An Ending That Fits

An Ending That Fits

By: Julia Weiss

“In flow” was a term I never thought I’d be using to define an appropriate location to publicize my digital media project.  As most of us know, if you are reading this, I created an online website tackling the issues of astrological fallacies (i.e. predictions of personalities via horoscopes).  My website represents a rhetorical situation; within it the three constituents: exigency, audience, and constraint (Bitzer, Lloyd. “The Rhetorical Situation.”). The exigency being the fact that society is being manipulated by false claims. The audience, being anyone that views my website, and takes an opinion to the subject, and the constraints being anything that gets in the way; whether it is lack of internet access or dislike of my writing style. I’ve been asked to place my projecting in a “fitting space” for its purpose, and I have found one.  The original medium of my project was already online; searchable by Google, but that itself is not enough to address a maximum amount of audience members.  So, I’ve decided that posting a sharable link to my website via Facebook would be the most appropriate action and most relevant location if I’m attempting to involve Web 2.0 participants.

Why Facebook and not an email list serve? I’ll tell you why. “People are happiest when they can reach a state of flow”, this was said in an article written by Dana Boyd addressing social media (Boyd, Danah. 2009).  My audience is anyone interested in astrological predictions, anyone who gives credibility where it is not deserved, and anyone who bases their life decisions on what their zodiac sign has been prophesized to do. I do not have a list of who these people are, but Facebook can show me who they might be. Facebook is home to an application known as Daily Horoscope, which is commonly used by many Facebook participants.  I am not surprised since we now live in an online world where there is no “hard Boundary” and a multiplicity of identities (Tim, O'Reilly. "What Is Web 2.0.") We have moved into a digital sphere based off of user participation.  The attitude has switched from I’ll find my own entertainment to entertain me, and this is why I have to bring the research to my audience instead of depending on them to find it themselves (Tim,O'Reilly. "What Is Web 2.0." ).  And Facebook’s Daily Horoscope application has just become another choice as to who people can give their attention too. This bothers me, because the claims those horoscopes make are false, and I wish to see to it that their viewers know that.

Social transformation has been among us, just as Alvin Toffler stated in 1980 (Williams, Kate. "Literacy and Computer Literacy”). We have been emerging as a network society, “organized around information and communications technology (Williams, Kate. ”Literacy and Computer Literacy”). Now, what makes the choice to publish my content online a good one, rather than publishing it through a poster series around campus; time and context. I have to adjust my message and delivery with the current culture and society.  Schools all over the U.S. have been wired and computers installed. Ultimately, every public library outlet in the US provides internet access to patrons, and browsing the web is easily learned at libraries (Williams, Kate. "Literacy and Computer Literacy”). This is why publishing my website online, and the posting it to Facebook is the most appropriate route for this day and age.  Facebook is currently home to over 483 million members users that are active daily (McCafferty,Dennis. "25 Facts About Facebook."). Chances are, one of them will see my share, and I’ll change a few minds about their daily horoscope.

 

Work Cited

Boyd, Danah. 2009. “Streamsof Content, Limited Attention: The Flow of Information through           SocialMedia.” Web 2.0. New York, NY: November 17.  

Bitzer, Lloyd. “TheRhetorical Situation.” Philosophy and Rhetoric. Volume 1.1968. pp. 1-14.

McCafferty, Dennis. "25 Facts About Facebook." Baseline.N.p., Aug.-Sept. 2012. Web. 10 Dec. 2012.

Tim, O'Reilly. "What Is Web 2.0." O'Reilly. Web2.0 Expo, 30 Oct. 2005. Web. 29 Nov. 2012.

Williams, Kate. "Literacy and Computer Literacy: Analyzingthe NRC's 'Being Fluent with Information Technology." Literacy andTechnology Spring 3.1 (2003): n. pag. Journal of LIteracy and Technology.Web.

Thoughts On Gamer Article AND UPDATED WEB 1.0 2.0 Article Response

     Well, out of all the articles I read, I found this one to poke at the curious side of me. The article Dream Machines by Will Wright spoke about the two views upon video games, and enlarged a perspective of interpretation. I really wanted to write about this piece because I actually disagree somewhat with what he's saying (to an extent). Don't get me wrong! I am a gamer, I do go to Michigan Technological University after all, it's kind of in the criteria. Beyond that, I enjoy video games, and I agree with him when he say's they are beneficial to an extent. He uses these positive aspects when referring to gaming: creativity, community, self esteem, and problem solving. The things I acknowledge and agree with is the fact that gaming brings out trial and error problem solving skills, which may promote patience or impatience. There's a paragraph in the article that I absolutely loved!

    "In an era of structured education and standardized testing, this generational difference might not yet be evident. But the gamers' mindset - the fact that they are learning in a totally new way - means they'll treat the world as a place for creation, not consumption."

     I like that thought, but is it really the case? What kind of consumption is he talking about? Does not reading the manual really mean they are going to be creators rather than consumers. To me, that seems like a little bit of a stretch. Not only that, but he also writes in the article "Games aren't just fantasy worlds to explore; they actually amplify our powers of imagination", and this is where I don't completely agree. Perhaps games amplify a certain part of our imagination, but that imagination is limited by the limits of the game; whereas using your imagination off the gaming chair is productive in ways that allow true creative expression that is original and not set off in a predetermined direction (such as a character in a game - on some heroic path). A child using there imagination outside, in the sun or even in the rain leaves no digital limits, and endless room for true creativity, with unlimited self expression, Gamers use the imagination of a consumer, rather than the imagination of a creator. So, ultimately they might treat the world as a place for creation, but only with a world of consumption.






_____________________________________________________________________________
So, I figured out that I wrote about the wrong article. Woops! Ok, so here are some of my thoughts on this whole Web 1.0 Web 2.0 thing. In particular web 2.0 and the learning style.



So, here we have this notion that web 1.0 was the traditional web, where information was available only to those who sought it out. Web 1.0 was centralized around a broadcast medium, I really enjoyed the example used in class where my teacher spoke about a broadcast medium being similar to someone using the bathroom and not really having a choice but to read the magazines set out for them. Web 1.0 has code pages, with a linear format of information. I feel like it was more about the content rather than the context of which it was presented.


And then we have web 2.0, where we unleash another world of user interaction. I feel that web 2.0 flourishes only by means of participation; thus making everything a competition for attention. This interactive dynamic with multiplicity of identities leaves an "entertain me" mindset, rather than let me find the entertainment I'm looking for. For example, people complain about pop-ups and advertisements, but really if you think about it. Isn't it advertisements that lead us to Facebook or even Myspace? In web 2.0 There is no hard boundary, of what your looking for and what you will find. Honestly you don't have to be looking for much of anything and you will probably find tons of  places to go. In this network medium we - the users have to choose what or who we give our attention too. This has lead to the increase of pop-ups, advertisements, and constant annoying attention grabbers that are typically motion focused instead of linear. With the societal identity through digital medium we are creating issues of culture and credibility.

The "do it yourself" notion like the article says, doesn't mean do it yourself anymore. Trial by error, is a problem solving learning method often featured in video games, but to be completely honest I feel like us switching over into an economy based off attention is not a good thing, It will leave us less humble and forgetting the real meaning behind do it yourself. Ultimately, we will lose the real meaning of independence, just take a look at a teenager who loses their phone.

Feedback for Peers!

Sarah:

Argument – To display an accurate representation of the vocal accordion group on campus/provide them publicity/self-identification (goal)

·        You should be interested in them (musical interest)  

·        Because: It’s fun, playful musical group

Strength – Artistically talented/ good communication between primary audience and self (For design) – great job testing the idea and getting votes/ easy to read

Develop – maybe along with this insignia develop a slogan as well! Like, an actual saying that the whole group (musical group) agrees on. Once you get the final draft of the written insignia, use Photoshop to create contrast and special effects. Make it bold make it classy make it memorable.

Charlie:

Argument— (goal) to display and inform what club indigo is, to get others involved with club indigo.

I believe the argument is to go to club indigo because there is food entertainment and social interaction.

Strength – solid self-identification of what Club Indigo is good direction and layout in format. I like how you provide a where to go for more information page.

Develop – more engaging slide designs (that will most likely come with more pictures), make your argument readily available earlier in the slide rather than later. Looks good! Keep movin’. (slow down slide movement)  

James :

Argument – (goal) to inform about online piracy)

Fail to understand what the argument is (I get the goal), but find a better way to create a clearer argument. My assumption of the argument is as follows:

Do not pirate online because there are dire consequences.

Strength – I really love the color contrast. It’s not too plain, not too bold. Good job drawing the viewers attention to the statistics with the color contrast!

Develop – Develop blank space on the bottom! Really interesting visual J also think about having border!

Casandra:

Argument – You should become involved in Greek Life in order to gain experience and leadership

Goal – to inform about Greek Life and its benefits

Strength – I like the different effect this digital media artifact hits. I like the way it leads from point (a) to point (b), the colors are good for contrast as well.

Develop – the transfer time was way too fast and I wasn’t able to read the information which caused a loss off attention and lack of learned information. Add some more graphics and make it glow. Remember to leave the conclusion with an impact! J Good Job.

Concerns For Final Project

Memorandum – Problems Concerns and Updates

So, here is my most up to date update on my first home-made digital media artifact. I figured the best way to organize my own thoughts and display my progress/in progress materials would be to put this blog pots into memorandum format so here goes! 

Memorandum

To:       HU 2642 professor, random audience

From:  Julia Weiss, HU 2642 student

Date:   November 7, 2012

Re:       HU 2642 – Intro to Digital Media: Final Project

This memo introduces an idea for the final project in HU 2642. Throughout the semester the HU 2642 class has been educated on the different ways in which media is produced and viewed. Media takes a huge role in how we live life and how we see life. My goal for this project is to change or rather enlighten a new perspective on the challenging and controversial topic of horoscopes

Topic and Audience

Choosing astrological horoscopes for my research project will pertain well with my audience, which in this case is the HU 2642 class, along with the HU 2642 professor. Since my audience consists of people, and we are all involved in this culture where we live and thrive off of identity I can bring into question the power of influence. One of our identities is defined by what people believe is their horoscope. People admit to reading there daily prophecy, but I am aiming to tackle the thought process behind why we believe this or rather why we shouldn’t.

Primary Focus

Astrological signs themselves are a very broad topic, so one of my greatest difficulties is trying to find a focal point. I might have to rearrange the outline of my website and the way I present the information in order to obtain an impacting effect on my audience. There is just so much information. Originally I wished to show the extremes of both sides (you either believe it or you don’t), but with my enormous amounts of research I am only finding disproval of the theories behind zodiac signs. I am really struggling with the arrangement, but I plan to create several drafts in order to find the best outline and then test them with the opinions of others.

What I know I really want to do is provide people with thoughts and information that they would have not of known otherwise. I think I might have to change my original argument.

The original argument was basically saying that there are two cases with zodiac signs, but after researching I have found I have disproved my own belief in them. I am considering changing my argument to go along with my evidence. My concern is feeling like I am crushing the beliefs other people have in horoscopes. I don’t want to be the one who tells everyone Santa’s not real, if you know what I mean.