Category: Kimberly Wolfe

1.  What opportunities might virtual worlds offer advertisers?  If advertisers are able to update their advertisements throughout time on these virtual worlds, might it be beneficial to spend the extra money to do so?

Virtual worlds can be incredibly beneficial to advertisers.  There are many different virtual worlds available for players, and as discussed in class, virtual worlds is one of the fastest growing areas in technology.  The amount of people an advertiser is able to reach is incredibly high.  Also, because of the possibility to continuously update an advertisement in these virtual worlds, an advertiser will not have to worry about the problem of outdated advertisements.  In respect to the fact that there are many people that are using virtual worlds these days, advertisers must be careful about their target audience while advertising.  Although there is a large amount of people using virtual worlds, it does seem to be a specific ‘type’ of person.  It would probably be a waste of money to advertise for a popular woman’s clothing store on most of these virtual worlds.

2.  What possible crimes could take place in these virtual worlds?  How can we as designers find a way to police activity in a virtual world much like it is in the real world?

As stated in class, there are many crimes that have been taking place in the virtual worlds.  There have been examples of players stealing credit cards and using them to buy items on ‘world of warcraft’ and people stealing money or items in the game itself.  There should be some way to control thieves in virtual worlds just like police do in the real world.  One would think that because these games are based on coding that it would be simple to control thievery.  Designers should find a way to make actual virtual police that are able to decipher a bad code from a good one.  When a player is being mischievous and trying to do something ‘illegal’, the police officer will decipher their code as inappropriate and stop them from completing the action.  There should also be a punishment involved with acts like this, such as not allowing that player access to the game for one week.

3.  With the increase of online dependency in young adults, should there be restrictions on how much one person is allowed to partake in virtual world activities?

I definitely think there should be restrictions on how much a person can play on these games.  Online dependency is the fastest growing disease right now, and it is really becoming a problem.  People are spending the majority of their day playing these games that have no positive impact on any aspect of their life (other than the fact that they are having fun).  I know people will be able to have multiple accounts and get around this rule, but I believe there should be a 6-hour daily restriction of play on each account.  Six hours a day is still a ridiculous amount of time to play on these games, but at least it is better than 16 hours, as one parent believes her child is playing every day.  I also believe there should be some sort of law against the amount of time a person can play online games.  It sounds ridiculous, but parents should be punished for allowing their children to play this long.  Until they are 18, children are not responsible for their own actions, and parents should be able to control the amount that they play online.  It is irresponsible and neglectful on the parents part and unhealthy on the child’s part to be playing for so long on these virtual worlds.

1.  What opportunities might virtual worlds offer advertisers?  If advertisers are able to update their advertisements throughout time on these virtual worlds, might it be beneficial to spend the extra money to do so?

2.  What possible crimes could take place in these virtual worlds.  How can we as designers find a way to police activity in a virtual world much like it is in the real world?

3.  With the increase of online dependency in young adults, should there be restrictions on how much one person is allowed to partake in virtual world activities?

1. Persuasive technology is already a part of the technological world mostly prevalent on Facebook games.  How can we leverage the knowledge of persuasive technology to help children WANT to learn in school?

The use of games to help kids learn has been an up and coming phenomenon for the last couple of years.  These games not only keep kids interested because they are fun, but they are also specifically designed to teach children in exciting ways.  However, it seems that these games could eventually become boring to the kids, as most games do.  I think in order to leverage this technology to fully persuade children to want to learn would be to do exactly what Schell thinks is going to happen – incorporate competition.  It is important to children to be the best in their class.  However, I also think it can be hurtful to children who are at the bottom of their class to compete in such competitions, it would ruin their self-esteem.  If teachers could find some way to incorporate competition into their curriculum without making it an actual “class-competition” I truly believe that all children would benefit.  That is where Facebook comes in.  Because of Facebook, it is now possible to have competitions without feeling like you might be losing, but still have the satisfaction of winning.  The perfect solution.

2. In relation to the Ford Fusion, people obviously feel more desire to help the environment if they can physically see an impact even if it is through a digital representation.  What can we do as designers to use this information to help other necessary problems such as water consumption, the use of plastic, or waste management?

I think the problem with most people and their ability to waste so much is most don’t realize exactly how much they are wasting, or how much they are hurting the environment.  The Ford fusion idea to show the amount of gas consumption the driver is using and how they are hurting the environment is genius.  I think a good way to help people realize how much they are wasting is through a specialized trashcan.  Whether it is at home or in public, there should be a trashcan that displays a picture of a flower or tree that changes when recyclable items are thrown in it.  For example, much like the Ford Focus, the flower could wilt a bit every time plastic or paper is thrown in it.  On the other hand, the flower will grow when actual trash is thrown in.  On the same note, there could also be a public recycling bin that does the same thing, wilts when trash is thrown in it, but thrives when something is recycled.  Seeing the impact would probably make people more likely to help the environment.

I really enjoyed Schell’s talk on Design Outside the box.  I think he is a really innovative thinker and although his ideas may seem a bit forward and slightly crazy, he does make good points about human behavior driving the future of technology.  So, here are my questions:

1. Persuasive technology is already a part of the technological world mostly prevalent on Facebook games.  How can we leverage the knowledge of persuasive technology to help children WANT to learn in school?

2. In relation to the Ford Fusion, people obviously feel more desire to help the environment if they can physically see an impact even if it is through a digital representation.  What can we do as designers to use this information to help other necessary problems such as water consumption, the use of plastic, or waste management?

Although Facebook is not a professional environment and was originated as a place to post fun pictures and keep in touch with a variety of people, it has become an area for college recruiters and employers to do a background check on prospective students and potential employees.  I believe this is an unfair way to judge a person.  Before social media, there was no way to do this sort of check on someone.  A person was judged based on their performance in school, work, or recommendation letters from other professionals.  What happens in the work place should be most important to an employer, and what happens outside should really be none of their business.  With that being said, there are also many aspects of Facebook that could be interpreted in a different way than it was originally intended.  A picture of a group of girls holding drinks could look like they are ready for a crazy night out when in reality, they were having a glass of champagne in celebration of a promotion, engagement, etc.  This misinterpretation could lead to a loss of job opportunity for someone who truly deserved it.  As it has been for decades, work and personal lives should remain separate.

I think there are many factors that determine whether or not a Facebook friendship with a professor is appropriate.  Age definitely has something to do with it.  Graduate students, and even most undergraduate students are adults and can make their own decisions.  At that time, it should be up to the student or professor whether or not they think it is appropriate to become Facebook friends.  However, for high school students and even younger, there is still a boundary that should not be crossed.  Most high school teacher-student relationships are completely platonic, but there is still the fact that all students of that age are not legally adults yet.  It would be completely inappropriate for a teacher to “friend request” a student at that age, but if a student tries to friend request a teacher, I think the teacher should kindly reply in a message that it is not suitable to have that sort of relationship.  Also, the fact that Facebook has become so widely used makes a difference on whether or not student-teacher friendships is appropriate.  At one time, only college students were allowed to use the sites.  Once it expanded, it was still strange for adults to be using the sites, especially wanting to be friends with kids.  Now, though it has become so widespread, almost everyone is on Facebook and friends with everyone.  I am friends with both of my parents, my grandparents most of my aunts and uncles and even some professors.  The expansion of Facebook has made the teacher-student friendship more acceptable.

I am a strong advocate of helping the young deal with their problems.  We have discussed many times in several classes how people, especially young people, are taking advantage of social networks and its ability to spread information across a large forum in a small amount of time.  Many times, these young people will post some heart-felt piece of information that is clearly a cry for help.  Unfortunately, because we have become so accustomed to seeing these sad messages, they are often times ignored.  I believe that there should be an online support group that contacts these young people when they are feeling upset and tries to help them.  Although it is – in my opinion – an immature way to express feelings, the feelings are what really matter, and should not be ignored.

1.  The privacy problem related to social networks has become an issue of concern for many, especially those applying to college or looking for jobs.  Many kids and even adults are modifying their profiles to be more professional or changing their names to make it harder for people to find them.  But since Facebook is not a professional environment, is it really fair to be judged based on photos or wall posts on your profile?

2.  I enjoyed the discussion on the educator’s role for social networks.  I am friends with quite a few professors on Facebook, and sometimes I wonder if that would have been considered appropriate before social networks.  How has the world of social networking changed the boundaries of an appropriate student/teacher relationship?

3.  If it is true that the internet mirrors and magnifies all aspects of social life, does that mean that just because a teen displays sad song lyrics on a regular basis that they are depressed? If so, should there be some sort of online teen help organization that seeks out troubled teens based on their profiles?

1. Based on studies in the article, most people do not have a loyalty to a specific news site and will browse multiple sites for specific content.  How can news organizations embrace this information and cater to the specific needs of the customers they are looking to attract?

2. The article states that ad consumption is very low, with most people either ‘never’ or ‘almost never’ clicking on an online advertisement.  But, it does seem there are specific people (ones who check at least 6 different websites a day) who are more likely to click on an online advertisement.  With that information how can advertisers find the sites these people are most likely to visit and advertise their information there?

3. While new and old media have still not combined in the world of journalism, how are professional journalists supposed to find a way to compete with citizen journalists who will document the same information for free?

1. In the book “Free” Chris Anderson talks about video game advertising and how internet games allow advertisers to continually update their advertisements as opposed to building them into the original game, making them impossible to update. Does this change in advertisements make advertising more expensive and time consuming for advertisers since they can constantly update it? How much outcome must they get in order for this expense and time to be worth it?

This question reminds me of what we talked about in class today with marginal cost.  Even if it costs five dollars to make an advertisement, they only have to make it once and can rapidly increase their income by selling it over and over, with no cost to them.  So even if they are constantly updating the advertisements, the income that they are making for each advertisement would definitely make up for the cost it takes to make a new advertisement.  Therefore, it is well worth the time and effort it takes to update advertisements due to the internet’s marginal costs.

2. If giving free samples is so beneficial, why don’t more companies partake? I realize it’s mostly start up companies that benefit from it, but wouldn’t a “free burger” day from McDonald’s seriously benefit them? Because most people would also buy fries and a drink to go along with it.

I do think that it is helpful for companies to have a “free day” — or something along those lines.  It not only excites the customer (because, really, who doesn’t like free food?) it also reminds them of the product you are selling.  I remember not too long ago Chick-fil-A was having a morning where they were giving out free breakfast biscuits.  I hadn’t eaten at Chick-fil-A in months, but I couldn’t pass that offer up.  Ever since then I probably eat there once every week or two.  The free reminder of how delicious their chicken is made me want to go back for more.  Also, as we discussed in class people are more willing to pay for things when they get other stuff for free.  So, as I mentioned in my question, it is very likely that a free Chick-fil-A breakfast sandwich would prompt someone to also buy a drink and maybe even one of their delicious cheesecakes.  Free, in turn, is not free at all.

3. In chapter 16, Anderson says that free is no longer a trick. That “Trickery is no longer an essential part of the model”. I don’t believe that to be true. In fact, I think that because of the internet it is almost easier to “trick” someone into having them pay for something free. Think about all of the pop-up ads that make you think if you click a box it will go away, but doing that just takes you to another page, selling some sort of product? Doesn’t the free access of the internet actually make it much easier to trick someone into buying things?

I still believe this to be true.  It reminds me of all of the free trials that are offered on the internet, and yet you still must enter your credit card number in order for it to apply.  The advertisement will write in incredibly small print that if you don’t call a certain number within 30 days or less to cancel your subscription, that they will start charging your account.  What I have found is that it is really difficult to cancel these subscriptions, as they don’t want you to cancel them, because they want your money.  With that being said, I definitely think that the internet makes it easy for companies to “trick” a person into buying things that are actually meant to be free.

In Lessig’s book, he discusses the stipulations of copyright law.  He states that as long as the content you use it for is parody, then it is not considered to be copyright.  Because parody is generally used to mock or make fun of an original work, how do the courts differentiate from defamation?

Lessig also discusses the difference in laws between amateurs and professionals, but it seems the difference between the two is pretty shady.  How do we differentiate between the two to make that laws are being applied to the right group?

How are we, as students part of a digital age, supposed to adapt to these new copyright laws while at the same time making sure that our creative freedom is still at it’s highest possible level?

This week I decided to respond to another student’s questions:

How can the line of “fair use” and “theft” be better defined?

I think this is the biggest problem with copyright law — the difference between fair use and theft is so ambiguous.  There is a large variety of shady rules that justify whether or not you are implementing fair use.  For example, it is fair use based on “the nature of the copyrighted work”, or “the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole”.  Neither of these are definite.  In order to make them more definite they need to have specific stipulations:  It is fair use if you use 20 seconds of a 3 minute video, 30 seconds of a 4 minute video, 40 seconds of a five minute video, etc.  The “nature” of the copyrighted material is also difficult to define.  If they come up with more specific guidelines for the “nature” it would be easier for students like us to avoid accidental copyright infringement.

With all the shadiness in the copyright law and those who I feel abuse the law by  overusing those of us who are simply using music or art to convey our own art to others in a new expression, what could be created to create the balance between art , artists, and new media expression of art and artist’s work.

I believe you are talking about how copyrighted material is so accessible now because of new media.  It is definitely becoming an issue; people are posting their pictures online, and others are using them in their own works without permission from the original artist.  We all do it.  This is obviously a minor example of copyrighted infringement but what about people who are stealing music through P2P networks, then creating and selling their own remix with this music?  In order to control this, something needs to change.  It is crazy to say that we should stop all P2P sharing, that is a part of music that will never change.  However, maybe they could implement a new law that allows people to create their own remix’s as long as they download the music from the original artist.  Each artist could have their own “buying page” that allows you to buy a song (say $0.99 each) and as long as you get the material from there, you can do anything you want with it.  Then the artist is getting paid AND you get to use their music as you please, everyone wins!

Why and how would this change in rules or laws change our sources of media as interactive designers?

If this new way of working with music was actually implemented, I think it would save a lot of heart ache for both artists and designers.  Rather than going through months or even years of copyright law, they could simply go onto the artists website, buy the music there and not have to worry about copyright.  This new way of working could be implemented with all sorts of material too (pictures, writing, etc.).  I think that P2P sharing will always be a problem, but if this new law would make it easier for people to not have to worry about copyright infringement by simply buying the music, life for designers, remixers, etc. would be much easier