The Beached Whale

In her blog, Shelby mentioned a book about how to read books.  Which sounds silly on the surface but really does make some sense once you think about it – most people don’t give much thought to this, and just sit down and read one page after the next.  Can this be optimized?  Is there a better way to understand what you’re reading more fully?

For me this brings to mind a concept I learned about in a Great Texts course, called the “Hermeneutic Circle.”  The idea behind this is that, in theory, it is impossible to fully understand any written work – in order to understand the significance of the work as a whole, one must understand the parts, but in order to understabd the significance of the parts, one must understand the the work as a whole.  One apparent solution to this problem would be to read everything at least twice, but according to the circle that doesn’t really solve anything because you never gained a genuine understanding of any element of the work in the first reading.

This concept and dilemma of a person not being able to see all elements of something simultaneously isn’t unlike the window metaphor discussed in class, so it does call to mind the kind of augmentation Engelbart talks about.

Nelson, on the other hand, favors computer systems that are very economical to learn and use – sort of like an assistant and not quite like the helper who can do things you truly aren’t capable of that Engelbart seems to envision – he includes examples of how flow charts and such could be used to analyze complex data.  Indeed at some level this could be (and is) useful, it’s great for a simplified overview of something, and sometimes even illustrates or communicates a concept better than a traditional format could.  However, I think that, like much of the Nelson reading, which may or may not present his ideas fully, he fails to acknowledge the possible downsides of his own ideas and the advantages of current systems over what he is proposing – he pretty much dismisses the education system as it is right now, and accepts his own version as a seemingly flawless solution.  I think ease of use has a limit and that it shouldn’t be a priority many areas – a complex system that is only useable with substantial training and not intuitive in the least could, after all, be faster and more powerful than a version that is easier to use; the latter may save time initially, but an intial investment in training for the less intuitive system could more than compensate for this.

To illustrate what I mean by this I’ll try to turn one of Nelson’s examples on itself.  On page 324 he writes about a control module on a Computer Assisted Instruction system, explaining how it is not organized in a logical manner that categorically complements the functions of the different buttons.  He then presents a possible approach for making the user’s options clearer, by dividing the buttons into three sections.  This makes for more logical organization than clustering all nine buttons together, but in doing this the module has also become more difficult to use in a sense – the buttons are spaced further apart, such that it may require both hands, additional hand movement, or at the very least looking down at the module in order to use the buttons.  How is this better than just memorizing the locations and functions of the buttons, such that one could eventually be able to effortlessly use the control module with one hand resting in place?

Using Nelson’s logic I could propose a keyboard that would provide “clearer options:” put all the vowels in one column, and put the consonants on the other side, categorizing them into rows with continuants first, followed by plosives, all categorized alphabetically.  This might seem like a logical, categorical way to break down the keyboard if you’ve never used one before, but in practice it’d just be stupid.  Granted, the QWERTY system was developed mostly from the goal of reducing typewriter jams and is only easy because we’re used to it.  (Though QWERTY is the most commonly used, the Dvorak Simplified Keyboard configuration has proven to be the fastest and most efficient.)

Another example in which Nelson’s theory of simplicity doesn’t hold true: it’s very easy and intuitive to use the start menu in Windows to find a program.  But this isn’t the fastest way to do anything.  The fastest way to execute an action in Windows, if you know how, is to use a combination of the MS Dos prompt and hot keys – you don’t even need a mouse for just about everything.  This way isn’t simple, it requires a lot of memorization of commands and hot keys, but it’s much faster for executing complex tasks if you need to do them regularly.  Additionaly, you can do things in a prompt that you can’t do in Windows normally, so you’re actually losing substantial functionality from simplifying everything.

Wow, I just finished reading the excerpts from Computer Lib / Dream Machines and there were a lot of interesting observations and ideas packed into that.  Some of Nelson’s thoughts were in line with previous readings but in other areas there are clear contradictions.  In this blog entry I won’t try to cover all the points of interest, but I want to address a few of Nelson’s ideas.

I agree with Nelson’s critique of modern education (not only modern, given that a system similar to what is used today has been in use for centuries in many cultures) to some extent.  Sometimes I’m more conscious of the problem than other times, it often bothered me in almost all middle school classes and most high school classes where, ironically enough, very little thought, in the most precise sense of the word, was ever required, with an emphasis on rote memorization instead.

This idea brings up one memory from high school in particular.  For a freshmen Biology class, we were studying cell structures and at the end of this unit, over a few class periods, we watched the animated movie Osmosis Jones.  In the hope of making us learn something from it or apply it somehow, the teacher then had us write a “reflection” on the movie, discussing what we learned from it, how it connected to what we had already been taught, and emphasized that he wanted an honest evaluation.  I hadn’t learned anything from the movie, and it was a forgettable kids movie with occaisional references to cellular biology at best, so realistically nobody in the class could have learned from it.  However, I wanted to put a positive spin on it so as not to disappoint the teacher.  The conclusion I came to in this reflection was that the rest of the class was based around rote memorization followed by regurgitation in the form of tests and quizzes, but watching this movie was a more unique and involving way of reinforcing the material.  I was really just trying to be positive, but fortunately my mom saw the reflection before I turned it in and made me rewrite it.  Good thing, too, because the teacher was a nice guy and would have probably taken it the wrong way.  What’s alarming about this is that it really would had substantial negative consequences for everybody if I’d done what the teacher asked us all to do in assigning this reflection.  My sophomore Chemistry teacher assigned similar “reflection” assignments on a regular basis but by that point I began to realize that actually giving an honest reflection on the vast quantity of, as this very teacher called it, “busywork” in the class, would only aggravate the problem.

Which brings up another point – Nelson expresses the belief that learning should be fun.  And the words sound familiar.  I’ve always had teachers who say that learning is fun, learning can be fun, learning is fun once you begin to grasp the concepts well, that kind of thing.  But let’s be realistic.  I’ve never enjoyed a pure mathematics-related class in my life.  These classes have always bored me out of my mind.  Contrary to the ideas a lot of these teachers espoused, it’s not because I’m not good at math, I am, or that I’m not trying to be an involved and active learner.  Is this the fault of the teaching system as Nelson suggests?  Granted, the “pure math” classes I’m referring to (Algebra, Pre-calculus, Calculus, etc.) never included any attempt to tie what we were being fed to real-world, interesting examples that students could possibly relate to, but there were at least a few students who found these classes significantly more tolerable than I did.

Nelson’s learning model, to me, sounds as though he’d have everybody learn about what interests then and what they want to learn, and by drawing connections organically rather than dividing learning into “classes,” abstract blocks of arbitrarily divided knowledge, we wouldn’t destroy the potential for enjoyment of learning.  As a result, people might actually care about what they’re learning (rather than being taught) and get more out of their education.  The concept seems reasonable enough, but I have to doub that, in a system like this, everyone would end up with a comparably well-rounded base of learning.  Young children may only want to learn what they’d need to know to become an astronaut or a ballerina when they’re young, but this really isn’t going to suit them in their later years.  So while I agree with Nelson’s criticisms of education as it stands, I don’t think he, at least in these excerpts, defines a system of learning that would be disciplined enough to keep less naturally-motivated students learning at a reasonable rate.  The notion that “we are all born geniuses” is a nice thought, but in my opinion it can’t possibly hold up to scrutiny – realistically, one person can be naturally far more gifted in almost every way that pertains to education than another person.  Perhaps I’m just misinterpretting this concept, I believe everyone is unique and valuable in some way, but I think too much data suggests that nature/predisposition is usually more influential than nuture/education in the formation of skills and abilities to say that everyone is brimming with “genius” potential before the educational system gets ahold of them and breaks their minds.

When I got to page 320, I was quite surprised to see Nelson articulate exactly the same point I had discussed in a previous blog entry, about the development of computer media.  It was a neat connection to see because I think that this idea is a pretty central challenge in the ongoing growth of New Media and had yet to see it addressed anywhere besides a seemingly unrelated blog about animation that I had happened to be reading.

Nelson seems to really dig the idea of making computer control systems not only efficient, but simple.  That’s pretty contrary to Engelbart, at least as I read it, and without going into unnecessary detail I would agree with Engelbart.  Why is it essential for the most advanced systems to be simple to use?  Would it not make more sense to have to invest some time learning how to use the system, so that once you know how to use it you can work much more quickly with it?

On a side note, I thought it was funny that the editorial comment about modern word processors on page 330 contained a very obvious typo.

^ Not exactly what I meant...

For the most part, I felt like Tuesday’s teleconference class had a relatively similar dynamic to our normal class periods.  It did seem to me that the physical distance created distance in another sense too, however; there were more awkward silences and delayed responses to Dr. C’s questions and thoughts.  Also I found it more difficult to avoid stepping over other people while speaking, and vise-versa.  I found myself doing things I wouldn’t have done in a normal class, like talking to Arturo about something unrelated to the topic of discussion (suggesting he adjust the camera a bit) which just led to confusion because it apparently was difficult to tell who I was addressing.  On the whole, though, the experience was more akin to a real conversation than it was to talking on the telephone, I think the HD and good connection helped with this.  By comparison I’ve video-chatted with friends via webcams, complete with low-res, fuzzy video and low framerates in the past, and that seemed much more distant and detached.  Which makes sense given the psychological association with image size and personal involvement, this is a major consideration and source of concern in cinema as distribution to hand-held devices has become popular, a trend that director David Lynch clearly doesn’t like. (Language warning on that link)

My YouTube account has gone on an interesting ride in the last week or so.  A popular YouTuber with 22,000+ subscribers featured my video Unrenewable on his channel, which gave it a pretty big boost, I also gained about 350 subscribers in the 3-4 days that this lasted, compared to the 600 or so that I’d gained in over a year’s time.  The power of the hyperlink!  And then, yesterday, almost as soon as that was over, Bungie (the developer of the Halo games) posted a link to a short Halo-themed video I had made some time ago on their official blog, resulting in a lot of additional traffic to that video and my channel as a whole.  It’s exciting for me but I am getting about 10 how-to questions a day now via my YouTube channel.

I thought the Wired interview with Engelbart was kind of ironic, but in keeping with Engelbart’s reputation.  He’s known as the inventor of the mouse, but it seems to me this invention was really not something he held to have any tremendous importance – it is just a simple mechanism for relaying hand motions to the computer in order to accomplish more important things.  A creative but simple solution at best, perhaps?

Of Engelbart’s pioneering ideas about computer technology and communications, the mouse might be the element that has had the most success.  Unfortunately we are in some ways not up to the same level as the presentation he made in 1968.  The telecommunications techology and cooperative work on materials in real-time is very impressive for the time, and that kind of technology (at least in terms of cooperative, real-time editing of data) is not popular today, though it could be very useful.  Evidently Engelbart’s impressive presentation didn’t seem so impressive to a larger audience at the time – perhaps without knowing what would become of similar technology it was difficult to understand how important it really was.

I look forward to the video conference tomorrow, it should be interesting to see how/if this kind of communication changes the way the class and learning progress.

The title “Augmenting Human Intellect” sounds like science fiction, but once I read Engelbart’s explanation of what he means by augmentation it did make more sense.  I found it interesting that he considers much of the traditional system that is forced onto each new generation – spoken language, written language, symbols, mathematics, etc. – to be an augmentation but this makes perfect sense because none of these things are natural, in the sense that a single person wouldn’t come up with these things on his own.  Engelbart, then, wants to expand on this because there is clearly room for improvement in increasing efficiency and capability through ‘augmentation.’

After viewing the PB&J making itself video on YouTube I’ve been thinking about what I want to do for a project in this class; I think a short animated video conveying some aspect of what we’re studying in this class would be interesting.  I’ve experimented in the past with various types of computer animation but beyond a ketchup commercial I haven’t done much with this kind of animation on its own so it might be fun to try.  I really liked the mixed text/animation style of I Met The Walrus and I think something like that (but with a less intricate, 2D look) could have some potential.

I enjoyed Borges’ story, and having read some of his short stories last semester for a Spanish class I knew before reading it that there would probably be a violent death of some kind at the end of the story.  I wasn’t disappointed!  It was kind of comforting, really, that this story wasn’t much easier to follow in English than the original-language Borges stories that I read last semester.  From what I’ve read of Borges now it seems that he likes to make the reader think and have to actively engage in reading and trying to understand what is happening before revealing the reality near the end of the story.

Aside from being a clever plot device, the “book that is a labyrinth” did instantly remind me of a “Choose your own adventure!” book, apparently I wasn’t the only one.  But once I thought about it a bit more I realized how like the structure of current internet technology this really is.  Without having read any related writings by Borges, I wonder how much of this he really intended — it’s a clever plot device but it does seem to have some additional, deeper meaning as a concept for a new way of communicating and creating art.  The other stories I had read by Borges focused on a social/societal message as part of their second layer of meaning.

The metaphor of a labyrinth used in Borges’ story also applies, on possibly a deeper level, to the current state of the internet.  It’s a mess with no central organization system and countless non-central attempts to organize its resources.  But at the same time it does hold a lot of possibilities.  The idea also reminds me of multiverse theory, a quite possibly far-fetched offshoot of string theory.  Some proponents of this idea suggest that there are infinite universes, such that all possible realities and outcomes coexist.  Not that I buy into that, but it’s interesting to think about and Borges’ ideas in “Foking Paths” reminded me of it a lot.

Concerning the “New Media Studies” wikipedia article: I think we ran into a bit of a block on Thursday in that some of the people weren’t really familiar with the typical structure of Wikipedia articles or Wiki code.  In my experience it really is very difficult to get any major edits to stay permanent because the guidelines are pretty stringent, they’re very protective against “original research” but the guidelines they provide for this are somewhat more vague.  Then again, this page doesn’t look to be monitored very much.  The field is very new (hence the name) and in my opinion there really isn’t much potential for a great expansion of the article; most of the material that would be relavent to it really belongs in the “New Media” article.  My proposed version of the page (posted on the class wiki as “New Media Studies”) expands on the original article substantially and I’ve tried to cite everything correctly, it’d be good to get some input from other people in the class as well.

YouTube has a worse case of the built-by-and-for frequent internet users phenomenon discussed in Part 1 with Wikipedia.  Though it can be and is sometimes used as a way of making worthwhile and informative media available publically, the major focus for the website is the distribution of short, unintelligent entertainment that appeals to a casual YouTube viewer with a few minutes to spare.  A brief look at the “most subscribed” and “most viewed” pages will confirm this.  Even video-producers who focus on “intellectual” debates of politics, religion, and other controversial subjects are, in most successful cases, reliant on humor and ad-hominem attacks, often working by refuting other YouTubers rather than making the connection that YouTube’s “vlogging” community is perhaps not a collection of the best and brightest in these fields.  The blogging community has a similar if less pervasive problem, in that being funny and memorable often has the edge over worthwhile and thoughtful content.  For every expert there are plenty of other people blogging on the same subject with far less knowledge of what they’re talking about, and due to strength in numbers, these people tend to get more attention.  That having been said, blogging’s strengths seem to generally be in narrower, niche categories where there is little interest from the masses.  For example, I’ve been reading some blogs lately about animation and, more specifically, computer animation.  The blogs and the people who comment on them are often professionals in the field so there is a lot of insight here and it’s a great opportunity to be able to access this information.

One of these blogs gave the criticism that computer animation, the new-media equivalent of traditional cartoons, has a characteristic, “cold and soulless” look to it, vastly inferior in some sense to the simple cel-animation of the past.  The author pointed out that while cel-animation reached a level of great artistic expression relatively quickly, computer animation has been around for over 20 years now and is still not up to the same level despite having traditional animation as a point of reference.  One commenter on the blog provided this explanation for the problem:

“The history of CGI hasn’t been at all like the history of cartoons. It came about entirely differently and was initially developed by engineers and programmers to illustrate and simulate scientific and industrial processes.  Cartoons were developed from the ground up for fun by degenerates with pencils.”

I can’t help but think that the development of New Media as a whole suffers from a similar problem.  Whereas the original forms of the media that has been reinvented, as Manovich explains, in a new and digital way, were developed by people whose primary interest was in those fields, the newer forms rely so heavily on technical ability and knowledge of computers that both the producers and the audience tend to come from a slightly different element of people.  Early video games had very basic graphics and no story because they were created by programmers with limited artistic ability, at least in the traditional sense.  As video games became an industry, elements of creating the games were divided into the responsibilities of many people with varying talents.  As a result modern video games can have great visual artistry, storytelling, and technical prowess all at the same time.  This is not unlike the original progression of filmmaking, albeit far more technically complex.  New Media has a lot of potential but it also has a long way to go in terms of execution and expanding its base of users.

I was somewhat taken aback by the Murray essay.  The writing was highly technical and full of references to other works that I haven’t read (they’re AFTER the introduction) so I didn’t really get much out of it.  To me it doesn’t seem logical, on behalf of Murray, to work on the assumption that the readers of this introduction will be able to understand much of her essay.  Perhaps it would be more effective in some respects as a conclusion.  I read some short stories by Borges in Spanish last semester so I’ll be interested to see how his writings connect to New Media.  The way in which this essay relied on a lot of previous knowledge reminded me of the Honors College’s summer reading, The Passionate Intellect: Incarnational Humanism and the Future of University Education, a book intended for college freshmen but written in such a complex, dry, and technical manner that few people, if any, in its intended audience would be able to appreciate and understand it.

I appreciated Manovich’s essay more in that it was accessible to me.  I did not really see any one definition of New Media as being the correct one but I thought they all worked well to explain the many facets in different ways.  It seemed that both authors were conscious of the fact that new media as it exists now has far more potential than is being realized at the moment, I would agree with this.

Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, (who, it should be noted, didn’t really conceive the technology or idea, but did a much better job of getting it off the ground than his predecessors) says this of Wikipedia:

“Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge.”

This lofty assessment of what Wikipedia is destined to become, taken from the donations page, is a nice notion but I don’t think the rapidly-expanding Wikipedia is even headed in this direction.  The major problem with Wikipedia, in my opinion, is an issue that I think is prevalent in most outlets of new media, and it’s something that limits it from reaching its full potential.  The Wikimedia software was developed by technically minded programmers, and its main bank of contributers are similarly technically minded – editing Wikipedia requires substantial knowledge of Wikimedia’s unique “Wiki code” – and the community is built from people who have the time and devotion to spend countless hours updating and expanding the site for free.  With some exceptions, these aren’t people likely to be particularly knowledgeable in all the areas that a good encyclopedia should cover, and Wikipedia’s content reflects this.  Not to mention that whereas other encyclopedias seek to include a basic knowledge of a given concept, Wikipedia tends more toward as much information as possible about any given subject that contributers are interested in.  As a result, Darth Vader is afforded a very long article, longer than articles for some U.S. presidents.  Though Wikipedia is relatively well monitored, preventing spam from remaining for long, uncited sources are prevalent (sometimes marked as uncited – this doesn’t stop people from reading this information, however) and the occurences of defamatory falsehoods has led to criticism from journalists such as John Seigenthaler Sr..  While the concept and technology behind Wikipedia seems sound to me, it draws from a heavily internet and technology-conscious group of members, and experts in most fields are not likely to be a part of this group.

More on this to follow…the final product got to be very long so I thought I had better divide it into two entries for clarity’s sake.

How can I replace the subtitle “Just another Dr. C. CourseBlogs weblog?”  Or can I? (edit: Never mind, I figured it out.)

Anyway the name came from a short film I made this summer, here’s a YouTube link if you’re interested.  If all goes according to plan there should be a page for it on the IMDB soon as well, so that’s exciting.  Sorry I didn’t come up with a better name, I didn’t want to call it “Philip Heinrich’s Blog,” my original idea.  This looks to be an interesting course, I use the internet to promote my films and gather information and that kind of thing but I haven’t much explored much of the networking/blogging/social networking possibilities that have cropped up in the last five years or so, I’ve mostly stuck to Google, messageboards and traditional websites.