The Screen as a Threat (Sounds like a bad horror film!)

As I finish with Lev Manovich’s chapter two, I am reminded of two things. One is the book Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury. A favorite, this book is a depiction of a future when frivolous distraction is king and screens have grown to wall size. And it is only the strange (intellectuals that read) that don’t own complete TV rooms:

“He took Montag quickly into the bedroom and lifted a picture frame aside revealing a television screen the size of a postal card. ‘I always wanted something very small, something I could walk to, something I could blot out with the palm of my hand, if necessary, nothing that could shout me down, nothing monstrous big. So, you see.’ He snapped it on” (Bradbury, 132-33).

And the large TVs in Montag’s world have software that allow the owner’s name to be inserted into the dialogue, thereby including the viewer in the interaction. It is a perfect example of the difference between representation and simulation. The four wall-size televisions seek to immerse the viewer completely in the experience. Yet they do not take the viewer into account when they go about their display, thereby falling short of a VR experience.

This thought feeds in to Manovich’s comments about the screen as a prison. Isn’t this is the idea behind many developing thoughts about screens today: Moving images aren’t good for toddlers’ developing brain cells; school-age children aren’t getting enough exercise because they look at screens too much; teenagers are either preyed upon by cyberstalkers, cyberpedophiles, or cyberbullies. Screens in the form of video games, TV, and the Internet are great big time wasters; talking on a cell phone while driving is as hazardous as driving tanked; texting while driving is even worse. And while the clamor rages on, we continue to turn to them for our dose of information. Screens of all forms are ubiquitous and feel so necessary to our lives. Who hasn’t experienced the dissatisfaction of leaving the house without her cell phone?

Manovich makes a strong impression on me when he says, “Rather than being a neutral medium of presenting information, the screen is aggressive. It functions to filter, to screen out, to take over, rendering nonexistent whatever is outside its frame” (96). I would not disagree. I have never thought of the screen itself as an influence; I have only considered what is coming through the screen. But if the screen’s presentation colludes with the screen itself to “take over” then do I have to keep vigilant to avoid being rendered nonexistent? Or worse yet, irrelevant?

Jim Porter’s “Why Technology Matters” was a nice counterbalance to the density of Manovich this week. While the article was interesting in its entirety, the following stuck with me (probably because I am completely on board this wagon):

“Rather the revolution is the networked computer and the social/rhetorical contexts it creates and the way its use impacts publishing practices. All that is revolutionary. The impact on social networks and publishing practices represents a significant change, of a magnitude that the pencil and typewriter (essentially print-based tools) don’t achieve.” (384-85).

Constance Petersen’s article on Writing for the Web was a nice read. It’s surprising to see that some things haven’t changed in the last decade regarding the Internet. Still very timely advice, as most people who write for the web aren’t informed about such nuggets as “Link Wisely.” This is an issue with our FYWP Google site. It isn’t linked wisely, which makes it hard to know if you have seen all of the information the site has to offer or not. The only other advice I would add would be regarding adding the “target” tag to a hyperlink so that the new page opens in a new tab or window. Once you have them on the page, you don’t want them to leave, especially if you made them leave by adding a hyperlink!

Lots of good stuff to think about this week! Can’t wait to discuss! I’m all verklempt!

An insider's view to the world of digital rhetoic and new media

I think I have uncovered the mystery to why I am continually confused and frustrated by our course reading: I'm too young to get the references - Blade Runner was in theaters before I was born! I am very much an insider to the world of digital rhetoric and new media, so it's hard to take a step back and look at the readings objectively. Here's something I've been meaning to construct for a while now (with help from my mom, who's amazing with dates):

My Digital Timeline

• 1988 - I was born.
• 1992 - Our first computer at home. I played Reader Rabbit, Math Rabbit, and other educational games. (Did I mention these were on 5 1/4 floppy disks?!) I also remember printing out coloring sheets and Popsicle stick puppets from a Muppet's game on our dot matrix printer. It would make horrible screeching noises, but I was always fascinated at how the paper was all connected and loved tearing off the sides.
• 1993 - I began Kindergarten. There was one computer in the whole school that was on a cart so it could go from class to class. My mom volunteered in our class to man the computer cart once a week and bring in our copy of Reader Rabbit so everyone had a chance to play.
• 1994 - We hooked up to the internet at home via AOL.
• 1995 - My new elementary school had a computer lab of Apple computers. We would go in every so often to play games like Oregon Trail and Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego? (Click on the Oregon Trail link... it goes to the actual game!)
• 1996 - I wrote a research paper on New York using a CD-ROM version of Microsoft Encarta as one of my references.
• 2000 - My parents let me set up my own email account with AOL. I emailed like crazy, as well as participated in instant messaging and chat rooms.
• 2002 - Over the summer, I taught myself HTML coding and created a primitive website using Angelfire as a host. Later on, I set up a message board at ezboard, now Yuku and had over 100 users at one point. I learned how to make my own graphics with Adobe Photoshop. I set up an account on the social networking site Friendster. This is also the year that I got my first cell phone.
• 2003- I created a myspace account and a LiveJournal. I also took a semester-long course on Web Design and learned more about HTML coding.
• 2005 - I took a year-long course on Web Design and learned how to build websites using Adobe Dreamweaver. I also uploaded my first video to YouTube. I bought an iPod mini and discovered the joy of MP3 players.
  
• 2006 - I received my first laptop computer as a graduation gift and I created a facebook account. Over the summer, I used a web cam for the first time while IM-ing with friends while I was in Germany. I bought my first USB jump drive. This is also the year that I began text-messaging on a regular basis.
• 2008 - I took a class on Educational Technologies and also created my first wikispace.
• 2009 - I bought an external hard drive for my laptop.
  
• 2010 - My friends upgraded my dinosaur iPod by bestowing me with an iPod nano for graduation. I created a Google Site for my English 101 course and have been experimenting with other Google applications and checking out new sites for Digital Rhetoric.

I have been an avid computer user since I was four, and I've frequently taught myself a lot about how to do stuff in different programs or online. I think I struggle so much with texts like Manovitch because many of the things that are addressed by these readings have already become "universal conventions" and "slipped into invisibility" for me (Manovitch 7). Does anyone else feel this way?

Now to the readings for this week...

Porter's "Why technology matters to writing: A cyberwriter's tale" really struck a chord with me in terms of what my English 101 students have been saying when exploring their own experiences with writing on two points: 1. Good handwriting doesn't matter anymore. By the time you get to college, it's highly unlikely that you will ever turn an assignment in that isn't typed or submitted digitally; 2. The forms in which we compose have become increasingly digital. My students rarely draft essays on paper and then re-type them, instead, they sit down in front of the computer screen and spew whatever thoughts come to mind in to a Word document and call it good.

I noticed a sort of indirect crossover between Porter and Manovich in their mention of older technology's influence on the new. This especially stood out in Porter's discussion of the typewriter and how his son was unfamiliar on what one of those things even was. Yet, I'm sure his son doesn't think twice about typing on a computer keyboard, or perhaps sending a text message on a cell phone with a full QWERTY keypad. Without the invention and progression of the typewriter, we certainly wouldn't experience messaging on our phones in the way we do now.

Another thing I'm thinking about today is teaching digital composition, since unit 4 in my English 101 class is focused on re-genreing a piece to a digital medium and my plans for that are due on Thursday... these readings actually came at a good time for me in my teacher prep work as well. Porter talks about his experience teaching computer composition as one that "pushed [him] to consider visual design, page layout, and graphics as integral to rhetoric and writing" (7). This is something that is integral for us to consider while composing digitally and something I want to bring to the attention of my students when they work on this project.

Petersen's web page really pushes that thought in to more of a practical list of tips in "Writing for a Web Audience." She states that "readers understand more when reading less (50% fewer words work best when rewriting formal papers into Web pages) " and really gets in to how layout and ease of use help the reader understand the text on the screen. This website is definitely one that I will file away for future use in my teaching.