If everything "bad" is indeed good for you, what does this mean for the world of Libraries and/or Educational organizations?
I think the answer to this question is that libraries and information organizations of all kinds need to begin the agonizing process of embracing and encouraging what may be considered non-traditional behavior in their institutions. Google has long kept their employees happy by providing free food and unlimited ping pong (among other things). Even though that is not exactly the same idea, the point remains that sometimes encouraging playful and otherwise "unorthodox" behavior can be a boon to an organization instead of corrupting it as may be feared.
An obvious example of this in the library is the use of video games to drum up an audience for some programs. Recently, of course, there were some issues with librarians playing games at work, and the jury is still out on the acceptability of that situation, but the point remains that designing programs around video games for patrons does provide a certain incentive for an audience that may not normally be motivated to visit. Or, provides a new outlet for participation for active library users that are looking for something new to try.
Of course there are right ways and wrong ways to handle a situation that deals with issues like whether or not to play pool at the office, or spend a day filming a YouTube video about your library's new Rock Band setup. Perhaps their hearts and thumbs were in the right place, or maybe that was indeed a waste of resources. Either way, I think the potential within the library to transform some bad things into good ones, and maybe sign up a few new library cards in the process.
Continue reading...
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Sophisticated Stupidity
From what you've read, is Popular culture (games, tv, film) just a method to "sophisticatedly deliver stupidity"?
The ideas that Johnson presents in his book "Everything Bad is Good for You" are indeed interesting, and help to relieve some of the guilt that I expereince every time I get lost in yet another episode of A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila (yes, I did watch most of that show's first season, and, yes, it was entertaining to watch 15 idiots run around screaming. Made me feel like a good person, in comparison). Arguing that contemporary audiences not only tolerate but crave complicated and "textured" narratives in their popular culture consumption is a warming, if somewhat problematic, thought.
Sometimes, and this is particularly noticeable with the never ending list of "reality" television programs, it does seem like a true glut of ridiculous stupidity, and moreover their delivery hardly ever even seems to be "sophisticated." And so it is comforting to find a savior in Johnson, who argues that there is in fact a silver lining behind the reality show cloud. Or at the very least, can offer us support to spend the extra money on HBO just to get that Sunday night drama.
However, one issue that Johnson brings up is multiple threading. He argues that many threads in the story lines of television series like the Sopranos, are complicated and are a unique way of presenting content that enhances viewer engagement with the storyline and characters. I am tempted to argue, or at least mention, however, that this may also be a product of internet age's effect on how much attention focus we as a culture can muster.
There was an article last summer in the Atlantic Monthly entitled "Is Google Making Us Stupid?", the premise of which is that the quick bite- (byte-) sized information content that we are accustomed to on the internet is actually changing our brains, and affecting our ability to process long and in-depth information. We seem to be shrinking away from the lengthy newspaper article, and instead digesting many articles in quick snippets (take, for example, CNN.com's bulleted "Story Highlights" present at the top of their already brief articles).
Perhaps the multiple threading that we encounter in more complex TV shows these days is not a boon to our grey matter, but rather the only way that television producers can handle presenting complex content to a nation of bite-size information eaters and so-called "horizontal" Google searchers. They can't keep us focused any other way.
I should clarify that this is just speculation, and I do agree with Johnson that modern media is providing an intellectual stimulus in many ways, and that shows like the Sopranos are head and shoulders above some trite TV of the past. But it is worth being a little more critical of the nature of that information, and how we as a culture process it. After all, somebody once thought (or still does) that those things were bad for us for a reason, and it is worth it to keep that in mind, at least until you click on the tube. Continue reading...
The ideas that Johnson presents in his book "Everything Bad is Good for You" are indeed interesting, and help to relieve some of the guilt that I expereince every time I get lost in yet another episode of A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila (yes, I did watch most of that show's first season, and, yes, it was entertaining to watch 15 idiots run around screaming. Made me feel like a good person, in comparison). Arguing that contemporary audiences not only tolerate but crave complicated and "textured" narratives in their popular culture consumption is a warming, if somewhat problematic, thought.
Sometimes, and this is particularly noticeable with the never ending list of "reality" television programs, it does seem like a true glut of ridiculous stupidity, and moreover their delivery hardly ever even seems to be "sophisticated." And so it is comforting to find a savior in Johnson, who argues that there is in fact a silver lining behind the reality show cloud. Or at the very least, can offer us support to spend the extra money on HBO just to get that Sunday night drama.
However, one issue that Johnson brings up is multiple threading. He argues that many threads in the story lines of television series like the Sopranos, are complicated and are a unique way of presenting content that enhances viewer engagement with the storyline and characters. I am tempted to argue, or at least mention, however, that this may also be a product of internet age's effect on how much attention focus we as a culture can muster.
There was an article last summer in the Atlantic Monthly entitled "Is Google Making Us Stupid?", the premise of which is that the quick bite- (byte-) sized information content that we are accustomed to on the internet is actually changing our brains, and affecting our ability to process long and in-depth information. We seem to be shrinking away from the lengthy newspaper article, and instead digesting many articles in quick snippets (take, for example, CNN.com's bulleted "Story Highlights" present at the top of their already brief articles).
Perhaps the multiple threading that we encounter in more complex TV shows these days is not a boon to our grey matter, but rather the only way that television producers can handle presenting complex content to a nation of bite-size information eaters and so-called "horizontal" Google searchers. They can't keep us focused any other way.
I should clarify that this is just speculation, and I do agree with Johnson that modern media is providing an intellectual stimulus in many ways, and that shows like the Sopranos are head and shoulders above some trite TV of the past. But it is worth being a little more critical of the nature of that information, and how we as a culture process it. After all, somebody once thought (or still does) that those things were bad for us for a reason, and it is worth it to keep that in mind, at least until you click on the tube. Continue reading...
Which console for my library?
I think, hands down, I'd have to go with the Nintendo Wii on this one. No contest. PS3's are ridiculously expensive and have hardly any good games (except for Grand Theft Auto, which, of course, you can't exactly promote within your library) and the Xbox just sort of seems to me to be the type of gaming machine that encourages long-term single player experience. Of course, you can go online and frag your pals in Call of Duty (ahem, CoD, excuse me) but it isn't very conducive to in-person team play.
Enter Nintendo Wii. The machine is worth buying for several reasons in the library. Not only is it comparatively inexpensive, but so many of its games are designed for in-person collaborative or competitive play. Where in Xbox live you scream at people through a headset, with the Wii you interact in a way that is unusual for a video game experience. It also has an image, because of its uniqueness, that is parent friendly. When mom and dad want to go play tennis with the neighbors, how can they say no to sending the kids off to the library (of all places) to do the same?
I guess I was supposed to talk about the research aspect, and considering the pros and cons of each system a little more in this post. But it just seems to me to be a no brainer here. The cross-demographic appeal and collaborative play elements of the Wii just seem to me to trump anything else a Playstation might have to offer. And if you're looking for that more traditional, video game-y, single player experience, there's still just no match for Mario. Continue reading...
Enter Nintendo Wii. The machine is worth buying for several reasons in the library. Not only is it comparatively inexpensive, but so many of its games are designed for in-person collaborative or competitive play. Where in Xbox live you scream at people through a headset, with the Wii you interact in a way that is unusual for a video game experience. It also has an image, because of its uniqueness, that is parent friendly. When mom and dad want to go play tennis with the neighbors, how can they say no to sending the kids off to the library (of all places) to do the same?
I guess I was supposed to talk about the research aspect, and considering the pros and cons of each system a little more in this post. But it just seems to me to be a no brainer here. The cross-demographic appeal and collaborative play elements of the Wii just seem to me to trump anything else a Playstation might have to offer. And if you're looking for that more traditional, video game-y, single player experience, there's still just no match for Mario. Continue reading...
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Screencast best practices
Now that we have completed a couple screencasts, I have noticed several things that I do as a computer user that don't bother me because normally, I am the only one looking at my screen. Audio in screencasts is another challenge, especially in Jing where there is no redo.
Like I said, I noticed in the last screencast I made on MySpace, that I scroll the page up and down sort of aimlessly a couple of times. This I just do I guess, when I am trying to get a sense of something, or perhaps it is just a nervous tic. Another common thing I do while reading online is highlighting text, sort of at random. The situation where I noticed these things happening in my screencast, I was explaining a point, and there was nothing specific to do visually with the screen at that moment. In this situation, it is much better to resist the urge to move the cursor aimlessly or scroll the screen. Viewers are listening, make your visual screen movements have a purpose.
Another thing I just noticed while making my screencast for Hapland, is that you have to be careful about the audio. I ran into this problem when recording a series of instructional screencasts at my last job. Because you are speaking into a microphone while doing something else, it is easy to get lost or just not describe what you are doing to the fullest effect. This leads to unnecessary "um"s and even, God forbid, me sniffling because of this cold I seem to have developed. If Jing would let me edit that audio, boy would I.
The point is, practice your lines, or write a script to follow. If you can edit audio, take out your swallows, awkward missteps, and any other oddities. Writing in mouse cues as well can help with my first point. You have to remember that you're not the only watching anymore. Continue reading...
Like I said, I noticed in the last screencast I made on MySpace, that I scroll the page up and down sort of aimlessly a couple of times. This I just do I guess, when I am trying to get a sense of something, or perhaps it is just a nervous tic. Another common thing I do while reading online is highlighting text, sort of at random. The situation where I noticed these things happening in my screencast, I was explaining a point, and there was nothing specific to do visually with the screen at that moment. In this situation, it is much better to resist the urge to move the cursor aimlessly or scroll the screen. Viewers are listening, make your visual screen movements have a purpose.
Another thing I just noticed while making my screencast for Hapland, is that you have to be careful about the audio. I ran into this problem when recording a series of instructional screencasts at my last job. Because you are speaking into a microphone while doing something else, it is easy to get lost or just not describe what you are doing to the fullest effect. This leads to unnecessary "um"s and even, God forbid, me sniffling because of this cold I seem to have developed. If Jing would let me edit that audio, boy would I.
The point is, practice your lines, or write a script to follow. If you can edit audio, take out your swallows, awkward missteps, and any other oddities. Writing in mouse cues as well can help with my first point. You have to remember that you're not the only watching anymore. Continue reading...
Hapland
Hapland is a great and really hard puzzle game, where you interact with a strange cartoon world by finding and clicking on different objects. As you make certain things happen throughout the world, the things that become possible or impossible shift and change. There is a correct path, but it takes good timing and some pretty serious perseverance. It is fun, or at the very least, absorbing. I found it last term at www.onemorelevel.com. Screencast after the jump.
Hapland screencast. Continue reading...
Hapland screencast. Continue reading...
Friday, April 24, 2009
Ning
I have always been a little curious about the rise of Ning. For me I guess I just don't see the utility in a way that is fruitful beyond just having yet another tool. I know that there are social benefits to interaction in Ning that go beyond just normal wiki collaboration and that that is something can could be desirable in some instances. However, Ning for me walks the thin line between useful innovation and a mashup of content already in use in other ways by its potential users.
In a work environment, I think it could be handled in a way that could be most fruitful. I see work users as more willing to take on another service because it is "for work." It also could be more useful to encourage a work atmosphere "away from the desk," so to speak. A place to contribute to work online, or share ideas in a way that has a little more utility than, as I mentioned above, a wiki or collaborative document.
Casual potential users like myself may have a harder time adopting because they are already using facebook, delicious, instant messaging and Twitter (or whatever else suits your fancy). I suppose my parenthetical shouldn't be. The point is that users will decide for themselves what services they find useful and fulfilling. If a Ning network is exactly what you are looking for because a facebook group just isn't enough, then by all means, don't let my grump get in the way of that experience. Continue reading...
In a work environment, I think it could be handled in a way that could be most fruitful. I see work users as more willing to take on another service because it is "for work." It also could be more useful to encourage a work atmosphere "away from the desk," so to speak. A place to contribute to work online, or share ideas in a way that has a little more utility than, as I mentioned above, a wiki or collaborative document.
Casual potential users like myself may have a harder time adopting because they are already using facebook, delicious, instant messaging and Twitter (or whatever else suits your fancy). I suppose my parenthetical shouldn't be. The point is that users will decide for themselves what services they find useful and fulfilling. If a Ning network is exactly what you are looking for because a facebook group just isn't enough, then by all means, don't let my grump get in the way of that experience. Continue reading...
Boyd readings
Boyd's writing was very enlightening to read, I thought. First of all, it was intersting to see the world of social networks broken down and explained in a rational and methodological way. Moreover, the social impacts of this new style of technological interaction, which are indeed present and undeniable in a colloquial sense, need to be explained in a way that is digestible by many people. It was great reading both her blog post on the social strata delinieated by Facebook and MySpace, and it was even more enlightening to read the response that she posted subsequently in which she addressed the critical (and otherwise) reponses that that blog post generated.
Understanding how social networks impact society is a fascinating topic for me, becuase it would be so easy to dismiss social media as a whole, or part by part, as a fad. In spite of the transitory nature of many individual services, it is clear that interaction mediated by social computing can no longer be viewed in that sense (even though it continues to be by some).
It is imperative now for research following Boyd's methods to be continued, if only to explain or at the very least identify how people are interacting in the new social milieu online. Because it is becoming such an essential part of life for so many (myself included) it requires study if the mandates of sociologists and psychologists and computer scientists (and philosophers and semioticians, not to mention librarians) everywhere are going to be fulfilled.
I have sensed the social boundaries surrounding the division that Boyd highlights between MySpace and Facebook. Though I guess I don't feel that I would have fit entirely into the category that she places around hegemonic teens (or would have when I was a teenager), the demarcation lines she draws are at most problematic, but at the least revealing or enlightening. Taking her post with the large grain of salt that she offers before the first paragraph, the importance and relevance of her writing can be understood.
For librarians in particular, understanding the modes and venues for teens' and young adults' online social lives is required to plan and create effective and safe programming that encourages social behavior, while creating boundaries that can ensure safety and positive outcomes from social networking. Not "getting" what is happening for teens online may lead to a withdrawl from the generally positive nature of social netowrking, and lead to harmful or risky behavior. I believe that it is within the mandate of librarians to ensure unfettered access to information, but it is resonable and should be expected that librarians can at a minimum make known and encourage the benefits of that information that can lead its fulfilling use. Without that, the library is just a building with free internet. Continue reading...
Understanding how social networks impact society is a fascinating topic for me, becuase it would be so easy to dismiss social media as a whole, or part by part, as a fad. In spite of the transitory nature of many individual services, it is clear that interaction mediated by social computing can no longer be viewed in that sense (even though it continues to be by some).
It is imperative now for research following Boyd's methods to be continued, if only to explain or at the very least identify how people are interacting in the new social milieu online. Because it is becoming such an essential part of life for so many (myself included) it requires study if the mandates of sociologists and psychologists and computer scientists (and philosophers and semioticians, not to mention librarians) everywhere are going to be fulfilled.
I have sensed the social boundaries surrounding the division that Boyd highlights between MySpace and Facebook. Though I guess I don't feel that I would have fit entirely into the category that she places around hegemonic teens (or would have when I was a teenager), the demarcation lines she draws are at most problematic, but at the least revealing or enlightening. Taking her post with the large grain of salt that she offers before the first paragraph, the importance and relevance of her writing can be understood.
For librarians in particular, understanding the modes and venues for teens' and young adults' online social lives is required to plan and create effective and safe programming that encourages social behavior, while creating boundaries that can ensure safety and positive outcomes from social networking. Not "getting" what is happening for teens online may lead to a withdrawl from the generally positive nature of social netowrking, and lead to harmful or risky behavior. I believe that it is within the mandate of librarians to ensure unfettered access to information, but it is resonable and should be expected that librarians can at a minimum make known and encourage the benefits of that information that can lead its fulfilling use. Without that, the library is just a building with free internet. Continue reading...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
