hope that you like it!
http://blip.tv/file/1231633/
Friday, September 5, 2008
Thursday, September 4, 2008
ok this is attempt 2
http://blip.tv/file/1228823/
what colour would you like the background to be? text is smaller pictures will be made smaller in the final version.
the web version will be 320 by 240, the presentation version will be 720 by 576 and a much higher quality. so dont worry bout that.
i had a look at those links. im thinking that gradients will be used to make it better. do you want me 2 copy those links like the style?
there are spelling mistakes i do realise that, they will be cleaned up.
im gona mess around with the way the conversations are, have them earlier like when the person is shown then thelastest convo.
um other than thatplease let me no. if there are any problems i have class all day but if you need me i can come out for a chat...
sweet as please let me no.
what colour would you like the background to be? text is smaller pictures will be made smaller in the final version.
the web version will be 320 by 240, the presentation version will be 720 by 576 and a much higher quality. so dont worry bout that.
i had a look at those links. im thinking that gradients will be used to make it better. do you want me 2 copy those links like the style?
there are spelling mistakes i do realise that, they will be cleaned up.
im gona mess around with the way the conversations are, have them earlier like when the person is shown then thelastest convo.
um other than thatplease let me no. if there are any problems i have class all day but if you need me i can come out for a chat...
sweet as please let me no.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Feedback
Hey guys,
Mark- I can't pause the video while it is going, so I can't read anything. Its quite good, but of course a little fuzzy :P Its not supposed to be a conversation as such, but commenting, like you would comment on bebo? I'd like to hear what Jerad has to say. And where did the info come in? Or did I just not watch the video enough?
Jerad - The abstract talks a lot about our research, and not a lot about our issues and how we would like to overcome this. The first 1 1/2 pages is completely about defining the background of SNS, and although important, could definatly be refined and a lot can be edited out.
Under the heading "What is the problem", 2nd paragraph you mention "In addition, rarely do we name the nature of our relationship with other individuals, in fact, in many situations naming the nature of the relationship may insult the other party, so we exist often in an often amophous social relationship". I love this, as it is so true. However, this relates to our ideas because we are blantently showly these relationships so we can better understand where we stand with others. So I don't know if this is a positive or a negative? Do we realy want to define our realtionships through the bold use of colours? Or are we just happy to evolve our relationships, be privvy to more information as time goes on, without the bold definitions, which even though they change, might be detrimental to our connections with others. (I just mean that if the program picked up the someone is speaking down to me, do I want to know?)
In the last paragraph in that heading, I thought we might say something about privlidges being taken away if the relationship changes, so a fight would result in loss of information, as the relationship has changed.
On a side note, are there going to be fields of information? Once your circle is 'this' big (remembering that size is dependant on intimacy, and distance on frequency) you get this information about me, even if you have talked about it or not? (see diagram)
I will also do a diagram about the relationships under the TA theory, make it simple, so the different types of people that come under the heading, a simple description. What do you think?
Is the paragraph about the 'why don't you... yes, but' relavent, although it is interesting?
In general: I feel like you're not really explaining why its important that we be able to group people well; how the current issue with many SNS is that it is an all or nothing situation in terms of information. There is no current distinctions that allow people to have boundaries about their information sharing within a group of people (which may be a large mix). The development we are talking about really allows people to forge foundations before information is divulged. It builds up a trust, and information is shared at the rate that the itimacy is built, allowing you are only seeing the information on the person that is relavent to your personal realtionship with them. Will we find this information more special because it is earned and relavent, rather than a huge heap shoved at us (one and all).
We possibly should mention somehting about visualising our relationships gives us more control; eg. I can see freinds slipping away from me (literally).
Also, we need to look at how we describe what we are trying to do: how would it work - although this will be displayed in the video, I feel like we're not actually explaining what we are trying to develop at all, and only describing why we are doing it?
I also think that we need to review how our development is helping our situation, "review stage".
As I said before, the potential for change within a relationship needs to be talked about, to let them know that this is ever changing and updating. And we need to also talk about possible negatives within our design; eg. labelling.
Ok, I feel like I've written heaps, and I hope it's helpful. You're both doing awesome jobs, and now what I need from you is what you think I should be doing in terms of diagrams for the paper.
so far... starting point
http://blip.tv/file/1224803/
the real video will be properly timed etc this is just so that it uploads faster so you 2 can view it...
it plays fast so just pause it to read each part.
the viewers will follow along with the cursor as the moves to explain the fuctions etc.
let me no if im on the right track. Ive been messing around ith it for hours and it will change from this but i thought that a few of the ideas i thought might work were the colors...maybe tried to explain it.
have a few questions like should i make up a conversation between the main guy one of the others? what info do you want me to put when one of the "friends" is clicked on?
the real video will be properly timed etc this is just so that it uploads faster so you 2 can view it...
it plays fast so just pause it to read each part.
the viewers will follow along with the cursor as the moves to explain the fuctions etc.
let me no if im on the right track. Ive been messing around ith it for hours and it will change from this but i thought that a few of the ideas i thought might work were the colors...maybe tried to explain it.
have a few questions like should i make up a conversation between the main guy one of the others? what info do you want me to put when one of the "friends" is clicked on?
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Draft outline
I was thinking that we may need to split up the research so that we can each independently work and then bring stuff back to the group.
I have put together a draft outline of my interpretation of how I see this paper coming together, but let me know if you don't see it the same way - more than happy to change to accomodate.
General Outline:
1. Introduction to Social Networking
a. Define what technologies we're talking about (just facebook etc, or are we including text, mobile phones, etc.)
b. Describe the social networking theory behind their use - ties & nodes.
c. Brief description of the interpersonal sociological aspect of this theory (this sets up the use of our problem and solution theories below)
2. Define the problem
a. Problem not that these new relationships don't accurately replicate real life, rather that there is vagueness in definition.
b. Introduce Bowen's triangle and relate to problem. Also review Transactional Analysis Drama Triangles.
3. Criteria for resolution
a. Introduce concept and history of Transactional analysis and how it is pertinent to the discussion
b. More detailed discussion of fundamentals of TA - P/A/C states, strokes, games
4. How Transactional Analysis is manifested in a design.
As I know quite a bit about transactional analysis I am more than happy to take on this section specifically. Based on past interests perhaps Mark could take section 1 and Lisa section 2?
Just a suggestion- Let me know what you think?
I have put together a draft outline of my interpretation of how I see this paper coming together, but let me know if you don't see it the same way - more than happy to change to accomodate.
General Outline:
1. Introduction to Social Networking
a. Define what technologies we're talking about (just facebook etc, or are we including text, mobile phones, etc.)
b. Describe the social networking theory behind their use - ties & nodes.
c. Brief description of the interpersonal sociological aspect of this theory (this sets up the use of our problem and solution theories below)
2. Define the problem
a. Problem not that these new relationships don't accurately replicate real life, rather that there is vagueness in definition.
b. Introduce Bowen's triangle and relate to problem. Also review Transactional Analysis Drama Triangles.
3. Criteria for resolution
a. Introduce concept and history of Transactional analysis and how it is pertinent to the discussion
b. More detailed discussion of fundamentals of TA - P/A/C states, strokes, games
4. How Transactional Analysis is manifested in a design.
As I know quite a bit about transactional analysis I am more than happy to take on this section specifically. Based on past interests perhaps Mark could take section 1 and Lisa section 2?
Just a suggestion- Let me know what you think?
Draft Survey
I emailed this already, but thought I'd post it as well.
This is the draft of the survey we could send out to gain some data on how people use the social networking technology.
We're going to need to send this out ASAP in order for the data to get back to us and be useful.
Let me know if you have comments or what you think.
http://www.zoomerang.com/Survey/?p=WEB2286VVTXC49
This is the draft of the survey we could send out to gain some data on how people use the social networking technology.
We're going to need to send this out ASAP in order for the data to get back to us and be useful.
Let me know if you have comments or what you think.
http://www.zoomerang.com/Survey/?p=WEB2286VVTXC49
Monday, August 25, 2008
so... where are we?
I had said that I would post a summary of the discussion that Lisa and I had, and unfortunately have been derelict in my duties. So here goes...
First I'm just going to start with a basic summary of our position. I will flush out more pertinent aspects further down.
Our arguments:
1. Current technological trends such as social networking sites, blogs, and mobile phones, present a different mode of interpersonal connection, which is dramatically different than face to face connections.
2. In some cases, these new technologies allow us to remain in better contact with people we would otherwise not stay in contact with, but they also allow us to keep a distance from people we do not want to engage with further.
3. We are not arguing that this duality of intimacy and alienation is a problem - rather it is a personal preference.
4. The problem in the situation is knowing how to understand the relationship that we are engaging in.
That is my attempt for a short a simple summary. So to explain a little bit further:
in a face to face relationship there are two parties - you and me.
we are linked thus: You--------Me
that relationship at this point is undefined. But as we interact more and more, the link between us becomes more defined and understood by us the participants.
Using our new technological interfaces we are linked thus:
First I'm just going to start with a basic summary of our position. I will flush out more pertinent aspects further down.
Our arguments:
1. Current technological trends such as social networking sites, blogs, and mobile phones, present a different mode of interpersonal connection, which is dramatically different than face to face connections.
2. In some cases, these new technologies allow us to remain in better contact with people we would otherwise not stay in contact with, but they also allow us to keep a distance from people we do not want to engage with further.
3. We are not arguing that this duality of intimacy and alienation is a problem - rather it is a personal preference.
4. The problem in the situation is knowing how to understand the relationship that we are engaging in.
That is my attempt for a short a simple summary. So to explain a little bit further:
in a face to face relationship there are two parties - you and me.
we are linked thus: You--------Me
that relationship at this point is undefined. But as we interact more and more, the link between us becomes more defined and understood by us the participants.
Using our new technological interfaces we are linked thus:
You- - - -Me
\ /
\ /
\ /
Interface
what is interesting in this connection is that the interface doesn't have an agenda but it critically impacts the relationship.
In the physical connection, the You-Me connection is strong and direct, where as in the second example, the you-me connection becomes weakened, with the relationship directed through the interface.
This phenomena mirrors a interpersonal psychological theory presented by a noted Washington, DC psychiatrist and family therapist, Dr. Murray Bowen. The triangle was one component of his family relations theory which indicated how people in a relationship may turn to a third party to diffuse or ignore a struggle between the two parties.
more about bowen:http://www.thebowencenter.org/index.html
What is interesting about Bowen's theory is that it has a strong similarity to the drama triangles developed by Stephen Karpman, as part of the psycho-social theory Transactional Anaylsis initially developed by Eric Berne. The three roles of the drama triangle are Persecutor, Rescuer,and victim.
Proposal
So what we are proposing to look at in our research is the extent to which transactional analysis and it's model of Parent/Adult/Child ego states and our interpersonal interactions can be used to better define the relationships that are developed through these new interfaces.
\ /
\ /
\ /
Interface
what is interesting in this connection is that the interface doesn't have an agenda but it critically impacts the relationship.
In the physical connection, the You-Me connection is strong and direct, where as in the second example, the you-me connection becomes weakened, with the relationship directed through the interface.
This phenomena mirrors a interpersonal psychological theory presented by a noted Washington, DC psychiatrist and family therapist, Dr. Murray Bowen. The triangle was one component of his family relations theory which indicated how people in a relationship may turn to a third party to diffuse or ignore a struggle between the two parties.
more about bowen:http://www.thebowencenter.org/index.html
What is interesting about Bowen's theory is that it has a strong similarity to the drama triangles developed by Stephen Karpman, as part of the psycho-social theory Transactional Anaylsis initially developed by Eric Berne. The three roles of the drama triangle are Persecutor, Rescuer,and victim.
Proposal
So what we are proposing to look at in our research is the extent to which transactional analysis and it's model of Parent/Adult/Child ego states and our interpersonal interactions can be used to better define the relationships that are developed through these new interfaces.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
