Category: Carolyn Frazier

I googled “iPhone apps augmented reality” to research my first question and this is the first site that came up in the search: http://bit.ly/3ga6Vm. I think one of the more interesting apps is called Cyclopedia. By moving your iPhone around, the app automatically finds information from Wikipedia and displays it on your screen. I’m not quite sure how they managed to program this but it’s really cool. I’m a space geek so I really am also into the Star Chart application. Just point your iPhone towards a particular direction in the sky and the app will pull up a constellation map. There is even one that closely relates to the YouTube video we watched in class with the two-dimensional paper and skittles. AR Basketball lets you play basketball on your iPhone by simply using a piece of printer paper.

There is a lot of information out there about gaming addiction but not as it specifically relates to augmented reality. I’m not sure what to make of this but I do think that augmented reality may be seen as less harmful than virtual reality. Virtual reality seems to represent a departure from the “real world” and an immersion into something that is perceived as a false version of life by outsiders. Augmented reality keeps the player grounded in this “real world” as we define it, but enhances that reality. It may also be too soon to tell because augmented reality is a newer trend. It will be interesting in the coming years to see what research has to say about social norms and trends when comparing the two closely related topics. I wonder which one engages the user more fully. I think if you are looking at virtual reality from the perspective of believing that it is an escape from the real world, that it has the potential to be far more addictive than augmented reality. You are not escaping an existing reality when you use augmented technologies, but instead enhancing it. Augmented reality is additive in that way, and virtual reality is subtractive.

Well let’s be honest, this third question is quite existential. Reality for me is probably different than reality for someone else, although there are plenty of times in which we all agree to a particular collective reality; a consensus on how the world should be. There are far more frequent occurrences of disagreements though, and it seems foolish for someone to deny the existence of other perspectives even though it happens all the time. I don’t actually feel comfortable defining the word. Reality is subjective, which is why class discussions on augmented and especially virtual reality become very muddled and split.

1) Which iPhone apps are tapping into the technological potential for augmented reality?

2) Will augmented reality increase gaming addictions by further blurring the user’s understanding of reality?

3) How do we currently define reality?

I did a little research on the first question concerning Second Life retailers and found that there aren’t really any examples of this model working or being profitable yet. It seems like a lot of companies initially rushed to build virtual stores in the hopes that avatars would buy merchandise to be delivered in the real world. This idea probably sounded great only because of its novelty. It doesn’t make sense that someone would use an avatar to purchase items online that they could buy directly online. It makes more sense that a brand like GAP should create virtual clothing for the avatar to wear. People who are heavily involved and invested in their Second Life world already pay money to accessorize and customize their avatars. On a larger level, the opportunity to create a presence in a virtual world is another chance for retailers to brand themselves.

I still do not understand the learning aspects of MMOG games. You must learn about the virtual worlds and how to function in them. You must also learn how to adapt as these worlds change but most games like World of War Craft do not actually have classic academic learning processes involved in playing the game.

I didn’t find much when I tried to research my question concerning personalization and avatars. Personalization refers to the way that a gaming interface or company would be able to determine characteristics about a person through their choices in the virtual world and cater future content and messages to that player. It does not refer to the way that users voluntarily customize their avatars through cosmetic changes like wardrobe and accessories. Logically, I don’t think that most players would find it off putting to have virtual content personalized to their interests. The act of creating an avatar and building a world around that character suggests that you want the world to be more personalized in the first. I don’t think that there are currently virtual worlds that try to use player data to streamline content but I think it would be extremely interesting if that trend reached multiplayer online games.

The video that we watched on Wednesday briefly discussed the online Second Life stores of large clothing companies that eventually failed. Are there any examples of real-world companies that have successfully mastered the MMOG economy in terms of selling goods through them?

I am confused as to the type of learning that the authors of the first article are exploring. I do understand that learning is not referred to in an academic sense but I’m still unclear as to the importance of this type of learning as it relates to intelligence? Could you clarify this for me?

The act of creating an avatar and conversely the virtual world in which that avatar lives is a customization act, but will the people participating in such acts be open to personalization. Do companies using personalization techniques to intrude on the virtual world undermine the sense of agency that is afforded through MMOG?

1) Kinect technology is also used on many iphone applications and draws on the capabilities of a gyroscope. This is a device for measuring or maintaining orientation, based on the principles of conservation of angular momentum. I’m not sure exactly how other fields will utilize this technology in the near future but it certainly indicates that the idiom of having your cell phone attached to your hand is becoming more fact than phrase. This technology could potentially allow us to becoming even more synced with our mobile devices, personal computers and of course, video games. I think that it also goes back to the discussions that we’ve had about a user’s sense of agency in the strategy class. Using a controller in a video game adds another level of mediation to the exchange in which the player controls an avatar with a joystick function. When you eliminate this step, the user feels more like the avatar and therefore has a greater sense of agency or control over the exchange.

2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_open-source_video_games

This is a list of all of the open-source games that have been released in the past decade or so. I can’t say whether I know which of the games has been able to rival larger scale game productions because I never play video games and I pay very little attention to what games are being released. Apart from Halo, I’m not sure if I could name more than 3 other multi-million dollar video games. Because of the branding that has taken place with video game consoles, I think that it would be hard to break into that market using open source software. This kind of game is probably most popular strictly online.

3) We discussed some of the branding that has developed with the wii in class on Monday. They market the product to families as a new way to gather for family night and have fun together. The same trend was seen in early Atarri commercials as well though and we commented that a user’s grandparents were not likely joining in on that kind of family fun. I think that this branding image may be relevant today, because many of the Baby Boomers are actually tech-savy enough to play wii games with their children. The use of Kinect and wireless hand held controllers have allowed for the development of health and exercise oriented games that more interactive than older models, but I am not actually certain as to how much those game genres are grossing each year. It does seem, at least on an advertising level, that video games are being packaged and promoted differently (particularly the wii).  From a sociological perspective this is a logical step in ending the couch potato/sedentary lifestyles that are prevalent among a large percentage of Americans.

1) Xbox recently unveiled a new video game technology called Kinect in which no controller is necessary. Does this have any profound effects on the development of virtual reality and what other technological contributions might this signal for the larger spectrum of technological advances apart from the gaming world?

2) Are there any examples of well-known open-source gaming software that have been able to rival the multi-million dollar production of popular games?

3) Is it a fair assessment to say that the types of games marketed through the wii gaming system signal a change in video game type (to educational and fitness) and how can we look at this change from a social sciences or humanities perspective?

1) Have we entered a period where people act as their own gatekeepers to determine what is private and public on a personal level?

I think that the answer to this question is a definite yes. The majority of people have now created profiles on at least one social networking site. Those who wish to lead a truly private life have chosen not to create profiles. Anyone who has created a profile on a social networking site (SSN) is at least somewhat aware that the information that they post to that profile is not private. Facebook has highly customizable privacy settings that allow you to filter your information depending on the relationships that you share with others who belong to the network. I think it’s important to distinguish between public and private on two different levels. When I talk about public and private information in terms of content on an SSN, I’m talking about what one chooses to keep private from people who may exist on the SSN but are not accepted as friends by that particular user. Public and private are an entirely different matter in terms of the companies that run SSN’s and the companies that the SSN chooses to do business with. Facebook considers everything that you post on your profile to be public in the sense that this information can be shared with third party advertisers to customize FB advertisements. Also – to use the Facebook interface and utilize some of the biggest offered tools such as “likes” means accepting that these things are public. You cannot opt out of your “likes” being public information. Although Facbeook offers many customized security settings that allow the user to act as a gatekeepr of their own information, this is really only true to a certain extent. But I think the thing to realize with this question is that the security settings allow the user to feel like a gatekeeper. That feeling contributes to the amount of sharing that takes place on the site, and therefore contributes to its popularity and usefulness to outsiders.

2) Could it be argued that mediated publics are also making life easier in many ways?

It’s certain that mediated public technology makes it easier for us to connect and stay in touch with one another. Features that include chat history have made my life easier when I ask class related questions through Facebook and I can go back and look at a response or answer that a classmate gave me. Caitlin mentioned that a potential boss said that they wanted to use her Facebook account to get to know her. This means that a SSN profile can be used as an extension of one’s resume and portfolio but presents many mixed signals from employers. I don’t know if there are any features that make life easier for us besides making it easier for us to connect with one another. The rest of the potential benefits are still being weighted as we try to balance public and private information.

3) Are we really aware at how much privacy settings do in safeguarding our information?

I think that this answer depends on who you ask. Older adults using SSN’s like Facebeook tend to be more aware of which privacy settings are offered and how they safeguard because they are generally more concerned about personal privacy. Younger generations do not care as much, although studies indicate that they engage in at least moderate information management in terms of what is posted to their public profiles. I think that most people are only aware of privacy settings on a surface level as far as what friends versus non-friends can see. I don’t think that most people are aware of privacy settings that you can opt-out of in terms of who Facebook shares your information with.

1) Have we entered a period where people act as their own gatekeepers to determine what is private and public on a personal level?

2) Could it be argued that mediated publics are also making life easier in many ways?

3) Are we really aware at how much privacy settings do in safeguarding our information?

4) How customizable are privacy settings?

The Internet as an interactive forum has definitely changed our perception of what is newsworthy. Top viral YouTube videos are now seen regularly on CNN and so are many other viral movements when it comes to the political sphere. News organizations are hip to the fact that they must pay attention to the same things that the general population pays attention to. I think that part of this new definition has to do with our discussion of the entertainment factors of new news structures. This reminds me of Neil Postman’s “Amusing Ourselves to Death” and I would reference him if I owned a copy of the book. We’ve built a culture based on being entertained. Realizing this makes you realize just how driven our society is by advertising and marketing efforts and how much we as parts of that society quite literally “buy” into marketing ploys.

The point that I’m making overlaps with my third question about opinion bias in corporate news networks and the branding of news networks as liberal or conservative. Because we want to be entertained by our news we have a higher threshold for bias in reporting than we used to. Opinions entertain us far more than a strictly professional reporting of the issues. Social media allow us to contribute our opinions too.

My second question involved consolidation of online citizen journal portals through sites like Google and Yahoo. I questioned whether the monopolizing Rupert Murdoch effect would ever be present in the digital community. I don’t think that this will change the way that we see individual citizen journalists but it could change the way that we view their web portals, platforms and publishing sites.  It make me think harder about sites like Digg and I can’t help thinking about the economic model of most web sites. As a site grows in popularity, it also becomes more attractive to advertisers. I think that just as politicians often pander to the highest campaign donators, news sites in the future may be essentially bribed by their largest advertisers to skew information or pursue various agendas over others.

1) I am writing my paper on how our definition of privacy has changed with new technologies. I wonder if our definition of news has also changed, including what we consider to be newsworthy?

2) The early part of this article mentioned the consolidation of smaller sites like flickr to giants like Yahoo and Google. A decade ago we were concerned with media monopolies and how consolidation might affect the democratic nature of news production. Is there any reason to believe that citizen driven journalism sites might face similar criticism in the future?

3) To build off of my previous question: do people care as much about possible news bias as we used to? I view corporate news organizations from a branding standpoint. Fox is a conservative brand; MSNBC is a liberal brand. Those two things are fact and so both sources are inherently reporting facts skewed with a heavy dose of political orientation and opinion. I’m actually not sure where I was going with this question but I suppose it makes me question why some people feel so apprehensive about citizen journalism as credible news sources.