What makes interactive media interesting?
What makes interactive media interesting to me is first and foremost the designing of applications, interfaces with the user in mind. To create interesting, usable designs that the user is able to manage in the smoothest possible way and also leads to positive user-experiences. In attaining this combining content in a manner which also best supports the goals of the application and the organisation behind it, aswell with the possibility to take part of the content in many various perspectives are what makes it interesting to me.
What is interaction in regard to consciousness?
Anytime the user takes action with the design and the design reacts interactivity occurs. Whether the user is more conscious or not in the actions it is still interactions. When a person watches movie or listen to music she is interacting in a more internal fashion. The reaction takes place after some time - for example when the song ends, the listener changes song according to mood created in the first song, or next time she chooses a movie the one before has taken a grip on her and makes her interact and grab a new movie with the one before in mind. The hard part is to decide if it's interactivity or not. Whatsoever reactions that are more instant, for example clicking on an interface on a web page or mobile phone, with the user more consicous in the descision is more manageble to understand in motives and purpose.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Distance collaboration
The collaboration on distance was a bit of a new experience for me. I'm used to working in groups where we have to meet in real life and where the bus ride takes longer time than the actual meeting. Creating a conference call worked out good after some chat. The chat function is a very good addition whenever some words miss out or one are about to make a connection on phone and wants to make sure everyone is logged in.
Google docs was fun to work in and see how the group members put in information at the same time. Sometimes it wasn't possible to edit and a popup alert box appeared. Had to write the same information again. We concluded that it would be best to update in an own document and cut and paste to the live doc for best work flow with less misstakes.
Google docs was fun to work in and see how the group members put in information at the same time. Sometimes it wasn't possible to edit and a popup alert box appeared. Had to write the same information again. We concluded that it would be best to update in an own document and cut and paste to the live doc for best work flow with less misstakes.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Weapons of mass collaboration
Wikinomics
Tapscott & Williams (2008)
Chapter 1
It's provoking to read about critics (for example Bill Gates) to Wikinomics - with its focus on sharing intellectual property - that it's closely related to communism and thus prevents companies from making a profit. Other critics point out that wikinomics like Myspace, Wikipedia, Flickr, Youtube etc exploits unpaid volunteers.
The concept of sharing and collaborating, working together with the shared result as the core and not to put the individual person in center makes me relate to Eastern vs. Western perspective on a person in the community. The Eastern way has been to put the individual in the backseat and let the shared effort of many be in center, whereas the Western "philosophy" has been to put the individual in focus and not the community. The concept of wikinomics flips the whole perspective for the Western world and scares the hell out of CEO's in it for the money.
The truth is that the majority of those who participate in peer production creating these wikinomics is in it for other reasons than making a monetary profit. At least not in short terms. We are first and foremost profiting by expanding network and spreading the knowledge. A lot of participators find it as mere fun to be part of a great product and profits from a richer web. In the long run participating is for many, an entry gate to upcoming careers.
Instead of closed companies who hold on to all information secretly, companies and organisations who open up becomes enriched of employees and customers who feel more trust in these organisations. This trust lowers costs, stimulates innovation and creates loyalty. As the authors point out, as an answer to critics, contributing to the commons is often the best way to build vibrant business ecosystems that harness a shared foundation of technology and knowledge to accelerate growth and innovation.
Tapscott & Williams (2008)
Chapter 1
It's provoking to read about critics (for example Bill Gates) to Wikinomics - with its focus on sharing intellectual property - that it's closely related to communism and thus prevents companies from making a profit. Other critics point out that wikinomics like Myspace, Wikipedia, Flickr, Youtube etc exploits unpaid volunteers.
The concept of sharing and collaborating, working together with the shared result as the core and not to put the individual person in center makes me relate to Eastern vs. Western perspective on a person in the community. The Eastern way has been to put the individual in the backseat and let the shared effort of many be in center, whereas the Western "philosophy" has been to put the individual in focus and not the community. The concept of wikinomics flips the whole perspective for the Western world and scares the hell out of CEO's in it for the money.
The truth is that the majority of those who participate in peer production creating these wikinomics is in it for other reasons than making a monetary profit. At least not in short terms. We are first and foremost profiting by expanding network and spreading the knowledge. A lot of participators find it as mere fun to be part of a great product and profits from a richer web. In the long run participating is for many, an entry gate to upcoming careers.
Instead of closed companies who hold on to all information secretly, companies and organisations who open up becomes enriched of employees and customers who feel more trust in these organisations. This trust lowers costs, stimulates innovation and creates loyalty. As the authors point out, as an answer to critics, contributing to the commons is often the best way to build vibrant business ecosystems that harness a shared foundation of technology and knowledge to accelerate growth and innovation.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Critic against critics
New Media in Late 20th-Century Art
Michael Rush
Chapter 1 & 9
The chapters title is "Digital art". Interactive art, which in the book refers to art on the web, and computer-based art that requires viewers participation to be complete is a pretty new art form. A young art form especially when compared to paintings and sculptures. The art form have been crititisized that it lacks the depth of interest and is superficial in its trickery.
The American photography critic A. D. Coleman reacted to what he saw at the International Festival of the Image 1993 in New York as too many buttons to push which resulted in to much sounds, flickers and changes. This kind of critic is part of peoples fear of new things out of their control. Interactive art is a glimpse into the future where the artists uses the technology with playfullnes and fearlessly alter forms and lets the user be a participated creator. To be a critic of Interactive Art is to be a brake pad of upcoming technological enhancements.
Michael Rush
Chapter 1 & 9
The chapters title is "Digital art". Interactive art, which in the book refers to art on the web, and computer-based art that requires viewers participation to be complete is a pretty new art form. A young art form especially when compared to paintings and sculptures. The art form have been crititisized that it lacks the depth of interest and is superficial in its trickery.
The American photography critic A. D. Coleman reacted to what he saw at the International Festival of the Image 1993 in New York as too many buttons to push which resulted in to much sounds, flickers and changes. This kind of critic is part of peoples fear of new things out of their control. Interactive art is a glimpse into the future where the artists uses the technology with playfullnes and fearlessly alter forms and lets the user be a participated creator. To be a critic of Interactive Art is to be a brake pad of upcoming technological enhancements.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)