Depending on the text in question, the reader can take on a variety of roles. The reader doesn't necessarily own the text in any way, as the ideas written down are those of someone else. Most times, the text asks some sort of question (Whether explicitly or implicitly) which the reader is to "answer" in some general sense of the word.
This can range from raising an intellectual question, for the reader to think upon, to questions which call for a solution that the reader is to provide. In some texts, the reader may be just someone who is to be informed of some facts or information. The reader can even be a core component of the text as the text may wish to convince the reader of some position, as in the case of a rhetorical piece of text.
There is no one single role for the reader of any text. He may be a passive bystander for some texts, whereas in others he can be an active participant in some forum of discussion or the catalyst which brings about a change. Whether the reader belongs or not depends on the text in question. In some cases there should be only one reader as in the case of a diary or journal, and any other reader does not belong there. In every sense of the word, the reader would be an intruder in the case of a private text.
Saturday, September 24, 2011
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Is Google Making Us Stupid?
* Do the benefits of the Internet outweigh the costs that come with it?* Can we afford to not know everything, given that we can search for it instantly and easily?
* Does the Internet have us on a constant information overload, even when we're not using it, to the point that we can't deeply focus anymore?
* How is writing changing with the vast information available?
* Is this the last major technological innovation, short of Artificial Intelligence, that will change the way we think?
* If the brain is as plastic as researchers think, can the "information skimming" behavior be simply seen as emergent behavior from our interactions with the Internet? Or is it something that has been imposed upon us by the system we're interacting with?
During my read through of Carr's article, I found several similarities between his article and Gopnik's article. I realized both authors drew upon the idea that in each age was a technology that was lauded, and another that was criticized. With the vast amount of information and it's ease of access in society, it's no wonder both authors would suggest that it leads to staccato like reading behavior where one cannot deeply focus on a topic. Both authors cleanly fit within Gopnik's definition of "Never-Betters," but I feel that there is much more to the Internet that we have not yet realized. As much as the Internet can be a distraction and also a great resource for those doing research, I feel there is a lot of untapped potential that we are on the verge of realizing. What exactly? I don't know. If I did, I'd be out there trying to make it happen though. Call it a gut feeling.
Some other notes: It's rather interesting to think about how the Internet changes our thought processes. Sure, with a computer you can stream through massive amounts of information extremely quickly. Now imagine what happens if your computer has two monitors. You can have twice as much information up and it changes how you think once again.
I have two monitors because of the immense boost in productivity I gain when programming, my chosen profession and one of my fields of study. But where there was once one window of information, now there is two. It can get a bit distracting sometimes when I'm goofing off. Especially when you have two windows of StumbleUpon open. Case in point: While I was reading this article on one monitor I got distracted by my blog and started writing this long winded tangent before I had even finished reading the article or writing the actual blog post!
* Does the Internet have us on a constant information overload, even when we're not using it, to the point that we can't deeply focus anymore?
* How is writing changing with the vast information available?
* Is this the last major technological innovation, short of Artificial Intelligence, that will change the way we think?
* If the brain is as plastic as researchers think, can the "information skimming" behavior be simply seen as emergent behavior from our interactions with the Internet? Or is it something that has been imposed upon us by the system we're interacting with?
During my read through of Carr's article, I found several similarities between his article and Gopnik's article. I realized both authors drew upon the idea that in each age was a technology that was lauded, and another that was criticized. With the vast amount of information and it's ease of access in society, it's no wonder both authors would suggest that it leads to staccato like reading behavior where one cannot deeply focus on a topic. Both authors cleanly fit within Gopnik's definition of "Never-Betters," but I feel that there is much more to the Internet that we have not yet realized. As much as the Internet can be a distraction and also a great resource for those doing research, I feel there is a lot of untapped potential that we are on the verge of realizing. What exactly? I don't know. If I did, I'd be out there trying to make it happen though. Call it a gut feeling.
Some other notes: It's rather interesting to think about how the Internet changes our thought processes. Sure, with a computer you can stream through massive amounts of information extremely quickly. Now imagine what happens if your computer has two monitors. You can have twice as much information up and it changes how you think once again.
I have two monitors because of the immense boost in productivity I gain when programming, my chosen profession and one of my fields of study. But where there was once one window of information, now there is two. It can get a bit distracting sometimes when I'm goofing off. Especially when you have two windows of StumbleUpon open. Case in point: While I was reading this article on one monitor I got distracted by my blog and started writing this long winded tangent before I had even finished reading the article or writing the actual blog post!
The way we browse the Internet
If you observe most people as they browse the Internet (or even just use a computer) you'll notice a familiar pattern. While casually browsing new web sites, people typically spend a short amount of time on a web site before leaving the site for somewhere else.
From the point of view of a programmer, this is a huge problem. Some of us try to make a living doing web design and there is a great need to minimize what's known as bounce rate. Bounce rate is simply a percentage that tells you the relative number of people who visit your site and leave shortly thereafter. Having a low bounce rate is good, because that usually means people stay on your web site for extended periods of time.
It can be suggested that the Internet goes against traditional ways of reading and information processing, in that people often only skim the surface of a web site before moving on. As a web designer, if you design your web site well and "do everything right*" you tend to cause the opposite phenomenon. Instead of having someone visit your web site, followed by their quick departure, people will tend to stay if you have a good web site.
Take my favorite community web site, Stack Overflow (SO), a web site designed for programmers of all kinds. Ask any programmer who regularly uses it and you'll find they tend to spend a lot of time on SO. Most people who use it typically invest non-trivial amounts of time into asking, answering, and viewing questions.
It's not exact, but this is almost the opposite of those who are casually browsing the Internet, going from web site to web site. I'm in no way suggesting that people jump from web site to web site because the designer who created the web site was a terrible web designer. But the case can be made that good web design leads to a lower bounce rate. In turn, this means people are probably more deeply entrenched in your web site. Remember, causation does not imply correlation!
You can just as easily make a counterargument that other web sites (Like Google) are fostering the skimming behavior, due to the way that they make it easy to access vast amounts of data in an easy and manageable way. But that's life; Nothing is absolute. These are simply two common patterns you can find in all the data.
*Note: I'm being a bit vague here because there's a lot of small details that go into this that are beyond the scope of this post. Besides, I'm not a web designer so I don't even know half of them.
From the point of view of a programmer, this is a huge problem. Some of us try to make a living doing web design and there is a great need to minimize what's known as bounce rate. Bounce rate is simply a percentage that tells you the relative number of people who visit your site and leave shortly thereafter. Having a low bounce rate is good, because that usually means people stay on your web site for extended periods of time.
It can be suggested that the Internet goes against traditional ways of reading and information processing, in that people often only skim the surface of a web site before moving on. As a web designer, if you design your web site well and "do everything right*" you tend to cause the opposite phenomenon. Instead of having someone visit your web site, followed by their quick departure, people will tend to stay if you have a good web site.
Take my favorite community web site, Stack Overflow (SO), a web site designed for programmers of all kinds. Ask any programmer who regularly uses it and you'll find they tend to spend a lot of time on SO. Most people who use it typically invest non-trivial amounts of time into asking, answering, and viewing questions.
It's not exact, but this is almost the opposite of those who are casually browsing the Internet, going from web site to web site. I'm in no way suggesting that people jump from web site to web site because the designer who created the web site was a terrible web designer. But the case can be made that good web design leads to a lower bounce rate. In turn, this means people are probably more deeply entrenched in your web site. Remember, causation does not imply correlation!
You can just as easily make a counterargument that other web sites (Like Google) are fostering the skimming behavior, due to the way that they make it easy to access vast amounts of data in an easy and manageable way. But that's life; Nothing is absolute. These are simply two common patterns you can find in all the data.
*Note: I'm being a bit vague here because there's a lot of small details that go into this that are beyond the scope of this post. Besides, I'm not a web designer so I don't even know half of them.
Monday, September 12, 2011
First Thoughts
When writing up my first assignment, a reaction paper written in crayon on construction paper, I found myself drafting my thoughts several times before actually committing my response to paper. At first I just let my thoughts flow naturally as they came onto the scrap paper I was using. With the second draft I began picking my various ideas apart. I added some sentences here and there and removed others.
By the time I felt ready to actually commit it onto the construction paper, I felt it would be a simple transcribe from my existing copy. But, I found myself making small tweaks in the sentence length. I found myself limiting myself even further, because the crayon wrote far larger than I had anticipated. I noticed I was much more careful in the entire process, from draft to final copy.
I almost never do drafting and it usually ends up hurting me, since I end making quite a few mistakes along the way. This felt so much more permanent to me though, so I really took my time trying to organize my thoughts on the paper. It was something of an interesting experience and it certainly pushed me towards the mentality of "measure twice, cut once."
By the time I felt ready to actually commit it onto the construction paper, I felt it would be a simple transcribe from my existing copy. But, I found myself making small tweaks in the sentence length. I found myself limiting myself even further, because the crayon wrote far larger than I had anticipated. I noticed I was much more careful in the entire process, from draft to final copy.
I almost never do drafting and it usually ends up hurting me, since I end making quite a few mistakes along the way. This felt so much more permanent to me though, so I really took my time trying to organize my thoughts on the paper. It was something of an interesting experience and it certainly pushed me towards the mentality of "measure twice, cut once."
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Patene Commercial
In Patene's shampoo commercial, the primary focus of the commercial is placed on a young deaf girl who tries to play violin. The girl has trouble being accepted by others; one of her classmates who plays piano pushes her around, and several boys violently attack an older man who tries to help her go beyond her disability. Yet in the end, the focus of the commercial suddenly changes to that of the young girl's hair. It becomes immediately clear that the commercial is actually for a Patene product with the chrysalis metamorphosis imagery and the enthusiastic hair waving given by the girl in her violin performance.
Patene is just like any other company in that they wish to market and sell their products as effectively as possible. But their commercial was able to do more than that. Patene told a sympathetic story of a young girl who struggled against many obstacles, and who managed to overcome them and shine brightly in a brilliant violin performance. Patene told a passionate story that many can sympathize with and were also able to market a product in an effective manner. Just by looking through the various comments posted, it can be seen that both goals were easily accomplished. Several people commented on how inspirational it was. Another commented that watching it would make one want to use Patene products for the rest of their lives.
To that end, I applaud Patene for making such a visually and emotionally stunning commercial. It's one thing to make a commercial that markets a product, but it's an entirely other thing to also inspire others while marketing said product.
Patene is just like any other company in that they wish to market and sell their products as effectively as possible. But their commercial was able to do more than that. Patene told a sympathetic story of a young girl who struggled against many obstacles, and who managed to overcome them and shine brightly in a brilliant violin performance. Patene told a passionate story that many can sympathize with and were also able to market a product in an effective manner. Just by looking through the various comments posted, it can be seen that both goals were easily accomplished. Several people commented on how inspirational it was. Another commented that watching it would make one want to use Patene products for the rest of their lives.
To that end, I applaud Patene for making such a visually and emotionally stunning commercial. It's one thing to make a commercial that markets a product, but it's an entirely other thing to also inspire others while marketing said product.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)