Banks: The Digital Divide

The first part of the reading that stuck out to me was the idea of a cultural divide that is keeping parts of the country from literacy (including digital access and literacy).

Banks states that there is a "long stating theoretical blind spot" that is "especially pronounced in a field like English studies, where race, technolog, and questions of access are all addressed... but where the connections between them are almost never explored."

I found this thought to be very interesting. Exactly what connections is he referring to?

*Claims that although engineers, science professionals, and even some mainstream policymakers have long understood the importance of equal access to these technologies, writing and communication teachers of all races have been mostly silent on the subject.
***but if the most important characteristic of computers and the internet is their role as communication technologies, and if these tools have begun a revolution in communication the results for African Americans will be catastrophic (because they have consistently and often systematical been denied access to these technologies).

following the "silence over the decade" as it echoes through journals and books published in composition and technical communication, as well as following African American rhetoric.
**in the past ten years since the digital age divide and broader technology access issues emerged in the nation has a single article addressing race and technological limitations been published in the top three technical communication journals.
** composition as well has published very few articles on technology access and writing instruction.
** there have been several works that call to attention the importance of access; by such authors as James Porter and Cynthia Selfe
*** there are systemic exclusions as well as involvement in political power and literacy.
*** companies will always try to sell expensive "new" software to school, but at times less expensive "lowe-end tools" may be enough


overall I have to say I didn't really understand the article, or chapter rather. I though the author's sentence structure was confusing. Many of the examples were also confusing. throughout the chapter I kept looking for specific evidence of African American (or any minority) that explicitly lacked the opportunity or access to digital technology.

Also, it dawned on me while writing this that there is no visible cultural diversity in our class

Then again,despite the fact that I am middle-class white, I did not have home internet access or even a computer until I was in college. The only regular computers I was exposed to, were in my school, but this access was extremely limited. Although we did have training in PowerPoint and regular access to smartboard, creating a certain paradox.

This reading leaves me baffled.

For a fun experiment though I'm going to show a music video by African American, visibly homemade, and a video by a presumably middle class White kid.
the first video, by an African American artist seems to corrigenda with Banks ideas that races other than White are lacking in digital literacy.
1- It's So Cold in the D by Tbaby
2- Under Cover Penis Lover by Nuglah on youtube.

but of course. I also have an example of a video well made by an African American man.
3- Beyonce spoof video by Alphacat

Wienberger 9 and 10

My first reaction to Wienberger's chapter 9, Messiness as a Virtue, was near horror. Wienberger begins by labeling the levels and different types of messiness The example about photos as a third-order mess is was really stuck out to me. This example that he starts off with also really strikes home to me, since i am such a photo phenatic: "They are potential sources of memory... Maybe your kids are in the background of that awful photo of Aunt Sally and it brings back a surprising moment from your childhood." This exact moment has taken place in my family. At my baptism there is a generic photo of my mother holding me all wrapped in a blanket in the generic baptism pose, but in the background you can see my two older brothers (about 5 and six at the time) blowing out all the candles that are lit as prayers. It such a funny photo that we can't flip through the photos as a family without stopping to laugh about that one and remember how unruly my older brothers have always been. Wienberger makes a great point in stating that the more one would add to the shoe box ( a first-order mess) the less value it has, in the fact that the less likely one is in finding a particular photo. So as with photos, which easily can be applied as a metaphor for metadata, how does one go about organizing all this information? I also have to say here, it feels as if we've read this all before with Wienberger. To Wienberger the simple solution is to add metadata to each photo, making them smarter leaves. We even get another author in this reading stating that "the task of categorization systems is to provide maximum information with the least cognitive effort." What makes the internet so unique is that the "edges" of all information can be fuzzy. It can only be a percentile relation to something else. So what I take from Wienberger's assement is that organization is best within the digital world, because of the infite possibilities to lable and search, but I'm also left with a sense of chaos and unavoidable messes in the physical world.

Wienberger 7&8

Wienberger's thoughts on Wikipedia in chapter seven were the most interesting and though provoking parts of the reading. He starts off by explaining the ways newspapers rank space, moving on to the ways the digital world ranks space. I enjoyed the way Wienberger placed into words the importance of internet ranking of information. He states: "enabling groups of readers to influence one another's front pages not only brings us more relevant information, but it also binds groups socially.  He also states that knowledge is content organization, which is becoming a social act. I find this to be incredibly true even as I watch conversations among my peers. Especially with movies, if you are a movie fan, with today's internet capabilities and standards you should know everything about that movie from the director right down to the original inspiration for the movie. Really, if I could record what I hear and place it on this blog as an example I would. The comparison of one's knowledge on a particular subject have become a past time, at least with my experiences and I'd be extremely curious to know if anyone has had the same experience over the years. 

Weinberger also states that internet places such as Wikipedia have undergone intense media criticism, because of the fact that all it's authors are miscellaneous. I find this to go hand in hand with Mccloud's ideas that comics are considered juvenile in intelligence; authors that can't show a list of their credentials are considered a hoax. But according to Wikipedia, credibility is not based on credentials, but on an authors contributions. Which is what the standard for all authors should be in my opinion. The point of having such credentials is to be able to create such articles as on Wikipedia. In fact Wikipedia states that it encourages pseudo identities above gathering a persons actual identity and credentials. The success of Wikipedia, lies in the ideas of a social consciousness. The idea that collectivily we can provide each other with the information needed, from a simple easy to use and for the first time, free site. The glorified idea of knowlege being spread from man to man has lead to colleges, libraries, books, and finally the internet. And yet in each case the need for knowledge has been a way to make a profit. 

McCloud Reading

I found the reading on McCloud to be very interesting and unique. I can honestly say it is my favorite reading so far. I loved the comic style, I feel it made the reading much more enjoyable. It was also easier to read because there were demonstrations or examples on every page to go along with everything the author was saying. My favorite part I'd have to say was just reading along with the animated author. I greatly enjoyed how his expressions could change from panel to panel. 

Though I did find the reading extremely unique it did remind me of our reading on The Sticky Embrace of Beauty. The ideas of form and content being connected were also mentioned there, but I think McCloud goes a step further in identifying the separation of literature and art. The first thing that came to my mind was manga (and/or graphic novels). I know many people, myself included, who love reading manga and graphic novels. The stories are often complex and thought provoking, as well as artistically inspiring. Yet most people wouldn't consider graphic novels , comics or mangas to be a mature form of reading, despite its mature content.  My example for this is the graphic novel, Watchmen written in the 1980s. Despite the fact that the novel has a deeply intellectual plot, it did not gain popular recognition until it was turned into a movie this year. It is my theory that if one were to try and promote the story as a graphic novel, success would be minimal. But as a movie, the ideas and story is easily attracts an audience. Perhaps though this is simply a cultural issue. In Japan manga is accepted and respected as leisure and intellectual reading. 

The reading has also made me see a greater importance in multimedia. Just as I found McClouds reading to be more engaging through his expressions on the page, the internet is more engaging and more enjoyable to read with multimedia. 

Weinberger 5-6

In Weinberger's book, Everything is Miscellaneous, chapter five reminded me a lot of the key points we read about in Don't Make Me Think. The idea of tree leaves and tagging seems much like Krug's love of tabs on web pages. Just as Weinberger says everything has a proper place and those that don't should be limited, Krug stressed the very same points of organization in his book. I liked the was Weinberger explains the creation of tagging. Although Weinberger states that Wikipedia was created to be a source of miscellaneous articles from A-Z, all the articles can be found through various tags. Making it not only a highly popular website but an easy to use on as well. My favorite part of Weinberger's theory is the idea of putting "one leaf on many branches." To me the best part of the virtual world is that face that one item can be found in many places. Instead of having a stack of books locked into one place in the physical world, they can be in many place in the virtual world. For example I did a experiment to see if I could find the same photo using different tags, or search words on google. The first search I did was for sunsets.  I found many  images, one of which was of a whale in the ocean. If you click on the photo in the top left  you can see it enlarged. To find the same photo I searched for simply whale tale (not even spelling tail right) I came up with many images and couldn't find an exact match but several of the photos were of whale tails on the horizon of a sunset. Such as this example. If more time was available I'd like to try this experiment again with other sites and other tags.  I completely agree with Weinberger that events in the virtual world should be tagged more than once, in order to use our resources to the fullest. I fully believe that it is entirely possible to find the same photo, book or any item using different tags to search!

Krug (94-185)

I have to say the overall I found the last several chapters of Krug's book to be uninteresting. I have to blame myself for this though. At this point in my life I really don't seem myself even needing to know how to design a web-page for a business. These last chapters seemed to be aimed at a worldly use, such as media, marketing or simply getting involved in the global market as opposed to my simple rhetoric goals for the glass. 

Despite this I did find several very interesting aspects =)

* I agree with Krug that fist timer links are pointless. In fact I hate them. It might be because I have what Krug calls a low/small reservoir. I just get frustrated easily when trying to navigate through certain sites. To have a "first time user link" that doesn't help is doubly as stressful. If you are frustrated enough to click on the link it better have a good explanation for navigating the site. 

* I enjoyed his idea for varying a home page on your site. I think I will try and apply this to my own page for Writing in the Digital Age. 

* Krug makes an amazing (and somewhat obvious point) that web designers are web users with their own strong ideas about what a site should look like. My own example of this is Krug's love of tabs, while I personally don't find tabs that appealing. I think they are probably the most useful if you have a site with a lot of information, such as amazon, but otherwise I like buttons or blocks to click on. Both of us are designing based on our own personal ideas of what we like best. But in our defense I think both options provide a positive experience for both web designers and users. Which brings me to my next point:

* I think  one of Krug's biggest points was that web sites should be created to make it so each audience can get the best experience. This point is remarkably simple and yet remarkable on so many levels. I also like how Krug used this argument to end the constant debate between designers about how they should create their pages. The important question should be "What will be best for our audience to navigate and find what they need?" and not, as Krug said, "Is drop down best?" The bigger issues are what is important in a site. After addressing the basic struture and needs, then a designer should figure out ways to be creative and elegant. 

Don't Make Me Think (1-93)

I found that in Krug's first seven chapters the material was highly relatable. My gut reaction to most of the points was " I agree with this completely!" Especially the points and graphs made to explain consumers and web users reactions and frustrations. I can honestly say I'm not an avid web user. I'd rather spend two hours in the library looking up books for a project than spend five hours on the internet looking for useful resources. Despite this I often find myself taking the "easier route" online; aka the one I don't have to leave the room for, and the one I can do at three in the morning. Everyone knows, or says at least, that the whole world is only a click away; bringing new meaning to the term "the world is at your finger tips." With this in mind most of us internet users expect to find information easy and clearly assessable. Instead we are met with sites that confuse and seem to lead nowhere. One example is our school website. When trying to search for a specific faculty member you have to go through several confusing steps before-hand and then finally you reach a page made to search for faculty staff, but your only two options are "name contains" or "sounds like" neither of which work appropriately the majority of the time. I've had such a hard time looking up professors on the school site that I always use Google instead. 

Krug makes a good point of stessing the importance of being able to return to a specific area of the site once you've found it. My example for this is finding your phone pictures on your online Verizon account. I've been doing this for several years now, and I still to this day get confused when trying to click through the options. I've learned to just bookmark the page, but without the bookmark I am lost and extremely frustrated. I think reading these first seven chapter will also be helpful in designing my website for class. Many of the points may seems small, but I think can help make or break a website. 

EXAMPLES: 

school example:

start/home page

faculty search

verizon example:

start/home page

picture page