Week 4: New Media

Text: Siapera, E. 2013, Understanding New Media. SAGE Publications, London (Section: pp.1-16).

This week in Networked Media we’ve focused on new media, social media and the web.

New media has possibly been THE most confusing term I’ve encountered this semester (but we’re only in week 4, so there is still time).This maybe because it’s less of a definition and more of a guiding philosophy to analysing the relationship between technological innovations and communication practices.

Nevertheless, we crack on. As i understand, new media is just a better way of understanding media that involves modern technologies – rather than using exclusive implications that surround ‘digital media’ or ‘online media’

Elaine painted us a pretty good picture in the lecture:
New media is a plant growing inside a jar, social media is a root growing off that plant and  Instagram is the leaves starting to grow off that root.

How it works:

Social media is a product of new media, and Instagram is a product of social media and all of them are products of the jar and heavily dependent on the size of the jar, which restricts how big each element can get, how much it thrives and the nutrients and water provided.

New media is new in three main ways:
1. Sometimes digital
2. Sometimes online – accessible, consumed faster
3. Always evolving – dependant on new technologies and different devices

A loose definition:
I’m going off cambridge’s definition that new media are products and services that provide information and entertainment using technology (such as computers and internet) and not through traditional methods. In the reading this week Siapera defines new media as the ‘convergence between the computational logic characteristic of computers and the communicative logic characteristic of the media” (2012, p.5). This is what makes new media so unique and why ‘digital’ or ‘online’ media are too exclusive.

In other words, by using the term ‘new media’, we can more accurately focus our attention on how media (both technologically and communicatively) change in relation to each other.

Is social media new media?
New media is a big umbrella term and there is a lot going on under it, but as i understand, social media is an offshoot of new media. I think of social media is a super refined version of web 2.0. Web 2.0 is characterised by internet platforms and changes in software that allowed users to become part of a participatory culture and produce user generated content within different online communities.

But web 2.0 is most easily understood in relation to web 1.0 which was characterised by the use of the internet in ways that were too technically inaccessible for everyday people.

Instagram:
Instagram is a social platform that has been optimised (by continuous updates in software technology) to facilitate maximum communication between users. Elaine noted that ‘Web 2.0 prioritises democratisation of content production’, and Instagram is providing a platform that allows anyone with a smartphone and the app to take photos, edit them, upload them and use hashtags to fall into different streams of user generated content that attract other like minded users (in the same way chat rooms used to do).

But now as social media becomes increasingly more commercially viable for advertisers and marketers, social media is becoming away for data analysts to understand our patterns and uses of the internet and social media before feeding it back to us in the forms of tailored advertising, optimised search content and more. So what may seem like a simple ‘like’ to support your friend who is doing us all a favour and picking up rubbish off the beach during time off, is actually going back to facebook and all the third parties who buy their content to then sell that ‘like’ back to you so that bamboo toothbrush companies can sell them too you.

And don’t get me wrong, with this example it all seems well and good, but this process can stir some serious questions about privacy, as well as facilitate radicalisation of views by feeding people more and more content that agrees with their views and target them through confirmation bias.

And I believe that this is just the tip of the iceberg, so in 20 or so years I’d love to see what new media can be used to define and what issues around social media have been uncovered.

 

Week 3: Affordances and Constraints

Text 1: Norman, D 1998, The design of everyday things , Basic Book, New York (Sections: Preface vii-xv; Chapter one pp 1-13; Chapter 4 (constraints) pp 81-87; (computers) pp 177-186).

Text 2: Norman, D 1999, ‘Affordance, conventions and design (Part 2)’, Nielsen Norman Group, viewed 1 April 2012, http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/affordance_conv.html

“The result is a world filled with frustration, with objects that cannot be understood, with devices that lead to error. This book is an attempt to change things.”

This week we looked at affordances, which I understand best as – the ability of a user to engage with something in ways that are different to what it was actually designed for.

At first I couldn’t quite grasp the concept, but then everything clicked when Norman introduced ‘perceived affordances’, those things that a user perceives an object to do. And that’s when I realised that my grandma is a pioneer on the subject, let me explain. Once my family came back from Europe with a fabric, quilted toast basket, she said she loved it and would use it a lot. The next time we visited my grandma, she had untied that toast basket and used it as a back cushion for her wooden dining chair. Now that’s what i call a perceived affordance. This is what made me agree with and understand the argument that ‘the presence of an affordance is jointly determined by the object and the ability of the person who is interacting with the object’.

This reading provided many terms which need to be defined for me to understand them. They follow;

Natural Signs:

In The Design of Everyday Things (1998) Norman then goes into the ‘psychological principles’ that can be followed to make objects ‘understandable’ (p.3), the central principle being visibility which allows users to understand ‘natural signs’. Natural signs are ones that provide enough obvious direction for a user to engage without being told by signs, images or symbols. The example that Norman uses and which I think is perfect is the metal plate on the side of a door indicating that it is supposed to be pushed.

Affordances and Constraints:

Constraints come hand in hand with affordances. The example provided by Norman(1998) is: the holes in scissors provide an affordance – they are something to put your fingers into. But the size of the holes provide a constraint, because they limit the number of fingers that can be inserted. The mapping between the size of holes and the amount of fingers creates a set of possible operations for the user which are suggested by the affordances and constraints of the holes which now give an indication of how to use the scissors. ‘Affordances suggest the range of possibilities, constraints limit the number of alternatives. The thoughtful use of affordances and constraints together in design lets a user determine the proper course of action.’ (Norman, 1998, p. 82)

Physical Constraints:

Physical limitations constrain the possible ways of operating a device. They are the physical aspects that determine how one part may fit with another. They rely on the properties of the physical world for operation and no training is required.  

Semantic:

These constraints rely on the situation to provide an answer and that is provided by our understanding of the world. The example provided by Norman is a windshield is used to protect a rider so therefore it must be in front of the rider. ‘Semantic constraints rely upon our knowledge of the situation and of the world. Such knowledge can be a powerful and important clue’ (Norman, 1998, p.83)

Cultural:

“Rely upon accepted cultural conventions, even if they do not affect the physical or semantic operations of the device.” (Norman, 1998, p.83)

Logical:

Norman (1998, p.83) argues that ‘there is a logical relationship between the spatial or functional layout of components and the things that they affect.’ His example being that for the Lego motorcycle to be completed all 13 pieces that came with the set should be used, and if they aren’t then the user has made an error.

In the lecture and tutorials we went into more detail about the prompt which made it more clear how the prompt relates back to affordances. The way I understand this is that media publishers need to understand how Instagram can be used to publish digital content and how to produce suitable content for it. One example that came to mind is the introduction of Instagram stories, there is an increasing push for vertical video as apps are designed for vertical viewing, this has been introduced through Instagram Stories and IGTV. This is a physical constraint because Instagram as an app is designed vertically, it is also a cultural constraint as people are more used to vertical video and don’t want to turn their phone, it could also be viewed as a semantic constraint because everyone posts vertical videos on instagram and thus I must post vertical content.

Norman’s article on Affordances, Conventions and Design really helped me make sense of the Design of Everyday Things, I think the concept of ‘perceived affordances’ is more applicable to the designs of devices because there is no way a designer could think of all the affordances that each individual may create. Therefore, perceived affordances make more sense, as they are what the users believe the device could be used for.

All in all this week’s content has taken the most time to wrap my head around, there are lots of definitions but i think that once i start to pick up affordances and different constraints in the world around me I will get a better understanding of what categories are present in everyday objects.

Week 2: Networks

Text: Lister, M, Dovey, J, Giddings, S, Grant, I & Kelly, K 2009, New Media: A Critical Introduction, 2nd, Routledge, Abingdon, UK.

Welcome back to my blog, where I’ve been told to post weekly insights and understanding of course material whilst reflecting on how networked media presents itself in my everyday life. As far as I can tell, people of around my age have been born into a shifting and dynamic era. One where we remember dial up internet and shouting at our parents to get off the phone, but one where we are also called upon by employers to have an in-depth understanding of the inner workings of technology.

As I understand this week’s reading, Web 2.0 was formed between the pressure for communication and commercialisation which Web 1.0 couldn’t deliver. Web 2.0, which we use now, is a more user friendly version of the web, a version for those people who weren’t physicists in Switzerland trying to share documents on what Sir Tim Berners-Lee created. Web 2.0 is a space where regular people could jump online and experiment with SNS (social networking sites).

Incidentally, the World Wide Web turned 30 on the 13th of March and at the time of its inception and shortly after Steven Jones made predictions that the internet would:

• Create more opportunities for learning
• A platform for participatory democracy
• A place for countercultures to be created and grow like never before

But he also forecast that with Web 2.0 would raise questions around privacy, copyright and ethics, a situation that the we are only just starting to freak out about.

Meanwhile, David Gauntlett was also wondering what might come out of this burgeoning, seemingly endless space that we call Web 2.0. Gauntlett’s main observations were around how it will change self-expression, the obvious issue around anonymity (or benefit depending on whose perspective), and how Web would affect big business through heightened transparency and commercial viability.

But now, on the world wide web’s 30th birthday we have got answers to most of these questions; technologically mediated self expression has exploded in hundreds of directions through the co-creativity, participation and the production and publication of user generated content which feeds into ideologies, fandoms and hobbies creating millions of subcultures. Anonymity is still a serious concern, with users wanting personal privacy but business transparency and wanting to monitor the dark web.

Web 2.0 is now more commercially viable, with businesses able to increase engagement through SNS, bloggers and influencers who can track user engagement and alter their strategy accordingly.

Once upon a time information came from a central point, in general this was from newspaper publishers, and this information was disseminated outwards to society. But now the internet has an ‘open architecture’ which facilitates the circulation of information in every direction, so there is no powerplay between producers and consumers. Now user generated content is at the forefront of our Web 2.0, it is participatory and provided a space for ‘New Media’ (Henry Jenkins, 2006) to evolve. ‘New Media’ allows ‘consumers and producers to archive, annotate and appropriate and recirculate media content’(Lister, 2002 p. 222). But these days we are able to look at data and create SEO friendly content and increase engagement with high quality leads.

So in 30 short years, we’ve gone from nothing to something, and in the last 20 we’ve gone from dial up internet to search engine optimisation to target content to consumers. Who knows what’s next.

Here’s an interesting extra article about the web’s 30th birthday.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/mar/12/tim-berners-lee-on-30-years-of-the-web-if-we-dream-a-little-we-can-get-the-web-we-want

 

Week 1: Images on the Network

Text: Niederer, S 2018, Networked images: visual methodologies for the digital age, Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, Amsterdam, pp.1-20.

This was our first week of Networked Media and we’ve been told to create weekly blogs about the content covered in lectures, tutorials and readings. I’m used to blogging, but for other people, never myself so we will have to see what comes out of this.

This week’s reading is a 2018 publication by Niederer from the University of Applied Sciences in Amsterdam, which was incidentally my second preference for exchange and has made me realise how forward thinking their university is.

Niederer’s research in this reading centres around moving from an ideology that categorises images as data to one that understands images as content that is networked and can be built upon by others. The author discusses images as part of a ‘network of other images, users and platforms; all of which allow one image to be studied through their ‘networkedness’(pp.14).

Niederer is proposing a methodology towards researching images that are circulating faster than ever on the web.

‘Taking networkedness and technicity of content as a methodological entry point, it becomes clear that images should not be studied as separate from their network, but rather en groupe. (Niederer, 2018,p.9)’

The author notes that meaning is created in stages:

1. How the object was made
2. What the image looks like
3. Where and how the image travels
4. How it was (or is) seen and by which audiences

(Rose, 2016 in Niederer 2018)

It is argued that we need to analyse images in relation to one another because once they’re on a network, images (especially those repeated in ways like memes) become reliant on each other and if you analyse one networked image without taking into account the context of that network you will end up with no information as to how the image came about, what is being said or what has been said about it as well as its place within the network. I think of it as playing a game of charades, but it’s just you and one the other player so there is no one else to tell you what they think or how they interpret the moves (bizarre, I know).  

Niederer touches on the idea of visual vernaculars which are ‘platform-specific visual languages’ which are central to networked images. These ‘visual vernaculars’ change depending on the platform, the example is how climate change is communicated across different platforms like Facebook ,Instagram, Reddit, Twitter and tumblr. The author uses engagement metrics to analyse the different dominant visual language that are present on each platform, how these differ from each other, and what they say about the platform.

Niederer argues that ‘working with networked images entails working with collections of images in connection with their carriers and other related objects and users’ (2018, p.18) and when I’ve got more time I’ll be interested to read about the role that platforms have in determining these visual vernaculars for example, text being an integral part of networked images on Tumblr, and how integral visual communication is to Instagram. 

Welcome to your brand new blog at Media Factory .

To get started, simply log in, edit or delete this post and check out all the other options available to you.

For assistance, visit the edublogs User Guide. (Or come to class.)