Name: Eliza Purves s3721317
I declare that in submitting all work for this assessment I have read, understood and agree to the content and expectations of the assessment declaration – https://www.rmit.edu.au/students/support-and-facilities/student-support/equitable-learning-services
Blog reflections
WEEK 1 – https://www.mediafactory.org.au/elizapurves/2020/03/16/networked-media-week-1/
WEEK 2 – https://www.mediafactory.org.au/elizapurves/2020/03/16/networked-media-week-2/
WEEK 3 – https://www.mediafactory.org.au/elizapurves/2020/03/20/networked-media-week-3/
WEEK 4 – https://www.mediafactory.org.au/elizapurves/2020/03/27/networked-media-week-4/
Annotated Bibliography
Selected text 1 – Affordances (word count 533 )
Reference: Norman, D 1998, ‘The design of everyday things ‘, Basic Book, New York (Sections: Preface vii-xv; Chapter one pp 1-13; Chapter 4 (constraints) pp 81-87; (computers) pp 177-186).
This text explores how the design of everyday things serves as a level of intended communication between the object and its user. It discusses how good design is used to optimise communication and allows the experience of using an object to be easy and enjoyable. As well as this, the text also explains how bad design can hinder the communication of the purpose of an object, create frustrations for the user and cause a technically unusable item. The text does this by breaking down several elements that make up the process of communicating through design and providing everyday examples to clarify those complex topics.
One of the main design elements discussed by the text is affordances. An affordance is said to be the perceived and actual properties of a thing that determine how it could be used. The text believes good use of affordances is when a user knows what to do with an object just by looking. It explains this through an example of door hardware, a good design of door hardware should signify whether to push or pull despite not directly saying so. When you see a handle, you know to pull and when you see a bar, you know to push. On the opposite side, another design element brought up in the text is constraints. A good use of constraints makes it impossible for an object to be used any other way than intended. This could involve only allowing an item to fit in or be inserted in a certain way like a battery pack, puzzle or memory card. When there is effective use and balance of affordances and constraints in a design, a conceptual model can be formed. A good conceptual model allows the user to mentally stimulate and predict the action of an object just by looking at. Without the foundations of a good conceptual model, we can only use an object as we are told to and cannot develop a deep understanding as to how and why this object functions the way it does, which can lead to further operations issues. An example displayed in the text of a good conceptual model is scissors. Due to the object’s affordances and constraints, the number of possible uses is already limited and thus it is easier to understand what its use is. The holes act as affordances as they allow fingers to be inserted whereas the size of the holes provide constraints as they limit which fingers are meant to go where. As well as this, even if the wrong fingers are used somehow, the object is still able to function and is not sensitive to such small details. This is a pure example of what the text believes is good design.
In retrospect, this reading and its foolproof explanation of design principles and affordances particularly, helps to shape the entire course prompt. Without a solid understanding of affordances, the psychology behind them and how they apply to several situations and objects it would be impossible to accurately answer the prompt. This text has given me the confidence to tackle the concept of affordances as this course progresses and be able to apply this knowledge to Instagram for my final report.
Selected text 2 – The Network (word count 590)
Reference: Lister, M et al 2009, New Media: A Critical Introduction, 2nd edn, Routledge, New York. (Sections: Networks, Users and Economics pp 163-169; Wiki Worlds and Web 2.0 pp 204-209; The Long Tail pp 197-200; User-generated content, we are all users now pp 221-232.)
This text breaks down the shift that occurred on the internet across the 21st century that saw the development of web 2.0 and a more decentralised and participatory online culture. Whilst discussing this, it also delves into how and why this shift occurred, the impact it caused to other media technologies and the new trends that were set in media consumption. Particularly, one point frequently brought up in the text, is the formation and role of a new active consumer, or what one could also say is a creator. The text presents a balanced argument of the roles of the audience and typical media producers and how they overlap on the newfound web 2.0 and push for overall advancement.
Throughout the text, the discussion is always brought back to the role of the active consumer of the network, and how they have encouraged this evolution of how media is produced, promoted and purchased. One way this was explained in the text is through an analysis of user-generated content, and in particular, the utilisation of this by fan cultures. The text presents an idea of fan cultures having spearheaded the construction of the shift from audience to user in media by being one of the first groups to take advantage of the mass power of the internet and media specifically. This was seen by the growth of transmediality within these cultures, and how their repurposing of different images, ideas and narratives encouraged and demanded greater participation and spectatorship from both the consumers and original media producers. As these new active communities developed and were embraced by media professionals, how media was marketed and advertised also altered into ways that fostered two-way communication and participation. The aim of advertising online switched from harnessing the greatest quantity to quality, and cultivating engagement through the use of social media, bloggers and forums became key. Media organisations identified that smaller but highly engaged audiences could generate a similar amount of revenue and talk as previous larger audiences could. Another way this idea is suggested within the text is through the conversation on the Long Tail Theory, developed by Chris Anderson. Anderson provided evidence as to how greater revenue and traction can be acquired through the use of digital media technologies, particularly because of how social media sites like YouTube and Instagram allow a message to become widespread and easy to find whilst keeping the cost of production fairly small. This again, is said to be because of the participatory nature of these sites and how the barrier between producer and consumer is broken down and thus presents the foundations of web 2.0.
The findings in this text provide a detailed description of how media is produced, promoted and purchased throughout the history and continuous development of web 2.0. It does this by breaking down this new active user and discussing their role in the network’s evolution. By always bringing this discussion back to the forefront, it allows for an interrelationship to be built between the concepts and helps the reader to identify and apply the key changes that helped form this participatory internet culture. This will prove useful as I move forward to answering the course prompt as all key points in the prompt were introduced in some form over the text and when put together you can see how they work together to make the network. By following this process, I was able to grasp the context of the ways online media can be authored, published and distributed across multiple media platforms on web 2.0.
Selected text 3 – Social Media (word count 531)
Reference: Chun, W.H.K 2016, Updating to Remain the Same: Habitual New Media, MIT Press, Massachusetts, United States (Sections: ‘Introduction: Habitual New Media, or Updating to Remain (Close to) the Same’, pp. 1-20.)
This text analyses the ability of new media to change and adapt to the evolving landscape of the network. This is done by discussing certain influencing factors, that when considered together have the potential to cause shifts in human behaviour on the network and thus initiate change in how the network has to function to survive. The text concludes this theory by expressing the interrelationship of these factors as habit + crisis = update.
To fully explain the concept of habit + crisis = update, the text initially breaks down each concept and how they interrelate with one another to form this process. Habit is explained to be a human-made sense of stability existing based on past repetitions that lead into the future. With the network in consideration, it is discussed how habits have a link to addiction. This is because habit is a behavioural loop provoked by a cue and reward action, so once a habit is formed the mind anticipates a reward and creates a craving for that. On the opposite spectrum, a crisis is said by the text to be the exception of the norm, where information and behaviours are interrupted. The text argues that it is because of the stability aspect of habits and the disruptive nature of a crisis, that when they correlate, change can be made. This is because without stability, the human mind is not able to express creatively, and without disruption, humans cannot value what they’re used to. A habit can no longer be a habit nor can a crisis alone, be a typical crisis. With all of this considered, the text explains how new media has an aim to constantly find the balance between the change caused by the crisis and habit dynamic, due to reactions from the user. When an update does occur in new media, the results vary from a life and death of the media extremity and users will either be gravitated to the site or completely steered away, due to the degree of a change. The same theory goes for new media that never updates itself, in the eyes of a user they become uncared for and boring. Leading from this, the text also references how all these changes occur because of the user and creates the analogy, N (YOU) media, discussing how the network has shifted its focus and function onto YOU. The text believes the cause of network change is because it is forever trying to keep up with YOU, and the perception and opinions of new media from that viewpoint.
This texts discussion of change within the network and towards new media will prove beneficial whilst advancing in this course as it provides a different perspective to how social media is typically discussed. From my understanding of this text, it tends to explain topics more from the back end of new media and almost provides a behind the scenes insight into the functionings of the network. All of this information can relate back to social media as well and it is clear to me how these concepts link into certain elements of Instagram from a user’s perspective, which will help in answering the course prompt.