All technologies that we are looking at have been discovered, and are in use. We know use them, like them, without seeing the consequences. Are we looking at designing or adapting a technology or user interface that allows a more intimate and life like interaction. Are we connecting with the technology, or the person at the other end?
We are looking at the idea of person to technology to person, with the technology being the interface that allows the connection between people. How technology causes a lack of intimacy between people, or varies the level.
DEFINE INTIMACY IN OUR CONTEXT
Is intimacy knowing a lot about someone? We can talk to someone on MSN messenger for a year, know the in’s and out’s of their everyday lives, and still not actually “know” them. What makes us feel like we have an intimate relationship with someone? Is it knowing all the good and bad things about them? The little quirks that makes them who they are? Or is simply knowing facts enough?
We have looked at the idea that we share a lot more personal information with others than normal on the internet. We blog things that we might never tell our friends etc. We can upload photos of ourselves sunbathing for everyone to see, yet they are not the kind of pictures you might necessarily have on your fridge or hanging up at work. What is it about technology which allows us to lower our guard, and yet feel safe abut doing so?
Dating websites host a lot of scantily clad people, who are trying to portray themselves in such ways that they think will entice others. But we are just seeing what they want us to see, and seeing only what they allow us to. In a way, people like this, because it lets us have a lot more control over how people view and perceive us that we would meeting person to person – also connecting back to the idea of non verbal communication.
OTHER THOUGHTS
Technology is impairing our ability to forge intimate connections with others
Technology gives us the opportunity to connect with a large range of people, in a large range of contexts, without physically connecting to them.
When communicating with others, a lot of what we understand comes from non verbal communication; tone of voice and body language. Without this, eg; blogging, emailing, texting etc, how do we know what we say is really being understood the way we are actually trying to portray it?
THEORY FOR USE:
Social network theory – the idea of a range of intimacy between people using technology as an interface
Eg:
Person to person: talking to someone face to face
Skype: seeing and hearing people – like physical interaction between people without the person being there. Can understand non verbal communication, but lack the ability to use the senses to create a significant personal bond with them
Talking on the phone: one to one, but also hear tone of voice (see call centre info http://www.surespeak.com/whitepapers/body-language/)
Texting/picting: can be one on one, can be personal conversation, no one else can read it
MSN chat: can talk to just one person, much like texting, but also gives us the ability to chat
to a large group of people at the same time.
Bebo/Facebook: Pre-defined groups of people can see photos and videos of the users choice. Can learn a lot about that persons life without ever really connecting. User can define who sees their life by accepting or denying others, or by inviting them to become a friend.
Blog: Although able to define the people that can see your postings, (eg member only) generally blogs are open to the public, and anyone can see anything that you post.
No comments:
Post a Comment