This is part 2 of Assignment 3, part 2. This is also for the "Features" section of the site.
ERIC CARLE
In the light of the moon, a little egg lay on a leaf.
On Sunday morning, the warm sun came up and pop! out of the egg came a tiny but very hungry caterpillar…
It’s hard to believe that The Very Hungry Caterpillar turns 40 this year, and its author – Eric Carle – has turned 80. The Very Hungry Caterpillar is still as popular as it was in 1969, and the caterpillar is still… well, very hungry!
One of the most common questions Eric gets from fans is: where did the idea for The Very Hungry Caterpillar come from?
There are many answers, Eric says. Some of the idea can be seen from when Eric Carle was a child. As a boy, Eric used to love walking in the woods with his father – and here, Eric learned to love bugs and animals. He says, "When I was a boy, my father would take me on walks across meadows and through woods. He would lift a stone or peel back the bark of a tree and show me the living things that lived underneath. These were very magical times and I think in my books I honour my father by writing about small creatures and the natural world. And in a way I recapture those happy times we had together." This love of nature is very clear in all of Eric’s books.
But ideas also come from just playing around. Eric says in an article from Scholastic that one day he was making holes with a holepunch and an idea came. "I playfully punched a hole into a stack of papers. I thought, a bookworm at work! Not enough for a book, but, nevertheless, a beginning." This developed into a book about a worm called Willi. It was Eric’s editor, though, who first gave him the idea for writing a story about a caterpillar, and The Very Hungry Caterpillar was born.
Today, the book has sold 29 million copies and is translated into 47 languages! The Telegraph notes that Eric has also written or illustrated over 70 picture books. These include The Very Busy Spider, The Very Quiet Cricket, Brown Bear Brown Bear What Do You See, and The Mixed-Up Chameleon.
But The Very Hungry Caterpillar will probably always be his best-known book.
"My friends, my family, my editors, my publisher, we all wondered why it's been so successful," Eric told Newsweek. "It is a book about hope. If you're an insignificant caterpillar, you can grow up to be a big butterfly in the world."
If you haven’t yet been introduced to Eric Carle’s delightful illustrations and wonderful storytelling, now is the time to start!
Click here to watch a video of Eric Carle talking about his books!
Click here to buy this book now from Amazon.com
Sunday, November 8, 2009
GREAT BOOKS FOR GIRLS
This is 500-word article #3, as part of ASSIGNMENT 3 PART 2.
This article is for KidsReads.com, and is pitched for the "Features" section. Disclaimer: The link for "Great Books for Boys" on the website is shown, but the link itself appears to be broken on the site, which is why an error page comes up when the link is clicked. -CM
GREAT BOOKS FOR GIRLS
After our last story on Great Books for Boys, it’s time to look at some great books that every girl should read!
Charlotte's Web
HarperCollins
Zuckerman’s farm is full of animals, but the pig, Wilbur, is lonely and bored, and he misses his beloved owner Fern. That is until Charlotte, the beautiful grey spider, appears in the barn and vows to rescue Wilbur from a farm pig’s usual fate. Charlotte’s plot to save Wilbur’s life – with the unlikely help of Templeton the rat – has delighted children for generations.
Click here to buy this book now from Amazon.com
From the Mixed-Up Files of Mrs. Basil E. Frankweiler, by E.L. Konigsburg
Atheneum
Claudia is tired of being unappreciated at home. So, with her cheapskate brother Jamie, she hatches a plot to run away and live at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. But Claudia and Jamie stumble on more than they bargained for when they discover Angel, the beautiful marble statue in the museum. What is Angel’s secret? Was she really sculpted by the great Michelangelo? And who is Mrs. Basil E. Frankweiler, the statue’s enigmatic donor? Only Claudia and Jamie can find out!
Click here to buy this book now from Amazon.com
Little Women, by Louisa May Alcott
Signet Classics
“Christmas won’t be Christmas without any presents,” grumbled Jo, lying on the rug… So begins this famous story of the March family – Meg, the graceful oldest sister; the frank, spirited Jo; quiet Beth; and ambitious Amy. As their father fights in the war far away from home, the March girls each face their own troubles and triumphs – each learning in her own way how to become a “little woman”.
Click here to buy this book now from Amazon.com
Anne of Green Gables, by L.M. Montgomery
Grosset & Dunlap
Matthew and Marilla Cuthbert want to adopt a boy to help them take care of Green Gables, the home they’ve lived in for over fifty years. It’s the last thing they expect, then, when a clerical error brings them Anne Shirley instead – a dreamy, red-haired orphan girl with a talent for getting into scrapes. Anne’s adventures as she meets new friends, goes to school, schemes and dreams make for a great read for all ages!
Click here to buy this book now from Amazon.com
A Little Princess, by Frances Hodgson Burnett
Sterling
When nine-year-old Sara Crewe goes to live at Miss Minchin’s Academy for Young Ladies, she has everything she could want – a maid to wait on her, a room of her own, dozens of dresses, and a beautiful doll named Emily. She is treated like a little princess. But then tragedy strikes, and the cruel Miss Minchin takes away all of Sara’s wonderful things and forces her to work as a servant with the scullery maid, Becky. Can Sara still be a little princess when she’s in rags?
Click here to buy this book now from Amazon.com
Monday, October 19, 2009
Mobile Networking: The Next Generation
This is my final blog post for the year, so I thought I'd turn my attention to the future of social networking and what is predicted for the years to come.
First, we social networked through computers, which are fast but not always accessible. More recently, the iPhone has made computers an optional extra in the ability to get on social networking sites, with more and more people updating their statuses through texting.
Now, according to Times Online and TechCrunch blogs, it looks like the mobile phone is going step up another notch. Proximity technology (like mobile phone GPS) + Social networking (like Facebook) = The new generation of social networking.
You walk into a party and can't remember someone's name. No hassle. Just pull out your trusty mobile, which can detect satellites and other mobiles around you, and look the person up, along with other stats.
You walk into a party and don't know anyone. No problem. Pulling out your mobile, bang! you discover you have a mutual friend or a common interest with someone 10m away from you. Conversation sorted.
You walk into a party and are hoping to meet someone single. Not a worry. Pull out your mobile and look it up. It's easy.
This mobile-centric version of social networking definitely seems like the logical step for social networks. But there are definite limitations that I can see. People will want to join to be part of a community, but the community's success depends entirely on having enough people on it to make it worthwhile joining... kind of a vicious cycle. Additionally, privacy is a big issue. Do you really want any random on the street being able to look up your personal details?
And I have to say, Mike Harvey in the Times Online article makes a lot of sense when he suggests:
Well... what do you guys think? Is this the future of social networking? Anyone heard any other theories?
First, we social networked through computers, which are fast but not always accessible. More recently, the iPhone has made computers an optional extra in the ability to get on social networking sites, with more and more people updating their statuses through texting.
Now, according to Times Online and TechCrunch blogs, it looks like the mobile phone is going step up another notch. Proximity technology (like mobile phone GPS) + Social networking (like Facebook) = The new generation of social networking.
You walk into a party and can't remember someone's name. No hassle. Just pull out your trusty mobile, which can detect satellites and other mobiles around you, and look the person up, along with other stats.
You walk into a party and don't know anyone. No problem. Pulling out your mobile, bang! you discover you have a mutual friend or a common interest with someone 10m away from you. Conversation sorted.
You walk into a party and are hoping to meet someone single. Not a worry. Pull out your mobile and look it up. It's easy.
This mobile-centric version of social networking definitely seems like the logical step for social networks. But there are definite limitations that I can see. People will want to join to be part of a community, but the community's success depends entirely on having enough people on it to make it worthwhile joining... kind of a vicious cycle. Additionally, privacy is a big issue. Do you really want any random on the street being able to look up your personal details?
And I have to say, Mike Harvey in the Times Online article makes a lot of sense when he suggests:
...in the end, are mobile social networks not just a nerdy replacement for people simply talking to each other? As one blogger put it: “I am pretty sure that an actual conversation will do the same thing. Is this the evolution of geek dating?”
Well... what do you guys think? Is this the future of social networking? Anyone heard any other theories?
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Web + Uni Standards = ?
Disclaimer: While most of my posts have been dealing with social networking and other online communities, this post was inspired by our recent class which dealt with plagiarism and online content. So, a slight switch of gears.
Websites are to referencing what Marmite is to spreads. Vastly inferior.
That's what my uni career so far has shown me, at least. When it comes to referencing, almost anything is preferred to websites -- books, journals, newspapers, conference papers, edited books, papers, even films. Over and over again, my tutors have drilled into me that websites should be used sparingly, if at all, as references, and if they are, they must be "reputable".
I'm not saying this is unreasonable. Anyone can publish a website; you can write whatever you want, filter-free. Ripping information from a website is also much easier with copy and paste functions (although it's still not recommended; people still can find out, it's just less obvious). Books, on the other hand, aren't like that, and nor are newspapers, or journals, or conference papers, or films -- you can't plagiarise them easily, and they are a much more definitive source of credible information. It makes sense that websites aren't indiscriminately taken as gospel.
It's interesting to think that in a world where most people are informed by the web, the web is considered the least academic -- and arguably the least reliable -- source of information. I think I speak for most people when I say that, if I have some information I'm looking for, nine times out of ten I will go to an online source like Google, rather than borrow a book. Yet this information is, to educated people, considered the least reliable of any source.
How does this affect what we know? Will there one day be a system in place of "reliable" websites and "non-reliable" ones, rather than the hit-and-miss system of today where you guess the best you can whether a site has reliable back-up? Any thoughts?
Websites are to referencing what Marmite is to spreads. Vastly inferior.
That's what my uni career so far has shown me, at least. When it comes to referencing, almost anything is preferred to websites -- books, journals, newspapers, conference papers, edited books, papers, even films. Over and over again, my tutors have drilled into me that websites should be used sparingly, if at all, as references, and if they are, they must be "reputable".
I'm not saying this is unreasonable. Anyone can publish a website; you can write whatever you want, filter-free. Ripping information from a website is also much easier with copy and paste functions (although it's still not recommended; people still can find out, it's just less obvious). Books, on the other hand, aren't like that, and nor are newspapers, or journals, or conference papers, or films -- you can't plagiarise them easily, and they are a much more definitive source of credible information. It makes sense that websites aren't indiscriminately taken as gospel.
It's interesting to think that in a world where most people are informed by the web, the web is considered the least academic -- and arguably the least reliable -- source of information. I think I speak for most people when I say that, if I have some information I'm looking for, nine times out of ten I will go to an online source like Google, rather than borrow a book. Yet this information is, to educated people, considered the least reliable of any source.
How does this affect what we know? Will there one day be a system in place of "reliable" websites and "non-reliable" ones, rather than the hit-and-miss system of today where you guess the best you can whether a site has reliable back-up? Any thoughts?
Monday, October 12, 2009
Social Media Users Anonymous
"Social media crack". You heard it here first.
I found an article by Sharon Gaudin which asserts that we are so addicted to social networking that there will be hell and public outcry if we don't get it. After Twitter was knocked offline by a distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack in August 2009, the website went down and millions of people were unable to tweet for two hours. In response, social networkers fled to their Facebook pages to write strongly-worded statuses about their inability to use Twitter, but some Facebook pages were also slowed by the connection problems, leaving many social networkers simply more frustrated.
As Gaudin writes:
When Twitter went offline yesterday, 45 million users -- including a growing number of older users -- were affected. And they were vocal about their feelings about it. One Facebook user noted, "Suffering tweet withdrawal." Another posted, "Wanting Twitter - NOW."
I was about to say "this is surprising", but it's not really. I'm not into Twitter, but I'll confess to having had times where I've been annoyed at slow connection or "page unavailable" errors when I've been trying to get on Facebook. I check mine every day, at least once a day and usually more. If that's addiction, then I guess I'm addicted.
It's interesting to think that only twenty or even fifteen years ago, social networking wasn't even a part of our lives, at least not our everyday interactions. When you consider how long things like paper, printing presses, telegrams, telephones and other forms of communication took to develop and -- then -- to take off, this is actually amazingly fast.
I am addicted to social networking... even if I hope never to use the phrase "tweet withdrawal".
Assignment 3, Pt 1
Image from http://worldsstrongestlibrarian.com
December 2009
After 40 years of popularity, as well as winning the prestigious Caldecott Medal in 1964, Maurice Sendak’s Where the Wild Things Are is truly a children’s classic. Before seeing the movie, it’s a book everyone should read.
Max is a boy who loves getting up to mischief. After Max has been jumping down stairs, talking back to his mother and chasing the dog, Max’s mother finally sends her son to his room without supper.
No sooner is Max alone in his room than strange things begin to happen. A forest grows in his room, the walls disappear and Max finds himself sailing across an ocean by private boat. The place he lands is an island populated by Wild Things – huge and terrible creatures with terrible claws and rolling eyes. But Max is not afraid, taming the Wild Things, who quickly hail Max as their king. Max leads them in a wild rumpus of mischief and mayhem, until he begins to miss his mother and he decides home isn’t so bad after all.
Maurice Sendak is both the author and illustrator of the book. There are big pictures, sometimes taking up the whole page. Some younger readers may find the Wild Things frightening, but very few readers fail to enjoy Max’s wild adventure of imagination. This book would probably suit readers from Kindergarten to grade 3.
A movie of Where the Wild Things Are will be coming to theatres in December, with Spike Jonze directing and featuring Max Records, Catherine O’Hara, James Gandolfini and Forest Whitaker. The book is so massively popular that it would be a very big task to take on an adaptation. But the film is already getting plenty of recognition for its combination of puppetry, voice performances and animation, and it looks to be one of the biggest movies of the year. While the film looks a little creepy (it’s rated PG, so it may have some scenes that younger viewers may find scary), it’s definitely set to be a treat.
Before seeing the movie, remember to read the original classic!
Where the Wild Things Are
by Maurice Sendak
Red Fox Books, 1963
Ages 4-8
After 40 years of popularity, as well as winning the prestigious Caldecott Medal in 1964, Maurice Sendak’s Where the Wild Things Are is truly a children’s classic. Before seeing the movie, it’s a book everyone should read.
Max is a boy who loves getting up to mischief. After Max has been jumping down stairs, talking back to his mother and chasing the dog, Max’s mother finally sends her son to his room without supper.
No sooner is Max alone in his room than strange things begin to happen. A forest grows in his room, the walls disappear and Max finds himself sailing across an ocean by private boat. The place he lands is an island populated by Wild Things – huge and terrible creatures with terrible claws and rolling eyes. But Max is not afraid, taming the Wild Things, who quickly hail Max as their king. Max leads them in a wild rumpus of mischief and mayhem, until he begins to miss his mother and he decides home isn’t so bad after all.
Maurice Sendak is both the author and illustrator of the book. There are big pictures, sometimes taking up the whole page. Some younger readers may find the Wild Things frightening, but very few readers fail to enjoy Max’s wild adventure of imagination. This book would probably suit readers from Kindergarten to grade 3.
A movie of Where the Wild Things Are will be coming to theatres in December, with Spike Jonze directing and featuring Max Records, Catherine O’Hara, James Gandolfini and Forest Whitaker. The book is so massively popular that it would be a very big task to take on an adaptation. But the film is already getting plenty of recognition for its combination of puppetry, voice performances and animation, and it looks to be one of the biggest movies of the year. While the film looks a little creepy (it’s rated PG, so it may have some scenes that younger viewers may find scary), it’s definitely set to be a treat.
Before seeing the movie, remember to read the original classic!
Where the Wild Things Are
by Maurice Sendak
Red Fox Books, 1963
Ages 4-8
Assignment 3, Pt 1: Articles for KidsReads
Hi everyone -- I chose to do my articles for KidsReads, a site dedicated to reviews of children's books -- since I did some children's lit in my undergrad and really enjoyed it.
There are many sections of the site. My first article was pitched for Harry Central, the specifically Harry Potter-oriented section of the site. My second article was for the Features section of the site, inspired by a brief article about Where the Wild Things Are in the Books Into Movies page.
-CM
NEW HARRY THEME PARK
Ever since Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone first hit the shelves of bookstores across the world, Harry Potter fans everywhere have dreamed of visiting Hogwarts, playing Quidditch and visiting Diagon Alley.
But the chance to visit Harry’s world for real may soon be here. The Wizarding Worlds of Harry Potter theme park is expected to open in Universal Studios in the US in 2010, a “theme park within a theme park” that will bring the magic of J.K. Rowling’s magical and popular series to life, according to Universal Studio Orlando Resort's official site.
But the chance to visit Harry’s world for real may soon be here. The Wizarding Worlds of Harry Potter theme park is expected to open in Universal Studios in the US in 2010, a “theme park within a theme park” that will bring the magic of J.K. Rowling’s magical and popular series to life, according to Universal Studio Orlando Resort's official site.
J.K. Rowling has given a seal of approval to the plans. “The plans I've seen look incredibly exciting,” she says to BBC News. “I don't think fans of the books or films will be disappointed.”
Expectations are very high. According to WA Today, the books have sold over 400 million copies in both adult and child editions, have been sold in over 200 countries and are available in 67 languages. Films of the books have grossed over $1.3 billion worldwide and have featured such star power as Alan Rickman, Maggie Smith, Richard Harris, Michael Gambon, John Cleese, Timothy Spall, Jim Broadbent, Helena Bonham Carter and Gary Oldman. The phenomenon of the books is destined to endure for years to come, with the books already considered classics.
Anyone who has read the books will know that the task of recreating the boy wizard’s world is a huge one. But Tom Williams, chairman and CEO of Universal Parks and Resort, promises that the park will live up to the hopes of fans, as he tells WA Today. "All of the action and adventures of Harry Potter's world will come to life here at Universal Orlando Resort," he says. "The Wizarding World of Harry Potter will be unlike any other experience on earth."
To stay true to Rowling’s books, the creative team for the park will be led by Stuart Craig, who is an Oscar-winner for production design and has worked on the Harry Potter movies. J.K. Rowling herself has also worked closely with the designers to make sure Harry’s world is as true to the books as possible. “Our primary goal is to make sure this experience is an authentic extension of Harry Potter's world as it is portrayed in the books and films,” Craig told BBC News.
The park will be full of activities for Harry readers to enjoy. Fans can treat themselves to Butterbeer at a replica of the Three Broomsticks, shopping at Hogsmeade, as well as have a chance to ride a Hippogriff in one of the many planned theme rides. Braver visitors will also be given a chance to give Quidditch a try, competing in the excitement of the Triwizard Tournament.
“Harry Potter continues to spark the imaginations of fans of all ages,” said the president of Warner Bros Consumer Products, Brad Globe, to WA Today. “We really have seen the anticipation continue to build for The Wizarding World of Harry Potter.”
Official images can be found here at the official Universal Studios site. The theme park will open next year – but we’re not sure we can wait that long!!
Monday, October 5, 2009
Facebook Friends... and Family
It is a question more and more teens and young adults are facing every day.
Would you friend your mum on Facebook?
Just the other day I was talking to a co-worker (aged 16) who friended her parents on Facebook without a hassle, but now is having second thoughts. "I mean... what if she sees some of the stuff on there?" she said. "Sometimes I put a status update, then remember my mum is on there and delete it."
You wouldn't think a parent invasion of Facebook would affect most people, but with the membership of Facebook beginning to skew from primarily college students to the over-25 demographic, it's becoming more widespread than it may appear.
The Washington Post has weighed in on the issue, positing the nightmare scenario "When Mom or Dad Asks To Be a Facebook 'Friend'" with an investigation of the parental Facebook phenomenon. As the article discusses, young people are polarized over their parents on Facebook -- from those who add their parents with a shrug, to those who start groups and petitions and sites like "Oh Crap My Parents Joined Facebook", which is dedicated to "laugh[ing] at your Mom’s ridiculous Facebook status and the embarrassing message your Dad wrote on your wall".
In general, parents on Facebook is an uncool thing -- and I know, my dad is on, don't tell anyone. And for many people, it definitely changes the way you use your profile. Those pics from Saturday night will definitely be hidden or at least edited and restricted. And sometimes I've found myself being asked by my parents about something that happened during my day which I hadn't told them... until I remember the status update I added.
Most interesting in the Washington Post article, I think, was a quote from Steve Jones, a professor of communication at the University of Illinois, talking about why young people are hesitant about adding their parents on Facebook:
Would you friend your mum on Facebook?
Just the other day I was talking to a co-worker (aged 16) who friended her parents on Facebook without a hassle, but now is having second thoughts. "I mean... what if she sees some of the stuff on there?" she said. "Sometimes I put a status update, then remember my mum is on there and delete it."
You wouldn't think a parent invasion of Facebook would affect most people, but with the membership of Facebook beginning to skew from primarily college students to the over-25 demographic, it's becoming more widespread than it may appear.
The Washington Post has weighed in on the issue, positing the nightmare scenario "When Mom or Dad Asks To Be a Facebook 'Friend'" with an investigation of the parental Facebook phenomenon. As the article discusses, young people are polarized over their parents on Facebook -- from those who add their parents with a shrug, to those who start groups and petitions and sites like "Oh Crap My Parents Joined Facebook", which is dedicated to "laugh[ing] at your Mom’s ridiculous Facebook status and the embarrassing message your Dad wrote on your wall".
In general, parents on Facebook is an uncool thing -- and I know, my dad is on, don't tell anyone. And for many people, it definitely changes the way you use your profile. Those pics from Saturday night will definitely be hidden or at least edited and restricted. And sometimes I've found myself being asked by my parents about something that happened during my day which I hadn't told them... until I remember the status update I added.
Most interesting in the Washington Post article, I think, was a quote from Steve Jones, a professor of communication at the University of Illinois, talking about why young people are hesitant about adding their parents on Facebook:
"What they want to keep most private is not something they wish to keep from strangers, it's the things they want to keep from people that know them," he said. "It's 'I don't care what someone who doesn't know me finds out. But I do care about what someone I know intimately [does].' "
It's an interesting thing to think about, that goes beyond just slight embarrassment at your parents trying to be hip. When you upload things to Facebook, are you worried about strangers finding out about you, or the people you know?
And does anyone else have parents-on-Facebook stories? Did you friend them or not? Dilemma or not?
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Big fuss over "Big Brother"
There are three certainties when you deal with censorship in Western countries. (a) Censorship never goes down well in Western countries. (b) If you try to impose censorship, refer to certainty (a). And (c), Orwell has to be dragged in there somewhere.
So after the Australian government proposed in January 2009 to impose some compulsory Internet safety filters, the headline "Big brother plan insults parents" summed up all three certainties in one.
The debate begins. In this corner, Communication Minister Stephen Conroy suggests that filtering Internet use is a vital part of making the vast world of the Internet a safer place for children. Like CyberSitters, the government wants to impose restrictions on Internet use in order to make sure children are not exposed to explicit or "unwanted" material.
But in this corner, passions are even more fierce. As Nick Minchin - author of the above mentioned Big Brother article - intones:
There is no technological substitute for adult supervision and it's
irresponsible and misleading to infer otherwise.
Three guesses whose side he's on. Minchin charges the government with ignoring expert opinion, which consistently shows that filters can be easily overcome by a technology-savvy user, and that adult supervision and law enforcers should not be usurped by CyberSitters. The $40 million proposed to be spent on this project, Minchin argues, could be better spent on funding for law enforcement, which he suggests would crack down on such explicit Internet material at its source.
While Minchin raises some good points, there are a few problems with his arguments that I could see. Firstly, adult supervision is definitely better than government censorship, for sure, but parents aren't omniscient. Think of the number of things you've slipped past your parents. While little kids may not be as adept at this, older kids certainly are; it's in the nature of childhood. Even the best parents can't possibly know everything their child is up to, and especially not on the Internet. Is it the old adage that you need to raise your children right and then hope they know the difference between right and wrong? Or is surveillance more necessary for one age over another? Where do we draw the line between censorship and protection?
And secondly, law enforcement won't solve all the problems on the Internet. While child porn is illegal, there is plenty of other objectionable material on the Internet that is perfectly legal - the dark side of free speech and general freedoms that we can take for granted in Australia. You can't legislate against a lot of what goes on on the Internet. While law enforcement is definitely a good step, it won't solve everything.
What are your thoughts on Internet censorship/filtering? Would you want to filter the Internet for your children?
Looking for a job? Social networking could be your friend
YOU HAVE:
2 friend requests
3 group invitations
1 job offer
You could one day sign into Facebook to find something like this on your feed. And although this isn't literally the case today, an article in the Economic Times suggests that social networking is becoming more and more important in the hunt for jobs.
Not sticking with Google and employment sites, young people are increasingly turning to Facebook and Twitter to chat about prospective employers online. Users get advice about recruitment processes and tips for interviews from peers, with about 30% of those students surveyed also chatted to current employees of the prospective company to see if the job lived up to its hype after the hiring process is done.
It's funny how things like this still surprise us. Before the Internet, you would not only check the classifieds for listings, but you naturally would talk to your friends and find out connections in order to stake out jobs. That hasn't changed. Social networking has just moved this strategizing to an online environment. On the other hand, there's always the possibility of first-hand interactions with people you've never met from places around the world, taking the job search to a whole new global level. The access to information is also much greater and more immediate, meaning that research can be a lot more thorough. Social networking, again, is in a no man's land between the familiar and the personal.
But while job-hunters are happy to research online, being offered jobs is a different story. Although businesses are beginning to hock jobs on Facebook and Twitter, surveys from the article present that 70% of students are against organisations using social networking sites to offer them jobs, saying that this is "exploiting" social media for their own ends. This suggests that Internet users want to use the web for their independent research to hunt their own jobs, not be caught with cloying advertisements. This also suggests a sense of sanctity of the social networking sites: that it's a place for people to interact with their peers, not for companies to intrude.
2 friend requests
3 group invitations
1 job offer
You could one day sign into Facebook to find something like this on your feed. And although this isn't literally the case today, an article in the Economic Times suggests that social networking is becoming more and more important in the hunt for jobs.
Not sticking with Google and employment sites, young people are increasingly turning to Facebook and Twitter to chat about prospective employers online. Users get advice about recruitment processes and tips for interviews from peers, with about 30% of those students surveyed also chatted to current employees of the prospective company to see if the job lived up to its hype after the hiring process is done.
It's funny how things like this still surprise us. Before the Internet, you would not only check the classifieds for listings, but you naturally would talk to your friends and find out connections in order to stake out jobs. That hasn't changed. Social networking has just moved this strategizing to an online environment. On the other hand, there's always the possibility of first-hand interactions with people you've never met from places around the world, taking the job search to a whole new global level. The access to information is also much greater and more immediate, meaning that research can be a lot more thorough. Social networking, again, is in a no man's land between the familiar and the personal.
But while job-hunters are happy to research online, being offered jobs is a different story. Although businesses are beginning to hock jobs on Facebook and Twitter, surveys from the article present that 70% of students are against organisations using social networking sites to offer them jobs, saying that this is "exploiting" social media for their own ends. This suggests that Internet users want to use the web for their independent research to hunt their own jobs, not be caught with cloying advertisements. This also suggests a sense of sanctity of the social networking sites: that it's a place for people to interact with their peers, not for companies to intrude.
Something this article doesn't cover, however, is something I talked about in an earlier blog post: what about employers finding their employees true "opinions" of their jobs? Could the free speech of the Internet, used for job researching, prove detrimental if current employees are a little too "honest" with their assessment of their job/employer?
What do you think about social networking and job hunting? Would you want to be offered a job online? Have you ever researched a job by using social networking sites?
What do you think about social networking and job hunting? Would you want to be offered a job online? Have you ever researched a job by using social networking sites?
Monday, September 14, 2009
Facebooking Advice from Obama
Not sure about anyone else, but putting politicians and online pop culture in the same sentence strikes me as a little funny. I tried friending Kevin Rudd on Facebook once. He never replied. Maybe he worked out I'm American. I also logged into "John Howard's" blog, where I read about "the man under my super hip funky exterior" (it wasn't really John Howard by the way).
Yet articles about Obama's Facebook advice have hit the headlines. Young people, Obama said, are not being wise about their Facebook use, with uploaded content that could come back later to haunt them in life. This comment was part of a wider speech about youth motivation, with Obama entreating young people to "stay focused, find something you're passionate about". Too many kids are underachieving, and in the dog-eat-dog global economy, it's more important than ever for American teens to take charge of their futures.
Uproar followed Obama's comments, with parents and teachers leading the backlash against Obama's "interference" with American kids. Conservative politicians also pushed for a boycott against the address, saying Obama was trying to push an agenda on American kids.
To be honest, I don't quite get what the fuss is about. It's not like Obama is trying to legislate against the use of Facebook, and telling kids to try hard in school is not new. Sports stars have been doing it for years.
The idea of Facebook being pulled up later in life, though, is an interesting one. For me, I don't really think about what my Facebook will be like in ten years. Or if I'll even have one. Or whether there'll be anything I'll regret on there.
But the very public nature of the Internet makes it entirely possible that somewhere, someday, someone might look up my profile (why, I don't know) and Facebook-creep on me from across the years. My social interactions - which had always been a private sphere, until the advent of the Internet - has become public. Once upon a time, we kept diaries and had private phone conversations; now, we Facebook and Twitter. Private & public have collided, and currently there's no legislation to divide the two. What kind of implications does this have? Where does private and public start and end?
Do you ever think of what repercussions your Facebook may have in the future?
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Climbing the Social (Networking) Ladder
Who knew you could assert your social status with your... um, status? Upper-crust society types used to show their superiority over champagne cocktails on their yachts, but now it seems - as in most things *rolls eyes* - it's all about technology, as this NineMSN article suggests.
New York Magazine is apparently renowned for its "upwardly mobile air-kissers", and it recently published an article that gives tips on how to "namedrop" in your Facebook updates. No really.
Instructions are included to slot in a casual reference to that new maid you've hired here; a sly mention of the house in the Hamptons there. It's not just a Facebook, dah-ling, it's the key to your social success!
Yeah it's nuts. And the writers of the piece sum it up wonderfully:
But thinking about it, don't we kind of have a class system in Facebook? Maybe not their status updates, but what about "friend" lists? I know a person who has over 1,000 "friends", and someone who's been on Facebook for years but "only" has 20.
What about people's photos? Friends of mine have been hurt by other friends who've uploaded photos from parties and events... to which we weren't invited.
Some people have walls full of comments; others have barely anything.
Have you guys ever felt a class system online? What other examples are out there?
New York Magazine is apparently renowned for its "upwardly mobile air-kissers", and it recently published an article that gives tips on how to "namedrop" in your Facebook updates. No really.
Instructions are included to slot in a casual reference to that new maid you've hired here; a sly mention of the house in the Hamptons there. It's not just a Facebook, dah-ling, it's the key to your social success!
Yeah it's nuts. And the writers of the piece sum it up wonderfully:
That's all suitably crazy, especially in today's society when we tend to think of ourselves as "classless".Without so much as a smirk, we are reminded that "names must be dropped carefully!" Oh, but whose names exactly?
"Give away too much, and you’re a braggart with no respect for personal privacy (“I’m having dinner with Anna Wintour!” How gauche)."
The penny drops then, and we realise that the average New York Magazine reader really is in another league; socially placed to share a table with Anna Wintour, stupid enough to think she makes great dinner company, and sufficiently narcissistic to brag about it.
But thinking about it, don't we kind of have a class system in Facebook? Maybe not their status updates, but what about "friend" lists? I know a person who has over 1,000 "friends", and someone who's been on Facebook for years but "only" has 20.
What about people's photos? Friends of mine have been hurt by other friends who've uploaded photos from parties and events... to which we weren't invited.
Some people have walls full of comments; others have barely anything.
Have you guys ever felt a class system online? What other examples are out there?
Friday, August 28, 2009
Movies & Entertainment: A Comparison (Assignment One)
This post will look at three major movie websites – Rotten Tomatoes, Ain’t It Cool News and Urban Cinefile – to compare and contrast their strengths and weaknesses in web writing and accessibility.
Rotten Tomatoes (RT) is a well-established movie and entertainment website which has different “versions” depending on your country (for example, I viewed the “au” version of the URL by default). The homepage has great navigation, including simple links to forums, movies, celebrities, DVDs and top upcoming and new release films in Australia.
The articles are professional but not too serious in tone. Headlines and kickers are pragmatic and direct, often simply a list or statement of the content – for example, one article carries the heading “Critics Consensus: Inglourious Basterds is Certified Fresh!” with subheading “Plus, Shorts, Post Grad, and X Games 3D: The Movie come up short”. Most articles encourage audience interaction, with one example ending, “Let's save the bickering for the comments… and work our way up through the 10 best-reviewed movies of Brad Pitt's career”. The language in general is simple and “catchy”, allowing the conversational tone preferred by Internet users, as papers by Dube and Nielsen have discussed. Additionally, as Lynch and Horton have found, the use highly descriptive headlines and kickers also makes keyword searches simpler for search engines.
Promotion of stories from the homepage is largely done with pictures and graphics, with “Today’s Features” and “What’s Hot” scrolling past on an interactive banner. Teaser images are accompanied with headlines and kickers such as “25 Movies to Get Excited About in 2009: As we head into the final stretch of the year, we count down the best movies on the horizon…”. Lists of movies – the box office listings, newly released films and upcoming films – are visible from the homepage on the left navigation bar, letting users simply click on a film title to get a wealth of links of critical reviews. A toolbar with “Related Links”, including pictures, posters, news and forums about the movie in question, is accompanied by “Related Articles”, “Most Discussed”, “Latest News”, “Latest Interviews” and “Latest Features”.
Other internal links are well signposted. In the articles, links are attached to almost every name, including directors, actors, movies and critics. These are coloured blue, which both highlights keywords and also helps users access more information - two aspects that are important in web writing according to Nielsen. Keywords are also listed and linked at the end of the articles, including the celebrities and movies featured and even mentioned in the article. The site's forums are heavily promoted, with comments and message boards linked throughout the site as a key part of user interactivity.
External links abound. In the “News & More” links, only three out of the fifteen links displayed were “RT News”, with the rest being to external sources. This gives a great sense of credibility to the site, since as Nielsen's paper suggests, "Links to other sites show that the authors have done their homework and are not afraid to let readers visit other sites". External links open in a new window, which implies a concern with keeping people on the site, but may also assist in navigating to the comment section on the Rotten Tomatoes website for each story. Rotten Tomatoes could improve the many older reviews which are unlinked or have broken links, but overall, the site has very few navigational issues and is an impressive example of web writing.
Ain’t It Cool News has a lesser visual impact in its homepage. While its use of cartoon graphics makes the site look distinctive, the over-large fonts and busy graphics can be distracting, and the list of stories are not broken up by pictures or any visual cues, making it difficult to skim the page. The search function is present but not obviously placed, which is a drawback for such a busy homepage, as Lynch & Horton suggest that users can be overwhelmed by too much information.
Like Rotten Tomatoes, the AICN articles again utilized long, descriptive headlines and kickers, such as “Quint chats with Terry Gilliam about THE IMAGINARIUM OF DR. PARNASSUS, WATCHMEN, Pixar, Ledger and much more!”. Stories are often very short - for example, some articles I found are simply a quote and a link. In keeping with Dube's endorsement of conversational Internet writing, AICN has an even more down-to-earth style than RT, with the reviews more reminiscent of a blog rather than an online newspaper. Authors are known by nicknames, and the use of colloquialisms – such as expletives and frequent use of the first person – is common, as in this example.
Cross-promotion is not as well exploited in AICN as in Rotten Tomatoes. Stories on the homepage are listed under headings such as “Top News” and “Latest News”, but are mainly ordered by date, with reviews, news stories and trailers all listed together. “Top Talkbacks” are listed to the right of articles, but there are no links to earlier related articles or discussions on the story’s topic, which is a drawback as researchers like Nielsen & Morkes found that particpants enjoy following links to more information.
Internal links are also relatively infrequent. Reviews, interviews and stories are generally plaintext, with only a link at the end to contact the author and possibly to find a related story. Keywords tend to be in all capitals, which assists the visual setup of the page, but does not provide any parallel information through links. Like Rotten Tomatoes, comments are a big part of the site, with “Talkbacks” (or article comments) and “The Zone” (message boards) visible and promoted.
External links, like internal ones, are relatively rare. Many of these links are to Variety sources or The Hollywood Reporter - at random, I quickly found three examples by Hercules, Quint and Merrick. This implies some reliance on a few main sources of information rather than the greater diversity that Rotten Tomatoes displayed. Links also tend to open up in a new window, indicating the desire to keep users on the site.
To improve AICN, I feel that links and the general visual layout could be reconfigured. Using visuals to differentiate between reviews, interviews and news stories would greatly assist in the Nielsen & Morkes' all-important goal of the Internet: "to find useful information as quickly as possible". Related links should also be better exploited as a medium, since it would help give context to articles and give users greater access and navigation to other information, which Dube also identified as an important part of web writing. The site’s credibility also suffers from the over-personal tone of the reviews which – while often amusing – can seem unprofessional and less authoritative.
Urban Cinefile is an Australian movie website with a punchy black background and clear navigation bar on the left hand side of its homepage, leading to alphabetical search functions for movies, DVDs and other entertainment. Unlike AICN, images are used with text on the homepage for better visual appeal. However, the homepage is quite long with stories added by date and requiring a lot of scrolling, a trait Nielsen identifies as a generally negative quality in web writing.
Headlines are even more straightforward in Urban Cinefile than in Rotten Tomatoes and AICN, often simply stating, “Movie Reviews: Inglourious Basterds” or “Balibo: Insider Briefing”. While perhaps uncreative, headlines like this are clear, informative and incorporate keywords – three qualities that Nielsen's analysis suggests suit it well to the web. The type of article – for example, an interview or news story – is clearly stated in red as you scroll on the homepage, making skimming easy. Articles are written in an inverted pyramid style – for example, a story about the Israeli film festival begins with a rundown on major facts of the festival and the key films, before discussing other lesser films. Reviews also begin with a concise synopsis of the film in bold type, as in this example. The language of articles and reviews is much more professional and less like a blog than AICN, avoiding colloquialisms and use of the first person.
Cross-promotion within the site is visible from the homepage, with reviews often linked to related competitions or DVD reviews of related films – for example, a DVD review of the 1978 Inglourious Basterds film is linked to the review of the new version. Stories with straightforward headlines are simply listed on the homepage without overuse of graphics or flashy gimmicks, with a synopsis and a sample quote from the site’s reviewers. Internal links are few, with reviews and stories again mainly plaintext. Reviews benefit from having movie information – such as the running time, director, scriptwriter and release date – listed on the right of the story, but these are not linked. Most stories only have one or two additional links which are clearly signposted but few in number. There are no “related stories” or similar listings, which is also a drawback since there is often a lack of context for reviews and interviews as Dube argues. While a forum is part of the site, it is not heavily promoted, suggesting that the site could improve its interactivity.
External links are few. Reviews are largely done by one or two internal staff, with only occasional references, which contrasts with the many reviewers that are listed in RT. An external link is sometimes used to add context to news stories – for example, a story about a controversial fishing film at the Tokyo Film Festival was accompanied with links to an anti-dolphin hunting site, interviews and a review of the film. There could be more of these, however, to bolster credibility and give greater context to news stories, as Lynch and Horton suggest.
Urban Cinefile might benefit from greater organisation on its homepage, to speed navigation for busy Internet users. The search function could also be improved and placed on the homepage, instead of being a separate page on its own, for easier navigation.
In my opinion, Rotten Tomatoes is top of the heap in this analysis, followed by Urban Cinefile and AICN. As the Internet continues to evolve, it can only be hoped that sites like these do too!
Rotten Tomatoes (RT) is a well-established movie and entertainment website which has different “versions” depending on your country (for example, I viewed the “au” version of the URL by default). The homepage has great navigation, including simple links to forums, movies, celebrities, DVDs and top upcoming and new release films in Australia.
The articles are professional but not too serious in tone. Headlines and kickers are pragmatic and direct, often simply a list or statement of the content – for example, one article carries the heading “Critics Consensus: Inglourious Basterds is Certified Fresh!” with subheading “Plus, Shorts, Post Grad, and X Games 3D: The Movie come up short”. Most articles encourage audience interaction, with one example ending, “Let's save the bickering for the comments… and work our way up through the 10 best-reviewed movies of Brad Pitt's career”. The language in general is simple and “catchy”, allowing the conversational tone preferred by Internet users, as papers by Dube and Nielsen have discussed. Additionally, as Lynch and Horton have found, the use highly descriptive headlines and kickers also makes keyword searches simpler for search engines.
Promotion of stories from the homepage is largely done with pictures and graphics, with “Today’s Features” and “What’s Hot” scrolling past on an interactive banner. Teaser images are accompanied with headlines and kickers such as “25 Movies to Get Excited About in 2009: As we head into the final stretch of the year, we count down the best movies on the horizon…”. Lists of movies – the box office listings, newly released films and upcoming films – are visible from the homepage on the left navigation bar, letting users simply click on a film title to get a wealth of links of critical reviews. A toolbar with “Related Links”, including pictures, posters, news and forums about the movie in question, is accompanied by “Related Articles”, “Most Discussed”, “Latest News”, “Latest Interviews” and “Latest Features”.
Other internal links are well signposted. In the articles, links are attached to almost every name, including directors, actors, movies and critics. These are coloured blue, which both highlights keywords and also helps users access more information - two aspects that are important in web writing according to Nielsen. Keywords are also listed and linked at the end of the articles, including the celebrities and movies featured and even mentioned in the article. The site's forums are heavily promoted, with comments and message boards linked throughout the site as a key part of user interactivity.
External links abound. In the “News & More” links, only three out of the fifteen links displayed were “RT News”, with the rest being to external sources. This gives a great sense of credibility to the site, since as Nielsen's paper suggests, "Links to other sites show that the authors have done their homework and are not afraid to let readers visit other sites". External links open in a new window, which implies a concern with keeping people on the site, but may also assist in navigating to the comment section on the Rotten Tomatoes website for each story. Rotten Tomatoes could improve the many older reviews which are unlinked or have broken links, but overall, the site has very few navigational issues and is an impressive example of web writing.
Ain’t It Cool News has a lesser visual impact in its homepage. While its use of cartoon graphics makes the site look distinctive, the over-large fonts and busy graphics can be distracting, and the list of stories are not broken up by pictures or any visual cues, making it difficult to skim the page. The search function is present but not obviously placed, which is a drawback for such a busy homepage, as Lynch & Horton suggest that users can be overwhelmed by too much information.
Like Rotten Tomatoes, the AICN articles again utilized long, descriptive headlines and kickers, such as “Quint chats with Terry Gilliam about THE IMAGINARIUM OF DR. PARNASSUS, WATCHMEN, Pixar, Ledger and much more!”. Stories are often very short - for example, some articles I found are simply a quote and a link. In keeping with Dube's endorsement of conversational Internet writing, AICN has an even more down-to-earth style than RT, with the reviews more reminiscent of a blog rather than an online newspaper. Authors are known by nicknames, and the use of colloquialisms – such as expletives and frequent use of the first person – is common, as in this example.
Cross-promotion is not as well exploited in AICN as in Rotten Tomatoes. Stories on the homepage are listed under headings such as “Top News” and “Latest News”, but are mainly ordered by date, with reviews, news stories and trailers all listed together. “Top Talkbacks” are listed to the right of articles, but there are no links to earlier related articles or discussions on the story’s topic, which is a drawback as researchers like Nielsen & Morkes found that particpants enjoy following links to more information.
Internal links are also relatively infrequent. Reviews, interviews and stories are generally plaintext, with only a link at the end to contact the author and possibly to find a related story. Keywords tend to be in all capitals, which assists the visual setup of the page, but does not provide any parallel information through links. Like Rotten Tomatoes, comments are a big part of the site, with “Talkbacks” (or article comments) and “The Zone” (message boards) visible and promoted.
External links, like internal ones, are relatively rare. Many of these links are to Variety sources or The Hollywood Reporter - at random, I quickly found three examples by Hercules, Quint and Merrick. This implies some reliance on a few main sources of information rather than the greater diversity that Rotten Tomatoes displayed. Links also tend to open up in a new window, indicating the desire to keep users on the site.
To improve AICN, I feel that links and the general visual layout could be reconfigured. Using visuals to differentiate between reviews, interviews and news stories would greatly assist in the Nielsen & Morkes' all-important goal of the Internet: "to find useful information as quickly as possible". Related links should also be better exploited as a medium, since it would help give context to articles and give users greater access and navigation to other information, which Dube also identified as an important part of web writing. The site’s credibility also suffers from the over-personal tone of the reviews which – while often amusing – can seem unprofessional and less authoritative.
Urban Cinefile is an Australian movie website with a punchy black background and clear navigation bar on the left hand side of its homepage, leading to alphabetical search functions for movies, DVDs and other entertainment. Unlike AICN, images are used with text on the homepage for better visual appeal. However, the homepage is quite long with stories added by date and requiring a lot of scrolling, a trait Nielsen identifies as a generally negative quality in web writing.
Headlines are even more straightforward in Urban Cinefile than in Rotten Tomatoes and AICN, often simply stating, “Movie Reviews: Inglourious Basterds” or “Balibo: Insider Briefing”. While perhaps uncreative, headlines like this are clear, informative and incorporate keywords – three qualities that Nielsen's analysis suggests suit it well to the web. The type of article – for example, an interview or news story – is clearly stated in red as you scroll on the homepage, making skimming easy. Articles are written in an inverted pyramid style – for example, a story about the Israeli film festival begins with a rundown on major facts of the festival and the key films, before discussing other lesser films. Reviews also begin with a concise synopsis of the film in bold type, as in this example. The language of articles and reviews is much more professional and less like a blog than AICN, avoiding colloquialisms and use of the first person.
Cross-promotion within the site is visible from the homepage, with reviews often linked to related competitions or DVD reviews of related films – for example, a DVD review of the 1978 Inglourious Basterds film is linked to the review of the new version. Stories with straightforward headlines are simply listed on the homepage without overuse of graphics or flashy gimmicks, with a synopsis and a sample quote from the site’s reviewers. Internal links are few, with reviews and stories again mainly plaintext. Reviews benefit from having movie information – such as the running time, director, scriptwriter and release date – listed on the right of the story, but these are not linked. Most stories only have one or two additional links which are clearly signposted but few in number. There are no “related stories” or similar listings, which is also a drawback since there is often a lack of context for reviews and interviews as Dube argues. While a forum is part of the site, it is not heavily promoted, suggesting that the site could improve its interactivity.
External links are few. Reviews are largely done by one or two internal staff, with only occasional references, which contrasts with the many reviewers that are listed in RT. An external link is sometimes used to add context to news stories – for example, a story about a controversial fishing film at the Tokyo Film Festival was accompanied with links to an anti-dolphin hunting site, interviews and a review of the film. There could be more of these, however, to bolster credibility and give greater context to news stories, as Lynch and Horton suggest.
Urban Cinefile might benefit from greater organisation on its homepage, to speed navigation for busy Internet users. The search function could also be improved and placed on the homepage, instead of being a separate page on its own, for easier navigation.
In my opinion, Rotten Tomatoes is top of the heap in this analysis, followed by Urban Cinefile and AICN. As the Internet continues to evolve, it can only be hoped that sites like these do too!
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Social Networking: Friend or Foe
Facebook: it's a noun and a verb. No one knew what it was 5 years ago, and now many people (me included) barely go a day without using it.
In "Why I Welcome the Decline of the Twittering Classes", a recent article in the Guardian, Jackie Ashley discussed social networking sites -- particularly Facebook and Twitter. According to an Ofcom report, young people -- ie. 15-24 year olds, which would take in many of us at uni -- are using Facebook and Twitter less, while 25-34 year olds are using it more. Ashley welcomed the decline of cyber culture among the young, and argued that social networking "friendships" were a poor substitute for a "real world" friendship, since:
"Reality takes second place to a life in which you become the star of your own dull movie, and the director too."
When everything you do is mediated by technology, are you living your life, or just commentating on it?
There are a MASS of comments on this article. Many of them are really hilarious (I recommend you have a skim), and most are negative, but I'm going to put it out there that some of what Ashley said struck true with me. While I am a Facebook tragic, I get uncomfortable with the idea of my entire life unfolding online, and with iPhones making updates even easier, I think everyone knows at least one person who seems to live only for updating their status. It's kind of a worry.
The publicity of Facebook can also be a worry, where "[i]f you are very unlucky, your worst moments, which would once have been private, told in whispers to a single best friend, can end up on YouTube". Recently, I had the experience of seeing a workmate's relationship break down ON Facebook, in a status update, with all my work colleagues there to read and comment. The potential for humiliation & too much information is always there.
On the other hand, Jackie Ashley is being very conservative on this issue, and also betrays a lack of understanding. While I know a few people who "meet" others through Facebook, the majority of my friends and acquaintances only "add" people who they know. For Ashley to criticize Facebook on the basis that it doesn't provide real relationships -- that "you cannot have a full human relationship without being in the presence of the other person" -- is silly to say the least.
For me, Facebook is a companion to my real-life relationships, not a substitute. I may see a friend at work or at church and can comment to them about a status update they made or a video they posted, and often this enhances and forwards the friendship. Facebook is also fantastic for long-distance friendships, where an email might be strained but contact can still be maintained in a less formal setting.
Communication is communication, whether it's on the Internet, through a letter or face-to-face. To say that interaction between people isn't genuine simply because it's online is pretty crazy.
What do you guys think? What do you use Facebook for? Do you think online relationships count as "real" relationships?
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Online Classrooms... Virtually Reality
VIRTUAL REALITY... it started off primitively in games like two-player Mario, and slowly became socialized in programs like The Sims, instant messengers and chatrooms. Now it's an Internet phenomenon, with whole online communities being set up & peopled by folks all over the globe.
Second Life is one such site. To be honest, I've never used it myself, since I don't tend to network online, and I always pegged it for a social networking site.
But a heap has been written about other possible uses of Second Life -- especially virtual classrooms. Gregory Lamb described in an article how Harvard University set up a Second Life classroom, attended by the students' respective avatars, for its "CyberOne: Law in the Court of Public Opinion" class. Some students were even taking the course from China and South Korea.
Second Life is one such site. To be honest, I've never used it myself, since I don't tend to network online, and I always pegged it for a social networking site.
But a heap has been written about other possible uses of Second Life -- especially virtual classrooms. Gregory Lamb described in an article how Harvard University set up a Second Life classroom, attended by the students' respective avatars, for its "CyberOne: Law in the Court of Public Opinion" class. Some students were even taking the course from China and South Korea.
Suddenly, distance education can take on a new dimension. No longer would a student only be able to interact with their tutor online through email; now, you can interact with all your fellow students. There's also the potential for it being a great leveller. As demonstrated by this article, you don't necessarily have to travel to Harvard to do a Harvard course; anyone with a computer connection has the potential to participate (albeit with the university red tape). How would this affect fees? Would university become more accessible to more people?
And imagine the culture shift. Would we -- if we had the opportunity -- choose to commute to a bricks-and-mortar university every day, or simply go to our computers? Perhaps the advantages of time and cost would tip the scales in the Internet's favor. Having class in more comfortable settings are also an advantage, with students virtually able to "travel" anywhere. (Although the quote in the article of a teacher saying offhandedly that "we can have class with everyone sitting in a [virtual] hot tub" kind of freaked me out.)
And as an American, I'm also particularly interested with how this could affect the culture in the US, where travelling interstate for college is the norm, and to live on campus as soon as you hit university is the first great milestone of a person's independence. Would this change?
I can't say I'm fully in favor of online classrooms, above real ones. For me, virtual reality is more virtual than reality, and I'd much rather be with people face-to-face than with an avatar.
But if Second Life can make university accessible to people who wouldn't otherwise be able to go, or act as a substitute for some classroom situations, then I'm all for it. It will be interesting to see how learning changes and whether Second Life and similar virtual classrooms will take off.
What do you think? Would you attend a virtual class? Do you think it's a good idea?
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Editing for the Internet
"Research by Jakob Nielson and John Morkes indicates that Web users do not like long, scrolling pages; they prefer the text to be short and to the point"
... so the good news is, everyone's blog should be short this week. Just putting it out there. *wink*
Thought I'd share a couple thoughts on this week's readings. These guidelines are a shining light to those who are tired of websites that look like a MySpace page with pink text, a green scrollbar and a background that doesn't seem to move even when you scroll up and down making you dizzy like one of those 3D pictures you're supposed to stare at.
LINEAR PROSE
Lynch & Horton say, “A collection of links cannot create or sustain an argument or deliver a collection of facts as efficiently or legibly as conventional linear prose”. Something that I don't really think about in web writing is how linear/not it is. Since I've (and most of us have) grown up with the web slowly developing around us, it's easy to assume that websites are still just copy+paste text that could well be from books... since, back in the day, often it was, seriously.
But books are different. You can flip around a book, but there's always an established order of chapters and pages. The medium is set in sequence and has a specific context -- which the web definitely does not (see Lynch & Horton).
So "linear" argument -- like reading a book or a chapter from beginning to end -- is very difficult on web pages, for two reasons: (1) Complex information needs to be broken up on a website, or the pages get too long and don't get read anyway. (2) People skim & flip around. Very few people go to a website to check out every page, in order, like you're reading a thesis. Ie, from Bowles & Barden, "Editors must think of each story as a package of separate components and structure the package with hypertext links that readers can choose to follow or ignore according to their own needs or interests" (p.42 of the reader). There are of course journal articles online, which may be an exception, but even so those are basically scanned documents which you could buy in hardcopy, you just happen to be reading them online. (Feel free to disagree)
For me, the web is great for introductory or quick information, but I still feel a lot more respect for information in books. Maybe I'm old school.
Which brings me to the big, cliche question...
ARE WE DUMBING DOWN?
The readings repeatedly emphasized that text needs to be "short and to the point", since "Web users do not like long, scrolling pages" (Bowles & Barden, p.40 of our reader).
I can understand this. Everyone hates scrolling for miles down a page, and it's important to use the medium you have in the best possible way. The Web is a medium for efficient, quick, easy information.
But it also sounds like we're just not wanting to pay attention any more. What if the Web becomes the main source of information for everything? Will we never get an in-depth Web site? Are we going to go into 1984-type speak? I know these types of concerns are in no way original or novel, but it's food for thought -- especially for our class, since many/most of us are involved in publishing or communications courses. Is the Internet having an adverse effect on us?
What do you think?
Monday, August 3, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)