Posts Tagged: technology

Having the pleasure of presenting about the future of augmented reality for this class, I like to think that I found in a little insight on the technology. In researching for the presentation, I downloaded several iPhone apps to see just how real augmented reality is. What we talk about in class is exciting and fascinating, but as the iTunes store showed me, those potentials just aren’t quite realized yet in the commercial market. The apps I demonstrate in class are pretty much the best I could find.

So why the hype if the tech really isn’t at Minority Report level yet? Are we really just so excited by AR that we will willingly pay for novelty and impractical apps? In my opinion, yes that’s exactly what AR is right now. Here’s your average tech life-cycle: concept, crappy applications of said concept, practical uses of the concept, media overexposure,  replaced by a new crappy application of another novelty concept.

For example, let’s look at video games and their use of motion technology. A few years ago, when the Wii was released, it was the big new thing. I would call GameStop everyday to see if they had a Wii in stock until I finally got one. This Fall has seen the release of Playstation’s Move and Xbox’s Kinect. The reason non-gamers probably haven’t heard of Move is because it’s really just a refined version of Wii for the PS3. But consider the Kinect. I haven’t played it, but from what I’ve seen, its really just a novelty. There’s no games really worth indulging more than a couple hours in. Yet, what is the big seller this holiday season?

So with AR, even though there’s not much use in it now, we’re all wowed by the possibility of where it could go. We try to get whatever taste of it we can, and we’re briefly amused by the novelties, and then we convince ourselves that it’ll totally be awesome next time. The catch is – by the time we get to “next time,” the novelty will have worn off and we won’t be quite as excited by it (while Move is certainly a technical upgrade from the Wii, nobody really seems to care…).

So as designers, how do we account for the fickleness of audiences when it comes to new technologies? Well, consider Apple. When they released the iPhone, it worked out of the box doing everything they said it could. They didn’t bother releasing it when the touch controls merely worked, they released them when the controls were perfect. So when people got their iPhones, there was no real sense of “oh hey, this is cool, but it’ll probably get better in the future.” No, the iPhone was already cool. And when it did get more features and applications, that was just another reason for the same users to repurchase another phone.

But too often, companies don’t have the restraint of Apple. They throw it out there because they want the profit margin now. As far as AR goes, we’ve already got our taste of what the tech can possibly be do. But as for me, I think I’ll wait until they manage to actually deliver what they’re selling.

Going into this week, I’ll be honest- I was a little skeptical about the legitimacy of augmented reality, especially since there seems to be an abundance of hype but a scarcity of execution in consumers’ day-to-day lives. But our Skyping session on Monday put my skepticism to rest. Whurley actually touched on many of the augmented reality-related issues that I was considering while writing my framing questions for the week.

With the limited knowledge on the subject that I possessed at the time, I wasn’t sure how augmented reality was being incorporated into various sectors of society, outside of the superficial sports broadcasting examples that were given on Wikipedia. We didn’t exactly touch on the ways that augmented reality is incorporated into educational methods (maybe because it hasn’t yet reached that sector?) but we did discuss how professional organizations are using these new technologies. For instance, the smartphone apps that allow users to scan the streets before them to locate the nearest gym, restaurant, drug store, etc almost give these local businesses free advertising, in a sense- albeit without any effort on the part of the local business.

Regarding less trivial matters, it was really interesting to hear about how the military is using augmented reality-enhanced devices for a variety of uses. We hear all the time that the military utilizes advanced technologies that are way ahead of the game, in terms of what’s available to the average citizen for everyday use… but it never fails to blow my mind that military personnel have been using augmented reality to protect our country for years before I, and probably many others, even knew such a concept existed. On the other hand, it was slightly alarming to find out that military officials in the United States can remotely control weapon detonations across the world with little more than the click of a button. Sure, the technology behind augmented reality seems to present many benefits- the military can carry out attacks without putting their lives in harms way. I also think that the power that is synonymous with such advanced technologies should be exercised with great care and control. Imagine the chaos that would ensue if our enemies had access to such tools. While new technologies such as augmented reality-based devices are certainly exciting, they also raise further questions involving appropriate uses that will only continue to benefit our society as a whole.

1. Will augmented reality incorporate social media and networking in the near future?

2. What hardware and software are required to participate in augmented reality? How advanced will this technology become in the future?

3. What privacy and ethical concerns arise with augmented reality?

Payne reading

1.  So many of today’s video games create realistic war scenarios in family living rooms through a gaming console.  Would video games be as popular as they are if they encouraged less violent conduct?

2.  Should the military keep it’s advanced technology to themselves?  Does society need to experience realistic war combat in the same form that the military trains with?

3.  The more realistic the video game, the more believable and entertaining the experience for younger generations of gamers.  Are warfare video games “unhealthy” and destroying our future leaders if wars are portrayed as “realistic fun”?

4. The gaming industry is now more prosperous than the film industry.  What is it about gaming that has more people hooked?  Is a video game version of “Netflix” (Gameflix??) a possibility for the future?

It’s all about “freeconomics” and it’s being driven by the technologies of the digital age as the price of bandwidth and storage continue to drop.  Free started in the twentieth century by companies giving away something that encouraged purchases of other goods.  Now that we have entered the bit economy, free can really be free.  For example: while bloggers don’t post ads on their sites, they hope to enhance their reputation and by doing do get more paying work in return.  In today’s world a reputation’s credits can turn into cash.

But free does not simply apply to the digital world.  Advertisers have been known to pay some or all of the cost of publications.  Free versions of services sell premium versions.  Bands give away music to in return for paying shows.  The idea of free is becoming much more prevalent in today’s economy and industries need to learn to adapt to this growing economic trend.  This is a time period when we will see which companies fail and which companies “get it”.

The most difficult part of this new economy is to get users to pay anything at all.  The enemy of “free” is waste.  You are less likely to waste something you pay for and, in this sense, free can cause more harm than good.  For those of us that have more money than time, we would rather pay to have something done for us than do it ourselves.  It’s a time saver.  A successful example of this is iTunes.  Prices come with guarantees and free typically doesn’t.  Producers in the digital realm will find themselves completing with free.  It is not going away any time soon.

Google is a company that understands the world of “freeconomics”.  They first invented a way to search online that gets better as the web gets bigger.  Their next idea allowed advertisers to create as that matched keywords or content and bid against other advertisers to obtain the most prominent positions.  They then created other online products to extend their reach and only added ads when it made sense.  As a result, Google wants information to be free because as the cost of information falls it makes more money.

But lower prices can be disruptive.  The free classifieds site Craigslist has taken billions of dollars our of America’s newspaper companies since it’s found in 1996.  With technology, the notion of scale can also make a difference.  If only one out of thousands of Wikipedia visitors decides to create an entry on the site, you still benefit with a pile of information from around the world.  Microsoft’s Encarta CD encyclopedia was put out of business and they put traditional physical encyclopedias out of business before them.

In the second chapter of Jaron Lanier’s book, “You Are Not a Gadget,” the author brings up the concepts of Singularity and Rapture. Each term is a variation on the human apocalypse, as brought on by either robots or God. While Lanier discusses the topic in length, I want to probe further. Given theme of humans becoming obsolete, where do we stand as a society today?

“All of reality, including humans, is one big information system,” as Lanier describes the first tenet of a new technological culture. This concept, “that we’re all connected,” is far from merely a technological one. It is a philosophical one that stretches back as far time goes. Whether its Pocohantas singing with the colors of the wind, or Neytiri saying she sees you, many cultural philosophies theorize that all of life is a giant network. The difference today is that this network is scientifically measurable. Not only are there social networks like Facebook, we can also track dollar bills around the world or study trends in demographic data. Seemingly because of technology, our life is more systematic and connected  than ever.

By discussing this concept of a networked life, we must ask how this influences the obsolescence of humanity. Well I can see it being argued two ways: 1) the network empowers the individual for being part of a larger entity 2) the network renders the individual human insignificant within the grander system. Which argument you side depends on your perspective. Do we understand humanity through gestalt or detail? Do we consider a human being as a single person or a collection of atoms? My tendency is to look at these things as part of the whole. Therefore, each member of the network of life is empowered through the connections that it offers. Because of technology, we can find new friends and support groups, create and access more information, and form a stronger interdependence on our fellow man. While we can all do this in the pre-digital age, the methods to do so have never been as fast, effective, or efficient, as they are today.

Lanier infers that there is “a new kind of manifest destiny… making the digital system we call reality function at ever-higher “levels of description.” The issue is how and when computers surpass the human mind at these higher levels. It seems inevitable. What happens when computers can program other computers to be more efficient than themselves? What happens as this cycle continues to the point humans no longer matter? That would be the aforementioned singularity. While it seems obvious that we should simply not design technology like this in the first place, the human desire for artificial intelligence will only grow as we grow lazier and rely heavier on convenience. To ensure our own preservation, what do we do?

Consider Singularity’s counterpart, Rapture: the purported time when the evil are condemned to hell and the righteous are sent to heaven. Until then, we are recommended to follow a code of ethics towards our fellow man and to God. When developing increasingly sophisticated technology, we must also follow a code of ethics and not forget who the technology is being used for. If we create not for ourselves, but for humanity, than we can help ensure our own success. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. We are stronger as a society than as a group of individuals. Maybe if we all work together, we can stop the robot uprising and Arnold Schwarzenegger will never try to come back in time and kill us. Otherwise, we had better hope Will Smith is still around.

1. How do technology and mass communication relate to each other and is social media included in this definition of technology?

The reading explains that producing mass media to massive audiences is a fairly new idea. The printing press has been around for several hundred years; however, “the technologies for recording, preserving, and transmitting sounds and moving images appeared much more recently”, according to our textbook. The “penny press” was the first to produce newspapers to mass audiences. The book states that the beginning of the modern newspaper era “can be seen as the dawn of American mass communication”. The invention of steam engines and the telegraph during the Industrial Revolution also led to technological development.

America has progressed in technology extremely fast. At the turn of the 20th century, magazines, books, printed advertising, the phonograph, motion picture cinemas, and radio all were introduced and were fighting for America’s attention. Ever since then, we have been growing into a technological power house. New things are being developed everyday.

I enjoyed reading about the history of America’s technology. I find it extremely interesting to see where we have come from and it makes me excited to think about where we are going. As far as the “social media” aspect of my question, I think that our technology is getting extremely advanced. However, I do not consider social media a type of technology. I do, however, feel that the tools that are use to participate in social media will get more advanced. Who knows what the next step will be after having Facebook and Twitter on cell phones, but I am excited for the future.

2. Does an active audience think about theory the way that we are interactive media artists do? How do we interpret what an active audience is looking for in media?

I think I have come to discover that an audience does not thinking about theory whenever they are choosing a medium or when they are involved in the media. They actively seek out which medium best suits their needs and represents what they are trying to discover. I think we, as designers, can only conduct research to discover what it is that an active audience is looking for. I feel like different audiences uses different mediums at different points in time. A designer simply needs to keep up with the trends and conduct research to discover what it is that their target audience is looking for.

3. Do all of the theories mentioned in the chapters relate to each other in some way? What theory is best suitable for an audience in interactive media?

I have come to discover than no theory in particular is the perfect theory for an audience. I do, however, think that all the theories coincide with each other in some way. I feel like whenever you are working with a specific audience, research is the best way to start. A designer/developer can theorize about something all day; however, until they conduct the research, the theory is worthless.

In response to my classmate’s question of “Who is ultimately responsible for conveying the truth to the public?”, this is an interesting question to ask. I could ponder it for a long time. However, in today’s culture, I think that the government and the media try to convey the “truth” the American public. However, what do we really define as the truth? Also, can we ever really know what the truth is? I feel like sometimes we only know what we are told. This is a scary though, especially in today’s world. Should we all just follow and tell what we believe to be true? Maybe we should rely on anyone else to tell us the truth. Maybe we should be telling the truth for ourselves. Interesting question to ponder.

Since I am a history enthusiast on the side, the historical aspects of mass communications intrigued me in this week’s readings.  Only humans use symbols to convey concepts and ideas either through spoken language or written visual imagery.  Early communication records are visual pictures scribbled on walls that depict the world at that time.  Obviously, we are unsure of very primitive spoken language since this was harder to record.  However, we then advanced to written language using symbols that have evolved over time into an alphabet we recognize today.  Symbols were first used either to convey things in the world or ideas and then morphed into representing sounds that could be put together to make words.  In our modern world, there are times when simple images work better to convey a message than written language.  For instance, people across all cultures and languages recognize a figure walking on a yellow street sign but not everyone would understand a word written in a different language.  Ancient techniques still work best when communicating to massive audiences with different backgrounds.

Mass communication is a result of the Industrial Revolution and is considered a more modern development in the history of human interactions.  Although we have had written language dating back thousands of years, large-scale reproduction of these symbols was not possible until the invention of movable type and the printing press (only 500 years ago).  Before this time an audience was relatively small and restricted to geographic location.  Communication earned the term “mass” when ideas were spread quickly by reproductions of written language.

For centuries mass communication was a one-way method from communicator to audience.  With the advancements in new media we are able to receive immediate feedback from an audience, which in turn creates a two-way conversation never before possible in such large masses.  Mass communication was not possible until technologies were developed to reproduce our written (or drawn) works in large quantities for distribution.  Before modern times communication was much more personal. As we use the term mass media today, it refers to communication that is “mediated or enhanced by technology.”

Today, the defining characteristics of mass communication (scale, direction, impersonality/anonymity, simultaneity, transience and audience) need to be rethought from a digital perspective.  There is no one-way flow of information anymore.  Computers blur the number of recipients and the ability to provide feedback as an audience member.  Confusion among researches expanded as they discovered the Internet didn’t fit traditional ideas of mass communication anymore.  We now have to recognize the difference between the sending and receiving of mass messages and those received through interpersonal and small group mediums.

Although communication grew to larger audiences over time thanks to technological advances that spread ideas more quickly, people still learn directly from others.   However, social norms, trends and customs come from the mass media.  Movies and YouTube videos play a role in people’s motivations. Magazines and print paint a metal image of how women see themselves compared to others and what trends are popular for the upcoming season.  Bloggers have brought various subjects or events to the world’s attention and influenced public officials.  It is evident that mass communication not only has an effect on people, but it is also a powerful source of social norms and behavior.

1. How do technology and mass communication relate to each other and is social media included in this definition of technology?

2. Does an active audience think about theory the way that we are interactive media artists do? How do we interpret what an active audience is looking for in media?

3. Do all of the theories mentioned in the chapters relate to each other in some way? What theory is best suitable for an audience in interactive media?

1. Chapter 5 briefly discusses the “summary of the Transmission of Direct Effects Model” in studying how messages are transmitted, received and have an effect on people. he reading says this paradigm is based on the idea that media messages were assumed to have a direct influence on those who were exposed to them. But what about messages that don’t have a direct impact on the audience? What are studies that have been conducted on ineffective ad campaigns, for instance?

2. I always think the idea of social responsibility and the press is an interesting one. According to this theory, the press is obligated to provide a truthful account of events to its readership, among other responsibilities. If there is an instance of an embellished story, does it directly affect the public’s trust in that particular publication?

3. According to the uses and gratifications theory, many goals of mass media use can be derived from data supplied by individuals themselves as they report their interests and motives. I’m always interested in learning about the varying motivations for using new technologies, so what would be some of the specific uses and gratifications of the iPad, and how are they different from the motivations of using a standard MacBook or other Apple computer?