interact (in·ter·act
} \ˌin-tər-ˈakt\Function: intransitive verb
Date: 1839
: to act upon one another
... where "one another" can be objects, forces, devices, or living organisms. Is there something acting upon another something and vice versa? Okay then, "interactivity" can exist.
All snarkiness aside, it seems to me that the difficulty, at least for the folks we've been reading, lies in determining if interactivity exists in a given situation involving people and technology, rather that what the definition of the word means in some other context. And at least there I feel I can agree that there's some murkiness. As with the term "new media", it can depend on your perspective and perhaps even your philosophical leanings. To make matters worse, "-ivity"words (passivity, longevity, creativity) are usually of things we believe we can possess and perhaps measure in some way. But how can you get an accurate measure of something that depends on your perception of it? Culture can affect perception. Personal experiences can affect perception. Physical ability or limitations can affect perception. Is a web application that I can use and modify, but that my blind friend cannot, interactive?
The one thing that surprised me out of all these readings was the fact that the concept of interactivity is so closely tied to new media technologies. After all, I can interact with living things that interact back with me. (Like my cat right now.) Why is this concept so closely tied to technology, rather than nature?
It didn't surprise me at all that there would be different definitions. I did have a problem with the definition that require "real time" interaction. The fact that the interaction is slow or time-shifted doesn't means that it doesn't exist.
What role does the level of interactivity have in regard to the theory of The Long Tail?
The Long Tail was interesting, probably because I ranted at length a couple of years ago about how the movie industry seemed to have "a poor sense of what people want". (And I'm an avid fan of Netflix.)
But I was also intrigued by the question of possible implications for academics. I just bought 10 books off of Amazon.com, on cyber culture theory, online ethnography and ethnographic accounts of culture online that I wouldn't have acquired otherwise, except with the "other customers bought these" recommendations. Certainly I might still have found them through libraries, and been able to peruse them temporarily. But still, I wonder ...
This is getting pretty long. I should probably end it here by just mentioning that I once got to meet Tim Berner's-Lee and shake his hand. (At the 4th International World Wide Web conference, 1995 in Boston. I was an intern, behind the scenes, doing a web site for the conference.) Unfortunately, I had no clue who he was at the time.
... where "one another" can be objects, forces, devices, or living organisms. Is there something acting upon another something and vice versa? Okay then, "interactivity" can exist.
All snarkiness aside, it seems to me that the difficulty, at least for the folks we've been reading, lies in determining if interactivity exists in a given situation involving people and technology, rather that what the definition of the word means in some other context. And at least there I feel I can agree that there's some murkiness. As with the term "new media", it can depend on your perspective and perhaps even your philosophical leanings. To make matters worse, "-ivity"words (passivity, longevity, creativity) are usually of things we believe we can possess and perhaps measure in some way. But how can you get an accurate measure of something that depends on your perception of it? Culture can affect perception. Personal experiences can affect perception. Physical ability or limitations can affect perception. Is a web application that I can use and modify, but that my blind friend cannot, interactive?
The one thing that surprised me out of all these readings was the fact that the concept of interactivity is so closely tied to new media technologies. After all, I can interact with living things that interact back with me. (Like my cat right now.) Why is this concept so closely tied to technology, rather than nature?
It didn't surprise me at all that there would be different definitions. I did have a problem with the definition that require "real time" interaction. The fact that the interaction is slow or time-shifted doesn't means that it doesn't exist.
What role does the level of interactivity have in regard to the theory of The Long Tail?
The Long Tail was interesting, probably because I ranted at length a couple of years ago about how the movie industry seemed to have "a poor sense of what people want". (And I'm an avid fan of Netflix.)
But I was also intrigued by the question of possible implications for academics. I just bought 10 books off of Amazon.com, on cyber culture theory, online ethnography and ethnographic accounts of culture online that I wouldn't have acquired otherwise, except with the "other customers bought these" recommendations. Certainly I might still have found them through libraries, and been able to peruse them temporarily. But still, I wonder ...
This is getting pretty long. I should probably end it here by just mentioning that I once got to meet Tim Berner's-Lee and shake his hand. (At the 4th International World Wide Web conference, 1995 in Boston. I was an intern, behind the scenes, doing a web site for the conference.) Unfortunately, I had no clue who he was at the time.
1 comment:
Wow, I'm in awe that you met Tim Berners-Lee, even if you didn't know who he was. He is definitely one of my heroes!
Post a Comment