to say that I wonder just how much publicity this site gets the Sea Hawks and Blazers because I would have to guess that not too many people are frequent visitors of the Nalley website.

The last thing I will talk about is the fact that you can sign up for Nalley E-News. I wonder whose job it is to sit around and e-mail news about Nalley to the 5 people that have actually signed up for this service. I mean, you just have to know the latest in Nalley news! I think that is just so funny! And this link is on the bottom of every page you can go to. And I would only have to guess that if you subscribe to that, you will not only get news about Nalley, but you’ll get news about other Bird’s Eye View products and news regarding the Sea Hawks. Personally, I get enough junk mail.

Overall I would have to say that this is a horrible website. I don’t know who put it together, but it was obviously a guy. The site definitely set their expectations regarding what kind of people should be eating Nalley chili. And from what I read, I am definitely not one of these people. The site’s target audience were white males that are “meat heads” and like only to do fun and rough things. These guys don’t have any responsibility in life; they just play sports and eat chili! Yeah! What a joke.

The next site I ventured to explore was the Vlasic Pickles site. You can view this site at http://www.vlasic.com/. As my computer was loading this site up, I began to think that this site was going to be a breath of fresh air compared to the one I had just looked at. Nothing could be worse. Well, I may stand corrected. I really can’t decide which one is worse; I just know that they are both really bad!

When I put in the URL and the homepage came up, I was actually very pleased with what I saw. My first impression of the site was that it looked very professional, clean, and could be appealing to both adults and kids alike. I liked the use of their famous stork calling card and I thought the colors were bold, yet not offensive to the eyes. The only problem I saw with the site, right off the bat, was the positioning of all the graphics. They are all on the left had side of the screen and really don’t take up that much room. I think it would have looked a little better if they would have centered the picture. I don’t know why they chose not to, but if I have learned one thing, I have learned that they most likely had a reason to position it the way they did. So, all in all, at first glance, I was very pleased with the site. That is when I started to delve in a little deeper.

The first thing I started to look at were the little “sayings” that keep flashing in the top left hand corner of the screen, right by the stork’s face. I thought that this actually pretty cute. I thought their size, color and placement were great and I noticed that a couple of the phrases were catchy and creative. However, then I read the last one that flashed and I became a little confused. It says, ”that’s the best pickle I ever heard”. I’m thinking maybe that is some sort of saying that I have never heard before. Otherwise, it doesn’t make much sense because as far as I know, pickles don’t talk. I am guessing it could be a play on the use of “pickle” as in “I am in a pickle”; meaning a problem. But that is even kind of a stretch. Really, I am just trying to justify their use of it. And even if that is how it was intended to be used, I am guessing that more people than not are going to be confused with it. This says to me that maybe the person/people that put up this site didn’t have any outside sources edit it or read over it before they put it on the World Wide Web. I think this because it seems like something all of us do sometimes. When we write something, we know what we want to say or we know what we mean, but other people might not. This seems to be the case for this site. However, if this was the only problem with the site, I think I would be able to overlook it and deem it as fair quality. But just wait, there’s more!

Next, we take our mouse and just kind of run it over different parts of the page. The first think I notice is that when you put your mouse on the pickle, the pickle and the stork’s hand move. They only move one time and then you have to take your mouse off the pickle and put it back on to get it to move again. I feel that this movement is pointless, but it is tolerable because it only moves once, it isn’t continual pointless movement. Then I realize, after looking through the site a little more, that there are pointless moving graphics on every page. On every page, the words of the “title” of that page shake back and forth when you put your mouse on them. Why? At first I thought that maybe this was an old site, possibly made when the ability to make graphics move was just introduced, but the copyright says 2004, so it isn’t too old. So, my conclusion is that either the person/people that made this site have not made many sites before and/or Vlasic is new to having a web page. Therefore, with the unfamiliarity of the web and web pages, I think that someone just got really excited about making things move. Maybe they thought this would appeal to children or that it would draw in more people because it is so cool! Either way, for me, all the movement detracts from the site. It is sad because this site has so much potential.

Now let’s talk about this site’s dark pitfall. The noise! When you are on any page on this site and you go up top to the many different links and decide to click on one to venture out into another area, you will hear a weird noise. Now, I really can’t figure out what that sound is supposed to be. It kind of sounds like a wrapper being taken off or some sort of weird applause. I am guessing that maybe it is supposed to be someone biting a crunchy pickle, but really, I have no idea. But that sound ruins the whole page! Whatever ray of hope this site had, it is there no more! Every time I hear this sound I want to cover my ears and run from the room. Why would they ever put this sound in? And it’s not just in there on one link; it is connected with them all! It makes me never want to switch areas. I actually wrote to them and asked them to please take this feature off their site. Honestly, I can’t even begin to hypothesis about why they included it.
One thing that bothers me a little is the inconsistency of the colors from page to page. The general format stays the same, which is good, but the colors totally change. This is a little harsh on my eyes. I guess they may have done this to really signify the different topics or purposes of the different pages. I think the moving titles get the idea across loud and clear.

Next, I wanted to quickly mention the position of the “Home Page” link on every page. I feel it is very inconveniently placed underneath the Vlasic symbol. Not only is it almost at the bottom of the page, but it is very tiny! It isn’t even bolded. It is also bigger on the “stork stuff” page than any other page. The position of it, in regards to the symbol varies from page to page as well. On some pages it is centered, on one it is off to the left, and yet on another it is off to the far right. I feel this is horrible planning. I think that the homepage link is one of the most important links to have on a webpage. If you don’t have it, or can’t find it, then you are constantly using the back arrows. I feel it should have been included in the row of noise making links at the top of the page.

I think that the links provided on this site are pretty standard for food sites. The names of a couple links are a little more creative and cute. I like the placement of them at the top of each page. They are very easy to see and easy to use. They are also easy to decipher. I think the titles give you a clear indication of what each page is about. My favorite is Pickleicious Recipes. However, I don’t dare click on it for fear of “the noise!”

I think one message this site is trying to put out is that it is almost cartoony and fun! Not only would a mom want to come to this site to get some excellent pickle recipes, but all the kids want to come here too because it is so colorful and fun! You can have fun making the words move and listening to the sounds over and over again. And while you’re here, you might as well buy some Vlasic boxer shorts for $9.99. I guess if the site is fun to look at, people will definitely start thinking their pickles are fun to eat! Which, actually, they are. I do think Vlasic has some excellent pickles!

Another thing I will talk about regarding this site can be found on the “About Us” page. The first statement written on this page reads “Vlasic: As American as Apple Pie”. Do I even have to delve into that? Too bad our forefathers didn’t have some Vlasic pickles to go along with their slice of good old American pie. I really can’t believe that they put this on their site. “Vlasic pickles: the American Way.” I am sorry, but somehow I don’t think that Vlasic pickles will ever be any kind of symbol of our country. But I think it is pretty obvious what kind of message they are trying to send out. And interestingly enough, the article goes on to say that this company wasn’t even started by an “American” born family; they were Polish! That just makes their self proclaimed association with American apple pie and little more ridiculous. You know, web sites can have a lot of power and they can, in a lot of ways, really help people and/or businesses. However, in some cases, web sites also have the power to make you dislike people and/or businesses and I think this Vlasic pickle site fell into this latter category. This is not to say that I will stop eating their pickles; I won’t, but it makes me never want to think of the company behind the pickle.

The last tiny thing I want to mention about Vlasic, is that like almost all other businesses, they are owned by a “higher power” as well. Vlasic is actually owned by Pinnacle Foods. Pinnacle Foods owns other names such as Mrs. Butterworths, Aunt Jemima, Swanson, Lender’s Bagels, Duncan Hines and a few other names. There is always someone bigger behind the name.

Overall, this site was atrocious! It definitely wasn’t as offensive in regard to race or gender as was the Nalley site, but it definitely had it’s own giant flaws. After really looking at the site, my conclusion is that whoever made this site does not have a lot of experience making sites for businesses. I think that the look of the site, besides the ever changing colors, is very professional and clean. However, the messages it gives, the silly effects, and the inconvenient placement of some functions really brings the site down. Either the company really doesn’t care about the site, or they just don’t know how to commercially market well. Either way, maybe my comments to them will start the wheels turning for a little re-evaluation and maybe some change.

Works Cited
Bird’s Eye View. 2005. Nalley. Viewed on 19 June 2005 at http://www.birdseyefoods.com/nalley/

Pinnacle Foods. 2004. Vlasic. Viewed on 19 June 2005 at http://www.vlasic.com/

Question Number 3 for the final

2005-06-17T13:51:00.000-07:00

“To understand free speech means freedom to speak what others do not like and even cannot stand to hear? ... Tolerating what you like is hardly a major achievement. Hitler tolerated what he liked. So did Stalin. Idi Amin did too. So did Genghis Khan, the Shah, and Henry Kissinger. Free speech only becomes an issue when someone says what others don't want to hear." Michael Albert. (Third World Traveler)

I believe that the corporate hold of media is eroding the right of free speech. We, the citizens of the Untied States count on journalism and media to report to us what is going on in our country. We have a right to know about the issues that affect our lives. However, these few “big names” that have monopolistic holds on our sources of information make it very hard for us to know what to believe. Is the story we are watching really important or are there more important stories we should now about, but never will because they conflict with the best interests of AOL/Time Warner, General Electric, Viacom, etc?

How can this form of media fall under the definition of Democracy when some of the best researched scandals, crimes, stories, etc. never get any recognition? If a journalist feels passionate about spreading some word to the people and he/she is not allowed to, how is this Democracy? Does this mean that our country as a whole has thrown away all the ideals it was founded on? I definitely believe this is not true, yet it makes me wonder if we are stepping in that direction. Baby-steps lead to huge accomplishments and/or downfalls eventually. A former editor of the New York Tribune said,” I am paid one hundred and fifty dollars a week for keeping my honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with--others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things--and any of you who would be so foolish as to write his honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job.” Although this may not be the way it is anymore, I am guessing something like this still goes on. This sad thought slowly diminishes my confidence in our country’s future.

To be a journalist in our day and age seems almost pointless. I think that newspapers, television, radio etc. could now start hiring English majors to write their stories because they are all hand fed anyway; the stories just have to sound good. Journalism has lost a lot of its allure because the news is so censored now. In a speech given by the same editor as mentioned above, he was quoted as saying,” …We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping-jacks; they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.” What a disturbing statement that is. But does it hold at least some truth? I believe it does. It seems as though in our fast paced society, the idea of true Democracy almost gets in the way of quick and overpowering “advancement.” We can’t have that now can we? The idea of Democracy has come to mean that big businesses have the power to operate, in almost any way they want to, without much interference from the government. I don’t know that this was the intended definition.

I believe that big companies such as News Corp and Knight Ridder are skewing our country’s ideas on important issues. With the exception of the stock market and maybe some sports coverage, our media has turned from the purpose of informing to the purpose of entertaining. I watch MTV to be entertained, I watch the news to try and keep up with this world. It scares me when I stop to think about just how ignorant I am when it comes to how our world works socially, economically, and politically. I try my best to stay informed, but how can we really?
I found an interesting statistic written in an article by Norman Solomon. Apparently in 1983, there were 50 corporations that dominated the media. In 1987, there were 29 corporations. In 1990, there were 23 corporations. In 1992, there were 14 corporations. In 1997, there were 10 corporations and now in 2005, there are 6 corporations. I think that this drastic buy out of owners shows a preview of what is to come. There may never be only one owner of all the media, but there may someday only be 3. This could be a scary phenomenon if it is to happen. For this reason and a couple others, I do feel that it may be wise to have at least a little fear for the “Big Six” (Third World Traveler). In some ways it is even naïve to call them the “Big Six”. They are six, but in many ways they are one. They have stocks in each other’s companies, they follow similar political agendas (Third World Traveler), and they all work with the same goal in mind, ”do what is best for myself.” This kind of mentality makes me wonder how far these “Big Six” would go to keep the power they have. None of them would ever think twice about stabbing anyone in the back. This is the kind of thinking that will bring down Democracy and our country.

The problem with these companies owning all of the media is that, we, the citizens have no choice about what we think. We may think that we are being active citizens and we are making our own choicse, but are we really? Or are we making the decisions “they” want us to without us knowing it? It all gets very complicated, but the bottom line is that these corporations form a type of society that benefits them. If we do not analyze what we are told, these corporations will be able to almost mold our minds. I always say that if one day I woke up to fighter planes flying over my house, dropping bombs, I would not be surprised. What I mean is that we are so un-informed about what is going on between our country and others that, our country could be under the threat of attack and most of us citizens would never know it until we were in the middle of a war. In many ways we are just as un-informed about our country as tribes that live in the jungles of Africa are about theirs. In our highly sophisticated land, this should not be the case. We should be outraged that we are being manipulated in this way.

However, we the people do have one small hope of learning the truth. One media source that has the potential to be honest is the web. The web is our one saving grace for the time being. Not only does it hold the “nitty-gritty” news, but it stops the other forms of media from flat out lying to us. Of course, the most widely used internet service provider is owned by one of the “Big Six”, Aol/Time Warner. They do their best to censor what we look at and they try their hardest to feed us the same lines as the other five, but on the web, we have more choices.

On the web, not only do we not have to listen to the news created and broadcasted in our country, but we have the option of viewing/reading/listening to news written and reported by other countries. Therefore, the other forms of media know that they have to watch themselves because any major contradictions could seriously hurt their credibility and their business. It makes it much harder for television, radio, and other printed media to remain the gate-keepers of our news. I am sure they do not like this because it could all hurt their political and their own agenda(s). How are they to monopolize our idea of the world if we have another outlet to turn to? They have encountered an obstacle in their goal to create a country of single-minded clones. For this, we should all raise our glasses and toast, possibly the one media platform that can keep many of us out of the dark. All hope is not lost, but we should start fighting a little harder for the wonderful idea of Democracy that was intended to govern our country.

Work Cited

Solomon, Norman. “The Media Big Six”. June 2000. Z Magazine. Third World Traveler. 17 June 2005. http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media_control_propaganda/MediaBigSix.html

Swinton, John. “Corporate Media’s Threat to Democracy”. 1880. Third World Traveler. 17 June 2005. http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Corporate_Media/CorpMedia_ThreatDemocracy.html

Third World Traveler. 2004. 17 June 2005. http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/

Who Owns What

2005-06-15T10:20:00.000-07:00

In class and in our reading we learned about a few companies that own many of the smaller "well-known" companies. During class discussion we talked about such companies as Viacom, AOL/Time Warner, News Corp, Disney, General Electric, Gannett, and Knight Ridder. These companies own so many others that it would take me forever to list them all. Therefore, I will refer this topic to a great website I found called "Who Owns Who" and it is at http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/ This site has a pretty extensive compilation of who owns who. One interesting fact that I didn't know is that Viacom owns almost all of the cable channels that I like to watch. For example, they own MTV, Nick At Night, Comedy Central, Showtime,The Movie Channel, Nickelodeon, and a few more. I guess I knew that all these stations weren't owned by different people, but I wasn't aware that these few companies owned so much! I find it very interesting to learn who is the ultimate power in regards to some of my favorite TV stations, radio stations, publishing companies, etc.

I also went and visited the timeline link on the same site and I found it surprising that News Corp used to own the Dodgers and still owns Dodger Stadium. Also, News Corp ordered HarperCollins to squash the memoirs of Chris Patten, Hong Kong's last governor and vocal critic of the Communist China Government. Quite interesting.

I then also went to a couple of blogging sites. While looking at the sites I began to find a common pattern throughout many. One thing I began to realize is that, generally, the blogs seem more believable than some of the news. Everyone who blogged seemed to know what hey were talking about and were very confident in stating the "news". Some sites had pictures of the authors and gave very brief bios about their credentials. I liked this because it made the sources seem more credible and it made me feel that it wasn't a waste of my time to read the blogs. However, some sites do not have any author bios and this is kind of scary because much of what they blog could be full of errors and written based on speculation. I think the safe choice is to read blogs like these to piece together news events but not to take them at face value. Who knows who could be writing this stuff.

Another thing I noticed was that many blogs focused on factual news, but others were written in opinion form. I think blogging is a great way to get people talking about their feelings on what is happening in our world. And just by reading some opinion pieces, you can learn about things that have happened that you might not hear about in the mainstream news forums. Blogging is also a great platform for debates to form and healthy banter to come about. I think that it is great that more people are getting involved in our politics and I think that blogging will only encourage that more.

I also noticed that blogging about anything is becoming very popular. I didn't even know about blogging until I took a technology class last Spring. I thought that they were a relatively new thing, but now I am realizing that they are utilized quite frequently by people all over the world. It is a great way for people to interact and get out their feelings. I like it better than the age old IM because it allows a person to say exactly what they are thinking and to get it out in full. I also think that people feel more confident expressing themselves in this way. I think that blogging can be used as just another tool for politicians to recruit people into heir corner, but so can most other forms of media.

Presidential Candidates

2005-06-10T10:58:00.000-07:00

During class, I looked at the websites of Condoleezza Rice, Obama Barak, John McCain, and John Edwards. I found some interesting messages inside of each. I will just go down the list person by person.

First I looked at Condoleezza Rice's site. The first thing I noticed immediately was that she definitely wanted to portray herself as being "very friendly" with President Bush. Maybe she wants people to think that the president "has her back" and that voting for her will kind of be like voting for Bush all over again. Some people may view this as positive, others negative. The site is not very professional, but it is her unofficial site. I think though that the fact that it is an easy site to search through is a more important fact than really how professional it is. If she wants the public to view it, it needs to be people friendly. The most ridiculous thing about this site is that you can buy a Rice bobblehead doll. I have never seen this before. I think it is silly and I don't see many people buying it. Like all other sites, Rice's political views and agendas are listed on this site. She also has a photo gallery that displays professional pictures as well as some "personal" candid pictures. Those pictures seem a little out of place for a politician's site, but maybe they are trying to make her seem more "human" or friendly. She tends to seem very serious and stern throughout most of the site. I would say that two other aspects of her site that keep in line with the unprofessional theme are the poll and the task bar. The poll on this site is so silly and not needed. It would be a waste of my time to take this poll. The task bar on this site, I think tries to be creative or playful, but really it just lends to the obvious fact that this is not her official site. The task bar has titles like "Condi-news" etc. Overall I would say that although it isn't very professional, it is a good starter site for people to go to in order to learn more about Rice. (The politician, not the food :)

Next I went and looked at Obama Barak's site. I would say that this was my favorite site for content over all. I thought it did a good job portraying im as a community man that likes to be with the people and the public. His site opens with a letter "from him" and the message tries to get across the point that he sees himself as a voice for the people and he wants to serve them not rule over them. I think he tries to portray himself as very humble and that he wants to be in office for us not for himself. I don't know that I believe all that, but the site does a good job of trying to convince. There is no place in this site that says that Barack will run in 2008, but it has been rumored I guess. I liked the consistency of the colors for page to page and I liked the consistency of certain aspects. On every page he had a link to click to become part of the "Barack Brigade" and he also had a link that would let you print off his pages. There was a also the option of looking at this site in two different languages besides English. This really shows that he wants to reach out to all people, not just the "white men" of the country. I guess this site just gave off a good vibe to me. I felt like I was getting to know him as a person. It is almost easy to forget that he is a politician. I think that fact makes him one of the best politicians.

John McCain's site was the one I looked at next. The first think I noticed about his site was that he is a man that is proud of his state. He is the state senator, so he should be, but he seems a little over-zealous. However, I aims ure this pride wins points with the people of Arizona. He tries to add a little humor to his site with the "pork-barrel" clip, but I think that his site is pretty serious overall. His site was very professional compared to Condi's. He didn't mess with photo galleries or any personal information about himself. In his biography section, he has a huge paragraph about all of his accomplishments and good doings, then at the very end, in one sentence he mentions that the has a wife, seven children and four grandchildren. Wow, obviously he is real proud of his family :). He focused on the issues at hand and his stance on things. I didn't find this site too pleasing and as a person without much political background, I would say I wouldn't want to send much time at his site.

The last site I visited was John Edward's. I don't think this site has been touched in a while because there really wasn't anything to it. The fact that he hasn't worked on this site may mean that he isn't sure yet if he is going to run in 2008. If he was seriously thinking about it, I would think he would be getting his site updated. There isn't anything on the site except information about him and wife. And even that information isn't interesting. So, I don't know how much I can really elaborate on this site.

I have never really stopped to look at the interface of most web sites. The only time I ever think about it is when it is really bad. But from this exercise, I learned that you can figure out a lot about a person and what they stand for by the way they put together their web site. You can definitely tell what their agenda is and how they want the public to view them. I now think it is pretty important to view our candidate's sites before we make any final decisisons.

Synthetic Pleasures

2005-06-07T14:49:00.000-07:00

When the movie "Synthetic Pleasures" first started playing in our class, I was kind of almost blindsided by some of the issues that come up. I don't know if I missed the "intro" or what, but after a few minutes I started to think,"what is going on here?" Eventually I figured out what this movie was all about and I definitely developed some thoughts about it.
It seemed that this movies made sort of "predictions" about where technology was going to be going and/or where humans wanted it to go. It felt like the prediction centered around the thought that technology and computers would not only advance, but they would advance according to the likes/dislikes of humans. Technology would start to be used to fill "voids" in humans lives or heighten certain experiences. They said it would be used to make people immortal, control humans' environments, and fulfill every one's sexual fantasies. I didn't catch how long these experts said all this would take, but I am assuming this film was made about ten years ago, and I really don't see many of their predictions coming true.
One point made in the movie that did make me think was the idea of people being able to control their environments and worlds. They turn into almost "God-like" beings. One person said that someday humans may create a world that we are unable to live in. I think this is the one "prediction" that I viewed to be valid. I always worry about the world becoming a place that we won't be able to live in anymore. I definitely see it disintegrating every year because of the "improvements" men make to it. And although the advancement of technology can be used in so many good ways, too often it is used to destroy the true nature of our Earth. Technology would be a great thing if certain people had no control over it. I am afraid to have children someday that will have to grow up in our world. Who knows what it will be like when they are grown.
With all that said, I don't think that the movies' solution of bringing the outside inside is a good one. I didn't mind the "water park" that was called the "paradise" or something like that. It was the meaning behind it that bothered me. "Do you want the sun, sandy beaches, and ocean experience without actually going outside?" What? The whole idea of that place was to be able to control the environment. I think that water parks and arenas are great places to take children. They are more safe, have cleaner water, and you can go to them even in the winter. However, I don't feel that our environment should be turned into fake places. "Well it doesn't really matter if we cut down the Rainforests because we will just build fake ones that simulate the real ones." "It doesn't matter if we pollute our waters and kill all our fish, we can just go to the inside beach and enjoy the "nice weather"." That all seemed a little weird to me.
The film did make we want to go to Vegas however. I have never been and I have been wanting to go forever! However, when I think of Vegas, I think of gambling, shows, and beautiful people that never sleep. I never thought of it as a live version of "virtual reality". Yet, if Vegas is really like the film portrayed it, then I would have to agree with its' point. You can go anywhere in the world without leaving Vegas. To me, this seems very intriguing and seems like such a great place to visit. However, I can't imagine living in a place like that and I can't believe that so many people do. I love to sleep and so I could never live in a city that never does :)
Another portion about Vegas that caught my attention was the part about marriage. I think that the sanctity of the "institute of marriage" has hit an all time low in our country. Maybe it is because I have never been married before, but I always think of it as being so special and beautiful. I can't believe that there is a drive-up window to get married. What kind of people do that? "Yeah, I'm real busy today, but if we go through the drive-through I think I could squeeze you in today." But I guess that is why a lot of marriages that happen in Vegas end up being annulled. People just go get crazy, and since Vegas makes it so easy to get married, well why not? And the idea of getting married at your house through the television seems a little odd also. That one, though, could have it's purposes. If there was a terminal patient in a hospital, or a handicapped person that couldn't walk or move, then I think the idea of letting them get married from their house or bed is a good idea. But for the most part, I think this section just proved to me that marriage in our country has lost the core of what it is supposed to be. Big shocker that our divorce rate is so high.
One point I think this film missed the mark on was the idea that virtual reality was going to be the biggest thing since rye bread. As far as I know, ten years later, virtual reality has really not impacted our world in any huge way. I remember many years ago it was starting to make a boom and maybe that is when this movie was filmed. But I don't think particular medium is going to take over the world. As fun as it might be to dabble in a virtual world from time to time, I think the vast majority of the world wants to live in reality. I agree with the movie that society isn't really natural anymore, but the times change and we have to roll with the punches. It is amazing to me that technology can do so many amazing things that alter the way in which we live and think, yet it still has so many limitations.
The lady that wanted to look like Mona Lisa was ridiculous to me! Not only was she in a totally wrong mind-set, but she ended up looking nothing like Mona Lisa. All the accomplished was acquiring two bumps on the side of her head. I am big on reality TV and I watch the shows about people that get extreme makeovers or get surgery to look like certain stars. You know, many years ago people didn't have this option. They had to accept the way they were born and that was all there was to it. And the truth is, I bet there are more suicides, low self esteems, and unhappy people nowadays, even with the ability to change how one looks. What a waste of money and a risk of your life. I know this advancement in technology is making many people rich, but I wish it had never come about.
The section about sexuality made me pretty uncomfortable. I know that the sex industry uses technology to it's advantage and I am sure they use it as much as they can. I know that some people turn to the computer to get their "jollies" and I know that there are some pretty fowl things that one can do. However, I don't need to see these things and I really don't need to experience them first hand. I am already disgusted with what I hear about, I don't need to see it. So, I was just kind of hoping that section would end soon. And one thing I thought was interesting about this section was that someone said that the computer or virtual reality could be used for couples that have been married for 30 years and just don't have any real sex drive left in them. Or it could be used for marriages where all the sexual spark has gone out. Hello, I don't think these are the general types of people using this available technology. I think it is more people who can't get anyone to have sex with them in real life or perverts who just can't be satisfied in reality or simply curious young boys. I doubt that old married couples are lining up to have virtual reality sex.
So, I thought the film was a bit educational. It gave us glimpse at what could happen with computers and technology, whether it will or not is left to find out. Although I found many ideas a bit silly, it was an engaging film that held my attention for the hour or so that it played. And even though I didn't buy a lot of what was said, I find it interesting to hear other people's thoughts and their reasons for them. Overall, it was an entertaining film.

First Person

2005-06-06T11:25:00.000-07:00

My first reaction to this book was that it was going to be an easy and enjoyable read. As I said in another blog however, it actually turned out to be a long read and filled with ideas I had never thought of before. When reading about new topics, I usually have to go back and re-read many passages to make sure that I understand just what they author(s) are talking about. This was true of this book and therefore, I found myself taking many hours to complete this book. However, I feel that the structure of the book was pretty much the only thing that kept me going. I really liked how there were essays and then there were responses. I think this kept the book fresh. I also liked how there were many authors included in this book. It makes the reading seem easier to me because I can just go one author at a time. I think when one author writes a huge book filled with technical vocabulary, it makes the task of reading the whole book seem insurmountable. The structure of this book made it possible to just get a through a little at a time. I think the fact that it was not targeted for me, or college student audiences, made it a little difficult to fully grasp.
I feel that even though I had to read several passages more than once, I was still able to absorb a lot of what the book talked about. Some topics and issues still flew by me, nno matter how many times I read them, but I think that is to be expected in this type of book. Not only does it then challenge the mind of readers like me, but it gives scholars and professionals in this particular field, a "good" read. I think that since the book was presented in little chunks, broken up by individual essays, I didn't feel overwhelmed with new material. The graphics and visuals included in this book also made it a little more engaging. Now on to the synopsis. I don't quite know how to write an analysis of this book because there were so many authors, so many ideas, and so many sections. Therefore, I guess I will just cover important sections and write a little on each.
"Cyberdrama" was the first set of essays in the book. In my opinion, this was the most interesting section and possibly the most important, for me. It was a topic that I had never really heard of, but it really got me thinking and comparing. It got me comparing the similarities and differences between how cyber "stories" are told and how books and movies tell their stories. I found myself agreeing with a lot that this section talked about. I definitely see how there is not as much "buy-in" in interactive games as there is with movies and books. I also see how, even though they do overlap in some areas, these three types of interfaces potentially draw in very different crowds and types of people. I am not familiar with too many video games, especially not role-playing games. Therefore, I haven't experienced, first hand, all that these authors have to say, but this section definitely got me interested in checking out some role-playing games. If there was a way to create the "buy-in" in these kinds of games, that can be manipulated, that books and movies have, I think video game media would become even more popular than it already is.
The idea of Ludology, which was the next section, is an interesting one that I had never heard of before. I think I got a pretty decent idea of what it is, however, this was a section that I had to read three times I think. It just seemed a little hard to read and confused me in a couple of places. I think this section presented a totally new way of looking at the importance of games advancing and also the importance of looking at the same subject from different views. I think that the one essay by Aaresth was a great read in this section. I am so interested in literature and also integration of ideas and subjects. Therefore, I thought his outlook on the ways in which literature relates to technology and games was very interesting. I had never thought of literature having "game" elements before. I don't see myself ever being really into ludology, considering that I don't find the make-up of video game structure to be real fascinating, but this turned out to be a pretty good section.
I don't have much to say about the "Critical Simulation" section. I found it to be a little of what I already knew. This was an easy read for me however, which I definitely appreciated. I just got from this section that there is very critical thinking and analysis that goes into the creation of video games. There is also critical thinking that goes on as the player interacts with the game. I think we talked a lot about this fact in class already, but the essays just cemented the truth for me.
For me, "Game Theories" was a very interesting section. I thought that most of what was said in this area was pretty easy to understand and it kind of brought me back to the thought again of ludology. I think this section encompassed a lot of what ludology is. However, there was a part that kind of stuck out to me and has remained with me for a couple days. In the essay by Eric Zimmerman, he goes about trying to define and explain four terms; play, games, narrative, and interactivity. Well I found his section on play to be very interesting. First of all I had never thought of the word "play" having so many different meanings and states of being. This one word can be used in so many different situations to convey many different types of meaning. But what I really liked about this part was his point that although we always think of ourselves as "playing" a video game, it is not the act of staring at the screen and pushing buttons a control that are to be considered the act of play. "Play" comes in during a game that is not completely scripted beforehand. We "play" a game by navigating through the game and making our own decisions about which avatar we will create, which way we will turn, what weapon we will use, who our friends will be etc. The author makes the point that when a game is completely scripted beforehand and devoid of choice or the ability to navigate, there really is no "play" in it. I never thought about this point before. To me, no matter what kind of game was before me, I would have said that I was "playing" that game. But it makes a lot of sense to me that if you have no choice in what happens, you aren't playing, you are watching. Interesting.
"Hypertexts and Interactivities" leaves me with little to say. This is one of the sections that really kind of flew over my head. I have no experience with this sort of thing and so it is almost impossible for me to truly understand because it seems so abstract. I think it was probably the one chapter into he book that really did nothing to further my understanding or get me really thinking. Although I don't play games, I can imagine a lot of the interactive parts of games and I think I can sort of understand where the authors come from. However, hypertext is a concept that is over my head. I was glad to get through it in Gee and I was not happy to see it in this book :) I just don't know exactly what hypertext is used for I guess.
The Pixel/Line section of the book grabbed my attention because it made me think about pixels in a new way. I worked at a computer store for a few years and even though I was around them all day, I only worked customer service and I really didn't learn much about the internal workings of computers. Therefore, I always heard about pixels going out in laptops especially. I knew that our warranties did not cover pixels that go out and I have also heard the people say stuff like,"that picture is really pixelated." I guess I had just sort of formed my own meaning of what a pixel was through my limited exposure. I thought it was just part of the screen that helped a person view images. However, after reading these passages I have now realized that pixels are very important parts of our computers. They seem to be almost the "lifeblood" of games. It seems as though there could be no games without pixels. Now, this section was a little technical and so I don't know if I am getting the correct meaning out of it, but it seems to me that pixels have a very important job. This section also seemed a little abstract to me, but I enjoyed it a lot more. The images we see, the text we read, etc. are all made possible because of pixels. It is how these pixels come together and are arranged that produce what it is we see. I now have more respect for the pixel.
"Beyond Chat" started out to not interest me too much, but then I got to the essay written by Natalie Jeremijenko about voice chips. I didn't realize how important voice chips were to our everyday lives. They have really had a huge impact on the furthering of our technology, expectations, and everyday lives. I really thought this author did a great job of covering all the bases about this type of technology. I realize now how intricate all of this talking mediums are and really, how intricate human speech is. It takes a lot to actually mimic the reality of how we talk. I really liked this essay. The section overall did a good job explaining other tools, just not as well as the one essay.
In the section titled "New Readings", I first found it to be a little hard to understand. However, when I got to the section on "Online Caroline" I began to get real interested. I thought this section was very engaging because I had never heard of such a thing. I was very impressed by the capacity of this program.
Another section that I really liked was the essay by Nick Montfort. I thought he did a great job explaining his thoughts on Interactive Fiction and defining it. He made this concept pretty crystal clear even for a person like me who has trouble understanding such ideas. I found it to be an easy read, and enjoyable read, and a relevant read. I loved how he used games as examples to further illustrate his points. Although I have played almost none of the games, just the titles help me imagine just what he was talking about.
Overall, I would have to say that I am not mad that I had to read this book. It was a little harder than I had anticipated, but it turned out to be a great source of critical thinking for me. It really got my juices going and it made me think about many concepts in new ways. It also introduced some new concepts to me and did a fairly good job in illustrating those points. I liked the structure of the book and felt that the time invested was pretty well spent.

Interactive Agents

2005-06-05T16:26:00.000-07:00

I went online and tried to find some interactive games or stories that would fit in with what we have recently been reading. I really had no luck finding any games that I could play for free that were highly interactive. The only things I managed to find quite a bit of were "choose your own adventure" type of stories on the web. I went to one and read the story. The website was http://wvu.org/interactive-stories.shtml and it was a story called "Birds of a Feather Smash Together". It was supposed to be a romance fantasy about two birds that fall in love. You had to pick between two choices at the end of each page. Whatever link you chose, took you to a different spin in the story. The thing I like about online "choose your own adventures" is that they make me think that there is actually little possibility that two people have experienced the same exact story. I am sure it is possible, but very unlikely. The thing that I don't really like about "choose your own adventure" books is that I always end up reading the book in every possible way. In this way, they really stop feeling like I am choosing my own adventure. I experience all the twists anyway. However, with computers, to me, it just seems like it would be a lot of work to go back a million times until you had experienced every possibility. I like this because it does really feel like my story is "special". However, I wanted to experience something else regarding interactive media because "choose your own adventure" stories seem kind of old school to me. I looked for a while and really came up with nothing. I don't know if that is because I really don't know how to look for this kind of thing or what, so I decided to visit the site that Christian wrote about in his blog.

I went to http://iat.ubalt.edu/moulthrop/hypertexts/hgs/ as well and actually didn't feel quite the same about it. I never really grasped the point of it. From the very beginning I was confused and it pretty much stayed that way the whole time I was on the site. To start off, a bunch of quotes such as,

Structure Without Order
Where you're going there are no maps.
To Live Beyond The Line

come onto the screen and have four words surrounding them such as "the one", "the singular", "the two", "the only". And these sayings flash through the screen about every fifteen seconds or so and go on to different quotes. Well, I thought this was some sort of intro and I sat there reading all these quotes for about five minutes waiting for the real thing to start. It was when I realized that the quotes kept repeating themselves that I decided there had to be some other way this was going to start. Therefore, I decided to click on one of the words surrounding a quote. This led me to another quote. This just kept repeating.

It just seemed like a lot of random quotes or sayings. The stories didn't seem connected to me at all. You did have four options to choose from, but all they did was lead to a completely different short story or thought. It really didn't take me anywhere. It wasn't a developing story and it was nothing that kept me interested. I got bored with it in about fifteen minutes. I couldn't figure out the point of this. Maybe I was totally missing something very important, but I would need help seeing it.

Another annoying thing about this site was that if you didn't click on an option within thirty seconds, it would pick one for you or just go to another random quote. Some of the quotes are quite lengthy and took me more than thirty seconds to read. In this case, I couldn't even finish the quote before it clicked over to a new one. I didn't know if that was a one time thing or if it was how it was going to go. I tested it and that is just how it was. That really annoyed me and that was the time in which I decided to log out of there.

I thought that some one the poems and quotes were quite good and interesting, but it just seemed like a waste of time. I guess it is interactive because you pick which path you are to go down, but I actually found the "choose your own a adventure" stories to be much more engaging. And those stories don't pick your path for you if you read slow or get distracted with something else for a minute.

This was definitely a new "world' for me. And I have to think that there are people that really like these kinds of sites. However, even though I thought the literature was written well and interesting overall, even if I liked the style of the set-up, I couldn't see myself liking this site more than once. I think going there three times might interest someone, but after that, it would have to get boring. I don't know. I guess I am still in search of a great interactive site online that I can access for free.

Questions About First Person

2005-06-05T13:39:00.000-07:00

Janet Murray writes, "In a postmodern world, however, everyday experience has come to seem increasingly gamelike, and we are aware of the constructed nature of all our narratives." What does she mean by this? Do you agree or disagree?
I would have to say that Janet Murray is talking about the mirroring of real life. It seems that just as television has turned to reality TV, games have begun to resemble real life scenarios more and more. Many games now center around real life events, that are often exaggerated a bit. These games engage the player, because they are "scenes" that the player may be able to somewhat relate to, but they have the opportunity to expand on reality. A real life scenario for example, may be driving down the road, dealing with the frustrations of traffic and bad drivers. Well in this type of game, the player is mimicking a real life scenario while playing a game, but in the game they have the opportunity to run into the people that make him/her mad and/or fly over them. These are both things that I bet many of us wish we could do while stuck in traffic on some days. This kind of thinking also goes along with the decisions we make in games and in real life.
If a player makes a bad choice or decision in real life, well there really isn't anything that can be done about that. There is no way to go back and change it. However, in a game you do have the opportunity to start over or laugh at your bad mistake. I think in some ways this enables players to act in ways they wish they could in real life. But it is definitely true that games have come a long way since such games as "Pong", which didn't resemble real life in any way, to games like "The Sims".
I don't believe that life has really changed. However, I do believe that media has made us more aware of our actions. It has made us realize at a different level the "roles" that we take on in our everyday lives and the ways in which we handle them. I do not believe that our lives are becoming more like games, I believe that games are becoming more like our lives. However, I do agree that "real life" is being seen and mimicked in many forms of media and on a whole new level.

What would an "interactive drama" be? What is a "cyberdrama?"
Cyberdramas, to me, sound like movies on the computer. When I hear this word I immediately make the mental picture of a situation that is not able to be manipulated. It may be engaging and captivating; the audience may be able to identify with the characters and empathize with them, but the viewers cannot change anything that happens. It sounds like cyberdramas would be pre-determined and intended for specific audiences in mind. However, I don't believe this is the way that the author has defined this term. She uses cyberdrama to mean a drama situation that plays out in a cyber type of setting. Murray argues the potential for cyberdrama to be used in an interactive way on the computer. I believe she especially sees this as potential in games.
Interactive dramas on the other hand really have no audience in mind. I mean, I am sure that the type of drama it is or the basic story line, characters, etc. do have audiences in mind. They have audiences in mind about the types of people that will interact with these types of dramas. However, the ultimate story and can be determined or manipulated in interactive dramas. They are just that; interactive. Though books, like "choose your own adventures", and shows that allow audiences to vote on plot, are also loose interpretations of interactive drama, none of them encompass this idea in the same capacity that computer technology can.

Is there a difference between a story and a game? Explain.
There is definitely a difference between video games and stories. Though they both promote active learning and both aim to engage the "interactor", I would say that they are totally different interfaces and really only overlap in very specific areas. However, it is the intent of some to strengthen those overlaps and make games more like books or stories. Books, as of now, focus very heavily on plot and character development. This is how books suck a reader into the world that the author intends to create. Games on the other hand focus more on content and just what it is that the player is needed to do. In books, the reader doesn't not have any responsibility regarding the outcome. A reader simply reads what is to happen. Whether the reader wants the main character to die or not has little impact on the outcome. In games, the player does have responsibility and can, usually, control the fate of the "main character" or figure in the game.

Do you feel closer to characters in books and movies or in games? Why?
I personally feel much closer to characters in books. This may be because I have very little exposure to any kinds of video games period. However, I have tried to play certain games that my friends like and they really can't hold my interest. I get bored very easily and I always have to be changing what I am doing. However, when reading a book, I can sit and read for hours.
I am one of those people that gets really caught up in books and I really can't rest until I have read the whole thing. If I had the choice of watching a movie or reading a book, I would usually choose to read a book. However, I haven't o say that there are some movies that I feel are better than the books. The "Notebook" is an example that springs to mind. It is my opinion that sometimes a movies can express emotions such as love and even terror more effectively than books. I guess it depends on the author of the book, but that has just been my experience. I guess with books and movies, the stories just seem more "real" to me. I now that they aren't;t, usually, but it is just easier for me to buy into. I can imagine that these things happened and I can relate and compare them to my life or what I would like my life to be like. In games I really just don't buy into them as well. I cannot imagine that they are real in any way. I guess it is the use of real people in movies and the real people in my mind regarding books. In games, they are obviously not real and no matter how close the creator gets to making them look and act more real, it just can't substitute for real people.
I think another reason I love books so much is that they have always been a apart of who I am. My parents really encouraged me to read and so did teachers. Reading has always been such a positive thing for me and games really haven't had any real purpose in my life.
I can't really pinpoint my reasonings, but I have never been interested in video games and they have never held any appeal to me. On the other hand I love movies and books. So, there has to be some reason for that.

How does the structure of this book affect you? Why do you think they did it this way?
I think the structure of the books has it's positive and negative aspects.
At first, to me, it looked as though this book would be a quick and easy read. I was very appreciative for that considering that I am taking three other classes this summer as well. The other two books took me quite a few hours to read and really understand. But this book seemed a little thinner and there seemed to be a lot of graphics incorporated in it as well. However, I think that this books just did a good job in fooling me.
When I actually started to read it, I found it be to a slower read than the other two. The pages are real thin and there are actually quite a bit more than the other books. The pages are also bigger, which fits more print onto them. It took me forever to read the 3/4 of the book that I have finished. If it wasn't pretty interesting I think I might have given up.
However, on the positive side I really did like the graphics in the book. They helped the ideas become more alive and concrete to me. I also love how there are responses to the articles and papers. I think it is great to read two people's thoughts on the same idea. It also makes the book a little more bearable to read. It makes it seem as though you don't have as much to read because you don't have to read all the way down the huge page to finish one person's ideas. At first I read one paper and then went back and read the response. Then I tried reading the response first and the main paper second. I couldn't decide which way I preferred and so I ended up alternating. Sometimes I would read the paper first and sometimes the response. It kind of helped to break up the monotony of reading a more technical book and kept my attention a little better.

Should any of these people get a life?
I have more respect for these people than Gee really. If any author needs to get a life I would say it would have to be him. I feel that these people are not only studying pretty unexplored topics, but they are doing something with their research. They are pushing for their beliefs and they are creating new games, prototypes, and interfaces. And really, if people are buying this book and reading their works, then I guess they have some purpose for doing what they are doing. This would never be a field that would interest me enough to spend countless hours researching or learning about. But to each his own.

My Argument About Video Games

2005-06-01T10:52:00.000-07:00

Regarding the topic of video game influence, I have to say that my feelings are a little conflicted. I have little experience with video games besides the ones that focus mainly on puzzles. I like to play Tetris, Mah-jong, Solitare, etc., but I don't think these are the games that I have been asked to discuss. Therefore, my feelings and opinions really come from my analysis of arguments that others have made, for or against video games. Therefore, it is my feeling that I really don't have enough exposure to the domain of "gaming", to say with strong conviction whether video games are responsible for creating violence in people, racial feelings, and/or degradation of women. However, it is my gut feeling that they play a part in allowing our younger generations to grow accustomed to hate, low standards, stereotypes, giving and receiving abuse.
Let me begin my writing by stating that I really do not, in any way blame the creators or manufacturers of games for the content that is included. Is it true that they are the ones that put the violence in the games? Yes. Is it true that they are the ones that set the games to view women as sex objects, helpless, and brainless? Yes. However, they create what sells. They are in it for the money and the record. They want their game to sell the most copies. They want to make the most money. If America's trend turned to idolizing baby hippos,I bet you games about hippos would flood the market. On a huge level, these game designers and manufacturers make games they know will sell. Therefore, I do not blame these, mostly men as stated in "Game Over", creators, I blame the consumers.
Do I think it is disgusting that there are games out there about women that are willing to pay back a hero with sex? Yes. Do I think it is atrocious that a large percentage of games portray women as hookers and sluts? Yes. But what really disturbs me is the thought of the, mostly men, that buy these games. The men that sit in front of their screens for hours on end and play these games and revel in the idea of making these fake women do whatever they want them to. These are the ones I blame. They are the reasons that these video games get made in the first place.
I think the same goes for violent video games. Do I think that video games can promote violent outlooks in people? Yes I do. However, I more think it is the job of the parent to control and monitor what their child is playing. They should also monitor the crowd that their child hangs out with. I do not hang out with people that find violent video games fun and therefore, I have had no exposure to them. I had no idea how ugly and nasty they could get until I watched the movie, "Game Over." I was shocked at the level of violence that people are exposed to.
Now the movie,"Game Over" started out by stating that video games promote the "skill and will to kill." On some level this has to be true. In his book, "What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy" James Paul Gee makes the argument that video games promote a kind of learning called "active learning". If this is true, then it must be applied to these video games that promote killing and violence. If children and adults alike are actively learning every time they play these games, I think we have to ask the question,"what besides violence are they learning?" What positive things are they learning from games such as "Grand Theft Auto", where the object of the game is to go around stealing cars, picking up prostitutes, and running into other cars? The same goes with the game "King Pin", where the whole point is to be a white man in the ghettos and beat other people and kill other people until you have become the "king pin" of a gang. So, are they learning to have the "skill and will to kill"? I am not so sure, but I am sure that Gee says we are never sitting blankly. We are always learning and always applying what we are learning to aspects of our real life or information we already have. If this is true, then it seems obvious to me that, in at least some way, people are learning to kill, maim, and hurt others. If nothing else, they are learning to, at least, be desensitized to such acts.
Another thing that Gee talks about in his book is the idea of semiotic domains. In regard to people who play violent video games, my thought is that these people do not necessarily become part of the domain of "killers", "rapists", "thieves", or "liars". I do not think that these people are involved in the internal view of these domains. However, I think that from people simulating these acts over and over again, they are becoming all too familiar with the external views. And frankly, why do more and more people need to know anything about these domains? It makes me wonder what kind of association to these domains the creators of such games have.
To me, I think that the domain of "gamers" needs to be broken up into different categories in itself. I don't think that people who thrive off of shooter games should be lumped together with those who only play puzzle games :) "Gamers", to me is too broad of a term. People become associated with domains, usually, because aspects of those domains align with their thoughts, ideas, morals, and beliefs. Therefore, just because you play a lot of Mario, puzzle games, Barbie, and Sonic the Hedgehog, you may become labeled as a "gamer". But I would say that the morals and ideals of the person that chooses these games have to be pretty far off of those who play manhunt, slasher games for fun. This section kind of got off track of the origional argument, but I still think it is a valid point.
Gee also talks about the fact that many people take on the identities of the protagonists in the games they are playing. He also states, in my opinion, a well known fact, that games can become addicting. And it worries me that many people become addicted to these games of mass violence. Some people play these games for hours a day. They only stop when they absolutely have to. And then the minute they have the chance, they are back to playing again. When you stop and think about this for a minute it can be quite disturbing. These people are "killing people" for hours a day. They are not only shooting them, but slitting their throats, pulling their heads off, breaking their backs, torturing them, chopping them up into pieces, and mutilating any last morsel. Then, when they have to stop for a while, they are thinking about getting back to the killing. When they finally have a chance, they race back to the world of murder and indugle themselves for countless more hours. These people also get emotionally attached to their games. They get upset when they haven't killed enough people or had sex with enough women. You can't tell me that hours of this kind of exposure doesn't warp a person's mind to some degree.
Another point that I think applies to this argument of video game violence comes out of the book "First Person: New Media as Story, Performance, and Game." Many authors throughout this book make the point that the "best" video games are ones that enduce agency. To enduce agency, a game must make the player feel as though they are immersed in the game. They must almost forget that they are playing a game and feel as though they are just experiencing life. In some cases, a destructive life. However, I feel it is very true that gaming creators are trying to create this agency more and more. Therefore, people are forgetting, at least for a few hours, that they are playing a shooter game; they begin to feel as though they are the shooter and their survival depends on being the best killer. Evidence of this agency is shown in the games used by the military, such as Doom, to train their soldiers (Game Over). Police forces and military branches use simulation, shooter, killing games, to condition their "employees" to become killers by instinct. These games they are using are almost identical to games on the market that millions of civilians play. Doom is a game that has swept the nation. Therefore, how can anyone argue that they are not going to have some kind of effect on the unsuspecting mind? There is no way that these games would condition the minds of these police officers and armed forces workers, and not the minds of young children.
Is this to say that children are going to start shooting anyone they see? No way. And it doesn't even mean that if they had a gun that they would ever kill for no reason. But, if "reason" arose, how can we say they wouldn't be more likely or ready to use a weapon than others not exposed to such violence? We can't say this because we don't know. This is a theory that will probably never be tested because it would be inhumane. But, if it works for the military, chances are...
One point I want to make about racial stereotypes and racism in general that is prevalent in video games is that it is sad. This thought came to me while watching "Game Over". What better place to expose children to equality in races? Children are glued to these games for sometimes hours a day. It would be great for gaming creators to help create the values in children, that "race is nothing but color". What a great medium to "color-blind" impressionable children. It is too bad that creators do not take this opportunity. Instead, they take the opportunity to make most players white and portray anyone of color as "lower class", "weird", "not valuable", or "weak". I do not believe that this is a topic that is just overlooked by creators. I believe this issue has been brought up time and time again, and nothing has changed. Therefore, to me, it is almost done now blatantly. This is the one area of "bad gaming" that I only blame creators for.
To wrap up, I know that I don't have a lot of first hand experience with video games. Therefore, it may make my arguments seem trivial or not relevant. I cannot say that I know without a doubt that video games help promote violence or racial backlashes. However, I can say that, with all the evidence presented before me, I cannot imagine that they have no repercussions at all. As far is whose fault all this violence is, I would say I am torn. It's a never ending circle. As long as people buy these violent games, creators will keep making them. At the same time, as long as creators keep making these games, there will be people that keep buying them. So, I don't really see a stop being put to the violence. It then becomes our own moral analyzation that will keep us from partaking in these games or not. It becomes parents' jobs to screen what their children play and instill morals into their children. But the bottom line is: violence will never stop.

The Rest of Paul Gee

2005-05-27T14:19:00.000-07:00

After reading this book, it kind of led me to one overall question,"why?" Why was this book written? It seems to me that this book could not have been written for casual readers just looking for a good pleasure read. It seems that it had a specific audience in mind. With all the "special" words it used, I am thinking it had to have "educated" people in mind. However, do those educated people ever read this book? Has this book made a splash in any arena? I have to say that I actually did learn quite a bit from this book, especially regarding the idea of semiotic domains. However, will I ever use this information that I have learned? It seems possible that I will not. The one thing I did take away from this book, that will stay with me, is the knowledge about how intricate and how intentional video games are. I didn't realize all that goes into them and I didn't think of them as learning tools in any way. There is the exception of the "learning" games of course. But I am still puzzled about why an old man would decide to write a book like this. However, I know his book did sell at least 12 copies :) And I have to say that, in the context of our class, I did learn a lot. It just seems that unless you are a video game lover who is sick of all the bad publicity video games get, that you wouldn't really have an interest in this book. Maybe I am wrong. I do appreciate a lot of what Gee has to say however.
Now that I have played around with some different types of games, I do see his point that video games promote active learning. They really do, mostly. And they do this, not only in the sense that the player is controlling what is going on, using eye-hand coordination, and making decisions; but it also promotes active learning in the fact that people get to pick what games they play. In this way, they are usually very engaged and are willing to put time and effort into what they do. Gee makes a point that schools should be run in this same fashion and I agree with that. Giving children choices and ownership create a much more conducive learning environment. Gee doesn't think that video games should supplement school institutions, but he feels that teachers could learn a lot from this semiotic domain. His feelings on learning through video games are clearly stated throughout his 36 learning principles.
I have talked with some "gamers" about this book a little and I was actually surprised to find out that many of them didn't really realize how "into" the game they get. They didn't realize that they almost see themselves as a part of the game, as being in it. They didn't really understand, at first, what Gee is talking about when he puts forth his theory on the three types of perspectives present when one plays a video game. However, from an outside point of game, because I am not a gamer, it is so easy for me to see this. I totally see how people act when they play video games. I see how involved they get and I see how upset they are when something goes wrong in their game. These are some of the attributes that have really turned me off to exploring gaming myself. I think Gee's three perspectives really make sense and really apply.
I know that the author talks about games that are pretty familiar to "gamers". I used to work at Circuit City, so while I have never played the games, I know the names of a lot of them and I know which ones are popular. Therefore, as I said before, for a gamer, I bet this book has a lot of value to it. I bet gamers really appreciate Gee's points of views and the arguments he makes. However, sometimes it was hard for me to identify with what he was saying. It was hard for me get a mental image or really understand his points. I don't know what is it is like to connect with a player in the game, I don't know how it is to take on a new identity. So, when I read these parts, I try and relate them books as well. I try to remember how I feel when I connect with a character in a book. Or I try to remember how I feel when I begin to feel that I am actually in the book's world. This helps me a little.
I know that many games have the explicit intention of educating. I know that there are some games that relate so much to the real world that almost any "Joe" would be able to play it because it would be somewhat familiar to them. However, there are some games, like fantasy games, that do not relate to the real world in any fashion. I think these are the games that Gee wants to focus on more than "real-life" games. The reason for this is that Gee wants to make the point that video games are their own Semiotic Domain. And to really be in this domain, the player must become acquainted with a whole new world. They must learn a new language, new etiquette, etc. These are the games that I do not understand.
So at the end of it all, I would have to say that I found this book to be interesting. I liked it much more than I would have liked reading a stale textbook. I feel that I was able to understand most of it and I did learn a thing other two from it. However, I don't feel that it changed my mind on video games and it didn't interest me enough to get me out there exploring video games. I don't think I will ever join the domain of "gamer". However, I do feel that my time was well spent in reading this book. :)

Yu-Gi-Oh Game response

2005-05-23T13:23:00.000-07:00

At first when I went to this site, I thought it was going to be horrible! It seemed really busy and it was hard for me to even look at. I like sites more clean and easier to read and use. The sites pages were pretty consistent in design, which I guess is good, but it just felt like I was visually assaulted almost. It made me want to run away from this site without even going in and exploring it. But honestly, it is hard for me to connect to any gaming site on a Metalevel because gaming is so not something I am interested in, and so it is hard for me to relate it to other domains that I am associated with. However, I must say that almost none of the gaming sites I have been to have ever been examples of passive learning styles. They are always interactive and you are always creating your own connections and learning experiences. This site is no exception to that. Though, despite the horrible first impression I got, I kept on going and found the games links. I was expecting to have some action games or fighting games. I don't really know what Yu-Gi-Oh is about. But I was pleasantly surprised to find that the games were really all about puzzles! And I love puzzles! However, I found it to be kind of weird to find these games here. Maybe Yu-Gi-Oh is about solving puzzles. So, I actually did have a lot of fun playing Tetris. I think that Tetris really promotes problem solving and thinking in advance. It almost makes you create strategies for your little blocks. Though I must say that I find that I am able to play Tetris without being real engaged. I can talk on the phone, talk to friends, watch TV, etc. and still play Tetris. So I don't know that it really promotes higher level thinking in any sense. But, one thing I didn't like was that the games weren't unique. They weren't Yu-Gi-Oh games. This sites' home page really promoted advertisement of Yu-Gi-Oh as well. The stores, shows, cards, etc. So I really think this site was more for the advertisement of Yu-Gi-Oh. I don't see a lot of hard core Yu-Gi-Oh fans going to this site as their primary Yu-Gi-Oh outlet, unless it is the only one available online. So, in relation to what Gee is talking about; although I don't think this site promotes passive learning, I would have to say that I don't see a lot of active learning coming from this site. There is the hands on aspects of moving the mouse, using the arrow keys to control the games, and you do have choices. You can choose which categories on the site to explore, you can pick the games you want to play, etc. But I would have to say that although I felt the Barbie.com site sent out worse messages to little girls than this site does to little boys, I saw more learning and engagement in Barbie.com.
I wouldn't say that I learned anything from these games. The only thing I related to Gee from my experience was that I related the love of puzzles from one domain to another. That is all.
Now dealing with the Design Principle, I would have to say that Yu-Gi-Oh actually probably has the right design for the audience it is targeting. I know that this web site's target audience is not me, so the designers probably couldn't care less if I felt violated by their screens. They are trying to attract younger males I am assuming that love action, fighting, anime, and adventure. This site actually would probably be very appealing to their eyes. I am sure if they had to pick between this site and one that had minimal graphics, they would pick the first. So really, I would have to say that this site is designed well for the audience it is targeting.
In my opinion, this site did not deal with the Semiotic Principle very well. It was labeled with words. I think it would have been more affective if the links would have been labeled with pictures that directly correlated to Yu-Gi-Oh. I may not have understood the links at first glance, but the people associated with the Yu-Gi-Oh domain would have. I think it would have been much more appealing to them. I think the Barbie.com site did a great job in that. When you picked a boom box, you got an area dealing with music, when you clicked on the TV, you got videos, etc. This idea is much more engaging.
Regarding the Semiotic Domain Principle, I would have to say that this website was easy to navigate through, both for people familiar with this domain and for new users. The site was so simple that it didn't take me any time at all to become a pro at navigating through. The only real interest I have in this site is playing Tetris, but I definitely know exactly how to get to this game, and it was an easy find the first time I went on. The only thing I think may be a little confusing is the labeling of the games. For instance, the Tetris game is initially called the "Yu-Gi-Oh Block Puzzle". Then when you click on that link, it takes you to Tetris. I don't know why they just didn't call it Tetris. Maybe they are trying to make it more "Yu-Gi-Oh". I know that when I first started using WSU's Homepage website, I thought it was the most ineffective and hardest site to use. Now that I have played with it for probably countless hours, I think I am better able to find what I need. It is all about figuring out the "lingo" of certain domains.
It is hard for me to see what Metalevel thinking this site brought on. I guess that it helps build upon my ability to surf through sites on the web. It also made me realize that some of my favorite games can be played free online, they are just located in the weirdest sites. I don't think it helped draw me an closer to or make me understand any better the domains of gamers and/or anime lovers, but it did get me out of my comfort zone :)

Answers to Gee questions #2

2005-05-23T11:02:00.000-07:00

What is the difference between active learning and critical learning? Active learning is the process in which the student is actively engaged. It is mostly a hands- on approach and it usually is best practiced when students are working together in pairs or groups. Active learning means being involved in the learning process. It means that the student is not simply being fed information. The students do not memorize and repeat information, they take it in and it becomes intrinsic information. To learn actively, the student must experience the world in new ways.
Critical learning is when the students consciously attend to, reflect on, critique, and manipulate design grammars at a Metalevel. This means that they must see the semiotic domain as a design space. When you critically learn, you also analyze the information you are learning and taking in. You step back and look at the information you have,hopefully actively learned, and you analyze that information. you analyze the information itself and you analyze how you acquired that information, and what it means to you, especially in terms of what domains you associate yourself with.
What is passive learning (or is that an oxymoron?) Passive learning is when students are fed information. It goes along the lines of rote memorization and repeating facts. It doesn't mean that the students understands the information, or the new concept presented, it just means that they are able to memorize what they know they need to in order to being it back for a test and then forget it. It does not promote enduring understanding and most the information force fed in these sessions is forgotten soon after. This is also a time when students do not get any choice on what they learn or how they learn it. It is not meaningful to them and so they really couldn't care less about it. It has a lot to do with the brain functions as well. When you are passively learning, you are not engaged. You do not understand why you are being made to learn this information and you do not understand the importance of the information. Therefore, you are "checked-out" mentally.
How, according to Gee, is knowledge always "situated"? You always learn for a reason. You don't ever just learn to learn. You learn regarding situations you are or you learn about situations you are interested in. Whether I like math or not,I am going to learn it because I need the class to graduate. My reason then is to graduate and meet the goals I have set for myself in life. I believe this is also when Gee talks about, when new information comes in, the brain pulls out the old information and makes connections to the new. Or at lets it tries to make connections. These experiences are also edited by our interests, values, goals, etc. Using this storing system may make you come to jump to conclusions about a person or group based on past experiences. It may also cause you to draw a blank and have no connection to new information. Bridging the gaps is an important part of learning and holding on to new, learned information. It also means that everything has a meaning depending on the particular semiotic domain it is being associated with.
What is the "external view" of a semiotic domain. Give an example from your life experience. This is when people are engaged in a set of social practices. For instance, people that are very into shooter games will most likely not be opposed to having violent video games on the market. Let's see, for me, I am not very religious. I am laid back about views on religion. However, I do know some people who are Apostolic Lutheran and they are not real laid back about religion. They take it very seriously. Now I don't really know the internal make-up of their religion or their faith. However, I do know that they like to have a lot of children in their families and I do know that on Sundays, they do no work. They don't even do homework. It is their day of rest. I also know that mostly, the women keep long hair and are very natural. Therefore, I know this religion from an external view. I know some of the social practices, but I don't know the specifics of this religion.
What is the "internal view" of a semiotic domain. Give an example. The "internal view" of semiotic domain is when you look at a semiotic domain the context of content. Being able to view something internally means that you have a close and personal view of this domain. It means that you understand the makings of it, how it is run, and what the important facets of it are that make it run. If I am able to look at three white, powdery substances, play around with them, smell them, taste them, etc. and I am able to name one of the powers, without a doubt, as flour, then that is because I am internally familiar with this domain. I like to cook a lot and so I know the make-up of flour. Since I do cook a lot, I could say the other two substances could be some kind of drug. That would be kind of looking at the other powders in an external view. I know for a fact they are not flour, sugar, or salt because I would know, being a person that cooks. However, I also know that some drugs are white and powdery, but I can't say that they are drugs for sure because I am not familiar with the internal make-ups of drugs, since I am not a person associated with that semiotic domain.
How do these definitions apply to video games? I believe that Gee wants these to apply to video games because, his whole beginning speech is all about semiotic domains. I think he tries to make the point that you can't escape semiotic domains and pretty much everything lies in some sort of semiotic domain. Therefore, video games have an internal and external view also. People that view video games from an internal view probably really appreciate the arguments that Gee makes in his book. People who view them from external views, like I do, maybe not always see his points. Therefore, Gee is saying that video games are also semiotic domains. These definitions also apply to video games in terms of analyzing a video game and maybe deciding on whether or not you want to play that game. You can analyze a game by the content in the game. You can look at whether the game is an action game, puzzle, simulation game, etc. You can first decide if you want to even look at the game based on the content. Like I know I do not like action games very much and I generally don't even look at them. Then once you get past the internal view of a game, you can look at it more in depth and really decide if it is for you based on maybe the morals that go along with the game. If a game only has busty, half dressed women on it and that offends you, then you are most likely to not play that game. You may even go as far as to feel these sexist games shouldn't be allowed to be marketed. Same as the shooter game that Gee talks about. If you are anti-violence or have strong religious beliefs, then you probably do not promote games that have a lot of violence in them.
Why would Gee want these to apply to video games? I guess Gee would want these to apply to video games because his whole premise of writing this book is to promote "good" video games. And I think that looking at a video games from the internal and external views can really be the basis for people deciding whether they think a video game is "good" or "bad". Is there really a "good" or "bad" video games? I don't think so. I think it all depends on opinion and personal preference. Actually I guess I would say that there probably are some bad video games that are just universally bad, but there probably isn't a game that everyone would say is good.
What does this definition NOT apply to? (by definition I mean semiotic domains that are divided into an internal "design" component, and an external "understanding the group" component). I do not even really understand this question. I can't think of any semiotic domain that his definition does not apply to. Even things that we don't have a choice about offer design choices. Like writing utensils, we need them, but are we in the domain that uses pens or pencils? I guess you could argue things like being a mother, wife, friend etc. There are still content aspects that expected of those domains, however, they are not universally expected and really, who fills all those content requirements? There are definitely external views about these categories however. If you hate being with one person forever, then you wouldn't get married. So, I really can't think of anything that these definitions do not apply to. However, since this question is posted I am sure there is something it doesn't apply to an I am just not thinking outside of the box.

Answers to Teacher Posted Questions: James Paul Gee

2005-05-20T11:07:00.000-07:00

Questions for Discussion:

What kinds of computer games does Gee want to discuss? The author wants to discuss "good" video games throughout his book.

Why? The author feels that "good" video games have a lot of positive aspects about them. He feels that these types of video games not only introduce people to a totally new semiotic domain, but they also promote critical thinking and learning. He feels that children and older people alike can grow in life through playing certain games.

Why look for anything positive in "violent video games?" One type "violent game" that the author talks about are first and third person shooter games. The author states that once a person has mastered these type of games, they have mastered a very distinct sub-domain. He also feels that people who excel at these types of games, get lots of practice at eye-hand coordination and learning how to strategize. These types of games also are usually very interactive and can promote new relationships to form.

Gee writes "two things that, at first sight, look to be "mental" achievements, namely literacy and thinking, are, in reality, also and primarily social achievements." What does he mean by this? The author means that although it used o be thought that thinking and literacy were all scholarly and "ability" related, it has actually been proven in recent years that both of these activities really have more to do with "making connections." As in literacy, you may be able to decode the print and read the words, but if you have no previous experiences to tie that text to, it is almost a sure thing that you won't be able to remember that information for a long period of time. You may also have to re-read the passage more than once just to make meaning of it. Most people have had this experience when reading textbooks centered around subjects we have never had exposure to.

In regards to thinking, the way in which we think about things and view the world in general has a lot to do with the views of the semiotic domains in which we are in conjunction with. Although we, as people, make our own choices in life and feel that we are independent creatures that have total control over everything we do, in some kind of sense, we are being influenced by the domains we are surrounded by.

How does Gee define a "semiotic domain." ? Paul Gee defines "semiotic domains" as: Interrelations within and across multiple sign systems(images, words, actions, symbols, artifacts, etc.) which are complex systems to learning experiences.

How does Gee define and talk about "reading?" There is a lot of research that shows how the brain works when a person is reading. These studies are what influence the way in which reading is taught in schools mostly. However, Gee argues that reading is not just a "mental" act, but that is rather a "social" act. We can all read and think in different ways when we read and think as members of different groups. Any specific way of reading is a way of "being" in the world. It is the way of taking on a certain type of identity. The way in which we choose to read a certain text, whether in a scholarly way, a comfortable way, an educational way, an analytical way, etc., is, in a way putting on one of our multiple identities for that period of time.

How does Gee see Learning? Gee states that there is really no such thing as learning in general. He states that we are always learning "something". And what that "something" is, is always related to some sort of semiotic domain. He states that if we are ever concerned about something not being worth learning, we should first look at what semiotic domains it is associated with. He also states that active learning is much more effective than passive learning. Passive learning entails memorizing, drilling, blackline masters, etc. Active learning takes a more hands on approach, to me, it encompasses the idea of the Constructivist Theory.

Three things are involved in "active" learning : affiliations, experiencing, and preparation. Then Gee goes on to state that an even higher level of learning is critical learning. Gee says that to make learning active and critical," the learner needs to learn not only how to understand and produce meanings in a particular semiotic domain that are recognizable, but in addition, how to think about the domain in a "meta" levels a complex system of interrelated parts. " It is obvious that Gee sees learning as a complex system. And I think he sees active and critical learning as targets that are rarely hit in accordance to our school systems now days.

How does this reality to your education so far? I would have to honestly say that throughout my schooling, I have not been encouraged much to learn actively or critically. I think this is the case with most people my age or older. Now that I am in the education program here at WSU and we are being pushed to teach with the Constructivist Theory in mind, it makes me almost mad that I didn't get the quality education that I could have. It makes me feel cheated in a way. It has definitely stunted my ability to think and learn critically. And, when I first started this program I resisted active learning because I wasn't used to it. It took me outside of my comfort zone to work with my hands and to work in groups on just about everything. But now, I really see the benefits of it and I feel that I have received a better education un my program than I ever did at Clark or any other school I have attended. The thing about education is that you really only get one shot at it. I mean, of course you keep learning all throughout your life, but a formal education, from K-12, you only get one shot. So, if it was a bad experience, well then it was and you have to move on from it and compensate for it. But it is sad, and I wish that more teachers taught with Gee's theories in mind.

would have to say that I do not believe that if I would have played more video games that I would have been a better critical thinker, I am not yet convinced of this argument. However, I guess I will now keep in mind, that if I have a student that likes video games, that maybe that student isn't wasting their life away.

Five Interfaces

2005-05-20T10:49:00.000-07:00

Here are the five interfaces that I chose to look at :
1.) My circuit breaker-
Pros: Always in an accessible place
- Easy access to circuits
- Allows you to have control of what is powered in your house
- Easy to use...flip the switches
Cons: Confusing labeling system-never know what switch goes with what without trial and error
- If your lights go out, can't see the labeling
- Flipping random switches could cause damage or harm
- Very ugly and an eyesore on your walls
2.) Laptop-
Pros: Able to carry your computer with you
- Easy to take notes on
- Usually pretty neat looking
- Usually light weight
Cons: Still a little spendy
- Limited access to internet
- Hard to type lengthy papers on
- Mouse is kind of hard to use
- Do not have portable printers
3.) Scale-
Pros: Lets you know your current weight
- Home scales are lightweight and portable
- Easy to use and read
Cons: Lets you know your current weight
- Many home scales are inaccurate
- "Weight" is not everything, scales can bring down a person's self-esteem
4.) Toaster-
Pros: Easy to use
- Small and lightweight
- Allows fast crisping of breads/streudels/poptarts/bagels/etc.
Cons: Perfection of the toasting comes from trial and error
- Can be a little messy
- Ugly and takes up valuable kitchen space
- Encourages some people to stick body parts and utensils into the slots to unjam stuck food
5.) Heaters-
Pros: Fast way to get and keep warm
- Pretty standard nationwide
- Easy to use and gives you control of heat
- Easy to read temperature gauge
Cons: Some, even still, are not safe
- They suck a lot of electricity that we have to pay for
- Do not heat really large areas of space
- Usually in inconvenient spots in the house...right where you want to put your furniture
- Ugly

Chapters 1 and 2 from James Paul Gee

2005-05-19T13:54:00.000-07:00

Well apparently, this author is trying to stake his claim through this book, that in some situations, playing video games is not bad. I agree with this claim to a certain degree, but also disagree to a certain degree. I know that there are tons of games out there that are intentionally education and there are some games that have educational value without necessarily meaning to. I don't think that it is a bad thing for children to engage in these games from time to time. However, I do not believe there is intrinsic value in children playing video games, of any kind, for extended periods of time. There are some that can make the claim that if you are watching the right television shows, you can learn a lot. That is also true, but does that then mean that children who only watch educational programs should be allowed to watch television for as many hours a day as they please? I think there are some problems with children and adults absorbing their lives into video games. Although you may be able to communicate with other gamers through some systems, I think that isolating yourself in front of a computer or television screen does more damage to a person's ability to socially interact than it does any good to a person's ability to think or learn critically. This is just my opinion. I think the author makes some good points through out his writing and I see his point of view on many stances, but I was not swayed by them. One point I really agreed with was that a lot of people enter domains as passive content learners. I know that when I have tried to take the short cut in classes and I memorize the definitions of certain terms, I almost always failed the tests or did really poorly. This is because just knowing what the words meant didn't mean that I could transfer those definitions to actual application. I couldn't answer any question about that item, object, substance, etc. that did not totally circulate around the definition. This kind of fits along the lines of children and reading as well. Just because they can decode a passage and answer your questions, doesn't mean that they necessarily understood what they had just read. However, I also had some thoughts and questions come up while I was reading these chapters. My first thought revolved around critical thinking. It is amazing to me how critical thinking can be so challenging when dealing with some domains and it can be like second nature when dealing with others. Sometimes you may be so comfortable with a certain domain that you don't even know that you are thinking critically about it. However, for me it is sometimes hard for me to think critically about this English class because I have no background exposure to politics, interfaces, or even really technology. So it is hard for me to think about these subjects any more in depth than on just a surface level. However, I am trying :) My first question then had to do with something the author said regarding the "pros" of video games. He said that "good" video games encourage people to be problem solvers and to keep trying although they may have failed. After I thought about this statement I decided that I tend to agree with it. However, it seems to me that people who play video games all the time would then have those values instilled in them. However, I have seen time and time again that even these gamers give up with the drop of a hat regarding other aspects of their lives. Why wouldn't these characteristics carry over? If they did, I think I would become more "pro" video games. The author also talks about people being able to take on new identities. But is this such a good thing? I know grown men who have cried because their computer games have come unplugged and they have lost their character. I know grown men who rant and rave for days because something is going bad into heir video game. Do some people tend to take on these identities to an unhealthy point? As I said before, I don't know that living through fantasy is such a healthy thing. Then the author said that as long as people play video games without he intentions of learning actively and critically, that video games are beneficial? So my question is,"do people ever play video games with the intention to learn critically and think critically?" I am not sure, but my guess who be no. My guess would be that people don't really think before they play. They play for the enjoyment it beings them and for the reinforcements they get from it. So, I just thought the author may be a little off on human nature in that respect. And then the author says that "good" video games help people experience the world in new ways. Do they really help people experience the world in new ways or do they help people experience new worlds? I think that is the real question. The real world is nothing like most video games. And my last question is just kind a "what the heck is he talking about?" question. The author states on pg. 48 that, "no wonder it is hard for today's schools to compete." What? Compete with what? I was not aware that there was a competition going on between schools and video games. Would anyone ever answer that a child gets a better education from video games than school? I don't think so. Would a person ever say that their child became a critical thinker more from video games than school? I would guess not, but maybe so. I just thought that statement was a little out of left field. So, what exactly is he talking about?

"desktop" is changing

2005-05-16T11:21:00.000-07:00

My group decided to change the "desktop" metaphor into a "schoolhouse" metaphor. Our target audience was students, and more specifically, young students that are still in elementary to middle school. We liked this metaphor because it reached a different audience than the desktop metaphor and it also allowed us to get a little creative with the icons that we used. So, basically we just looked at regular desktop and went down the list of icons posted on the desktop and didn't change the programs, but we changed their representation. So, for "my documents" we changed the icon to a pass which would signify a pass to study hall. For the "start" button, we changed it to "roll call". Then for "my computer" we changed the icon to a classroom and called it "homeroom". For "networking", we changed the icon to a cafeteria and called it the "cafeteria". For the "recycle bin" we changed the icon to a toilet and called it the "restroom". For access to the internet, we changed the icon to a bookshelf with books and called it the "library". To store games we made an icon of some play equipment and called it the "playground". And then for storage of music we put an icon of a guitar and called it "music class." I am sure that we could have added more icons and gone a little more in depth with this idea but, our time was limited. I liked this assignment. At first is was hard to get my head around and I was having a hard time thinking of a new metaphor, but then once I understood, it just kind of took off. It was a fun and creative assignment. I didn't realize how "attached" you got to one idea when you use it everyday for years. It is hard to imagine the computer interface looking different, but I think for some audiences, ours would work just as well, maybe better. This was lot of fun. I am excited to see what other ideas groups came up with. I can see how you could change the interface metaphor to a ton of different things depending on the audience you were trying to reach. It makes me realize that you don't have to just accept something because it is the way it has been for a while. Things tend to become the "norm" but it doesn't have to be that way.

"Politics of Interface" Article

2005-05-15T11:16:00.000-07:00

I would say that, as a person in the teaching program, I am constantly inspired to be a teacher that recognizes and celebrates differences in the classroom. And this goes to mean SES differences, race, disabilities, ethnicities, etc. I am really starting to grasp the importance of moving my teaching far away from assimilation. I know that to make a person turn away from their learned way of life is to kill their spirit. I know that many changes need to be made in our country's education system. However, I do have to say that this article did not inspire me further at all. Some of what the authors said I didn't understand, some I didn't agree with, and some I did agree with.
First of all I will get to things I just didn't understand. I don't understand how the white arrow mouse is a sign of oppression or working against race, ethnicity, etc. Also, I don't understand why these authors simply focus on college level English composition teachers. Is it not true that we, as elementary teachers are encouraged to use technology as well? As a pre-service teacher, I know that the big push on us is to use technology whenever we can in our classrooms. Do we then not face the same challenges as the English composition teacher? Maybe not? I think that if there is ever a place and time that a person is going to be made to turn away from his/her known way of life, it is going to be when they are children and most succesptible to influence.
Some things I do agree with in this article are the facts that making a person identify with the dominant group and leaving theirs can really break a person down or strip them of self worth and pride. However, I do have to say quickly that, honestly, I feel that when people from other countries move here, they expect to be thrown into a new way of life and they expect to have to mold themselves to the dominant culture, at least a little. I don't think that many people think they are just going to move here, but live exactly how they did in their previous land and make it in America. So, I don't think that it is too much to ask that, in some ways, people learn some ways of the dominant culture. I wouldn't expect to move to a different country and have everything revolve around me or how I used to live.
I also agree that maybe some I- cons should be changed to reflect the growing population. It does seem a little ridiculous that all I-cons would be white, upperclass people. That is blatantly ignoring the other people that make up computer users.
Now the things I don't agree with. First of all the authors must not have done too much research on the topic when they stated that the desktop is representative of the white, white-collar worker and it does not have interfaces that respresents restaurants, homes, etc. Well, maybe these authors haven't heard about the failure of BOB. This concept has been tried and it failed. The desktop idea did not fail. It makes them money and that is why they are sticking with it. These computer companies don't care about anything else but how to make the most money.
Also, I don't think that there will be a computer in the near future that encompasses every language spoken or every race that lives in our country. That would just be a huge task to accomplish and it would cost a lot of money. I just don't think it is going to happen. If a computer like that did come to the market, I am sure it would be very expensive and wouldn't sell enough to make it worthwhile.
I also don't agree with the statement that every time we ask ELL learners to use computers, we are distancing them from equality. I think these authors are a little overdramatic and I think that their points come without any real solutions. I would like to study these authors and see what strides they have made to bridge the cultural gap. So, then as teachers are we not supposed to use computers period? Because if we only had majority students use the computers, that would be seen as a problem too right? I think it is ridiculous to not have minority students using computers. They all need a fair chance to be successful in our country and our country is becoming increasingly more reliant on technology. And the authors also said that teachers must obviously see the need to correct these problems. Really...how? I just saw this article as another way to see inequality in America. You could find claims in just about every aspect of life. As a teacher, I feel I need to focus on the real issues of diversity. How to make computers more diverse has not yet topped the my list. I guess I need more convincing.

Lambdamoo.com

2005-05-12T20:19:00.000-07:00

To explore some "reality" opportunities on the web, I decided to visit Lambdamoo.com and interact in their chat rooms. Now I am not a person that actively participates in any chat room experience, so I wasn't really expecting to like it a great deal. However, this was something very different than other chat rooms. I actually liked it a lot more than sites like AOL Chatrooms. I should say that I like the set up of the chatting experience. When you first go to the site you can look at a map of the "house". I like the fact that it is a house situation. This way, it doesn't necessarily feel like you are moving from chat room to chat room...you feel like you are just walking around the house. Each new room you go to has a description of what that room "looks" like. I felt that in the way of making the experience more personal and "real" Mooing seems to do a better job than many other chat room situations. People are also able to express themselves better. Instead of :) like in regular chat rooms, when you type that into your computer it says,"Red Cloud smiles at you". It almost feels like you are reading a story or a play. It also understands many different commands. When you want to leave a room, you simply type N for north, S for south, NW for northwest, etc. and that is the way in which you move out of the rooms. So it is pretty cool in those respects.
However, it is not cool in other respects. I do not like the look of the writing space. It is a black background with white lettering and it just seems like there is script all over the place. At first, it was hard for me to follow conversations. It is easy to get mixed up and lose track of who is talking. I like the bright backgrounds that other chatting places have. It makes it simple and easy to enjoy. I found myself not even being able to talk so much when I was in the Lambdamoo chat rooms because I was spending so much time trying to get the hang of following what other people were saying. I was also pretty disappointed with the topic of conversations I saw going on. They really weren't any different than most other chatting experiences. The first thing that happened to me in two chat rooms when they found out I was a girl was to ask me personal questions about appearances and breast size. Then "guys" would say things like," I really hope you like me," etc. And in the one chat room I went in that actually had more than two people in it, all the people were talking about was sex and boobs. It pretty much turned me off. It just seemed like all the other lame chatting experiences I have had.
During this visit, I went to the closet, living room, kitchen, kitchen balcony, outside near the street, and the bathroom. All of the rooms were very empty, only having two people in them at the most, except for the living room. This room had six people in it. Again, all talking about sex. So, I really found the whole experience very disapointing. It seems as though this kind of experience is not enjoyed as much as other chatting places like AOL, etc. I just know that when I have gone to chat rooms through AOL there are always tons of people and in Lambdamoo, I ran across about 12 people total.
Another thing I like about other chatting experiences is that you can pick rooms of interest. For instance there are mountain climbing rooms, dating rooms, cooking rooms, etc. So if you have an interest and want to talk to others that share your interest you can enter those rooms. In Lambdamoo, you can only pick by actual rooms, living room, bathroom, etc. and you never know what those either people will be in to.
Again, I am not a online chatter, so I really don't like any of the services available, but I would say that Lambdamoo is not better or worse than the rest overall. All of the services have their good points and bad. If they all combined their strengths, then maybe I would like to chat online...who knows?

Response to the Last Chapters of Interface Culture

2005-05-12T10:53:00.000-07:00

I would have to say that the first chapter of our reading was a little hard for me to read. It was the chapter titled "text". I thought that this chapter had some good preliminary points, such as the author's remembrance of his beginning hesitation to typing on the computer. I also used to avoid doing any of my writing on the computer. I don't know why I shied away from it so much, but I definitely preferred to do a rough draft on paper and then type it into the computer. But now I am like Johnson in the fact that I couldn't imagine writing a paper without a computer. It seems so prehistoric that people would write anything lengthy on paper. I haven't used cursive writing, except to sign my name, in so long. I don't even remember the last time I wrote anything significant in script. I don't really even know why people still learn to do it. However, this section was about the only section in the chapter that I found to be really worthwhile. Many other topics Johnson hit upon seemed interesting, but irrelevant really. The whole chapter talked about the uprising of text, computers being used as literary tools, such as pattern recognition, being able to "show" the computer a document and have it being back others like it or containing similar content, and "views". Now I am not very computer literate. Outside of Word Processing, Excel, Powerpoint, Solitaire, checking my E-mail, surfing the web a little, and checking my bank account, I don't know much about computers. However, most of the things mentioned above, such as Views, the uprising of text, etc. I haven't seen much use of. I mean, most of those things I haven't seen at all. And if I am way off and they are used all the time, then I stand corrected and I would hope someone would set me straight, but as of now, I really don't see the point in writing about such theories and ideas. Though maybe it just hasn't;t been enough time, and maybe these things will come to flourish in years to come. Maybe Johnson can see things coming a mile away that I have no knowledge of, this could all be true. The uses of text he mentions in his writings, such as; Word documents, pull down menus, files, etc. seem to be the only real uses of text that I see. But maybe I am naive.
I really did enjoy the chapter on agents. I thought it was really enlightening to realize that so many prompts that pop up on my computer telling me to do stuff, or asking if I want the computer to do stuff for me, actually have a name. I never even thought of all these as one category. I just thought they were helpful, independent, prompts, which I guess in a sense they are. But I didn't know they all fell under an umbrella of a category. I found this interesting. So, my question would then be, "is the junk mail I receive everyday on my e-mail considered "push" agents?" I also thought the idea of Firefly was really cool. It doesn't sound like something I would participate in, but I see how it could really change the music industry. I don't see myself sitting down for hours, sifting through music and basically doing a survey for the type of music I like, but I do see many other people doing it. I know that some people are really serious about music. So I definitely see that the idea of Firefly could bring forth some "unknown" artists who really have the talent, but maybe not the "star" appeal that big music produces are looking for. Now days it seems that so much music isn't even music. It is just good looking people singing in mediocre voices and then being transformed through sound boards. I really don't respect a lot of artists now days. I think Firefly would be able to being forth some people that really do have the talent, but maybe not the "look". It seems it would give all artists a "fair shot". But then I see how many other people would think this is a horrible idea. The end of the book just really wraps up everything the author has been trying to get through to the reader. In his section on "Mainstream Vs. Avant Guarde", I agree with him when he says that pretty much art will always have it's critics. That is true of most things but especially of art. This is because art is an expression. It is a showing of feelings, thoughts, emotions, etc. in a way that the artist views it. Others may connect with the piece and still others may hate it. You will never have everyone on your side. That is why I like to idea of being able to customize things just the way you want them. Basically, I think that forms of interface will be continually changing. That is just the way our world is. Our people now are so fast paced, no one has time to slow down. It is always go, go, go and keep changing. If things are not changing and "improving", they are seen as failures. Computers will keep changing and so will technology as a whole. I can't even imagine the heights technology will reach in the next, even three years. I bought my computer, brand new, pretty top of the line, and three months later it was "out of program" because it was outdated. So, with this rate of change, I believe Interfaces will change right along with everything else. Johnson may even be surprised with where this idea ends up going.

Website Not For Me

2005-05-11T14:17:00.000-07:00

I tried to think about something that would definitely not be for me and so I decided to check out some sites related to science fiction and fantasy. I don't really know why, but I do not like these two genres of anything!! I don't like the art, movies, music, games, etc. I really try to stay away from it. I would say the only fantasy/sci-fi movie I have ever liked was the Lord of the Ring series. The only one!!! So, I typed "fantasy" into Google and found a particular site. This site is called "Elfwood". Just the name turns me off right away. This is the reason I chose to visit this site.
It was all I expected it to be and more. It was a really dark site first of all. The backgrounds, and sidebars are either black or dark gray. Also, the Home Page has a huge picture of a fairy on it. Yuck! So, when I clicked into the site, it just really turned me away. First of all, there are all these rules. It seems that for some reason, most of anything that deals in the realm of fantasy is like a club. I won't say a cult, I will say club. You have to be a "member" and you have to follow rules. You have to act a certain way. It has always seemed so strange to me. It is like people are pretending to be other people. Which I guess is why it is called fantasy. So, I couldn't delve too far into this site because I didn't want to become a member, but I think I really saw enough to know that this site was not designed with me in mind. Although, to be fair, a fantasy site could not be designed in any way that would please me.
Then on this site there was tons of fantasy art...Again,not a big fan. There were also lots of stories people had written. There are also a lot of made up names for different places. They said about about "Lothorian" rules and such. So anyway, this site was definitely not for me. Though I will say that for people interested in Fantasy, I think this would be a good site to visit. It seems well made, just not for me.
The URL of this site is http://elfwood.lysator.liu.se/elfwood.pike?8193.

Response to pgs 1-135 of text

2005-05-10T21:17:00.000-07:00

Now I don't really know exactly how long this is supposed to be or what we are supposed to cover in our write up. I just know that these chapters covered a lot of information and I don't even really know where to start. So I will begin by saying that I am not great with technology and I am one of those people that really doesn't care to be. I know what I need to know to function in this increasing technology age and that's about it. So, these chapters actually made me see things in a slightly different way. And also I have to say that in some areas I may have a different opinion than the author because I am not so fascinated with technology. So, I think I will give my reactions one by one and just touch a little on each part of our readings.
* First I will make the comment that after I read a little, I totally understood where this author was coming from when he said that technology and culture are fused together. I also thought of them as separate and very different. But when I stopped to think about it, I realized that both "types" of people are creative people and people who think outside of the box. They both see things in different ways than most people and want to express what they see and express themselves. Both "artists" and "engineers" revolutionize our world and have the ability to change the way people view things and the way people think.
* I just wanted to make the comment that I have complete respect for the "thinkers" and "inventors" of today, but I am really in awe of those "thinkers" and "inventors" that lived long ago. People like Simonides, for example. People a long time ago didn't have all this advanced technology. They didn't have previous research and findings to read about. They basically started from scratch. And to be able to make the leaps and bounds that they did with little to nothing to go off of really amazes me. I was stunned by what Simonides did with the rooms. How did he know how effective that would prove to be? Did he know? I am sure he didn't really know that people remember best from sight and pictures. Yet, what he did was the start of what has come now.
* One quick note would be that, as I said before, I am not a technical person, and although I worked at Circuit City for five years, I really didn't learn much about how computers work. I really had no idea that what we see comes from a series of coding and using zeros and ones. That really amazed me. It just really amazed me that someone would be able to think of a computer and make it work. It is amazing what people can do.
* Going back to the integration of art and technology, I just wanted to say that it is neat to witness the change in purpose of computers. I feel that computers are not so much thought of as data machines anymore. Their sole purpose is not to word process or draw. Computers are now thought of almost as blank canvases, waiting for some artist to come and sketch on it. I can see how computer programmers can also be thought of as artists.
* I felt that it was very interesting that this portion of reading mentioned that direct manipulation was kind of a double edged sword. On the one hand, it made tasks very easy and it made the operator feel as if he/she was making their actions happen. On the other hand, this simplification simply pulls the operator further from their information. I think if people knew more about how computers worked, there wouldn't be so much fear. Technology wouldn't be so resisted if people knew how it worked. However, would people really take the time learn? Mostly not.
* One thing I wanted to add about how this book is written, is that I really like how the author presents the topic, explains it in an overview, compares it to something the reader might be able to connect with, and then tells not only the pros, but the cons of the topic. I feel it is very fair, and though you can tell the author's bias on some issues, tends to be neutral for the most part.
* I found it to be a little redundant that even in the times of Dickens and Zola, people were complaining about technology taking jobs away from humans. Obviously, there isn't too much to worry about. There will always be jobs that computers and technology cannot do. And I think we all learned from "I Robot" that having so many robots around isn't such a good idea.
* This book made me ask myself a question..."are we in a transition period in our time?" "Are we always in a transition period in this day and age?" The part about the bad radio shows really only being used on the radio because they were waiting for a different medium and TV had not come yet made me wonder what is left to come. I can't fathom anything too much better than a TV, but I am sure something will come. With all this push on "bettering our country" and "being the best and most high tech country", it just mad me wonder if we are ever in a time when we are not transitioning to something else.
* I never really thought about the fact that the way our buildings have been constructed on what was once empty land is political. But it makes sense to me now. It is the same with dataspace. The way dataspace is set up on the empty lot of cyberspace is also political. I guess that how most things are set up, run, and maintained are political. I was never too much in to politics, but I am sensing that I better get a little more into it if I want to make any kind of contribution to this world.
* I just want to say that I loved the idea of Bob. I think the author of this book over-analyzed the negatives of Bob. For some, like me, we don't always want to push to delve deeper into cyberspace. I would love my computer to be set up like a living room. I am so into interior design that this would fit me perfectly. I think I would actually want to come to my computer more. I wouldn't think of it soley as a place I go to do my homework or check my e-mail.
* There is so much I could say about these chapters. However, just one comment I want to make about the view point of the author. The author seems to push the fact that computers are a great way to bring people together and get them to communicate with eachother. However, I am almost totally opposed to talking to people via IM. I feel that you don't know who you are really talking to and many people lie. I also felt that it should not be pushed that people conduct their social lives through the computer. This is the reason I don't really like the Palace. You take on other figures and forms to talk to people. Should we really encourage people to interact with others, not as themselves? I think this just helps the socially inept to continue to be so. It doesn't force them out of their comfort zones. I don't think it is healthy. And I also don't think it is always safe. This book said something about it lets people get together like they did during the Revolution, but without all the gore. But many people are endangered through talking to others on the computer. It is not so safe, especially for younger children. There are people that prey on others through cyberspace.
* I actually think that the interface changes for gamers has been good in bringing people of like interests together. I know that even television used games like X Box have made things like X Box Live which enables players to talk to eachother via headphones. I think this communication is good because it isn't serious. It isn't private or personal. It is just people talking about their love of video games.
* I wanted to say that I think the Magic Windows sounds pretty cool, but I think it is just another gadget that people would buy on impulse because it seems very revolutionary and different. However, like most impulse buys, I think it is a gadget that many could live without.
* Again, I like how this author uses outside sources to help the reader connect. When the author compares links to Dickens' books, it really helped to understand what was going on a little better. These comparisons get me to the "aha" stage where I finally understand just what the author is talking about. Otherwise, all the ideas are new to me and it is hard for me to retain them because I have no prior experience to reinforce the learning.
* This kind of leads into what Bush said about trails. He didn't feel it was as important to categorize information as it was to make connections with the information. Making connections is something that is drilled into us in the undergraduate education program. It is so much better for people to be able to critically think and retain information for the long haul rather than know it for the "immediate time" and then dispose of it. Memex seems great to me.

Interface Defintion

2005-05-09T11:38:00.000-07:00

Main Entry: 1in·ter·face

Pronunciation: 'in-t&r-"fAsFunction: noun1 : a surface forming a common boundary of two bodies, spaces, or phases
2 a : the place at which independent and often unrelated systems meet and act on or communicate with each other
b : the means by which interaction or communication is achieved at an interface- in·ter·fa·cial /"in-t&r-'fA-sh&l/ adjective

Computer Science Interface
1.)The point of interaction or communication between a computer and any other entity, such as a printer or human operator.
2.)The layout of an application's graphic or textual controls in conjunction with the way the application responds to user activity: an interface whose icons were hard to remember.

What Is an Interface?
In general, an interface is a device or a system that unrelated entities use to interact. According to this definition, a remote control is an interface between you and a television set, the English language is an interface between two people, and the protocol of behavior enforced in the military is the interface between people of different ranks.
Within the Java programming language, an interface is a type, just as a class is a type. Like a class, an interface defines methods. Unlike a class, an interface never implements methods; instead, classes that implement the interface implement the methods defined by the interface. A class can implement multiple interfaces.
The bicycle class and its class hierarchy define what a bicycle can and cannot do in terms of its "bicycleness." But bicycles interact with the world on other terms. For example, a bicycle in a store could be managed by an inventory program. An inventory program doesn’t care what class of items it manages, as long as each item provides certain information, such as price and tracking number. Instead of forcing class relationships on otherwise unrelated items, the inventory program sets up a protocol of communication. This protocol comes in the form of a set of method definitions contained within an interface. The inventory interface would define, but not implement, methods that set and get the retail price, assign a tracking number, and so on.
To work in the inventory program, the bicycle class must agree to this protocol by implementing the interface. When a class implements an interface, the class agrees to implement all the methods defined in the interface. Thus, the bicycle class would provide the implementations for the methods that set and get retail price, assign a tracking number, and so on.
You use an interface to define a protocol of behavior that can be implemented by any class anywhere in the class hierarchy. Interfaces are useful for the following:
Capturing similarities among unrelated classes without artificially forcing a class relationship
Declaring methods that one or more classes are expected to implement
Revealing an object's programming interface without revealing its class
Modelling multiple inheritance, a feature that some object-oriented languages support that allows a class to have more than one superclass

Defining an Interface
The figure below shows that an interface definition has two components: the interface declaration and the interface body. The interface declaration declares various attributes about the interface, such as its name and whether it extends other interfaces. The interface body contains the constant and the method declarations for that interface.

Interface

in•ter•facePronunciation: (—n.in'tur-fās";—v.in'tur-fās", in"tur-fās'), [key] —n., v., -faced, -fac•ing. —n.

1. a surface regarded as the common boundary of two bodies, spaces, or phases.

2. the facts, problems, considerations, theories, practices, etc., shared by two or more disciplines, procedures, or fields of study: the interface between chemistry and physics.

3. a common boundary or interconnection between systems, equipment, concepts, or human beings.

4. communication or interaction: Interface between the parent company and its subsidiaries has never been better.

5. a thing or circumstance that enables separate and sometimes incompatible elements to coordinate effectively: The organization serves as an interface between the state government and the public.

6. Computers. a. equipment or programs designed to communicate information from one system of computing devices or programs to another. b. any arrangement for such communication.

About Me

2005-05-09T11:20:00.000-07:00

My name is Jessica Whiston. I live in an apartment with my three cats. I am in training to become "the old crazy cat lady". I am in the Undergraduate Education program here at WSUV. I have one more year to go and then I will be certified to teach children K-8th grade. I am here in the summer because my program is a two year program and it goes all throughout the summer as well. We only have three weeks off at the end of summer. So, I am taking three other classes this summer as well. I needed a Capstone class and I had the choice of taking it in the Fall where it was positioned in my program or taking it now. In the Fall we are taking 18 credits plus students teaching 12 hours a week. So I decided to cut my fall schedule down to 15 credits and do it in the summer when I will have a little more time. I also figured it would be better to just do the six week course and get it done with. It kind of sucks only having a two day break in between semesters though. :) I guess that's all.