Updates Galore: Several Weeks Worth of Blogs Updated

October 27, 2011

I would never think to equate the classic Wizard of Oz with user experience design, but it’s an interesting correlation that Bill Buxton makes between the two in Sketching User Experiences. Buxton uses this classic story to discuss technique, and more importantly, to illustrate the real and perceived nature of Dorothy’s user experience.

Buxton writes: “Up to the point where Toto tipped over the screen and revealed the Wizard to be a fraud, all of Dorothy’s reactions were valid psychologically, anthropologically, and sociologically. To her the wizard was real, and therefore so were all her experiences.”

When crafting a user experience, I’m beginning to understand that it is less of the technical communicator’s responsibility to ensure a “real” experience for the audience, because each experience is subjective and would undergo some form of “Filtering”, as Shirky writes about in Here Comes Everybody. Instead, the technical communicator establishes a hegemonic perception that he or she would like the reader to adopt. But, ultimately, the perception is left to the reader.

This is not to negate ethical messages and meanings. As I noted in a previous blog post, I am uncertain about emotional capital in marketing to build relationships, because the audience member is likely to be unaware of the power of the capital he or she is yielding. Relationships should not be linear. Relationships should involve equitable exchange. Using perception to build a solid user experience still leaves reality to the user, who decides or decodes the intended message or experience.

October 20, 2011   

“Introducing computers into the writing curriculum, then, reintroduces old and familiar issues in new, and sometimes unrecognizable forms.” Gail Hawisher and Cynthia Selfe, (Evolving Perspectives on Computers and Composition Studies, 28)

  

This article illustrates what should be the near timeless nature of scholarly writing. Here we are in 2011 reading this article 20 years later and yet it is still relevant and useful for our studies.

Compared to Buxton, this article was less appetizing and harder to chew. However, I’ve come to realize that the academic diet should be balanced with Buxtons and 1991 photocopied articles. They each have their place and purpose.

The article’s authors, Gail Hawisher and Cynthia Selfe, discuss concepts of authority, hierarchy, ideology and co-authorability, the latter of which is where I situate my interest and response for this week’s response. As a second year graduate student in an English curriculum, I teach English 103, a course in Accelerated Composition at Clemson University. Most of my students are freshmen and are not English majors. Translation: most of them don’t want to touch a composition with a six foot pole.

However, when I think of co-authorability as Hawisher and Selfe discuss it, I see an opportunity for interaction, building relationship between the student and the text, and perhaps even an attempt at building emotional capital to help them gain interest in this interaction. I should say that a sense of coauthorability is already built into our Accelerated Composition curriculum in the form of Multimodal Projects, which are due at the end of the semester. This gives the student the opportunity to collaboratively co-author a text. I’ve been wondering how to teach this to them, since multimodal compositions were not a part of my background or training. However, I’m thinking in terms of Henry Jenkins’ take on emotional capital. Instead of giving them an assignment topic for that project, I will ask students to select a topic based on their interest. Perhaps this help them build relationships with their text and communicate an effective argument.

Going forward, I wonder if we’ll see the article in years to come that asks about the relevance of printed materials in the composition curriculum. From our view in today’s society, it’s quickly becoming apparent that anything we can do in print, we can do better, faster and more efficiently electronically. I believe the day will come when students buy books online for class more than they will purchase printed copies from a traditional bookstore. And when this happens, how will the ideology change? How does Cognitive Surplus (Shirky) affect hegemonic views of systems, hierarchies, and institutions that have always been immovable? I believe we’re only on the brink of technological advancement and the distance between our yesterdays and our todays will continue to grow.

October 13, 2011

“The only way to engineer the future tomorrow is to have live in it yesterday.” -Bill Buxton, (Sketching User Experiences, 37)

I regard Bill Buxton as a wise man, not for the content of his book “Sketching User Experiences,” but for the user experience I’m afforded through the handling and reading of his book. The book is immaculate, slick, colorful — another level of print communication worthy of important content. Nicely done.

Perhaps I should take a more scholarly approach to this entry than I intend to take, but here goes. I’d like to focus on the practical wisdom and advice Buxton offers in pages 41-47 of the text with regard to the risk, success and failures of Steve Jobs and Apple computers.

Buxton writes on page 45, “My rule is this: In the long term, safe is far more dangerous than risk.” Wow. I’m wondering what does that mean for me as a student and future graduate of this program. We’re a creative bunch and MAPC grads are likely to be among the leading critical thinkers and most innovative creators (not the mention the most skilled communicators) at any organization.

So how do we open ourselves to failure as part of the diet for success, and furthermore, how do we rebound rhetorically in the face of failure? Even if we embrace and recognize the need for failure, how do we persuade others to fearless invest in us as leaders and in our vision with failure being an option? This is pretty interesting stuff. I will continue to muse…

October 6, 2011

“The strength of a connection is measured in terms of its emotional impact.” -Henry Jenkins, (Convergence Culture, 69)

One of my favorite two words to put together are “emotional” and “capital”, which Henry Jenkins does for me in this week’s reading. Emotional capital is fascinating because it is a critical science that cannot be contained but cannot be ignored, like emotions.

Jenkins introduces another term that is now dancing around in my mind “Lovemarks.” They essentially rely on the same premise that “the strength of a connection is measured in terms of its emotional impact,” (Jenkins, 69). So, from the marketing standpoint, it is logical (no pun intended) that researchers find ways to tap into the vast reservoir of people’s emotions to solidify connections for an economic bottom line. And the convergence aspect comes in when Jenkins asserts “the experience should not be contained within a single media platform, but should extend across as many media as possible.” (69)

I agree with Jenkins that today’s user/viewer/audience member is more willing to interact with the media around them once they’ve been led there through the leveraging of emotional capital. Makes sense. I’m trying to find a way to take this insight from the page to a practical application, so I find myself wondering about the ethics of persuasion through emotional capital or lovemarks.

That is not intended to be a naïve statement. Pathos is an emotional appeal that is apart of the rhetorical package. The idea of emotional capital is not new. However, I want to question (just for my own musings) the ability of the audience to yield this emotional capital if they don’t understand that an economic connection, not an emotional connection, is the main target. Is it ethical for marketers to play on my emotions and in essence “use” me for my money? If we’re talking about building relationships, why is this acceptable practice under a marketing framework when it is hegemonically shunned otherwise?

Unfortunately, I do not have an answer, but I’m left wondering about the responsibility of the producer/sender of the information/text to help the audience participate in a fair exchange of their capital. I’m all for branding a product/person/service and crafting a message to create a certain feeling. However, if we are building relationship and engineering this relationship across media, shouldn’t a discussion of ethics be more prominent?

September 29, 2011

“The simple answer is that there is no simple answer.” -Clay Shirky (Here Comes Everybody, 72)

  

It’s easy to love Clay Shirky. As I watched his Cognitive Surplus TED Talk and as I read this week’s selection of his book Here Comes Everybody, I realize that my mind is right at home with the family of disciplines within the Professional Communication field.

Let’s start with the TED Talk. I’d never heard the term Cognitive Surplus and I’m not sure I even like the terminology. But that’s beside the point. The main point is that I agree with Shirky that through technology, the world can be impacted, via communal or civic means, through the contributions of the mass members of society. Technology and its advances has lengthened the arms reach of the individual who once had to have current events rationed off like porridge in Oliver Twist’s meager bowl.

Maybe I exaggerate, but I hope my meaning is clear. Technology allows the  individual to contribute and to create, all while bypassing the need for a publisher or a professional title, which Shirky addresses in the book.

As someone who worked as a newspaper journalist, I have great respect for the field. It is labor intensive and appreciate is scarce. However, I am forced to validate the contribution and power of the non-journalist information consumer-creator, as illustrated with the story of Trent Lott’s demise. Through social media, bloggers reported on a huge political misstep that the media largely ignored and provided proof for Shirky’s assertion that “everyone is a media outlet.” We all can create; we all can contribute. And, through Cognitive Surplus, Shirky argues that there is ample time and technology to allow creation and contribution to happen.

I will disagree with Shirky about Filtering. His overall assertions don’t bother me. However, he discusses Filtering by situating it in the context of either traditional media or social media. I see the difference he’s talking about between the two when it comes to filtering. But, if I wholeheartedly accept Shirky’s take, I leave out a whole population that I’ll call the personal media. This is exactly who we’re talking about — the individual who does not have the professional title or the employment, but who disseminates useful information to his or her target audience. The difference between the personal media and social media is that social media requires technology. However, personal media does not require technology; it’s been in place for years through public speaking, word of mouth, and other methods.

My assertion is that filtering happens rhetorically at the personal media level. When an individual encounters information from a personal media source, the individual must assess if the source is credible (ethos), if the information is relevant (kairos), if the information is logical or comical (logos or pathos), and if there is some action that should accompany the information (praxis). These automatic rhetorical filters are the work of non-linear communication (encoding and decoding) between the sender and receiver, and filtering automatically occurs at this level. 

The Rhetorical Artist in (Most of) Us

"Art is the only way to run away without leaving home." - Twyla Tharp

I've never thought of myself as being an architect of anything, mainly because I could never draw a straight line (even with the help of a ruler). Soon, I stopped chastising myself for this inability and instead I corraled it under the heading of "creativity." Creative people don't draw straight lines. That's the whole point. Creativity is not static; it is unpredictable, immodest, flowing, original.

Design to Thrive and the RIBS concept is upsetting my lack of interest in being deemed an architect by linking architecture with words like influence and experience -- all of which are creative terms. Through the RIBS concept, I am learning that I could and should be an architect of user experience, influence, belonging and significance.

Art is a word that aligns closely with the notion of creativity. The chapter on Influence was eye-opening as it provided the reader with tools for dissecting the mindset/personality/needs of the user and rhetorically designing an online community to meet various needs. It is "the art of designing influence." (81) If we view this entire RIBS concept in the lens of artistry, then we can manufacture powerful user experiences that include remuneration, influence, belonging and significance. In other words, the RIBS concept is empowering to the architect and the artist alike.

I am impressed by the depth of these concepts and its applicability outside of the realm of online communities. I am thinking about the RIBS concept in terms of my own classroom. I am a first-year teacher of English 103, and am keenly aware of rhetorically creating a classroom experience that encourages learning and trying. I use the word trying because more than 90 percent of my students do not have an affinity for English and my goal is for them to try to learn what they don't know, as opposed to completely tuning out based solely on the subject area. I'm reassessing my classroom and trying to determine who are my creators, who are my collectors; how can they feel a sense of remuneration in terms of the time spent in class; how do I help them feel a sense of belonging while avoiding the "pitfall of 'leveling rituals'" that could occur through the hierarchy of grading (which can be a classification system). I am applying these concepts outside of the setting of the online community (which makes me feel remunerated).

Forming, Storming and Norming, Oh My!

"...it often feels like the majority of teams spend most of their time storming." -Dr. Tharon Howard

I must say that it is a pleasure to read a textbook from an author that you have access to in an academic setting. Dr. Tharon Howard's Design to Thrive is a well written, easy to follow and informative text for students and professionals alike -- anyone who is or who will be a designer or architect of online communities. According to the heavy digital and social culture we live in, most professionals could be included in the rhetorical audience for this text.

As indicated by this week's quote above, I would like to focus on Tuchman's Stages of Team Development. Having worked as a professional in journalism and public relations, I could apply Tuchman's stages to my real life experiences and past mistakes. It is true that people are often thrown together to constitue a team without the benefit of shared professional focus. The more theoretical approach of applying an epistemic lens to the formation of communities is brilliant and, coupled with Tuchman, can help ensure effectiveness, productivity and positive ethos in an online or actual setting.

While I can see how most groups don't move past the Storming stage, I personally was most fascinated by the Forming stage where "members of the team begin to get to know each other and use rules of polite society to communicate." (33) I spent the earlier part of this year investigating politeness theory, so the use of the word "polite" immediately caught my attention. I would be interested in studying this more closely, observing rhetorical appeals and Burke's theory of Identification in the Forming stages of team development. How do individuals in a group move from turn-taking and tact, which are tenets of politeness, and evolve into the Storming phase? What generally happens to move a team from the 'honeymoon' phase of Forming to the 'post-honeymoon' stage of Storming? How do personalities evolve and how are roles determined when everyone begins at the same stage? And, what effect does an epistemic approach to creating communities have on the evolution/formation of personalities and roles?

I also appreciate the structure of Design to Thrive and it's use of color and layout to promote a non-threatening user experience. While it's clear that the author is an expert on the topic, I would feel comfortable sharing this text with members of my former pr staff (neither of whom had an advanced degree in this field ) for them to read and for us to discuss as a team.

This week's reading of Clay Shirky's Here Comes Everybody is a good complement to Design to Thrive. Shirky's opening anecdote tells a powerful story of the new world we live in, thanks to the abilities of the individual through technology. The use of the Internet to form and inform communities transforms all aspects of our lives. Or, as Shirky aptly puts it, "When we change the way we communicate, we change society."

What I am confused about is Shirky's rhetorical decision with concept of his book. I do not understand his decision to house information about new modes of organizing and societal behaviors in a book that looks and reads like a traditional paperback novel. Perhaps it was a cost-saving effort (which I appreciate). Still, I want something more innovative in its presentation and less 'vanilla.'

Brain Surge: The Human Element of Convergence Culture

Convergence occurs within the brains of individual consumers and through their social interactions with others. - Henry Jenkins

Whenever I thought of the topic of convergence culture, I assumed that it stood on a foundation of technology and digitalization. The whole idea of convergence was first introduced to me when I was a senior in college and the College of Journalism and Mass Communication at USC in Columbia. Faculty were abuzz about the next wave of media technology: convergence.

I didn't realize how far I'd drifted from that shore until I read the words of Henry Jenkins and his concepts of Convergence Culture. Technological times have changed and what was once the next wave has become commonplace. When I consider my education to date in the MAPC program and the limited exposure I've had with convergence, I can appreciate the writer's argument that convergence does not originate with technology, but with people. Technology is mindless and meaningless without the human interaction and interpretations that allows convergence to happen.

Jenkins writes: "Convergence does not occur through media appliances, however sophisticated they may become. Convergence occurs within the brains of individual consumers and through their social interactions with others." (3)

This transforms my foundationalist view of technology as being a static form of truth that can replicate the same results for different people. Instead, technology and convergence will only have meaning through the lens of the individual it is engaged with -- and that individual brings social and cultural perspectives that affect their overall experience.

Sturken and Cartwright -- The Comeback

“Ahh, Sturken and Cartwright you emerge once again just when I thought I’d rid you from my academic life.” -Deneshs

As a new MAPC student in the fall of 2010, I was instructed to purchase Sturken and Cartwright’s Practices of Looking for my visual communications class. This would be the text that I would write many a response to throughout the semester, and it would be the text that developed a strong aftertaste on my scholarly tastebuds. Simply put, I thought the text was redundant and I thought Sturken and Cartwright used too many words to make their point. But what did I know, right? Right.

Today I sit in the chair of teacher and student. I am in the second year of the two-year MAPC program, and I teach two sections of English 103. I am no longer a girl but not yet a woman (proverbially speaking). I’m more like the teenager who has her license, but is not old enough to be permitted to drive after dark.

Still, what I do have is more perspective than I had when I was a new student. I read Practices of Looking with new, more educated and enlightened eyes, and I am delighted to say that I see connections now that I didn’t see before.

For example, on the very first page of Chapter 1 (page 9) the authors argue that “looking is a social practice,” and “like other practices, looking involves relationships of power.” In talking with my students just today about their visual rhetoric assignment, I told them that their interpretation of the image they choose is important; it reflects their perspective, which will be different for every person. How they see the world is the result of the experiences that have shaped their view of the world, which confirms Sturken and Cartwright’s statement that “looking is a social practice.”

When I put the readings in chapters 1 and 2 in context of our class/client project, I realize that I must look for visual signs that will help me meet the needs of the client during the site visit. On page 29, Sturken and Cartwright offer the following definition: “the image (or word) and its meaning together (the signifier and the signified together) form the sign.”

I know our client has a logo, but during our site visit, I will look for visual signs, based on the client’s needs and desires, that will communicate the appropriate meaning. This could be grape leaves, or a the image of the bottle itself, or some other visual. We are not looking to recreate the logo, but we are looking to create a label that conveys the intended meaning. And, with this task in mind, I can safely say that Sturken and Cartwright has re-emerged right on time. This text serves as a good reminder of timeless “truths” of visual rhetoric and practices of looking and I look forward to applying these truths in the context of this client-based project.