Thursday, June 11, 2009
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Web 2.0 Hype or Hapiness Response
This article brought up a lot of good points about accessibility problems surrounding the Internet and Web 2.0 applications. The author brought up technical, mental, and physical issues with accessibility, however, I feel that two of those three arguments are somewhat irrelevant.
The Internet is an extremely technical entity. It seems like everyday there is some new application or a new feature that looks to be the next big thing. The nature of Internet is to advance its technical features, and this can sometimes leave some users in the dust with their slow download times and their out-of-date PC's. To me, this is not a legitimate reason to slow or "dumb-down" the Internet. I'm not saying people should load up their sites with as much content as possible, but applications like facebook, twitter, digg, etc. really don't take an extremely long time to load. Even on a 56K modem, the only thing that takes a painfully long time are videos, and that's just simply unavoidable. From a web developers standpoint, I feel that the users who are reluctant to upgrade their technology are also the users who don't particularly care to use it, so why should a developer spend countless hours making a site more accessible when those people with 56K modems probably won't make use of it? In my experience, the users who do update their technology and do use the services are the ones who lose out, because that time spent making sites accessible could be spend improving the features that already exist.
From a mental standpoint, the article talks about old people being less inclined to try out new technologies. Is this really a developers responsibility? Again, from a developers standpoint, my job is to create software and applications that work as they've been designed. Making software more appealing to older generations really sounds like something for the marketing department, not the developers.
The last argument this paper made was the physical disconnection in Web 2.0. Well, they've got me there. The world of physical disabilities and 3rd party interpreting hardware (screen readers, etc.) is an absolute mess. The bottom line is that the internet is an extremely interactive medium, and those who's interaction is disabled in a certain way are bound to experience some limitations. Until more regulations are set in place for developers and third party software and hardware, this is an aspect of the web that i don't see drastically improving in the near future.
The Internet is an extremely technical entity. It seems like everyday there is some new application or a new feature that looks to be the next big thing. The nature of Internet is to advance its technical features, and this can sometimes leave some users in the dust with their slow download times and their out-of-date PC's. To me, this is not a legitimate reason to slow or "dumb-down" the Internet. I'm not saying people should load up their sites with as much content as possible, but applications like facebook, twitter, digg, etc. really don't take an extremely long time to load. Even on a 56K modem, the only thing that takes a painfully long time are videos, and that's just simply unavoidable. From a web developers standpoint, I feel that the users who are reluctant to upgrade their technology are also the users who don't particularly care to use it, so why should a developer spend countless hours making a site more accessible when those people with 56K modems probably won't make use of it? In my experience, the users who do update their technology and do use the services are the ones who lose out, because that time spent making sites accessible could be spend improving the features that already exist.
From a mental standpoint, the article talks about old people being less inclined to try out new technologies. Is this really a developers responsibility? Again, from a developers standpoint, my job is to create software and applications that work as they've been designed. Making software more appealing to older generations really sounds like something for the marketing department, not the developers.
The last argument this paper made was the physical disconnection in Web 2.0. Well, they've got me there. The world of physical disabilities and 3rd party interpreting hardware (screen readers, etc.) is an absolute mess. The bottom line is that the internet is an extremely interactive medium, and those who's interaction is disabled in a certain way are bound to experience some limitations. Until more regulations are set in place for developers and third party software and hardware, this is an aspect of the web that i don't see drastically improving in the near future.
Video Podcast Topic
For my video podcast, I will be talking about some of the technology being used behind the 2009 Soul of Athens project. Our proud achievement this year was connecting Adobe Flash to our Drupal database. I plan on giving a brief description of how we did this, as well as talk about it's strengths and possibilities.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Creativity & Research Fair
My trip to this year's Creativity & Research Fair was an enjoyable experience. My favorite table that I visited would have to be the Digital Media Gamers, all of whom are good friends of mine. The group consisted of Tony Urso, Adam Moore, and Brandon Evans, although several other students have helped work on the games they were showing.
The group displayed two games they've produced: "Blazar" and "Financially Correct". Both games were fun to play, and showed a great deal of hard work and skill on the side of the production team. "Blazar" is the more complete game of the two, as "Financially Correct" is still in production.
This group has a lot of talent, and I'm very excited for the opportunities that may await them. Good luck guys!
The group displayed two games they've produced: "Blazar" and "Financially Correct". Both games were fun to play, and showed a great deal of hard work and skill on the side of the production team. "Blazar" is the more complete game of the two, as "Financially Correct" is still in production.
This group has a lot of talent, and I'm very excited for the opportunities that may await them. Good luck guys!
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Promotional Podcast on the Soul of Athens
I chose to interview Caroline Caine on the 2009 Soul of Athens project for my podcast. The Soul of Athens is my capstone project for my Interactive Multimedia major, so I decided to do my podcast about it. Both Caroline and I have been putting in countless hours into the project, so I figured a few more wouldn't hurt. I will be giving our marketing director a link to this podcast to let her decide if she would like to use it for actual promotional use.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Podcasting 101
Podcasts are a very interesting medium that has strongly emerged over the last few years. There are many benefits to the technology, as special interest demand on the Internet has skyrocketed. Even if a podcast has only a few subscribers, it is usually profitable as podcasts are very inexpensive to produce. This benefits the provider with profits, while the audience benefits by having their interests met.
Certain topics of podcasts are subscribed to more often than others, many of these being popular figures and characters in our popular culture. Podcasts are used for everything including news, sports, television programs, business, comedy, education, government, music, science, and culture. With the emergence of Web 2.0, more and more people are directly accessing the information they want rather than sitting in front of a television and viewing what they're given. This is what gives podcasting limitless opportunities.
Personally, I do not regularly listen to any podcasts, although I can't really pinpoint a reason as to why not. Time is a large factor, as a web developer, I spend large amounts of time in front of a computer screen for my job and school work. When I do get some free time, I usually relax and watch a few recorded DVR episodes (DVR is quite comparable to podcasting in the sense of user control), get some exercise, or just relax with friends. I'm not exactly aching to spend that free time listening/watching podcasts on the Internet. Perhaps if podcasting made the jump to television (even though there's hardly any difference between the viewing experience), where they could be accessed from something similar to a DVR menu, I would feel more inclined to watch them.
I also feel that the name "podcast" has kept the technology from being completely accepted by our culture. While it's probably much too late to change it, I feel that many adults not of the Internet generation don't really know what a podcast is. When a technology has a potentially confusing name, it only deters people from using it.
Certain topics of podcasts are subscribed to more often than others, many of these being popular figures and characters in our popular culture. Podcasts are used for everything including news, sports, television programs, business, comedy, education, government, music, science, and culture. With the emergence of Web 2.0, more and more people are directly accessing the information they want rather than sitting in front of a television and viewing what they're given. This is what gives podcasting limitless opportunities.
Personally, I do not regularly listen to any podcasts, although I can't really pinpoint a reason as to why not. Time is a large factor, as a web developer, I spend large amounts of time in front of a computer screen for my job and school work. When I do get some free time, I usually relax and watch a few recorded DVR episodes (DVR is quite comparable to podcasting in the sense of user control), get some exercise, or just relax with friends. I'm not exactly aching to spend that free time listening/watching podcasts on the Internet. Perhaps if podcasting made the jump to television (even though there's hardly any difference between the viewing experience), where they could be accessed from something similar to a DVR menu, I would feel more inclined to watch them.
I also feel that the name "podcast" has kept the technology from being completely accepted by our culture. While it's probably much too late to change it, I feel that many adults not of the Internet generation don't really know what a podcast is. When a technology has a potentially confusing name, it only deters people from using it.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
"I don't think they will be as talked about in a year's time"
The first thing that jumped out at me about the first article was a quote from Mike Smartt, editor of BBC News Online.
This article was published May 25, 2003 (correct me if I'm wrong, Europe does their dates all funny like) Well, here we are not one, but six years later still talking about it. Not only are we talking about it, but "it" or blogging and other web 2.0 technologies are growing exponentially. Good thing that guys an editor and not anyone's adviser.
The main argument of these two sources is whether or not blogging can be considered journalism. Robert L. Belichick, a regular blogger, expresses a very good and relevant point in an interview with dotJournalsim.
I feel like this is very true. Because of Web 2.0 technologies, people are now directly seeking the information we want, as opposed to watching a news broadcast, and receiving the information we're presented. I feel like this demand for information is directly linked to recent frustration and unrest when dealing with our mass media, as well as our government. Our new president Barack Obama played off this frustration by calling out the media and our government on their wrongdoings. My point here is that when arguing the credibility of blogging and other web 2.0 technologies, what exactly is your definition of credible? If we're comparing blogging to the mass media, I'm afraid I'd much rather have blogging.
Many journalists are worried that blogging will take over newspapers and news broadcasts, thus leaving them out of a job. I don't empathize with them on this because in my opinion, they should respond by working to raise positive perception of the media by producing a higher-quality product. Matt Haughey, creator of Metafilter.com told dotJournalism:
In summary, I do believe blogging can be equated to journalism, but one must keep in mind what makes them different. Using bloggs as an informational source can be very useful, but as Matt Haughey reminds us, it's a good idea to cross check the blog's references and sources.
In the end, if the journalists would quit whining and concentrate more on producing true journalstic content, I think citizen journalsim can tremendously help the field of journalism. I feel that modern day journalism tends to be dry, hard-cut facts with an equally boring picture to go with it. Hopefully, blogging will up the ante for the quality of mainstream journalism.
"It's like all stuff on the web. Dissemination of information is great, but how much of it is trustworthy? They are an interesting phenomenon, but I don't think they will be as talked about in a year's time."
This article was published May 25, 2003 (correct me if I'm wrong, Europe does their dates all funny like) Well, here we are not one, but six years later still talking about it. Not only are we talking about it, but "it" or blogging and other web 2.0 technologies are growing exponentially. Good thing that guys an editor and not anyone's adviser.
The main argument of these two sources is whether or not blogging can be considered journalism. Robert L. Belichick, a regular blogger, expresses a very good and relevant point in an interview with dotJournalsim.
"The main reason for going to the blogs is for information that will never see the light of day in the print or TV media realm. I am not sure if blogging is journalism, but I do believe it is more responsible than the media. Remember the bloggers are not sponsored or beholden to the six major companies that own the media in the US."
I feel like this is very true. Because of Web 2.0 technologies, people are now directly seeking the information we want, as opposed to watching a news broadcast, and receiving the information we're presented. I feel like this demand for information is directly linked to recent frustration and unrest when dealing with our mass media, as well as our government. Our new president Barack Obama played off this frustration by calling out the media and our government on their wrongdoings. My point here is that when arguing the credibility of blogging and other web 2.0 technologies, what exactly is your definition of credible? If we're comparing blogging to the mass media, I'm afraid I'd much rather have blogging.
Many journalists are worried that blogging will take over newspapers and news broadcasts, thus leaving them out of a job. I don't empathize with them on this because in my opinion, they should respond by working to raise positive perception of the media by producing a higher-quality product. Matt Haughey, creator of Metafilter.com told dotJournalism:
"While people from journalism backgrounds tend to say they aspire to the high ideals of truth, fairness, and accuracy, I don't think the output of most newspapers comes close to that. When I'm reading a blog that features reportage or fact-checking, I can determine myself if the author is being factual because they'll reveal their sources in links, and I can read up on them to determine how impartial they are being."
In summary, I do believe blogging can be equated to journalism, but one must keep in mind what makes them different. Using bloggs as an informational source can be very useful, but as Matt Haughey reminds us, it's a good idea to cross check the blog's references and sources.
In the end, if the journalists would quit whining and concentrate more on producing true journalstic content, I think citizen journalsim can tremendously help the field of journalism. I feel that modern day journalism tends to be dry, hard-cut facts with an equally boring picture to go with it. Hopefully, blogging will up the ante for the quality of mainstream journalism.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)