A neo-luddite would probably struggle with quite a few things in Uni. For example, handbooks are posted online rather than handed out, time tables are online, lecturers EMAIL students about lecture cancellations and other VITAL information. On the social side of things (s)he's also going to miss out as most of people events and parties are communicated on Facebook rather than IRL. A lot of discussion about work also taken place on Facebook and MSN. The neo-luddite would find it hard to keep in contact with friends as all that takes place with the use of social networking and mobile telephones and the degree will suffer because of the lack of access to things like blackboard and MChome where essential information is found.
Submission of assessments would pretty much be impossible as they need to be typed and printed and, in some cases on some courses, actually handed in electronically.
So yeah, basically, it couldn't be done. A Neo-luddite would not fare well at a modern day university at all because the courses as well as the social part of uni life heavily rely on digital technologies.
Showing posts with label Facebook. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Facebook. Show all posts
Friday, 20 March 2009
Thursday, 26 February 2009
Website analysis: NME.COM
a)HOW IS YOUR CHOSEN SITE STRUCTURED?
The website (which also comes in a USA-version which uses the same layout) uses a horizontal row of hyperlinks to the different sections of the website, some of these sections feature a 2nd row of hyperlinks underneath this navigation-bar that link to even more specific sub-sections.
Just above the main navigation bar we find the date, a link to the US-version of the website and a search field that allows users to search either the website or the web in general. The Op left is reserved for the (recognised) NME logo (Top-left is the first thing you see, after all) and the top right is filled by an ad-banner. The navigation bar helps users find what they want from the website fairly quickly, after all the whole point of hypertext is that it's selective, non-linear and enabling users to just go for the part that serve their needs without having to work their way though stuff they're not interested in.
The font page of NME.com features the latest updates from each section of the website, so the latest added news stories, the latest photos and videos added, the latest features, reviews, concerts announcements, blog-entries, etc. The front page also enables the user to log in (or sign up to) a SNS-type service called MyNME.
The bottom of the page features another navigation area, repeating the links in the top bar but also links to other websites run by the same publisher and to NME’s profiles on Myspace, Facebook, Twitter & Youtube.
These top and bottom navigation areas are the same on practically all pages of the website due to the use of a web-template. NME is a dynamic website as opposed to a static one as the website’s content is constantly updated.
b) WHAT IS IT ABOUT ON A CULTURAL LEVEL
The NME website clearly relies on the reputation, public image and heritage of the NME magazine. However, the website doesn't simply present itself as the web-presence of the magazine, but as the online home of NME as an institution in general. The publisher seems to be eager to expand the NME brand's values and reputation to mediums other than the magazine itself seeing as in recent years they have also launched an NME radio station and NME Television channel (both featured on the website with NME Radio being available online aswel). I would argue that this way they want to make the NME synonym with the type of music (alternative/indie) and associated culture it deals with. Obviously, the readers of the magazine and those familiar with the brand and familiar with the music and culture associated with it would be interested in the website and they appear to be the website's target audience. Young, somewhat well-educated, predominantly male. It uses the norms of the indie-culture and adresses the user appropiately, using somewhat specialist terms where required and expecting the user to know what they mean, thus expecting the users to have some basic knowledge about the subject. (Could be seen as a mild example of boundary maintenance? The process of keeping “those who don't belong in this group” out by using specialist terms they will not get. What do people think?)
Despite presenting itself as a somewhat “alternative” platform, the increase in interest from the general public in the indie genre means that it is now quite a lucrative business. And despite this “facade” it doesn't manage to hide the fact that it is in fact a commercial website. Not only NME's co-operation with other brands such as Shockwaves (for the awards) and quite often co-operating with music retailer HMV make this clear but the website also features quite a large amount of advertisments, some slightly more covert than others. For example, the 'store'-link in the top navigation bar appears to take the user to a sub-section of the nme.com but is actually hyperlink directly to a completely different website, an online shop. Also, an important feature of the website is the online concert-ticket store, which is featured not only in the “gigs & tickets” section of the navigation bar but is even featured on the front page. The “check availability” links in their own turn then take you directly to another website that sells concert tickets online, no doubt paying a commission to NME's publishers IPC Media. It is a clever way of making use of the way the NME brand has become associated with the musical genre itself. You can easily imagine somebody typing NME into google to find out where to get concert tickets to see their favourite band.
c)WHAT IS THE APPEAL FOR ITS USERS?
Obviously, because the website's brand and its particular subject seem so very much associated with each other it is an obvious starting point for those who are interested in the music and culture it deals with, but also for those who wish to find out more about it. The news stories on the website, which is solely related to indie music and associated popular culture and written by members of a dedication website-team, can be commented on by users, but no stories can be submitted so the website isn't an 'open' news source. A traditional news source instead then, which seems to be in line with the way IPC/NME aspire to display NME as the country's main media institution when it comes to indie/alternative popular culture. This will probably make the user, who is familiar with NME's reputation, think of the website as a reliable news source about the subject that can be trusted. But surely IPC/NME's commercial means must influence the site's news values and the way it applies gate-keeping when selecting which stories are covered (and how).
The website also offers a social networking type area where users can set up their own profiles, private message and discuss related subjects in the discussion forums provided, all this does seem to produce a type of online indie-community where the users can discuss aspects of it that may be too niche or specialist to be discussed on other more general music websites, even if the website is ultimately run by IPC Media/NME for commercial purposes. So I would imagine it could be assumed that the online community doesn't provide complete openness and freedom to the user.
Sadly Sadly SADLY, due to a fault in the website's system, I could not finish the registration-process in order to check out this interactive part of the website myself. I have been trying for several weeks now and even e-mailed the web team about it but it still doesn't seem to be working. Surely they must notice at some point that they don't have any new users registering to their website? Hmm.
Friday, 6 February 2009
Week 3 | Topic 2 | Question A
Is withholding one’s identity ethically wrong?
I think this depends entirely on the website or other internet-service used. A really basic example can be given by comparing the two most popular social networking websites. Rivals they may be, but the social discourse and expectations of how people represent themselves is totally different. Facebook on the one hand expects users to use their real name, upload ONLY pictures of themselves, and communicate with people in their actual lives/environment, for example by using networks based on employers or educational institution which you can only join if you can proof that you are part of this "group". So Facebook is more a tool to contact people you actually know rather than a place to meet people. Myspace, on the other hand, is more about customising a page very much and creating an online persona that is perhaps only remotely related to you real-life identity. Myspace actually is more about meeting people based on similar interests like music and things like that. For example, my own Myspace page only passingly mentions that my name is Frank (http://www.myspace.com/fbcnl)
Not normally a problem at all, users of the respective websites know what to expect from other users onthere, but it WOULD be (ethically?) wrong to use Facebook like Myspace and think of a vaux identity onthere as people will expect you to be yourself.
More examples would be Role Playing Games and chatboxes. Role playing games (MUD's, MOO's, World of Warcraft and so on) are all about constructing a custom-made identity, and other users knwo this. In chatboxes (still depending on the theme though, but i'm generalising here to make my point) people may expect you to be yourself and if they are, it could be considered wrong if you pretend to be somebody you're not. Especially if you are doing this in order to gain people's trust/information or God knows what else.
I think this depends entirely on the website or other internet-service used. A really basic example can be given by comparing the two most popular social networking websites. Rivals they may be, but the social discourse and expectations of how people represent themselves is totally different. Facebook on the one hand expects users to use their real name, upload ONLY pictures of themselves, and communicate with people in their actual lives/environment, for example by using networks based on employers or educational institution which you can only join if you can proof that you are part of this "group". So Facebook is more a tool to contact people you actually know rather than a place to meet people. Myspace, on the other hand, is more about customising a page very much and creating an online persona that is perhaps only remotely related to you real-life identity. Myspace actually is more about meeting people based on similar interests like music and things like that. For example, my own Myspace page only passingly mentions that my name is Frank (http://www.myspace.com/fbcnl)
Not normally a problem at all, users of the respective websites know what to expect from other users onthere, but it WOULD be (ethically?) wrong to use Facebook like Myspace and think of a vaux identity onthere as people will expect you to be yourself.
More examples would be Role Playing Games and chatboxes. Role playing games (MUD's, MOO's, World of Warcraft and so on) are all about constructing a custom-made identity, and other users knwo this. In chatboxes (still depending on the theme though, but i'm generalising here to make my point) people may expect you to be yourself and if they are, it could be considered wrong if you pretend to be somebody you're not. Especially if you are doing this in order to gain people's trust/information or God knows what else.
Friday, 23 January 2009
Task for week 1: Chatrooms, (instant) messenger services and IRLs (characteristics and use)
Good example of messengers are MSN Messenger, well, everyone still calls it MSN Messenger, but officially Microsoft deemed it a good idea to ditch one of the internet's best-known brands in favour for Windows Live Messenger, for text-messenging and Skype for video-calls. MSN actually can do video-calls just aswel as Skype can, however, Skype has become the norm, probably due to it's ability to actually audio-call traditional phones aswel.
The basic concept of instant messenging is quite simple. A (fairly small) piece of software tells you which of the people you have added to the application's "friend-list" are online and whent heya re you can open a chat-window in which you can instantly send eachother and an unlimited amount of short terxt messages thus enabling an actual conversation, be it in text-form. Users can also send each other files and pictures. Users who have a webcam and/or microphone installed on their computer can use these to have actual audio and/or video conversations with each other.
Chatrooms are similar in the sense that messages are sent instantly, however they are mostly divided by region or a specific interest or subject and a meeting place to talk to a larger group of people you may not even know.
IRL's are basically a different term for web-forums, where subjects can be discussed in a post-after-post manner rather than in real-time.
I personally mostly use MSN Messenger as it has more or less become the standard form of instant messenging. It's a good way to keep up with other people's going on's or simply to pass the time. However, occasionally it's a good way to communicate actual constructive information when doing university group work and an actual physical meeting isn't possible for whatever reason.
The basic concept of instant messenging is quite simple. A (fairly small) piece of software tells you which of the people you have added to the application's "friend-list" are online and whent heya re you can open a chat-window in which you can instantly send eachother and an unlimited amount of short terxt messages thus enabling an actual conversation, be it in text-form. Users can also send each other files and pictures. Users who have a webcam and/or microphone installed on their computer can use these to have actual audio and/or video conversations with each other.
Chatrooms are similar in the sense that messages are sent instantly, however they are mostly divided by region or a specific interest or subject and a meeting place to talk to a larger group of people you may not even know.
IRL's are basically a different term for web-forums, where subjects can be discussed in a post-after-post manner rather than in real-time.
I personally mostly use MSN Messenger as it has more or less become the standard form of instant messenging. It's a good way to keep up with other people's going on's or simply to pass the time. However, occasionally it's a good way to communicate actual constructive information when doing university group work and an actual physical meeting isn't possible for whatever reason.
Task for week 1: Websites (characteristics and use)
A website is a collection of mostly HTML-pages (Hyper-Text Markup Language) and other files that offers text, pictures, but nowadays also audio and video, that are hosted by a server. This is the part of the internet know as The Web. WWW, or The World Wide Web is the name of all websites together. So, The Web is not just a synonym for the internet in general. Websites are accessed through an URL (Uniform Resource Locator) or address for each individual webpage and file on the WWW.
There are basically two flavours of websites:
Some websites websites consists of files stored as they are seen by the person who visits the webpage, who has no influence on the content of the website, the maintainer of the website would actually have to change the files on the server individually and specifically to change the website's content. These are called static. Many websites are dynamic, where files are stored differently to make it easier for the websmaster or webteam to update the information. For example news websites that constantly needs updating, or webpages where visitors can interact by responding to or adding to the content of a page. Like this one, for example. The rise in dynamic websites have brought about the arrival of what we call web 2.0.
Web 2.0 (although some would argue that we're already on 3.0) has changed the internet a lot. Interactivity is key and static information providing websites are no longer the norm. Almost every website you visit nowadays asks you to respond to articles, upload pictures, add videos (YOUTUBE!!!) or discuss things in web-fora. Forming some sort of online-community, or indeed, an imagined community. Even websites that do not allow this sort of interaction often do still allow you to sign-up/log in and change the website's appearance and spacing to suit your own preferences. People's online persona, can often be quite different from their real-life persona as the internet allows them to basically present themselves however they want themselves to be seen.
I personally use the internet all the time. For all sorts of things, research, entertainment (again, Youtube, but also things like iPlayer and 4OD), to find news or to indeed respond and discuss things on web-fora. And let's not forget that websites like Myspace and Facebook, who tend to pretty much rule the average student's life, are also web-based and are pretty much taking this whole online-community thing to the next level.
There are basically two flavours of websites:
Some websites websites consists of files stored as they are seen by the person who visits the webpage, who has no influence on the content of the website, the maintainer of the website would actually have to change the files on the server individually and specifically to change the website's content. These are called static. Many websites are dynamic, where files are stored differently to make it easier for the websmaster or webteam to update the information. For example news websites that constantly needs updating, or webpages where visitors can interact by responding to or adding to the content of a page. Like this one, for example. The rise in dynamic websites have brought about the arrival of what we call web 2.0.
Web 2.0 (although some would argue that we're already on 3.0) has changed the internet a lot. Interactivity is key and static information providing websites are no longer the norm. Almost every website you visit nowadays asks you to respond to articles, upload pictures, add videos (YOUTUBE!!!) or discuss things in web-fora. Forming some sort of online-community, or indeed, an imagined community. Even websites that do not allow this sort of interaction often do still allow you to sign-up/log in and change the website's appearance and spacing to suit your own preferences. People's online persona, can often be quite different from their real-life persona as the internet allows them to basically present themselves however they want themselves to be seen.
I personally use the internet all the time. For all sorts of things, research, entertainment (again, Youtube, but also things like iPlayer and 4OD), to find news or to indeed respond and discuss things on web-fora. And let's not forget that websites like Myspace and Facebook, who tend to pretty much rule the average student's life, are also web-based and are pretty much taking this whole online-community thing to the next level.
Task for week 1: E-mail (characteristics and use)
E-mail, short for electroic mail, is a service that allows you to you send messages as well as other digital files (so called 'attachments') to other e-mail adresses. Messages are sent to a specific e-mail adress, or group of adresses (possibly on a adress-list), through the internet after which they are accepted and stored by the receiving server. The person, whose e-mail address was used to send the message to, can log intop the server and read/download, reply or forward the text message and/or the attached files.
E-mail messages, are almost instant, depending on its file size, and this is what makes them a very popular form of communication, not only for personal purposes, but also between staff of companies and other institutions. They are fast, private (as the receiver needs to log in to be able to read them), and fairly reliable.
However, servers can crash, mail-account can reach their maximum data-quota or, even worse, email providers can discontinue their services altogether.
I personally use e-mail all the time, as many people I would think, to stay in touch with relatives and friends or to send enquire companies about their services and stuff like that. E-mailing a company is always a bit less intimidating than actualyl calling them, however, an E-mail can easily be ignored which emans you end up having to call them.
Nowadays, I don't tend to use e-mail as much as I used to for informal messages to friends with the arrival and increasing popularity of social networking websites such as Myspace and Facebook.
E-mail messages, are almost instant, depending on its file size, and this is what makes them a very popular form of communication, not only for personal purposes, but also between staff of companies and other institutions. They are fast, private (as the receiver needs to log in to be able to read them), and fairly reliable.
However, servers can crash, mail-account can reach their maximum data-quota or, even worse, email providers can discontinue their services altogether.
I personally use e-mail all the time, as many people I would think, to stay in touch with relatives and friends or to send enquire companies about their services and stuff like that. E-mailing a company is always a bit less intimidating than actualyl calling them, however, an E-mail can easily be ignored which emans you end up having to call them.
Nowadays, I don't tend to use e-mail as much as I used to for informal messages to friends with the arrival and increasing popularity of social networking websites such as Myspace and Facebook.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
