WhOoosh! You have just taken an extremely high-speed voyage through the channels of the world wide web and have smoothly arrived at "Nodes II Infinity"; a blog created by a 'human node' by the name of Alicia Shum.
Social media is a great medium for executing viral marketing. The latest viral campaign is a YouTube clip titled “NSFW. A Hunter Shoots a Bear”.
The video was created for Tipp-ex; a brand of ink-correction fluid and is one of the most clever and most entertaining YouTube clips I have ever seen. The scene takes place with a guy encountering a bear at his campsite while brushing his teeth. He picks up his gun and aims it at the bear, but two interactive buttons appear on the page where the viewer can either “Shoot the bear” or “Don’t shoot the bear”. These buttons actually link the viewers to another page where the guy uses a Tipp-ex to erase the work “shoots” and allows the viewer to enter their own action to play another video that corresponds to the action entered.
This clever YouTube video was created by an agency called Buzzman and is the most engaging and fun viral campaign ever. It creates an interactive “choose-your-own-adventure’ experience. I believe this is an example of immediacy and hypermediacy because it urges the viewers to engage and take part in the act of mediation. It allows individuals to determine the outcome of the story and give them a sense of ownership by allowing them to redefine the way the story ends.
A Stanford University survey confirmed that iPhones have become an indispensible part of lifestyles. Nearly one-quarter of those surveyed in the study said their iPhones felt like an extension of their brain or body (1). The results were interesting and they were as follow:
85% of iPhone owners used their phones as a watch
89% used it as their alarm clock
75% admitted they fell asleep with the iPhone in bed
69% said they were more likely to forget their wallet than their iPhone when leaving in the morning (1).
Most of the students that participated in this survey acknowledged their reliance on their iPhones. When they were asked to rank their dependence on their iPhones on a scale of one to five (five being addicted and one being not at all addicted) they responded accordingly:
10% acknowledged full iPhone addiction
34% ranked their dependence on their iPhones at four on the scale
6% were not addicted at all
32% admitted that they were concerned that they would become addicted in the future
41% also confessed that losing their iPhone would be ‘a tragedy’ (1)
Sherry Turkle is a faculty member of MIT who states that computer culture has grown familiar with the experiences of passion, dependency, and profound connections with artifacts. Although designers have focused on how computational devices will help people better manage their complex lives, users are beginning to see these devices as ‘extension of self’ and often a ‘second self’ (2).
Today, mobile phones and smartphones are not just for voice calls, text messaging, capturing photos and listening to music; individuals are constantly exploring the mobile internet to email and engage with social networking sites to keep in touch with their community. For most, it has become an inevitable part of our everyday lives to the extent that the boundaries between the offline and online worlds are vanishing. Due to the new generation of mobile internet services that leverage the social web, individuals are progressively living their lives on their mobile phones and they feel an increasingly emotional attachment with it.
The new generation of mobile internet is commonly referred to as Mobile 2.0. Many assume that Mobile 2.0 simply means bringing Web 2.0 to mobile devices, but it is much more that. Mobile 2.0 is where the social web meets mobility, it is the extensive use of user-generated content, it is about leveraging services on the web through mash-ups and delivering rich mobile user experience, but most of all it is about personalization (3). Internet access has expanded beyond the personal computer and individuals now have the option to mix and match networks, devices and content that bring a richer and more personalized experience, and for that reason we feel we need to have our mobile phones with us at all times. Our reliance on mobile devices has become prominent as we rely on it for our personal and business needs. It is hard to believe that someone in this day and age can live without a mobile phone.
1. Dan Hope (2010), ‘iPhones can be addicting, says new survey’, viewed 17 October 2010
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35768107/
2. Sherry Turkle, 2004, ‘Wither psychoanalysis in computer culture’, Readings in the philosophy of technology, pp. 415-429
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
3. John Strickland, ‘How Web 3.0 Will Work’, viewed 10 October 2010,
According to Netcraft (www.netcraft.com) the World Wide Web currently comprises of more than one hundred million websites (1). As the proliferation of website continues to expand, the amount of information also continues to increase but unfortunately the management of information has not advanced. At this point in time web search engines are unable to understand a search; it only has the ability to list webpages that contain keywords entered in search terms. Current search engines like www.google.com are incapable of identifying whether a webpage is in fact relevant to the user’s search. For example: if a user searched “Apple” it may return a search result that lists information about the fruit “Apple” and the computer manufacturer “Apple”. It is simple for an individual to visit a webpage and comprehend the information but computers do not have the capacity to understand how keywords are used in the context of the webpage (2).
Tim Berners Lee envisions the future web to be a Semantic Web. His theory of the semantic web relates to the way computer will be able to scan and interpret information in webpages through software agents; which are programs that crawl through the web and search for relevant information. It will have a collection of information known as “ontologies”; files that define the relationship among a group of terms. Tim Berners Lee’s explains that the Semantic Web is about “giving information a well-defined meaning, better enabling computers and people to work in a cooperation” (1).
Some Internet experts predict that instead of multiple searches, users will be able to enter complex sentences into a Web 3.0 browser and the rest will be done for them. For example: if an individual enters “I want to shop for expensive designer clothes and have lunch with the girls at a well-known café. What are my options?” the web browser would analyse the user’s response, search the World Wide Web for all possible answers and then organize the results.
In the article How Web 3.0 Will Work John Strickland states: “Many of these experts believe that the Web 3.0 browser will act like a personal assistant. As you search the Web, the browser learns what you are interested in.” (1)
Therefore, Internet experts also predict that the browser will learn each individual’s interests, create a unique profile for each user and tailor their browsing experience accordingly. The individual may ultimately type in “Where should I go shopping?” and the browser can then refer to the records in their profile and filter the their likes and dislikes, obtain their current location and then suggest a list of stores/shopping centers the individual would be interested in. Further more, if two individuals each performed a search with the same keywords using the same search engine, they would subsequently received a list of different results established according by their individual profiles.
Many believe Web 3.0 will be a giant database that will use the Internet to make connections with information as opposed to Web 2.0 making connections between people. It will provide users with richer and more relevant experiences.
Here is a great YouTube clip that provides a great introduction to “Semantic Web”
1. Alexander Mikroyanndis (2007), ‘Toward a Social Semantic Web’, pp.113-115 University of Leeds.
2. John Strickland, ‘How Web 3.0 Will Work’, viewed 10 October 2010,
In 2001 Lev Manovich quoted “Contemporary human-computer interfaces offer radical new possibilities for art and communication”(1)
Originally computer monitors were used for data processing and television receivers for entertainment. Nowadays the screen has rapidly becoming the main means of accessing any kind of information whether it is still images, moving images or text. We are now using it to read newspapers, watch movies and/or communicate with others.
The contemporary computer monitor has become a lot more dynamic and interactive and has allowed us to experience virtual reality. It has become a ‘window’ where we are able to enter other worlds and environments. Virtual Reality refers to the computer-generated artificial or synthetic environment that stimulates the user’s aural and visual perception (2). It is a human-computer interface where the computer creates a sensory immersing environment that interactively responds to and is controlled by the behaviour of the user (3).
Certain screens have additional characteristics that can further the user’s experience, such as the touch screen feature. Monitors with touch screen capabilities use ‘touching of the screen’ as an input method. Objects displayed on the screen can be selected, moved or activated with a finger and finger gestures can also be used to convey commands.
Screens have progressed even further since the touch screen was established. Recently featured on ACA was the Virtual Mirror, which they predict will be featured in future retail. ‘Ezface’ by IBM was one of the new technologies mentioned in the story.
Ezface is an augmented reality system that merges live video images with virtual or digital elements on the same screen (4). It allows customers to try on make-up ‘virtually’ rather than putting it onto their face, and helps them choose the product that suits them best. For instance, a customer could have their photo taken in a kiosk and their face will be captured and displayed on a computer screen. For this purpose, lets just say that the customer has a basket of make-up products in their shopping basket, which they selected from the shelves. Ezface gives them the facility to scan the product barcode for the screen to show them what the make-up product would appear like on their skin. The screen becomes the canvas for the customers to virtually test make-up on their own face.
Here is a YouTube clip that shows another example of future shopping using a clever human-computer interface.
It is obvious that screens are not only for the simple function of data processing anymore - they are all around us. We are inundated with human-computer interfaces and it has become a vital part of our everyday lives. I believe it is only a matter of time until the Virtual Mirror becomes an essential screen in future retail stores.
1. Manovich, Lev. (2001) The Language of New Media, Cambridge,Mass.; London:MIT Press. (‘The screen and the user’ pp. 94-115)
Open source refers to the procedure in releasing and making the source code of a program available free to users and other program developers. They can then utilise and appropriately tailor the source code to suit their needs. Another name for open source would be “free software” as it can be obtained at no cost. Open source can be customised, modified and redistributed to fulfil the user’s needs and requirements; whether it is corporate, educational or personal. The foundation of open source is to share and permit everyone and anyone to analyse and modify the code if necessary. It is software that is relaxed or made free from copyright restrictions; therefore any public body has the right to lawfully obtain information by request or observation. There are no restrictions on the use or distribution by any organisation or user; some examples of open source include Linux, Apache, PHP and MySQL.
The philosophy of open source is the freedom of distribution within a community of programmers and the liberty to modify and improve the code. It is a free commodity due to the absence of copyright and patent laws. It is a method of launching a product where the material is accessible and shared by the community who creates and uses it. Rather than a proprietary secret, source codes are made complimentary for public to obtain, analyse, modify and further enhance.
Open source has given businesses the ability to achieve a more profound entrance into the software market. There are companies who offer open source software in order to establish an industry standard and secure an advantage in competitiveness. Developer loyalty has also prospered due to their sense of ownership of the completed product. Marketing and logistic expenses are not necessary for open source software, as a result companies have the aptitude to concentrate and invest in the technology developments to generate reliable, high quality software that is faster and more economical. There will also be greater potentials for technology flexibility and rapid innovations. Open source allows thousands of independent programmers to collaborate, test and repair errors found in software. This will of course better the quality of software due to the considerable collaboration of diverse users, programmers and other active individuals from an extensive range of backgrounds.
References: Deitel & Associates. Internet & World Wide Web: How to Program. Third Edition.New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc, 2004
Web 2.0 has always been just a buzzword for me. I’ve always known it to be a generation of the web, but I have never been too sure about it’s characteristics and what it exactly offers to the average Internet user. To answer some of my questions and to kill my curiosity, I decided to perform a quick research on the meaning of Web 2.0.
This is what I discovered…
The expression Web 2.0 is frequently associated with web applications that assist interactive information sharing, interoperability, collaboration, user generated content and design on the World Wide Web. Web 2.0 does not only allow users to retrieve information, it presents a more interactive user-interface that encourages user-generated content. Some examples of Web 2.0 includes: Social networking websites, wikis, blogs and video-sharing websites.
On the 30th September 2005, Tim O’Reilly wrote an article titled “What is Web 2.0. Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software”. He states ”Web 2.0 doesn't have a hard boundary, but rather, a gravitational core.” My interpretation of this statement is that Web 2.0 is a lot more robust compared to Web 1.0. Due to the enhancement of user interactivity of the Web 2.0 platform, users are given the stand to collaborate within a virtual community where user-generated content can be shared within a network and stored in a collective pool of social knowledge. The Web 2.0 platform fundamentally supports the idea of collective knowledge because it can generate new knowledge as well as enhance the capacity to codify, store and retrieve knowledge by collectively accessing networked databases. Collective intelligence is the enhancement of group intelligence due to the ever-expanding degree of human collaboration and interaction.
My conclusion is that Web 2.0 is not just a generation of the Web it is connected with the way software developers and the end-users utilise the web. This time we are not just users of the Internet we are actually becoming part of the Internet.
Here is a great YouTube clip that gives a great technical summary of what Web 2.0 means.
Social media has become a popular platform for those in a political office whose work and very professional survival is dependant on the needs and perceptions of their constituents. It is obvious that social media is fully fledged with opportunities for politicians to connect with voters.
Jonathan O’Dea was elected the Member for Davidson for the Liberal Party in 2007 and is currently exploiting the power of social media to collect feedback and thoughts from his constituents. You can visit his website at: www.jonathanodea.com.au
I have been privileged enough to work with a great team who designs and develops disruptive technology and one of our initial projects was to develop an online survey for Jonathan O’Dea. This survey is concerned with the issues of combining same-sex couples and adoption that was introduced by Independent MP Clover Moore. It is a topic that is certain to attract considerable community interest and attention.
As member for Davidson, Mr O’Dea has potential concerns regarding the proposed Bill. He decided to use the power of social media in order to objectively ask his constituents about their views on the topic before stepping forward and exercising his conscience vote in the New South Wales State Parliament.
The “Survey on Adoption Amendment (Same Sex Couples) Bill 2010” consists of three questions where the responders can answer using multiple choices and/or send a ‘confidential’ message to Jonathan O’Dea. If you have a few moments, be sure to visit this online survey and have your say on the topic. Make sure you have your speakers turned on, as Mr O’Dea would like to speak to you. He is a live ‘Avatar’ who will aim to respond to your comments if you decide to leave your contact details with him. http://2d.homeunix.com/couples/
