taramacdaniels

On Monday, our class had the privilege of Skyping with Whurley from Chaotic Moon Studios, which is the leading company in mobile applications. Whurley is a very entertaining and intelligent man who took an unfamiliar and almost confusing concept for me and made AR seem a lot cooler than I originally thought it was.

In our Skype discussion, Whurley talked about AR being used for many different reasons including gaming, advertising, and the military. It’s funny because I keep saying I am interested in interactive advertising, but I really haven’t done much exploring into the field. Well, AR is a great example of how to create interactive advertising. Whurley showed us a video of how car companies (such as Volkswagon and Toyota) are creating augmented reality advertisements. Volkswagon’s AR ad was especially cool because it allowed users to interact with the car from a within the magazine ad. Consumers could use their smart phones to view the AR ad and interactive with moving and even opening the augmented car door’s.

Both Derek and Whurley showed us this youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNu4CluFOcw, which really put AR into perspective for me. In order for something to be considered AR, there must be some aspect of reality included. This video game experiments with using a printed off map (on a piece of paper) and a smart phone to play a zombie shooting game. The coolest part about the game, you ask? Real live skittles can be used as bombs in the virtual game!

So, to answer my question: Are all AR’s considered virtual worlds, video games or digital environments? What differentiates AR from what we’ve studied thus far? As previously mentioned what differentiates AR from virtual worlds and video games is the inclusion of reality. Some video games and virtual worlds can definitely be considered AR. But of course, not all video games can be considered AR. Kinect is a great example of an AR video game, as well as the video posted above. I suppose all AR has elements of virtual worlds as they are obviously augmented by virtual technology.

Are there examples of augmented realities that are not virtual worlds or video games? Well, to answer this, Whurley also talked about how Chaotic Moon is using AR by creating mobile applications. For example, we talked about the AP Drone, which is a mini helicopter that can be flown through a real room using an iPhone app. It seems pretty damn cool! Another example of how AR can be more than just video games (besides advertising) would be the militaries use of AR.AR is definitely an up and coming technology that I believe will be used in many different fields.

What makes virtual worlds different from video games? In Why Virtual Worlds Can Matter, Thomas and Brown state that “virtual worlds are persistent, avatar-based social spaces that provide players or participants with the ability to engage in long-term, coordinated conjoined action. In these spaces, cultures and meanings emerge from a complex set of interactions among the participants, rather than as part of a predefined story or narrative arc.” The best example is World of Warcraft; it’s a mass multiplayer online virtual reality but it is also the largest role-playing game in today’s society. Players have the ability to coordinate, engage and change the virtual environment. So to answer my question, virtual worlds can be multiple different digital environments including games. The difference between typical video games and virtual world games is the idea of persistence. There is no end to the virtual world games. World of Warcraft and Farmville will always be there; players can log off but when they return the online game will not be the same as the last time they logged off. The virtual world is always there, even if you are not. Because many different people interact with virtual environments, the virtual world will always be changing, and that is the fundamental core of virtual realities.

But why the hell do we care about these virtual realities, especially if we have no interest in being involved? Well, because these online worlds are growing so big that the populations are becoming bigger than some countries, such as Switzerland and Fiji. Economically, these virtual realities are making billions of dollars a year. People are getting rich for just sitting on their ass and playing Second Life all day. Not only are these virtual realities expanding to be bigger than many countries, with billions of dollars in profit but also there are real world ethical dilemmas including monetary crime and addiction. Virtual world players are stealing people’s identities, using their credit cards, and buying games and virtual items. These crimes players are committing go hand in hand with their obsession and addictions to these virtual realities.

Obviously, these virtual worlds are impacting our society. Through population growth, addictions and ethical dilemmas, it is obvious to see that these virtual realities are impacting the way our society is interacting with each other and with the Internet. I am not sure whether these virtual realities have a positive or negative effect on our society and the ever-growing popularity of interactive media. Although it is getting more and more people to interact on the web, which is a plus, is this addiction and isolation foreshadowing our future? Will people really sit at their computers all day long, never really entering the real world but the world seen through their computer screen?

These are the questions I would like to frame this week’s readings around:

1. What exactly are virtual reality worlds? And what makes them different from digital environments and even video games?
2. What are the ethical dilemmas and pros/cons of virtual reality worlds?
3. How are virtual worlds affecting and changing interactive media? Have the effects of virtual worlds been a positive change for interactive media?

It is crazy to see the way interactive entertainment is changing. I think its really interesting that the week we discuss video games is in conjunction with Xbox’s newest video game platform, Kinect. Kinect allows the users to be “the controller.” The advancment of technology in the game Kinect makes me wonder, where is the future of video games headed? Can anything top a controller free video game? Not only are the environments in which interactive games are played changing, but I believe our social norms are changing as well. How are interactive games changing our social norms? Will serious games become part of everyday classroom lesson plans? Will people get together on weekends to play video games instead of board games or watching movies? And are these social changes a good thing?

After watching the “Digital Nation” in class today, I realize the answer to my question may line within this video. One part of the film was about how elementary students were using laptops for learning. The principal legitimized children’s laptop use for learning by saying that technology will always be apart of our world, it’s like oxygen and we would never not let children use oxygen. Lame example. But a valid underlying point. Technology will always be developing, expanding, and changing the way we as society does pretty much everything. Obviously, technology is changing the way people play video games, and that serious games are a very unique way to learn. I could definitely see the future of video games involving many different environments, especially the classroom. Can you imagine a bunch of students sitting around in class and playing games for class? I don’t believe this is a far off future. I actually took a class here at Elon undergrad where we made presentations and projects in Second Life. Not exactly a game, per say, but definitely on the pathway to playing games in classrooms

I could also definitely see the future of video games being incorporated into lots of social settings, like Jordan T. said in class on Monday. No longer will people be going out to see movies. They may be creating movies through game controllers, or becoming part of a virtual video game. Seriously, if technology has now allowed video games to be controller free… we are definitely headed towards a world of unimaginable games.

1. It is crazy to see the way interactive entertainment is changing. I think its really interesting that the week we discuss video games is in conjunction with Xbox’s newest video game platform, Kinect. Kinect is a full body controller free game. The game tagline is “You are the controller.” Where is the future of video games headed? Can anything top a controller free video game?

2. I am interested in the theories that go behind people’s obsession and addiction to video games. What makes people so fascinated with virtual games? What are the media theories that are involved with this obsession?

3. How are interactive games changing our social norms? Will serious games become part of everyday classroom lesson plans? Will people get together on weekends to play video games instead of traditional entertainment such as board games or watching movies? And are these social changes a good thing? (Involvement of interactive motion games vs. hand held controller games)

Throughout Facebook’s history, many new applications and features have been added to the website. In my opinion, through observations of my friend’s statuses, it always seems that everyone always hates the new features at first. For example, in 2006 when the “news feed” came into play, I remember all of my friends saying something of the sort: this is soooo creepy! I can’t believe I now have the ability to freely and easily stalk all of my Facebook friends.

Boyd and Hargittai back my claim up by stating, “While none of the information that was shared on the News Feed had previously been hidden, the automatic aggregation and publicization of it sparked outrage. Many users believed that there was a significant difference between knowing that someone changed their relationship status by regularly visiting the person’s profile and seeing it listed as an action in the News Feed” (Boyd & Hargittai, 2010).

Although most everyone was completely shocked and almost outrageous at Facebook’s new stalking feature aka the news feed, everyone got over it, learned to live with it. Now I don’t know how we would use Facebook, if it weren’t for the news feed. The news feed allows users to easily interact with other users pictures, statuses, wall posts and everything. It’s interesting because at first people were frightened of its stalking capabilities and now its used as the crutch. For example, a friend may say something about how they saw on their news feed a certain status or relationship break up. Now, its no longer considered creepy, if we didn’t have the news feed I believe people would think that knowing certain things found on their facebook page would be more creepy/stalker-ish because people actually have to search and look for it. Although at first, users may have felt that the news feed invaded their privacy, it is now just seen as a tactic to keep up to date and interactive with your friends.

One Facebook feature that did cross the line was called the Beacon feature. In 2007, Facebook introduced the Beacon advertisement feature, which shared users actions with external partner websites. So when users bought a product from websites such as overstock.com, eBay, blockbuster.com, campusfood.com, etc., the purchase linked to their Facebook page and showed up on their friend’s mini-feeds. This feature completely crossed the privacy line, which is why the feature was taken down and sued in many different lawsuits.

My second set of questions, Why is that Facebook’s privacy policies and settings so unadvertised by Facebook? Is it just me or does it seem like the Facebook doesn’t really want you to know about the privacy policies? And also, is it just me or is all of the writing and information on how to use the settings overwhelming and unhelpful?

Being extremely Facebook savy and a daily user, I know how to maneuver around the website, but so many people use Facebook and I am sure that a majority of the users have no idea how to even use the privacy settings. Although Facebook went through the privacy setting changes in 2009, which prompted users to change their settings, even Boyd and Hargittai stated that many users just went through the prompt clicking the default settings. I think that facebook needs to make a promotional video that demonstrates and further explains how people can use the privacy settings to their advantage. Lets be honest, reading on the web is sissies. Just kidding. But really, not many people take the time to read a large blurb of text on a website, which is really the only guidance the privacy settings provide.

1. Where does Facebook draw the line of an invasion of privacy when considering interest tracking for advertising? How ethical is it for Facebook to give advertisers your interests and information for direct ad tracking?

2. Why is that Facebook’s privacy policies and settings so unadvertised by Facebook? Is it just me or does it seem like the Facebook doesn’t really want you to know about the privacy policies? And also, is it just me or is all of the writing and information on how to use the settings overwhelming and unhelpful?

3. Why is it that people are more comfortable with sharing their information with the public? When thinking about how professionals use Facebook to find out information about possible employees, how exactly can they find information that you have deleted off your Facebook? Does this deleted information search actually happen? How ethical is that? Is there anything Facebook can do to change this?

To recap, the agenda setting theory states that mass media news has a large influence on what audiences read and know as news. Mass media news organizations are setting the agenda for what they believe to be newsworthy. Goode states, “‘Citizen journalism’ refers to a range of web-based practices whereby ‘ordinary’ users engage in journalistic practices. Citizen journalism includes practices such as current affairs-based blogging, photo and video sharing, and posting eyewitness commentary on current events” (1288).  Therefore, Citizen journalism affects the agenda setting theory because no longer are audiences influenced by just the mass media newsworthy stories. Citizens can blog about news, read every angle of a story, and choose the news stories they find interesting. So, audiences aren’t just reading what USA today finds newsworthy, they’re reading what they find interesting and newsworthy, as well. “The democratic appeal of online news lies in the prospect of alleviating that scarcity and the additional democratic appeal of citizen journalism, more specifically, lies in the prospect of citizens themselves participating in the agenda-setting process,” says Goode. Examining this relationship between citizen journalism and the agenda setting theory helps explain the “implication that social news holds for democracy and the public sphere” (1289).

Are citizen journalist websites here to stay or could they been seen as merely a fad because they have no actual original content, just the reproduction of other websites?  This question could be viewed from many different angles, with many different opinions. Personally, I think that citizen journalism is here to stay. I think audiences now have an awesome opportunity to make a balance between the mass media and the citizen journalism articles. I hope that the future brings a well-balanced medium between the two. It would be a good idea for a citizen journalism website to first post the news story or information and then let readers post opinions, link to blogs, videos, and photos.

My last question dealt with a similar dilemma of balance. Where is the line between citizen and professional journalism? Today, most every professional journalist also has a blog, are those considered citizen or professional? Furthermore, many citizen articles can seem professional. I know that I have been hyperlinked to other articles that end up being non-professional and I had no idea until doing some extra research. Another great questions is whether or not it really matters if we know the difference? I think it does. It is important to know whom your author is and if the information is fact based or opinion of facts. On the contrary, some may believe that get a wide variety of information is just as important, even if it is most opinion.

1. How does the agenda setting theory fit into citizen journalism and social news media?
2. Are citizen journalist websites here to stay or could they been seen as merely a fad because they have no actual original content, just the reproduction of other websites?
3. Where is the line between citizen journalism and professional journalism? How can readers tell if the website they are looking at is professional or citizen?