Yo.

So last week we discussed how monetised and restriced Web 1.0, which lead onto the free and creative Web 2.0. But now let’s discuss how the internet is taking control of our lives and how machines will overthrow us in the future; that is Web 3.0.

Web 3.0 is an evolving concept, almost like how Artificial Intelligence (A.I.) is constantly intaking new knowledge that we give them and growing from it. This concept is very similar to Cookies. Have you ever messaged a friend about how much you’re craving KFC? And the very next day your damn Facebook feed is flooded with KFC advertisements? That is 3.0. When you sign up to several social media platforms, in the terms and conditions therein states that social media platforms are allowed to sell your information to third-parties for profit. Heck, even Google tracks where you go on Google Maps if you’re a driver then suggests routes closer to restaurants/petrol stations. It’s true, check the Google terms and conditions about location services.

But how does this relate to you? Well. I’ll let Eugene Siapera explain it from ‘Understanding New Media’; “The new element that points to a significant change in the media is that they are the result of a convergence between the computational logic characteristic of the computers and the communicative logic characteristic of the media (p. 5).” Simply put, we are able to spread information so much faster, as opposed to antiquated forms of print publications or via telegrams. You will be able to get the short story that someone was murdered off someone’s Facebook status, but logically you’ll get the interviews and full lab report off online publications or off Channel 7 news.

It’s important to denote that we humans partake in New Media. It not not A.I., aliens from the beyond, or ghosts on the computer. It us us humans. As any form of media represents the society’s culture at the time, our current culture could pertain to profiting off each other and continuing the plight of capitalism.

(I didn’t promise not to get political).

References;

Siapera, Eugene. Understanding New Media. SAGE Publications, London 2013.(pp.1-16 )

Hey.

So, this week we focused on a lot of things. The idea of ‘Network Literacy’, Web 2.0, and the idea that the web and the internet are different.

What.

Let me start from the start.

We discussed how our generation could be considered ‘Network Literate’, which put simply means having peer understanding of the codes and conventions of using the internet. Almost like being being literate in university and understanding that using “&” is lazy, using simple grammar and referencing properly. My man Adrian Miles further elaborates on this in ‘Soft Cinematic Hypertext (Other Literacies) by writing that, “The most basic quality of network literacy is recognising that content and its containers… are distributed across the network, and that we weave these together very easily using simple protocols that were developed to allow ‘inter’ and ‘intra’ communication” (p. 203).

It’s crucial to note that it’s almost like a “common sense” factor, the internet has been developed over time to keep the interface simple to use across all demographics, depending where you are exploring. If a user delves into a website which requires binary code knowledge, then of course there will be confusion. But, everybody knows how to use Youtube and Facebook (hopefully).

Now, Web 2.0 segues into this nicely. Remember back in the day with the dial-up modems and how your mum would stop the internet with the overseas family calls? That’s Web 1.0 (just wait and see where i’m going with this). Web 1.0 contained a set formula of websites users could access for different uses. If they needed quick information, they would access Britannica Online, if they wanted to blog they would have to make their own personal website. This form of internet became quickly very exclusive and required a higher learning curve for users to use. Then came the glorious Web 2.0, with its Wikipedia’s, and BitTorrent’s and wiki’s. The interface allowed millennials and Gen Xs to shitpost all to their liking.

Martin Lister explands on this in ‘New Media: A Critical Introduction’ by stating that, “The O’Reilly Web 2.0 manifesto can be read as a sharp abstraction of the net based communication practices taking off at the time of its conception. The success of SNS, blogging and Wikipedia all provided the evidential context for the Web 2.0 proposition (p. 206).” Basically, users were able to understand Web 2.0 much easier as the perceived affordances (going back to last week) had been overcome.

Which feeds into what is the web and the internet.

Essentially, the internet is the “all over” service, it’s the Facebook’s and the Youtube’s. Whereas the web is the code and system that is imbedded into the internet, it is the XML, the RSS’ and the HTML in each website.

And I can’t think of anything else more to write.

Bye

References;

Lister, Martin, et al. New Media: A Critical Introduction. Routledge, 2009.(Networks, Users and Economics 163-169/ Wiki Worlds and Web 2.0 204-209/The Long Tail 197-200/User-generated content, we are all users now 221-232)

Miles, Adrian. Soft Cinematic Hypertext (Other Literacies). RMIT University, 2012. (Network Literacy: The New Path to Knowledge 201-208)

Contiining on from last weeks question;

‘How do the affordances of Instagram affect the way photos and videos are authored, published and distributed in the network?’

The long answer is any designer who designs any object must anticipate the different uses their object will have. For example, the Hitachi Magic Wand was designed with massaging peoples head and feet in mind. Little did Hitachi know, people would be using their object for masturbation (nasty ass). Alas, each object has constraints which they cant achieve; for example, the Hitachi Magic Wand couldn’t possibly be used as a substitute for a food mixer.

Norman D. wrote in ‘ The design of everyday things’ that, “When we encounter a novel object, how can we tell what to do with it? Either we have dealt with something similar in the past and transfer old knowledge to the new object, or we obtain instruction” (p. 82). He also previously mentions the idea of “communication” in designing objects, so users can understand how to use it (preface, x). This is extremely prevalent with any everyday item, the user must understand how to use it immediately when interacting with the item, otherwise it’s prime use has the designer.

Albeit, the designer must understand each item they design could possibly have constraints on the user and the environment. Norman D. continues his theory of constraints in ‘Affordance, conventions and design (Part 2)’, by grouping them into four categories:

• Physical – Physical constraints are closely related to affordances, as in objects are to be used in the realm of their abilities. For example, we cannot change the shape of a video game controller, or are we able to move our game character off screen.
• Logical – Logical constraints refer to the “common sense” of objects, they are made to be used reasonably and can be understood by all participants. As such, the X or A button on a game controller globally refers to the ‘go’ or ‘jump’ button. Whereas the O or B button wheres to the ‘stop’ button.
• Cultural – Cultural constrains are a set of ideologies shared by a cultural group, that is engrained in a certain group which is synonymously understood. For example, the left joystick button refers to movement of the character, whereas the right joystick button refers to camera movement.
• Semantic – Semantic constraints refer to the “language” of the object, be it literal or implied. Whereas the “start” on a game controller literally means start, while gaming on a desktop the “enter” button usually has that role.

It’s crucial for a designer to refer back to these constraints while designing an item, so that users can correctly interface with said objects, and can most important personalise them. Designers must be ready to adapt to societal change, and allow their objects to be used differently in the future. Norman D. concludes this by stating “Designers can invent new real and perceived affordances, but they cannot so readily change established social conventions. Know the difference and exploit that knowledge”.

References;

Norman, D 1998, The design of everyday things, Basic Book, New York (Sections: Preface vii-xv; Chapter one 1-13; Chapter 4 (constraints) 81-87; (computers) 177-186).

Norman, D 1999, Affordance, conventions and design (Part 2), Nielsen Norman
Group, viewed August 2018, http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/affordance_conv.html

So, Hi. This is the first week of Networked Media.

And this week we discussed the concept of ‘blogging’.

Admittedly, I’m not a huge “traditional blogger”. But that got me thinking, in this world of us millennials being so consumed by social media; could our Instagram, Facebook and Snapchat profiles could be considered some sort of new-age blogs? Adrian Miles did expand on this in this weeks reading, ‘BLOGS IN MEDIA EDUCATION: A Beginning’, he states that in a blog that posts are automatically archived by date, there are categories to each post, a typical blog has a name, as well other other blogs it follows, and it is supported by an optional commenting option, where other readers can leave their thoughts at the end of a post (p. 66).

This is almost indicative of how we use our personal social medias. We put up pictures/posts with captions, as well as tags as to where we are or what we are doing, other viewers can see who we follow/are our friends, we typically have a name/site name, and there is always a comment section where other users can engage with your post.

Miles also elaborates that “The use of blogs can also explore questions about online identity. As students write about themselves through their blogs, they develop an online persona which they control” (p. 69). This is especially prevalent from even the beginning of the Myspace days; users would create personalised profiles with themes that would match their own personal styles in real life. Especially because the average user at that time would’ve been under 21; this would’ve been a time of either pubescent or post-pubescent attitudes. Learning internet jargon with their peers, and assessing trends via online commenting.

For a content creator, I think it’s important to post some questions on how your online presence might be perceived. Or let me post as wider question, for a media maker;

How do the affordances of Instagram (or all social media) affect the way photos and videos are authored, published and distributed in the network?

To understand the question, one must understand what affordances are. Affordances pertain to the perceived uses of a specific item; as such, it could almost refer to any industry or aspect of life. For example, a tea kettle has a handle, which provides an obvious affordance for holding. When a media maker creates code for a social media platform, they must ascertain how users will utilise their platform and personalise it in their own way.

But more on that next week.

References;

Miles, Adrian. “Blogs in Media Education: A Beginning.” Australian Screen Ed 41 (2006): 66–9. Print.