Being a journalist student, I found this question extremely intriguing. When looking at media change it is important to take a look at the first forms of media. Going back before the age of the computer and even newspapers and books, the only way of distributing news would have been orally. However, when distributing news through word of mouth, we come across many issues. Firstly, information being passed orally often gets distorted and the initial ‘news’ would have no real relevance or credibility by the time it had reached a mass of people. A great example to back this up would be the age old game of ‘Chinese whispers’. anybody who has taken part in a game of Chinese whispers will understand how easily and quickly information can become distorted.
As you can see the ‘news’ would not have been distributed throughout a large proportion of society and still remain credible.
The importance of news in society is not to be under-estimated. News is important within society as people constantly have the need to either tell stories, gain an opinion on current events that effect their everyday lives and news also has the ability to bring society together.
“The rapid circulation of news is evidence of more than just the desire of individuals to know and tell; it is evidence of societal commitment.” Michael Stephens, a history of news pg 15. This quote backs up my opinion of news in society.
Advancements in technology have certainly improved the availability of news on a huge scale. Take for instance the humble newspaper. Newspapers are available on a local scale, containing news from your local constituency and filled with issues that are effecting your area. However newspapers are now available on a national and international scale, and are made available to everyone, paving the way for societies need for accurate, relevant and credible news to be fulfilled.
Further advancements in technology such as the internet and computers, have prompted an explosion in the amount of information made available across all media platforms. Take for example the internet which nowadays is available globally, therefore any information posted on the internet can be viewed by masses of people in an instance. A great advantage of online news is clearly the ease of which the information can be accessed. In the click of a button we can see news from, the US, Asia, Europe, the Americas and so forth, allowing the user to gain a wider perspective on current affairs.
It cannot be questioned that with great advancements in technology, society has become a fountain of knowledge with infinite amounts of information no more than a click away.
Wednesday, 20 January 2010
Issues of the interface. How has the advancements in interface technology helped society?
In a recent lecture that I attended, we discussed issues of the interface. Before spewing my opinions of the interface all over this page, I fell that it is important to first define exactly what we mean by the ‘interface’.
Dr Gavin Stewart offers the following definition of an interface; “User interface is a means by which people interact with a particular machine, device or computer programme.”
An example of a modern day user interface, can be seen when looking at the computer screen. The computer screen allows the user to input information, and see the result of there manipulation in the output. For example, if the user was to type on their keyboard, the information that they input would manipulated and appear on the interface (screen) in front of them.
The advancements in user interfaces has provided an altogether better experience for the user. Now having the ability to visually see the effects of the data they input.
It cannot be argued that interfaces have had a tremendous effect on society. More information is now readily available with the introduction of computer screens as an interface. The earliest models of computers did not have a screen as an interface, therefore rendering the computers a lot less useful to the masses.
Another example of an interface can be seen when looking at ATM machines and the idea of chip and pin bank cards. Many moons ago the only way in which you would be able to transfer money to another bank would have to of been done manually. Carrying around large sums of money is extremely dangerous and risky, not only because of the possibility of being mugged by one of the many anti-social hoodlums that grace the earth, but also the mere fact hat money is easy to lose or misplace. The introduction of ATM machines and chip and pin cards allow the user to transfer large sums of money between banks discretely, safely and easily. Saving the user time, effort and making it a very easy experience.
In my opinion the advancements of new interfaces is a great thing for society. It generates a society in which the public have more ‘free’ time due to the efficiency of interactions between humans and interfaces. However it must be said that the rapid advancements in such technology also come with its downfalls, as society becomes more dependant on technology an age of cyber-warfare is looking more possible, with crooks able to intersect vital personal information stored within databases connected to the interface. With this many individuals are at risk of, bank accounts, e -mails and various other personal details being hacked into. All I can say on the matter is, watch this space…
Dr Gavin Stewart offers the following definition of an interface; “User interface is a means by which people interact with a particular machine, device or computer programme.”
An example of a modern day user interface, can be seen when looking at the computer screen. The computer screen allows the user to input information, and see the result of there manipulation in the output. For example, if the user was to type on their keyboard, the information that they input would manipulated and appear on the interface (screen) in front of them.
The advancements in user interfaces has provided an altogether better experience for the user. Now having the ability to visually see the effects of the data they input.
It cannot be argued that interfaces have had a tremendous effect on society. More information is now readily available with the introduction of computer screens as an interface. The earliest models of computers did not have a screen as an interface, therefore rendering the computers a lot less useful to the masses.
Another example of an interface can be seen when looking at ATM machines and the idea of chip and pin bank cards. Many moons ago the only way in which you would be able to transfer money to another bank would have to of been done manually. Carrying around large sums of money is extremely dangerous and risky, not only because of the possibility of being mugged by one of the many anti-social hoodlums that grace the earth, but also the mere fact hat money is easy to lose or misplace. The introduction of ATM machines and chip and pin cards allow the user to transfer large sums of money between banks discretely, safely and easily. Saving the user time, effort and making it a very easy experience.
In my opinion the advancements of new interfaces is a great thing for society. It generates a society in which the public have more ‘free’ time due to the efficiency of interactions between humans and interfaces. However it must be said that the rapid advancements in such technology also come with its downfalls, as society becomes more dependant on technology an age of cyber-warfare is looking more possible, with crooks able to intersect vital personal information stored within databases connected to the interface. With this many individuals are at risk of, bank accounts, e -mails and various other personal details being hacked into. All I can say on the matter is, watch this space…
Tuesday, 19 January 2010
Web 2.0. Who is working for who?
I recently attended a lecture at university on ‘Web 2.0’. This was a word that I had heard bouncing around a few times, but never truly understood the meaning and concept behind it. From the lecture I formed my own brief conclusion of what exactly Web 2.0 is. It is an enhancement of the original world wide web. Before the introduction of Web 2.0, Web 1.0 as it was known was the first real set of sites with interactive facilities. Web 2.0 is a conglomerate of websites such as; Facebook, You Tube and E-bay, which all allow the user to input and take control of their own information in a more flexible way. All of the Web 2.0 sites are maintained mostly by the user, take for instance Wikipedia. Wikipedia is simply a database which is controlled by anyone who wishes to input information to that database. It can be changed and the content replaced by other users, therefore making it extremely interactive.
The birth of Web 2.0 has made communication and sharing a much more enjoyable, easy experience. When looking at a site such as You Tube (which once again is a database where users can store and control content and information) it is clear to see how easy information sharing has become with the creation of Web 2.0. For those of you that are not familiar with You Tube, it is simply a website in which users can post videos and share them on a world wide scale. Taking the fact that the whole of the content on the website is owned by the individual that posts, you can see why You Tube is such a phenomenon. Like many of the websites contained in Web 2.0 the internet sites often do not own anything. The databases are completely updated by the user, thereby providing user generated content available on a world wide scale. It would seem that no longer does the internet have to slave over our individual needs, as the human population is now able to cater for them selves with the ever growing interactivity of Web 2.0.
However, what may seem as an advantage to many is seen as the complete opposite by other individuals. Andrew Keen is one of those individuals. In a blog entry he gave us his opinion of Web 2.0 “Truth and trust are the whipping boys of the Web2.0 revolution”. I can personally emphasise with Andrew on this. It would seem the simple design of Web 2.0 allows for the creators of the site to do relatively little work, but still reap the huge benefits from the user generated content. This seems unfair as the users of the site rarely gain any benefits from their input, other than the satisfaction of having more interactive content.
In my own opinion I feel the colossal rising of Web 2.0 has allowed for a massively improved overall internet experience. The fact that the owners of such sites are doing relatively no work in comparison to the users, isn’t the most significant point. The fact that the creation of these sites allow users such a variety in interactivity, thus enhancing the users experience.
The birth of Web 2.0 has made communication and sharing a much more enjoyable, easy experience. When looking at a site such as You Tube (which once again is a database where users can store and control content and information) it is clear to see how easy information sharing has become with the creation of Web 2.0. For those of you that are not familiar with You Tube, it is simply a website in which users can post videos and share them on a world wide scale. Taking the fact that the whole of the content on the website is owned by the individual that posts, you can see why You Tube is such a phenomenon. Like many of the websites contained in Web 2.0 the internet sites often do not own anything. The databases are completely updated by the user, thereby providing user generated content available on a world wide scale. It would seem that no longer does the internet have to slave over our individual needs, as the human population is now able to cater for them selves with the ever growing interactivity of Web 2.0.
However, what may seem as an advantage to many is seen as the complete opposite by other individuals. Andrew Keen is one of those individuals. In a blog entry he gave us his opinion of Web 2.0 “Truth and trust are the whipping boys of the Web2.0 revolution”. I can personally emphasise with Andrew on this. It would seem the simple design of Web 2.0 allows for the creators of the site to do relatively little work, but still reap the huge benefits from the user generated content. This seems unfair as the users of the site rarely gain any benefits from their input, other than the satisfaction of having more interactive content.
In my own opinion I feel the colossal rising of Web 2.0 has allowed for a massively improved overall internet experience. The fact that the owners of such sites are doing relatively no work in comparison to the users, isn’t the most significant point. The fact that the creation of these sites allow users such a variety in interactivity, thus enhancing the users experience.
Will there be ’media convergence’ or a collision between ‘New’ media and ‘Old’ media?
Before tackling the issue of the possibility of new media colliding with forms of old media, I feel it is vital to first establish what we mean by ‘media convergence‘.
An example of media convergence can be seen when looking at the differences between various platforms. Take for instance the traditional method of reading literature items. Before the great advances in technology for centuries we as humans relied heavily on books as our only means to reading literature pieces. However, with the birth of the internet a new form of media or ’New media’ was born. The birth of the internet paved the way for wide scale, easy access to a colossal number of books in a matter of seconds. Thus combining the ‘old’ media form with ‘new’ media to create a more efficient form of media.
Henry Jenkins opinion of media change in his book ‘Convergence Culture‘, courts my above example excellently, he states: "In the world of Media Convergence, every important story gets told, every brand gets sold, and every consumer gets courted across multiple media platforms."
However, with the creation of ‘new’ media comes a threat to ’old’ media. More traditional forms of media such as books may become a thing of the past, with the creation of ‘new’ media such as e-books. As ‘new’ media tends to be quicker and more readily available on a larger scale it tends to over shadow older forms of media. I feel it is important for society, that with the introduction of ‘new‘ media, ‘old’ media should not be cast into the darkness on a whim, it is vital that all forms of media, including new and old, to remain available.
It must be said that although there will undoubtedly be a collision between ‘new’ and ‘old’ media; as can be seen with the collision of the internet and traditional reading methods. However, as many people fear the introduction of new forms of media may not necessarily mean the death of old media. The simple reason being new forms of media tend to be unreliable at times, whereas many old forms of media are extremely reliable. For example, if the internet was not working properly an individual will not be able to read e-books, whereas a hard copy of the book is capable of taking a good bashing around and still remain readable. These simple facts tend to mean the population in general are more likely to stick with the ‘old’ forms of media, with some of the population swaying towards ‘new’ media. Therefore meaning that over time ‘new’ media will become more popular and will slowly take the spot as ‘old’ media, paving the way for the process to begin again and create more ‘new’ media. So I feel that the ‘collision’ of ‘new’ and ‘old’ media, will in-fact, be more of a coming together over time.
However, strongly opposed ’new’ media may be by many of the older generation, and those of us that prefer old methods that we feel comfortable in using. Whether we like it or not, a coming together of new and old media seems to be imminent. In my humble opinion I believe that the development of ‘new’ media is vital in order for information to be made even more readily available, on a global scale with the ease and reliability of many ‘old’ media forms. However, I feel that the many of us that prefer ‘old’ media forms, should not start panicking just yet as ‘old’ media forms will not be cast into the past just yet.
An example of media convergence can be seen when looking at the differences between various platforms. Take for instance the traditional method of reading literature items. Before the great advances in technology for centuries we as humans relied heavily on books as our only means to reading literature pieces. However, with the birth of the internet a new form of media or ’New media’ was born. The birth of the internet paved the way for wide scale, easy access to a colossal number of books in a matter of seconds. Thus combining the ‘old’ media form with ‘new’ media to create a more efficient form of media.
Henry Jenkins opinion of media change in his book ‘Convergence Culture‘, courts my above example excellently, he states: "In the world of Media Convergence, every important story gets told, every brand gets sold, and every consumer gets courted across multiple media platforms."
However, with the creation of ‘new’ media comes a threat to ’old’ media. More traditional forms of media such as books may become a thing of the past, with the creation of ‘new’ media such as e-books. As ‘new’ media tends to be quicker and more readily available on a larger scale it tends to over shadow older forms of media. I feel it is important for society, that with the introduction of ‘new‘ media, ‘old’ media should not be cast into the darkness on a whim, it is vital that all forms of media, including new and old, to remain available.
It must be said that although there will undoubtedly be a collision between ‘new’ and ‘old’ media; as can be seen with the collision of the internet and traditional reading methods. However, as many people fear the introduction of new forms of media may not necessarily mean the death of old media. The simple reason being new forms of media tend to be unreliable at times, whereas many old forms of media are extremely reliable. For example, if the internet was not working properly an individual will not be able to read e-books, whereas a hard copy of the book is capable of taking a good bashing around and still remain readable. These simple facts tend to mean the population in general are more likely to stick with the ‘old’ forms of media, with some of the population swaying towards ‘new’ media. Therefore meaning that over time ‘new’ media will become more popular and will slowly take the spot as ‘old’ media, paving the way for the process to begin again and create more ‘new’ media. So I feel that the ‘collision’ of ‘new’ and ‘old’ media, will in-fact, be more of a coming together over time.
However, strongly opposed ’new’ media may be by many of the older generation, and those of us that prefer old methods that we feel comfortable in using. Whether we like it or not, a coming together of new and old media seems to be imminent. In my humble opinion I believe that the development of ‘new’ media is vital in order for information to be made even more readily available, on a global scale with the ease and reliability of many ‘old’ media forms. However, I feel that the many of us that prefer ‘old’ media forms, should not start panicking just yet as ‘old’ media forms will not be cast into the past just yet.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)