Friday, March 26, 2010

Why YouTube Can Be Better Than Television.

To be honest, I don't watch tv too often anymore--with the exception of my DVDs. Instead, most of the things that I watch aren't through the tv anymore but rather through my computer screen. In other words, I avidly watch YouTube. On YouTube, of course, one can watch videos of practically everything(although most copyrighted material often gets taken down eventually)much like the television. However, there is a huge difference between YouTube and one's television set.
Although Television sets have become more sophisticated over the years and can now allow one to record and tape what one wants to watch as well as fastfoward through commercials, there is still something that YouTube can do that the television can't--and that makes all the difference. Through television ,we become passive consumers. We simply stare at the TV--generally alone and while we may laugh or cry at a particular program--unless we're watching it with others, no one will never know how we truely feel about it.

On the other hand, through the internet--especially through YouTube, we become prosumers. Besides consuming what we watch, we produce as well. Basically, on YouTube, not only can one watch a video, one can respond to it as well. For example, if I were to watch a video of a cute kitten on YouTube--or basically any website which would permit me to respond to the video--I would comment upon it "Cute kitten." Now--everyone who watches this video knows that I think the kitten is cute. Yet it goes further than simply commenting upon a video. One can respond to the commenter. They could basically agree--or disagree--or laugh at the commenter's comment--or get into a huge political arguement or flamewar that has absolutely nothing to do with the cute kitten.

In addition to being able to comment upon a video either to express how much one loves or hates it, there is something else that YouTube does that I find both fascinating and stupid--we can now rate each other's comments on YouTube. I find this fascinating because I often look back at a video that I had previously commented upon in order to see if I have been marked up or down. For example,one of my comments upon--yes a cute cat video was rated +8--in other words, 8 other users agreed with me or liked my comment. However, I also find it stupid because commenters can also be rated negatively. This makes complete sense if someone has posted a rude or degrading comment--yet it can be pointless at times when a perfectly innocent comment praising the video is marked down. It's happened to me sometimes--I'll have a perfectly normal comment--nothing rude marked down--then eventually I'll either find a few months later that it's either been marked up much higher--or that it's been marked as negative. I guess I find it a bit stupid because we are freely expressing our opinions--and those who don't like it are given the opportunity to do so. It's also rather stupid because most people watch the video to rate the video itself--not the commenters.
Apparently, this comment rating system on YouTube is an example of "Web 2.0"--the division between form and content. In YouTube's case, the form is the site's format itself--such as the text--the tiny box that commenters place their opinions into. The content consists of the thoughts that go inside that tiny box--the form. Thus form has an impact upon content and provides us with an endless circle of circulation and interaction.

Here is an example of prosumer activity on Youtube--countless commenters--rated positively, negatively, and neutrally(the rating remains at 0) with a video of--what else? A cute kitten.

In addition--here is an amusing--yet sadly true article listing the 8 most obnoxious internet commenters Ironically enough--this website itself is an example of people being prosumers because (if they have an account on this site) they are able to comment upon what they have read--or start a giant pointless flamewar with another poster.

Friday, March 12, 2010

Dynabook--like an iPad

Also in my previous class, I learned about a concept that had been envisioned since the mid 1970s that sounds exactly like an iPad. Basically Alan Kay and Adele Goldberg who woked at Xerox Palo Alto Research Center came up with the concept of the notebook computer--what they called a dynabook. The idea was that it would be able to read back recorded inforrmation. It would be the size and shape of a notebook yet it would contain "enough power to outrace your senses of sight and hearing, enough capacity to store for later retrieval thousands of page-equivalents of reference materials, poems, letters, recipes, records, drawings, animations, musical scores, waveforms, dynamic simulations, and anything else you would like to remember and change" (The New Media Reader, 2003, pg. 394). Basically they envisioned a device that would be both small and portable as well as "both take in and give out information in quantities approaching that of human sensory systems" (pg. 394)
According to my teacher, the concept of the Dynabook is similar to today's iPad due to being portable and containing a great amount of storage in which not only would the device be able to store data, word text,and images,it would also be able to store music, games and videos as well. Unfortunately while the Dynabook as a concept sounds amazing--its decendent, the iPad truthfully doesn't seem so fantastic. (In a previous blog, I admitted that I really didn't understand the iPad and believed that it may actually be a flop)

Here's a link to a blog in which someone praises the iPad as being the living embodiment of the envisioned Dynabook--and the technology of the future.

Dream Laptop

In my last class, we had to get into our groups and envision a dream laptop--basically our laptop could do anything--even surpassing the possible. It would be very cool if laptops could turn into portable tables. Basically the laptop would have a sturdy (not one of those flimsy folding tables)table attached to it--I'd call it the tabletop. It would be nice--I'd never have to worry about where to store a laptop again and I wouldn't have to sit with it in my lap because I could simply prop up the table whenever and wherever I needed it.

Another group envisioned a laptop that could make clothing. While this may not be good for the economy as we would no longer need department stores,I must admit this would be rather cool. I like the idea of putting inside a printer a piece of cloth instead of paper and then watch a custom made T-shirt pop out of it! It would be especially nice because I'm rather small and it is sometimes difficult to get certain types of clothing. If the computer made my own clothing--I could chose the exact size I needed. This would come in handy for shoes and sneakers. I have a very narrow foot, so I can never actually choose what kind of shoes I want. I can only chose them based on comfort, so I basically wear New Balance sneakers. If I could design my own shoes via a laptop--then they could be both comfortable and stylish--and would forever solve my footwear problem.

I also like the idea of having my laptop give me a massage when I get tired from straining my neck up at the screen in order to read something. It would have robotic arms that would shoot out whenever I needed them to. The computer could be water-proof too--and it could have cupholders! Okay, I'm kind of joking about the cupholders--although they'd probably get mixed up with the cd rom drive anyway. I kinda just wanted to mention it because there's an infamous urban legend in which an individual calls tech support because he broke his computer's "cupholder" Here's a link to a version of it.

Friday, March 5, 2010

Software architecture machines

Apparently, architecture also applies to the way in which we construct computers. The software is the brain and logic of the computer. In a way, we sort of live in software systems--the computer is like a house--which may be why it's referred to as software architecture in the first place.Through human-computer interaction the best type of software system can be designed. There are three types of models. The first model is you.. There is nothing natural about the look or feel of a computer. They are designed for particular types of people. So when it comes to you being the model, it is relevant to know who is going to be the user, what the user is going to use it for, and what's in demand at the time. The second model is the computer itself--although you are the most important element in software systems as the computer is designed around you. This model refers to the computer as the model and your model of it. In other words--what you think the computer does. The final model is the computer's model of your model of its model of you--that is to say an idea of what you think it is. Through communicatioation and confidence-- both user and computer are able to recognize each other's model of one another. A good software system is a good relationship because you understand how it views you. It's basically like getting to know someone. Through confidence and trust, the software gets to know you. A human computer interaction is thus like a social interaction.

Also in class, I learned about Android--which is a mobile operative system--I've actually never heard of it before. That's most likely because I'm not very tech savy. I think I found a link that gives me a basic idea of what it is--although it sounds sort of complicated. Here's the link

Things I don't understand-- Windows Vista

I always was a bit old-fashioned but then again, humans are said to really dislike change. So to be honest--I actually still own a Windows XP laptop--I've had it since approximately 2006--just before Windows Vista came out. To be honest--I'm quite terrified of Windows Vista. My parents had to get a new computer around my sophomore year--it has Windows Vista. I refuse to use microsoft word on it--I use my own laptop for that. The reason is because the layout of microsoft word on Windows Vista is so different from the layout I have grown up on.Instead of texted windows that I can easily open up to change the font or double space my work such as the "format" button, there are pictures. This frustrates me because the pictures are not labeled appropriately. In fact, sometimes I don't even know which button will allow me to print my document because there isn't a simple "file-print" button anymore. Of course the only downside to keeping my windows XP is that it is not compatible with the newer program, so I can't always view document files that are sent to me--unless they are converted beforehand. I generally have to go into the library if I need to view a document that I can't view on my computer. Apparently I'm not the only one frustrated with Windows Vista's version of Microsoft Word--many people agree that it stinks. Yet I'm unfortunately certain that it's here to stay, and I might as well get use to it. I wouldn't even be surprised if my own mother who is generally less tech savy than me is fluent in using it. Perhaps for once, she'll have to teach me something related to computers.