The Hardcore critique was an opportunity to get some great feedback on my experiments and process, along with an opportunity to gauge what needs to be completed and flushed out before graduation. There were many informative aspects to take away from the review and here are the productive 5.
1.) Prototype! Prototype! Prototype!
The ideas of combining print and screen need to manifest themselves in a way that it is possible to see how a user will engage in such process. Speaking about the ideas is all good an well but unless you can show anyone and engage the opportunity space in a meaningful way it’s just a lot of words.
2.) Focused Scenario
Classroom and product scenario video needs refinement, focusing, and shortening that drives at the ideas that will be shown in the prototype. The prototype comes first and need to complement the opportunity space set up through the video
3.) A New title
Hybrid Media Systems is generic and the title should get at the premise of the experimentation right away. Marginalia seems to hit at the production space so now it is just what the by line and how the supporting language starts to complete itself.
4.) Premise contextualization
I need to get to the idea of print and screen being linked quicker. The premise shouldn’t linger too long on the refuting of physical books but rather dilineate the advantages of combining the affordances of each. Prototype should have examples where actual marginalia was collected but also show how the new form of reading and writing is used, and possible misused. The interface of the prototype should capitalize on the engagement with a classroom and be part of the conversation.
5.) Narrow and Deep
The context and scenario of it existing for a classroom and an educational experience is a rich space but it needs to explored deeper through posing the possibility to teachers and be less about something that can be generalized for all print material.
A Norwegian researcher, Anne Mangen, wrote an interesting paper in the Journal of Research in Reading, asserting that screen reading and page reading are radically different. “The feeling of literally being in touch with the text is lost when your actions – clicking with the mouse, pointing on touch screens, or scrolling with keys or on touch pads – take place at a distance from the digital text, which is, somehow, somewhere inside the computer, the e-book, or the mobile phone,’’ Mangen writes.
Her conclusion: “Materiality matters. . . . One main effect of the intangibility of the digital text is that of making us read in a shallower, less focused way.’’
The materiality of paper takes on a extended meaning due to its experience. The knowledge that is contained with in a book is not singularly wrapped up in the words on the page. From psychology class in college at Colorado State University, I remember my teacher telling us that our brains formulate knowledge and recall through repeating similar experiences under which that knowledge was learned. For example if you are juiced up on coffee while you study for a test you should be juiced up on coffee during the test because the brain associates the experience of the learning along with the recall of that information. Similarly you might be able to recall a story in a book more vividly when the same circumstances are repeated. The engagement of content influences our learning and subsequent recall. Therefore the reading of a book is learned through the experience of the pages. Knowledge that is engaged in the physicality of pages is then linked with that experience. Pages then become essential to formulation of knowledge within a book.
Media critic William Powers wrote a defense of physical bound literature in his essay, “Hamlet’s BlackBerry: Why Paper Is Eternal,’’ Mr. Paper – he not dead, Powers wrote: “There are cognitive, cultural, and social dimensions to the human-paper dynamic that come into play every time any kind of paper, from a tiny Post-It note to a groaning Sunday newspaper, is used to convey, retrieve, or store information.’’
Paper will never die, Powers concluded: “It becomes a still point, an anchor for the consciousness. It’s a trick the digital medium hasn’t mastered – not yet.’’
The digital medium has been attempting to replace the piece of paper and it has been around the corner in terms of technology since technology began. Now what if the digital medium and the physical medium where equal? When paper and computer work together seamlessly then paper takes on an added functionality with the computer.
The digital textbook?
With students doing so much of their reading assignments through the screen instead of on book or paper formats, it’s important for educators to determine how the shift is altering their habits and learning. The research is just beginning, but it’s getting deeper, an article in the Journal of Research in Reading (2008, pp. 404-419) by Anne Mangen, “Hypertext fiction reading: haptics and immersion.” Mangen notes the growing sub-field of screen reading studies, but finds that the “intangibility and volatility of the digital text” remain under-examined. She focuses first, then, on the material nature of digital and non-digital reading experiences. “Unlike print texts,” she writes, “digital texts are ontologically intangible and detached from the physical and mechanical dimension of their material support, namely, their computer or e-book (or other devices, such as the PDA, the iPod or the mobile phone” (405).
This is important, she argues, because “materiality matters.” The reading experience includes manual activities and haptic perceptions (what the skin and muscles and joints register), and so as activities and perceptions of that kind are changed from one kind of reading experience to another because of the object, the reading experience, too, will change.
So if materiality matters in the delivery of content especially reading material, then it would be arguable that to remove the materiality of paper from the reading experience would fundamentally alter that exchange. Screen engagement has become a reality in modern times but the advantages of the screen have forced its usability right next to the book forcing them to go head to head. I have chosen to regard these experience as different and explore a way to bridge the difference between experiences. As use of screen based devices increases, the need for physical interaction with objects like books will become essential in the recombination of content delivery. I believe users should not have to exchange one experience for the other in order to engage in the content the way they would like. Many things in this world have multiple experiences and with the linking physical and digital is opens up a strategy and platform for making printed content and digital content work together.
John Locke said, “reading furnishes the mind only with materials of knowledge; it is thinking that makes what we read ours.” Thinking can be greatly enhanced through digital means of networking so making paper and computer work together will greatly enhance the opportunity to make reading our again.
Seeing the letters is just the start of the reading process. Although our eyes are focused on the letters, we learn to ignore them. Instead, we perceive whole words, chunks of meaning. Once we become proficient at reading, the precise shape of the letters — not to mention the arbitrariness of the spelling — doesn’t even matter, which is why we read word, WORD, and WoRd the same way.
Until now most assumed that when we read both eyes look at the same letter of a word concurrently. But it was found that our eyes look at different letters in the same word and then combine the different images through a process known as fusion. We were able to clearly show that we experience a single, very clear and crisp visual representation due to the merging of the two different images from each eye.
Language tends to be stored in the brain to be processed in audio format, so besides reading the text we automatically convert it to speech in our own heads. After that the process of making sense takes place.
Studies have shown that when a word is checked against the storehouse of words in the brain – whether it is a written word or a word-sound – only the main part of the word is checked first, and then the ending is processed separately. For example, ‘sing’, ‘singing’ and ‘singer’ would all be checked against the base word ‘sing’.
Once we recognized the printed words we need to make sense out of them. Understanding how meaning arises from those words is of the most challenging tasks in cognitive sciences.
More on making sense and meanings can be found here and here.
There is an ongoing debate whether the new kind of reading experience provided by internet is beneficial or not. Some interesting articles are worth exploring: Is Google making us stupid and How is Google making us smarter. It would be interesting to incorporate the last scientific findings about how or brain reads in order to draw new and more accurate conclusions.
“Deep Attention” is characterized by the ability to concentrate on a single object for long periods of time. While “Hyper Attention” is the ability to focus on multiple tasks switching between each with relative ease and speed. Each style is considered a cognitive mode and is fostered and afforded by the media which gave rise to its birth. “Deep attention” can be attributed to the book while “Hyper Attention” is equated with the internet. These cognitive modes are looked at as being diabolically opposed similarly to the discussion that a rises around print vs screen techonologies. However what if these cognitive modes could be gaped? How could hyper attention assist deep attention and vice versa? What would this media start to look like?
I believe that cognitive modes of attention should be versale like that of leonardo device as a renessance man. The educational and pedigogical stance should embrace the two parts of congnition and build services and tools that enable the ability and affordance of each. When knowledge is not valued over its ability to be fast or slow what does is become?
Deep attention, the cognitive style traditionally associated with the humanities, is characterized by concentrating on a single object for long periods
The Fortune Article ” the Future of Reading” poses some relevant questions?
Question 1: Will anyone be willing to pay for content delivered to a tablet when they can get information for free on the web?
Question 2: But aren’t tablets just a better way to browse the web?
Question 3: Reading? Reading is dead.
Question 4: How will tablet-based ads work better than the web?
Question 5: Can traditional publishing companies reorganize and move fast enough to embrace and serve new platforms?
these questions all poise the options as if the book and the screen are binary. Print media is looked as a being obsolete due to the advancement of screen based tablets. Granted the pervasive nature of digitized content will have a large impact on printed materials. This effect has already stated to take its toll when it comes to newspaper media. How ever like Red heads in America, their kind is not going to dissappear. Book and printed material might start to diminish but then is begs the question just as the question poised above, what is a book when it can exist on a screen?
This question requires going back to the nuanced history of printed material in bound and sequenced form and taking note of its ability to become ubiquitous and why? The screen and the book will never be the same thing as one is fundamentally material based ie pages and ink while the other is silicon driven ie the screen. Each of these forms is a media delivery device and technology. (Although many might not consider books a technology when compared to a computer) Each media format has its own place, use factors, acceptance, penetration into society, and distribution. Each is equally unique to its time and space and each is locked in a continuum that links the two in weave of consumerism, knowledge, and social contextuality. The screen experience would not be capable without the book, and the book would not be producible in contemporary terms with out a computer.
I have asked my self through out this process, why do we consider physical books and digital book and being so different. Why when you buy a physical book do you not receive the digital part also? It seems to me that if you could link the physical with the digital it would allow each of there forms strenghts and affordances to work together rather then in opposition. The simplicity of sequential pages bound together has a unique experience that can only be mimicked by the screen and the social and networking capabilities of a screen require the dynamics of that different system. What are the implications of making print and screen work together, well hopefully it will lead to more productive use of materials and a platform for a larger connection of information directed at specific context.
Computation seems to be in a second stage of evolution. As we move into a world where computation power is compact and millions of people are carrying super computers in there pockets, the computer has started to remove us from behind a desk. The potential of mobile computing has started to engage the user and the the physical world in exciting possiblities. If the purpose of computation at our fingertips is to allow us connection to the information cloud, then what is the form that that connection should take? Mark Weiser famouly quoted in his essay : The Computer For the 21st Century
“the most profound technologies are those that disappear. They weave themselves into the fabric of everyday life until they are indistinguishable from it.”
The interesting part is technologies start to change everyday life. Cell phones are no longer just phones but their ability to be that mode of communication has allowed the access of other interventions and introductions of computers into the hand and away from behind a desk.
A computer can’t be a piece of paper but that doesn’t mean a computer can incorporate paper. If books and print material could be used in the same fashion with their simplicity of interaction ie the turning of pages but have the advantage of a social counterpart, then computing would have the ability to become indistinguishable in everyday use by making the use of the book fit with the use of the computer.
he most profound technologies are those that disappear. They weave themselves into the fabric of everyday life until they are indistinguishable from it.
As technologies progresses and rumors of tablet computers continue to circulate through out the Internet and hardware prediction sites, companies like Coursesmart (http://www.coursesmart.com/) a digital textbook company has attempted to prototype and show the potential of these new systems and their impact on education. The textbook industry and subsequent educational materials have been dominated by print industries and through this process have created an ecology of textbooks for student and an experience that prepares the students for the upcoming semester of learning and education. The purchasing and exchange of books at colleges and universities is a tradition that is unique in its own right. The system of textbook sales and resales is one that encourages reuse and resale depending on the print industry who sees the opportunity to reprint new additions as a way to bolster profits. Personally I loved buying used textbooks and would peruse the pages to see how studious the prior student had been. I always felt privileged to have the extra marginalia knowledge that was left behind by particular students. This marginalia is sometimes damaging to the text book but other times helped me work though difficult challenging questions about the material. Take the physics textbook from the tablet demo, at Colorado State University where I went to undergrad, all students were required to fulfill a science credit even for majors of Fine Art to which I completed in 2004. As a student I am not strong in mathematics this lead me to know that physics was going to be a challenging course. I remember being the first student to the used physics 101 books and made sure that I got the best used textbook with the most useful notes in the marginalia. The existing use of the text book allowed me to access a alternative knowledge space that was extremely helpful when studying. The Coursesmart prototype shows the ability to leave notes and highlight but neglects the notion that notes and marginalia are not always a singular action. At the time of being made they are for the user engaged in the content but once left they have an impact on future users as a extension of the knowledge within the textbook. Now if the CourseSmart system could be networked with other classmates and the notes and commentary could be shared over a social network then that might make the use of the tablet system more engaging. Studying is a unique interaction because it requires the ability to move both from singular action usually memorization to the more complication comprehension which can and sometimes require a social aspect. How do you know you understand something? Ask someone else who is trying to understand the same thing if you both come to the same outcomes than comprehension has occurred barring the person you ask has come to the correct conclusion. Answers have a much different dimension depending on the subject but take simple math you either conclude that 5 x 5 is 25 or you don’t but you can test it over and over and then define that it is indeed true. There is the saying the you really understand something when you can teach it (help someone else comprehend it).
Comprehension of knowledge in a textbook is understood through testing within pedagogy. However the route to the comprehension is individual like a snowflake. In my education, testing ie choose A, B, C, D was never a great metric for comprehension of the material, but when I was asked in written form what do I understand about the subject I used much more information to which was gather through not just memorizing answers but synthesising both lectures, studying and conversations with fellow students. When I was asked to explain the process or show my comprehension that is where I was more successful as long as I comprehended the content. Now comprehension is a complicated notion of education and the scientific method would suggest (and can be seen in current educational trends) that memorization is the precursor to comprehension. If you can memorize facts then you can eventually follow the right procedure and develop comprehension, hopefully. For me I always considered the experience of memorization a fleeting education because the process never stuck, I have a hard enough time remembering peoples names, but can for some reason recall obscure facts about the conversation we shared. I believe this is due to the fact that my individual process of comprehension deals with an experience and I will remember more when engaged in remembering the experience rather that a specific element with that whole. I have had a number of experiences where I can recall the how, where, when, and what happened, but can remember the name.
Education is really about comprehension and tools that engage the understanding of content should be more versed and in my opinion should be realized through making tools and services that engage the experience of comprehension not just a singular element of the educational access with apparently starts with the textbook and memorization.
Apple is selling record numbers of downloadable games for the iPhone and iPod Touch. This is attracting publishers because the lack of physical media is better economically for both consumers and video game creators (November 12)
Microsoft is set to open up the XBox 360 to user-generated games on November 19, all of which will only be available via download – there will be no DVDs (October 30)
The bullet list is a few examples of technologies and media delivery platforms that currently or will in the future deminish print media’s market share or potentially eliminate it all together. Print Media platformes of books, magazines, posters, etc etc are talked about in term of being Tangible Media.
The description of tangible is defined as capable of being perceived especially by the sense of touch.
The materiality of paper and ink in all is variety from newsprint to gompy has earned print media the use of that terminology with in its description. Media delivery devices like the kindle, the iphone etc are tangible. To suggest that they are not assumes that the ability to touch a screen ie a pixel is not equal with that of prior physical object (artifacts) like books for instance.
The reasoning behind referencing print material as “Tangible Media” and technologies like the Kindle as being something different is really located with in the process of experience. Tangible when describing a book is referencing the experience a user has engage with that media type for the time they were a child to current interactions. Paper has texture, color, smell, it can be flooded and imprinted or debossed the list goes on and on. Tangible becomes a catch all for the experience of turning pages in a seqential artifact and emcompasses the notions of age, use and variety. When tangible is used for the iPhone, Kindle or technologies, it is used more as a description of functionality of the interface. Because a screen is just pixels that can be anything, the experience of that tangible experience is fundimentally different then that of the experience with print media, and rightly so!
The issue is then the expectation that a book can be on a screen and contain the same experience? There is a compromise when “tangible media” is traded for “tangible pixel”, the experience of the can only be mimicked or hinted at through acknologment in either direction. The ability to have animated turning pages in a pdf is an example of a media type not sure how to accept its “pixel” nature because a pixel can never be a piece of paper.
Through out my experimentation with conductive inks and screen printing, I have started to try and engage the user in interaction with the tangible printed artifact. Paper and ephemeral material is inherently tangible and physical you can bend it, tear it, crinkle it, touch it plus it has a texture a quality and a materiality very unique to its form. Unique to the conductive inks is there ability to engage a user. The current experiment is a test to see if certain form structures are inherently engage-able. With out any signage does a user know to touch the paper and interact with the strips. This experiment utilizes the nature the higher contact equals a brighter light.
As technology become more and more ubiquitous, instances of technological over hauls should not be a process that should shock and awe. There has not been a revolt from the users of land line telephone into cell phones, or slide ruler calculator users to digital calculators, but still when I hear about the replacement of libraries with digital e-readers it makes me cringe. I want to stand up and revolt. The notion that a digital e-reader can replace the library in my opinion is in accurate. After hearing a story on NPR about schools and universities decisions to replace their libraries with internet cafe’s and Kindles made me very sad for the quality of learning. Technology has the ability to make incredible advances in knowledge space and context but to say that a networked screen is a more effective alternative to quantifiable, tangible, and accessible knowledge contained in a library is completely wrong. The internet is not a big library and a library is not the internet. They work and operate at different levels.
The affordance of a library is one that has impacted knowledge gathering for centuries and is something that intrinsically contained with in a architectural space. An e-reader has the infinite space of the internet where connected can be adhock and the quality of the linked material is maintained souly by a computer algorithm. Since a library utilizes space, the ability to reference books to the left right and behind a particular search allows for much more access to serendipitous connections where as on the internet and networked experience the knowledge is only as good as the question poised to the search engine. The spacial and tangible nature of books is the aspect that I think is completely ignored by the universities, schools, and institutes that think printed knowledge is on its way out. A kindle is not a table in a library nor it is a shelf with spacial hierarchy it is data Zeros and Ones transmitted over wireless signals.
While doing research I may have to opportunity at a library to have multiple sources on a table at once and have the opportunity to make connections between content purely due to the spacial juxtaposition. Try and accomplish this on a kindle or a web browser or wikipedia and the limitations will astonish the user.
I believe the movement to contain library data with in a e-reader illuminates the spacial aspect of learning and reference material. The idea that the e-reader and the library are in opposition is in my opinion faulty thinking and fails to consider the unique affordances of library use and of e-reader use. The two are not equal and therefore should not be the replacement for the other.
As I research and explore the ideas of conductive circuitry that could start to engage print media as a platform for interactive based computational experiences, I have started to explore the ideas of interactivity and affordance.
Interaction is based on the assumption that a user understands the applied action to accomplish a task. Something as simple as turning a light on can be made incredible complex by not hinting at learned and understood experiences. In Donald Norman’s book – “the design of everyday things” http://www.jnd.org/ he talks at length about the importance of visible interfaces and interaction parts know as natural mapping which comes from proper and natural arrangements for the relations between controls and their movements to the outcome from such action into the world. The real function of natural mapping is to reduce the need for any information from a user’s memory to perform a task. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_mapping) Essentially when a user participates in a task that action is the out come of a plethora of learned, cultural and socio-economic process that have been ingrained into the users understanding. The idea of natural mapping techniques allow things to be perceived as being intuitive. Objects that need no prior instruction. With contemporary electronics the cultural and social economic inundation of computation has started to become learned and performed by cultures at an extremely high rate and at younger and younger ages. The importance of this technology revolution is that artifacts like the cell phone etc have started to be perceived as naturally mapped artifacts with interactions not that unfamiliar to a user than the interaction of a door or a tea kettle.
The question is are the interactions that we engage with our computational electronics the right interactions? Can we engage naturally mapped ideas from culture to engage new and innovative products that rather than force the user learn a new system, are engaged to the perceived natural mapped system?
