I appreciate that your focus is online news and political blogging because personally, I never would have skimmed the surface of that realm. However, I would have liked to spend more time on services that we use as college students, such as social networking, and the impact is has globally, culturally, and interpersonally. It would have been just one more way that this course is directly relevant to our lives. Perhaps a larger discussion not just on what they are, but also how it is reforming the way we interact (we did touch on this but maybe more on our increased dependency?).

For me, the least interesting topic was the digital divide. I wholeheartedly agree that access is a very large issue and substantial in the discussion and adoption of new technologies. However, it is hard to talk about it without it being a little dry with numbers and the same rehashed cliche answers (race, economics). At least for me, this was already understood as a problem.

Vonage - available, $24.99, equipment free after rebate.

SpeakEasy – available, comes with broadband service at $83.90.

This was a relatively easy assignment although SpeakEasy REALLY wanted you to enter your information (obviously) and I did not. Before you can even see if it is available in the area, they want your personal data – seems a little backwards to me. In any case, I probably wouldn’t switch anyway because although there is the convenience of keeping my number, neither service offers the cable television that is bundled in my deal with Comcast – something that I would NEED at a competitive price. While Vonage would save me about $5, it’s not worth the switch to get a seperate bill in the mail.

In addition, rather than moan and groan about everything wrong with them, I wanted to express that I enjoyed many of the blogs and blog subjects that I saw. They covered a great spectrum, from sports, to news commentary, to arts/crafts, current events. You name it. I think they will become an integral part of the website soon enough as it reaches small, niche markets. I even found a blog about the going-ons in the gay community in LA, which was insightful and amusing.

It seems the only disadvantages that Best mentions have to deal with the event of an emergency. Generally, when using traditional service, calling 911 immediately let the dispatcher know where you are without saying a sentence. Not the case with VoIP. In addition, there needs to be a constant source of power. So in a blackout, you are effectively cut off on all ends (incoming, Internet, telephone) – not the safest situation to be in. However, as the nation gradually makes the move over, I am sure technology will catch up to ensure these problems are addressed, especially in light of events in the last five years (both terrorism and natural disasters).

While I don’t necessarily think that VoIP will replace traditional cable and telephone network, I do feel it will empower individuals by providing more alternative methods of connecting and maybe even revolutionize how we relate to one another. With programs such as Skype, for example, we are now able to call landlines and cell phones using only a computer and a microphone. Computer-to-computer VoIP has been a standard for years and while it is a nice option to have, has not influenced vocal communication too much. However, as more and more corporations make the switch to VoIP and more policy and regulation is directed toward it, I think it will gain in popularity.

1) Considering last weeks article about increased WiFi access, if we can use VoIP for free computer to computer (assuming the users have laptops), could this mean a decline in the cell market?

2) Do you have VoIP in your home? Does knwoing the information presented in the article encourage you to connect with people nationwide… worldwide (just because you can)?

3)  Does a technological understanding of telecommunication services (as in the “how ____ works” series) affect yor usage of the service?

Of course, this all depends on the evolution of technology, as Best has already analyzed the financial costs and how it can amazingly cover itself. I have no doubt though, considering the rapid rate at which Internet technologies have developed, not to mention even WiFi capabilities in the last ten years. Even in our own neighborhoods, the Ave has a system similar to what Best describes (I believe) providing free WiFi access down the entire block. Not only does this drive local business to the University District but also enables students to research wherever they like. It’s a win/win situation. By translating this effort across the globe, we can open doors we never thought possible and engage with more people.

The relationship between cyberspace as a public space and accessibility standards is closely interwoven. While in order for it to be truly “public”, it must be able to reach everyone and by today’s standards this is the case (any citizen can use the internet-activated computers at the public libraries for free). Issues of speed connections is negligible as most content is in the form of easily downloaded text and T3 lines, etc. are a novelty that encourage more comprehensive (and arguably aestheticly pleasing) websites and content.

1) Is Best’s proposal and argument viable in rural areas that do not have the consistent means (funding, initial accessibility) necessary to implement it?

2) How will worldwide WiFi affect your life? Reshape the Internet as a public domain?

3) Even though experiments with this technology in India have proved “sound”, is it possible this is just wishful thinking from the perspective of the priviledged few? How long will it take to get there?

*edit 2/22*: I actually haven’t been able to get into the studio yet because I have been seriously focusing on getting my prints done before the gallery opening next Friday for my IVA senior studio. However, I still have the image and layers I want to produce all set and have started on my informal speech draft. I have recorded the images I need for the computer part but I know I need to kick it into high gear to get this project done before the deadline! I’m crossing my fingers!

Even with concluding the Kerry site having a slighter edge (regarding loading time, organization of content, etc.) I find it interesting that Bush won the election. Essentially, these websites are reflections of the candidates and their goals and while Kerry is generally more “user-friendly” his campaign did not get him the presidency? What gives? I suppose this article is a good indicator for the future of design issues and how to alleviate them rather than implying the successfulness of a site as a fortune telling win for one party or another. Maybe the Republican party can work on contradictory problems such as the general bandwidth weight of the site when many of their constiuents are in rural areas with limited/slow internet access.

This reminds me of an article I found when the campaign was ongoing about design elements incorporated into each of the banners. This one is quite similar, highlighting that in terms of graphical visability, the Kerry/Edwards banner is much less effective (weak typography, use of positive/negative space) whereas Bush/Cheney has a dominating precense and the aesthetic organization is much less cluttered. While my blog post souns like a Bush sympathizer (which, I can safely proclaim that I am definately not), I do feel that his public image behind colors and shapes during such a crucial time in his campaign helped him earn another term. People, whether corporations, candidates, or otherwise need to realize the importance of strong design principles and artistic creativity/innovation as essential to identity formation and recognizability in our mass mediated world.

Internet technology directly correlates with politics whether it is the pervasion of new information constantly unearthed (through news filters or on popular media organizations) as well as serves as an interactive experience. As seen (albeit poorly) on the Bush site, the use of polls engages the viewer, making them feel more important in the process. In addition, it is a cheap and effective way of reaching a candidate’s constituents, through email and discussion boards. It is reshaping the way we look at relating politics to the public, or even incoming candidates (as seen with the recent online self-nomination slew of videos).

1) To what extent must sites with heavy traffic and important information resolve to using web usability standards? If it is presented aesthetically pleasing and organized but with new coding that not every machine supports should they muddle their site to conform or wait for society to catch up?

2)  How will politics be further reshaped by internet technology? What examples give precedence to continued development?

3) In light of recent candidacy announcements and considering the economic benefits, do you think candidates will make announcements over internet first instead of costly television messages?

Regarding advertising in podcasts, it seems contradictory to me. The whole idea of independent, non-corporation-driven content is respectable but is going to fall in the same cycle they are trying to avoid – using ads to make money. Or, at least,  sustain their program. There is not yet a revolutionary way to deal with the costs of production (in the case of podcasts, bandwidth, etc.) so spoken word ads might seem intrusive but I find them necessary.

I like the solution though – more thought to  creative ways that don’t interfere with content. This is a parallel to “viral marketing” that has been circling Internet and television advertising – it’s consuming marketing without knowing it… and better yet, passing it on to your friends because you enjoyed it. I think this method is still in its infancy but has been successful in the past, especially regarding cross-promotional and cross-media material. By subtlely and creatively approaching the ad situation, I think that there might be a way to not turn off audiences to the idea of funding the station.

1) Will NPR and podcasting (as examples) encourage more “real” content-driven materials or news on our portable players rather than music/entertainment?

2)  Does Glaser’s argument for advertising in podcasts check? Is there an effective way to receive funding through this method?

3) How much of the content you consume do you think is “original”, particularly with mass media? Is there room for improvement from the standpoint of the producers?

I also appreciated his discussion of a “broad conversation”, in which through people’s comments can a dialogue be generated, even if they do not agree with what he stated. Emhpasis on linking credible sources, even in opinion pieces was necessary and addressed. I loved that when discussing national news, even though the majority of his work deals with the Pacific Northwest was he able to reach audiences across the nation – this is a prime example of how the Internet can easily transcend geographical barriers.

1) Does the “broad conversation” through the democratic opinionated posting of comments affect your opinion after-the-fact? Future articles?

2) Does blogging (as viable news source/commentary) have a foothold enough to last? Will it resort to just editorial work?

Powerpoint Presentation

My article, sociological in nature, analyzed how our interpersonal relationships are translated and communicated online in social networks, through which I chose ones relevant to my peers, facebook and myspace. The majority of the argument was directed to quell naysayers assuming that the Internet would eventually envelop our face-to-face personal time and that the ties developed online only exist there.

However, the research found that it was actually more likely to pull us away from television time and that the Internet actually encouraged face-to-face communication. When studying the email inboxes of Berkley students, it was found that 57% of their inbox was from Berkley students and that another 15% from the bay area. Thus, about 3/4 of all communication was spatially local, being that these are people they saw on a regular basis rather than separate entities.

The technological advancements also encouraged communication with real life peers. The fact that it was easily acccessible, asynchronous, could support emotional, nuanced, complex interactions, and the ease of sending messages to large numbers are just a few of the pros that lend itself to the medium. In fact, it was found in most cases that people used email as an “introduction service” to eventually setup face-to-face encounters, which brought new methods to engaging with the community.

I actually enjoyed this project and the presentation although it would have been nice to find out what my peer group was doing as well. I was worried that everyone would pick the same topic and found myself asking the small groups what they had previously seen in other presentations. This could be alleviated by showing all the ppt’s on the large main screen and engaged by all the students. A couple things I learned from my research was that the absence of direct feedback encourages extreme forms of communication (which I found truthful – we can be much more brave in our correspondence, especially in the heat of the moment, without the possible reprecussions of face-to-face) and that social networks are useful for maintaining contact with “weak ties” (which I use quite often, as I am originally from Vegas, this is one of the only ways I stay in contact with many of them until I come home for the holidays, etc.)