In Danah Boyd's talk, she mentioned that we live inside streams of content and information - adding to it, consuming it, and redirecting it.
I started to consider how I am doing that. How distributed or aggregated am I when it comes to content and information? I suppose I use Twitter to gain access to news - whether it be sports, or news in general and I guess I am aggregating different sources into one news feed. I actually think its a lot easier to get news from Twitter because it's actually the stuff I want to read.
Danah Boyd mentioned that people "who are most enamored with services like Twitter talk passionately about feeling as though they are living and breathing with the world around them, peripherally aware and in-tune, adding content to the stream and grabbing it when appropriate", in this case I suppose I only 'grab' and not add to it as I don't 'distribute' much content on Twitter, perhaps I retweet something interesting once in awhile but that's pretty much it.
Going back to the lecture, I found it interesting how new forms of publishing allow us to transform other forms of distribution. An example given was Facebook, emotions, feelings and thoughts can be distributed through this tool. I suppose this is quite true, not just posting text on your news feed, but links, pictures, videos... I guess it could be considered 'distributing' emotions, feelings and thoughts in the form of different types of publishing, even commenting on your friends' posts and what they've 'distributed' can distribute your thoughts, feelings and emotions.
Moving back to Danah Boyd's talk, another thing I found interesting was how she mentioned that the barriers to distribution are collapsing and that what matters is not the act of distribution, but the act of consumption. In a networked structure, anyone can get content to another person. According to her, "the power is no longer in the hands of those who control the channels of distribution, but those who control the limited resource of attention" and "it's no longer about push; it's about pull". I agree with this to a certain extent, the fact that I use Twitter to aggregate the news that I want to read proves her point that the power is in my hands. However, there is also the issue of credibility. I feel that traditional news broadcasters still have the power, not in terms of channels of distribution, but the content itself, for example I would not believe news from a shoddy website. Then again, that also proves that I still have the absolute power to choose what content to access...
REFERENCES
http://truth-out.org/archive/component/k2/item/87704:what-is-implied-by-living-in-a-world-of-flow
http://www.danah.org/papers/talks/Web2Expo.html
Tuesday, October 28, 2014
Monday, October 27, 2014
Visualisation in scientific research and the communication of science
I found
visualisation in the communication of science (within the public sphere) really
interesting. As I've mentioned in my previous post, things like this often go
unnoticed and people don't bother to look at them, especially when they've
heard about it time and time again. But visualisations just make you see and
realise how important certain issues are without having to go through numbers
and facts. Take this for example, when you look at it you can see just how its
going to impact us. Its not just numbers and facts anymore, it shows how we are
going to be directly affected.
Upon some
further research, I've also realised that visualisations have been around for a
really long time and some of the most famous ones have impacted us profoundly.
Dr John
Snow's map of cholera spread in London.
His map of
outbreaks in 19th Century London showed that cases were clustered around a
water pump, thanks to contamination from germs, which was then a new idea, this
changed the way we saw a disease. (BBC, 2014).
When Florence
Nightingale demonstrated that more soldiers in the Crimean War died in
hospitals from preventable epidemic diseases than on the battlefield she helped
to save countless lives.
After checking out some visualisations in scientific research in a more modern era, I've realised something I've never thought about. Visualisations play a part in medical treatment, making research easier and potentially helping millions.
" A new technique for dissolving fatty molecules in biological tissue can be used to render organs transparent (below). Known, appropriately, as CLARITY, the technique's power becomes evident when combined with fluorescent tags that affix to particular cell types. The result: translucent, color-coded brains, such as the mouse brain above, that could give researchers a literal window into neurological function and anatomy. " (Wired, 2013)
Its astonishing how they can add colour to bring about a visualisation of different cell types. I've realised visualisations can function as an educational tool, help with medical treatment, potentially change public opinion, and affect us in ways we've never even thought about. Visualisations in scientific research could help cure diseases, visualisations in the communication of science can help raise awareness about issues such as global warming, and educate those who are unaware. It truly is awe-inspiring to think about how visualisations have affected us in the past, and how they will affect us in the future.
REFRENCES
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140219-images-that-changed-our-world
http://www.wired.com/2013/12/best-scientific-figures-2013/#slideid-567426
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/tag/climate/
REFRENCES
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140219-images-that-changed-our-world
http://www.wired.com/2013/12/best-scientific-figures-2013/#slideid-567426
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/tag/climate/
Sunday, October 26, 2014
Visualisation
Dominance of Google
The information graphic in the link above shows how a visualisation can help us to see things that would be hard to organise or view otherwise, e.g. if it was just numbers on a sheet. In my opinion it is far more engaging to look at an information graphic that's visually easy to understand, rather than a page of numbers or statistics.
In a sense, they allow us to see things in a way which we would normally not be bothered to look at or consider. Does this change publics or rather, the way they act/think/behave or feel towards a situation? I have no doubt people have thought about how dominant Google is in the digital market, but have they actually seen the statistics, or bothered to do a comparison of them and their competitors? That's where visualizing data gives it so much more impact. If we look at this simple information graphic we can see how Google is starting to dominate the market, backed by facts and statistics but in a simple and easy visualisation rather than bits of pieces of statistics on the web. I would say it is making the invisible visible!
Also, if we take a look at the following example:
We've heard so much about the Taliban from the media for years, but if we look at the information graphic from http://terror.periscopic.com/ we can see that ISIS has been around since 2002, and we've only recently heard about them. In 2004, yes 10 years ago, ISIS killed 912 people compared to 436 by Taliban. What if this information graphic had been widely published? The public may have known about ISIS long before the media storm, could it be argued that visualisations can change the opinion of the public?
Another example would be http://dirtyenergymoney.com/.
I found it really interesting because its actually an interactive tool that tracks the flow of oil, gas and coal industry contributions to the US congress. It's taking data that would be so difficult to compile and putting it into a simple visualisation that's easy to understand and comprehend, yet complex enough to be able to see which politician received how much contributions, and from who... This certainly would be able to change public opinion on the matter, and far more effective than jumbled up numbers and statistics or just words on a page.
Another question to ask is can the role of the visual, sound and code and their combination transform publishing/publics? How do changes in the way what we see is organised change us?
My answer would be yes, it can transform publishing and publics. I can think of the perfect example. a 'vine', which is a short video, usually a funny one. Personally, this way of publishing (short videos) has subtly affected me in a way. I usually shy away from longer videos now, and except something funny to be a really short clip and for it to happen instantly. If I were to watch a longer video, I'd definitely skip the boring parts and try to get to the good part. Even when I watch football highlights I just want to see when the magic happens and sometimes not the build-up play.
What about tweets? I'm so used to reading short snippets of information that sometimes I expect things to be condensed in a few sentences so I can catch the gist of it before deciding if I should spend my time further reading the article. The way Twitter works also allows me to access publications that I'm interested in, rather than say read an entire newspaper. For me, the publishing style of Twitter changes the organisation of how I view news, and it's changed me because I just want to read what I'm interested in, and I want small snippets of information as a preview.
What about Instagram as a publishing tool? This video is a really interesting way to look at how the publishing of pictures of Instagram has affected us socially, as a society as well as individually and perhaps has even changed the way we live our lives.
"The Instagram generation now experiences the present as an anticipated memory" - Professor Daniel Kahneman.
The information graphic in the link above shows how a visualisation can help us to see things that would be hard to organise or view otherwise, e.g. if it was just numbers on a sheet. In my opinion it is far more engaging to look at an information graphic that's visually easy to understand, rather than a page of numbers or statistics.
In a sense, they allow us to see things in a way which we would normally not be bothered to look at or consider. Does this change publics or rather, the way they act/think/behave or feel towards a situation? I have no doubt people have thought about how dominant Google is in the digital market, but have they actually seen the statistics, or bothered to do a comparison of them and their competitors? That's where visualizing data gives it so much more impact. If we look at this simple information graphic we can see how Google is starting to dominate the market, backed by facts and statistics but in a simple and easy visualisation rather than bits of pieces of statistics on the web. I would say it is making the invisible visible!
Also, if we take a look at the following example:
We've heard so much about the Taliban from the media for years, but if we look at the information graphic from http://terror.periscopic.com/ we can see that ISIS has been around since 2002, and we've only recently heard about them. In 2004, yes 10 years ago, ISIS killed 912 people compared to 436 by Taliban. What if this information graphic had been widely published? The public may have known about ISIS long before the media storm, could it be argued that visualisations can change the opinion of the public?
Another example would be http://dirtyenergymoney.com/.
I found it really interesting because its actually an interactive tool that tracks the flow of oil, gas and coal industry contributions to the US congress. It's taking data that would be so difficult to compile and putting it into a simple visualisation that's easy to understand and comprehend, yet complex enough to be able to see which politician received how much contributions, and from who... This certainly would be able to change public opinion on the matter, and far more effective than jumbled up numbers and statistics or just words on a page.
Another question to ask is can the role of the visual, sound and code and their combination transform publishing/publics? How do changes in the way what we see is organised change us?
My answer would be yes, it can transform publishing and publics. I can think of the perfect example. a 'vine', which is a short video, usually a funny one. Personally, this way of publishing (short videos) has subtly affected me in a way. I usually shy away from longer videos now, and except something funny to be a really short clip and for it to happen instantly. If I were to watch a longer video, I'd definitely skip the boring parts and try to get to the good part. Even when I watch football highlights I just want to see when the magic happens and sometimes not the build-up play.
What about tweets? I'm so used to reading short snippets of information that sometimes I expect things to be condensed in a few sentences so I can catch the gist of it before deciding if I should spend my time further reading the article. The way Twitter works also allows me to access publications that I'm interested in, rather than say read an entire newspaper. For me, the publishing style of Twitter changes the organisation of how I view news, and it's changed me because I just want to read what I'm interested in, and I want small snippets of information as a preview.
What about Instagram as a publishing tool? This video is a really interesting way to look at how the publishing of pictures of Instagram has affected us socially, as a society as well as individually and perhaps has even changed the way we live our lives.
"The Instagram generation now experiences the present as an anticipated memory" - Professor Daniel Kahneman.
The Power of Facebook (week 7)
Do Facebook, Google, Twitter, Apple and Amazon have too much
power? To put it simply, I’ve heard two sides to the argument upon discussion
with colleagues and friends as well as after reading several articles.
1) Yes. It’s scary.
2) If you don’t want to use their products, just don’t! They
do not have control over what you use or do not use.
We can start with point 1. Facebook has become ingrained in
our everyday lives, for some, the first thing they do (me included) is check
their notifications... messages… etc. when they arise from their (social
network) slumber, or in other words when they wake up. I would argue that an
example of their power was when they introduced the messenger app and pretty
much forced people to download it in other to use Facebook messenger to chat
with their friends and the app came with some controversy.
“… the real controversy emerged when new downloaders
discovered that the app, especially on Android, was asking for a whole raft of
permissions. These included the ability to read your SMS messages, read your
phone call log and access the photo roll on your device.” (Lifehacker, 2014)
Yes, this sounds scary. Access to numbers and reading all my
stuff? Wow.
But on the flip side of the argument,
“…the permissions Facebook is asking for are needed for the
app to be able to work in the way its users want.
‘If you’re going to add voice-calls at some point, you’ll
need to access and sync your contacts.
‘If you want to take photos, the app will need access to
your gallery. These are needed, however Facebook probably could have
communicated this better.’ " (Daily Mail, 2014)
So perhaps Facebook is just trying to provide better
service? Or do they want access to our information - we all know how much money
they make from advertising... which leaves me on the fence. Anyway, I still
have the old version of Facebook that has the messenger app, and I'm holding on
to it as long as possible. I guess it seems like I'm leaning towards one side
of the fence.
What about all the debates on Facebook's algorithm? The
following explains what it does...
"So they’ve tailored their “EdgeRank” algorithm to
consider, for each status update from each friend you might receive, not only
when it was posted (more recent is better) but other factors, including how
regularly you interact with that user (e.g. liking or commenting on their
posts), how popular they are on the service and among your mutual friends, and
so forth. A post with a high rating will show up, a post with a lower rating
will not." (Culture Digitally, 2014).
For me, this isn't a huge problem. I wouldn't want to read
boring stuff anyway. BUT this section of the article has got me thinking... The
article argues that on one hand, we have
“trusted interpersonal information conduits” — the telephone
companies, the post office. Users gave them information aimed for others and
the service was entrusted to deliver that information. We expected them not to
curate or even monitor that content. On
the other hand, we had “media content producers” — radio, film, magazines,
newspapers, television, video games... We knew that producers made careful
selections based on appealing to us as audiences, and deliberately played on our
emotions as part of their design.
Thus...
.... we would be surprised, outraged, to find out that the
post office delivered only some of the letters addressed to us, in order to
give us the most emotionally engaging mail experience."
This is kind of what Facebook is doing! Although I would
argue that if you send someone a message on Facebook, he/she WILL see it. So
the user should know that they won't see everything their friends post, but
will receive personal messages, just like mails from the post office (except
Facebook probably has access to it)....
Going back to point 2... you could stop using their products
and not give them 'power', but can you really live without
Facebook/Google/Twitter/Apple? It's just so much more convenient. Keeping in touch
on facebook, using the search engine/ google maps, getting snippets of
information I'm interested in on Twitter, the convenience of my Iphone... I know it would be hard for me to give it all
up, so do I really have a choice not to use them?
REFERENCES
http://www.lifehacker.com.au/2014/08/how-messenger-highlighted-facebooks-privacy-problem/
http://culturedigitally.org/2014/07/facebooks-algorithm-why-our-assumptions-are-wrong-and-our-concerns-are-right/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2724728/The-Facebook-Messenger-backlash-Reviewers-flock-complain-experts-raise-concerns-privacy-controls.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)