Group Project

I was pleased that Nigel made some space for us on Monday to meet in our groups. I felt that because half of my group members were prevented to attend the lecture the previous week we were lagging a bit behind. As aforementioned I have difficulties making decisions and imposing them upon others, something I will definitely have to work on.

Anyway, as we presented our ideas Nigel pointed out that we had to find a focus point linking them all together so as to avoid making the group project sound as if it were three/ four separate essays rather than one coherent, fluid piece. So Karl, Neng and I met Thursday afternoon to discuss this. We had agreed on Monday to do some reading on virtual communities. After an ongoing debate we all came to the conclusion that it would be tricky to come up with one unanimous definition for the term ‘community’. So we decided that through our piece we will be aiming to explore the different ways the term is understood (and how virtual communities might differ from and/or be similar to real life communities) by comparing and examining specific virtual communities as case studies (Queeruption, MySpace, and possibly a third one which we have yet to agree upon).

Overall, I'm quite happy with the way the group project is developing. I’m also relieved that we were given an indication of how long the piece is expected to be (thanks to Bella!). I’m still a little puzzled though about the style of writing that is required of us. I understand that it is supposed to be academic but in the first person… Oh well, I’m sure we’ll figured it out.

Good Web Design/ Bad Web Design

Before I will post my examples for what I consider good and bad web design I’d like to point out that, as in all matters of taste, these examples have been chosen in a subjective manner. I generally believe that since most commercial websites are usually designed by professionals it is not easy to find fault with them. I also don’t feel I’m in a position to make any such judgements as my knowledge in regards to the aesthetic aspects of web design is rather poor. Moreover, the websites I tend to visit regularly are in my opinion relatively well designed. I had more difficulties finding a poorly designed web page.

So here we go.

Please find below my example of what I consider to be good web design.



This web page is generally clearly arranged. The colours in my opinion are harmonic and suitable. Information is relevant, concise and clear as well as easy to find.

This website by contrast appears to be less well organized and is definitely messier. It’s nevertheless fairly simple to find what you’re looking for. I also think that the website might benefit from earthlier colours. Since the organization is dedicated to sell and promote ethical items the shade of blue employed on its website seems inappropriate. I tend to associate the colour with chemicals rather than ethical consumption. I still wouldn’t argue however that it represents a good example for a poorly designed web page.

Websites similar to the one above are clearly poorly designed, basically because there is no design whatsoever. Whilst the font and style used might be consistent the content appears to be more suitable for print than online. The web page completely fails to grab my attention and there is simply too much information on one page. Then again I think it is important to keep the purpose of certain websites in mind…

Phew! This entry actually took me longer to complete than any other – I wasted hours to find out how to make cached snapshots of websites and publish them successfully as pictures on my blog. At least I can now say there’s something I’ve learned today. :o)

Walking the Digital Dog

On Thursday Mette and I attended the 30th annual Mountbatten lecture at the IET, as suggested by Nigel. As the title of the lecture (Walking the Digital Dog: Work, Learn and Play in Digital Worlds) delivered by Andrew (Roo) Reynolds of IBM already indicates the audience was introduced to how virtual worlds are used to play, work, and learn.

The first thing that struck me (/us) was the audience. Upon arrival we seemed to be the only females in their mid-20s attending the lecture. The Common room, in which registration took place and refreshments were served, was predominantly filled with men in their mid-40s and above. Given that the lecture was first and foremost aimed at people with no experience of virtual worlds one would naturally expect older people in the audience. Later it emerged however that many of them appeared to have more experience of and within virtual worlds than I do. So much for conventional stereotyping…

Then again the conspicuous non-attendance of women in my opinion clearly reflected the general absence of women within technology. I was thus happy to spot the name of a woman working for an organization called womenintechnology on the list of participants that we were given at registration. Thanks to the name badges we were all encouraged to wear it was easy to find and approach her. I found it interesting and exciting to find out about an organization committed to promote and support women within the IT sector, a field that is still largely dominated by men. We were also given a business card by a council member of the Women’s Engineering Society ‘promoting the education, training and practice of engineering among women’. I’m pleased to have found out that through organizations such as these women are given a voice in an industry for which they regrettably still seem to be regarded as unsuitable. Of course it was also fantastic to observe that women who are active in the IT sector stick together and aid one another.

The lecture itself I thought was excellent, albeit a little too positive about virtual worlds. Since I received the lecture as a response to the negative press virtual worlds such as Second Life tend to get this was acceptable. As the handout we were given upon registration states, Reynolds was arguing that ‘virtual worlds may affect mankind as momentously as writing, the printing press, the telephone and the World Wide Web’. I think it is fair to say that he has convinced me.

Reynolds undoubtedly made clear that virtual worlds are suitable for everyone. Although I have difficulties picturing my own granny (who’s still very active) enthusiastically in front of a computer trotting about in the form of an avatar in Second Life, I can see how this might work for other elderly people. I certainly think that for those suffering from autism or Aspergers, as well as for people with a pathological fear of social contact, virtual worlds can provide a platform for establishing social relationships and perhaps even help them overcome their anxieties. Reynolds in fact repeatedly stressed the possibilities virtual worlds offer in terms of maintaining as well as building social relationships.

The usefulness of the space-time compression intrinsic to virtual worlds was also touched upon. This means that corporate meetings and lectures for example can take place without anyone having to travel. Whilst this of course is very convenient, it is simultaneously environmentally friendly. At a time in which global warming poses an imminent threat, the reduction of business flights to me sounds particularly appealing.

I didn’t understand how Reynolds could compare watching a baseball (or football) match with friends in a virtual world to doing the same in a pub though. Doesn’t the whole atmosphere get lost in doing so? And isn’t it a rather lonely experience? I realize it might enable me to watch a football match with (I’m not sure whether ‘to watch with’ is the correct phrase here) family and friends abroad but that to me doesn’t even replace watching the football with friends on the telly at home, let alone in the pub.

Another interesting topic covered by Reynolds was how virtual worlds are increasingly utilized for educational purposes. Reynolds made reference to a game called Recall that is taking its players through Ireland’s troubled history in the form of a Romeo and Juliet story. This game is distributed around Irish schools. My younger brother (and many other schoolchildren), who spends more time playing World of Warcraft than concentrating on school, would certainly benefit from such a game. The idea of learning through playing I believe is a brilliant one. Reynolds also demonstrated how virtual worlds are used for training purposes in the medical profession for example. Whilst it can’t replace hands-on experience in surgery the simulation can nevertheless aid in familiarizing oneself with the sequence of events etc.

I don’t want to go into any further detail here in respect to Reynold’s lecture so I’ll just post the slideshow (taken from www.rooreynolds.com) that was used by him in case anyone is interested.

View Upload your own

After the lecture we were invited for (free) drinks in the Common room to discuss our thoughts with other members of the audience, a perfect opportunity for networking. Mette and I had an exciting conversation with the director of Codexx Associates Ltd and a senior lecturer at Kingston University’s Faculty of Computing about issues of fraud (and the handling of other criminal activities) within Second Life (or other virtual worlds). This is certainly an area I’d like to look into in more detail. I’ve also succumbed and decided that I would eventually establish a Second Life presence in order to get some firsthand experience.

Overall, I had a fantastic evening so thank you very much Nigel for bringing the event to our attention! It was definitely an enriching experience and I’m glad I went.

What is a community?

First of all I believe I ought to mention that I’m not intending to find a suitable definition for the term ‘community’ here (if that is at all possible), as I believe this should be reserved for our group project. Rather I would like to use this space to reflect on the discussion we had in class with regard to the notion of ‘community’ and my own perception of it.

I think after Monday’s lecture and discussion, we can all agree that the concept of ‘community’ is a very complex one. I, for my part, don’t believe it is possible to come up with one universal definition for ‘community’.

Nonetheless, I realized that I seem to have a very clear perception of whether or not I’m a member of certain (what are usually referred to as) communities without any apparent or rational reason.

The concept of ‘community’ seems to be closely connected with the concept of commonality. One’s belonging to a community might thus be determined geographically for example, that is according to one’s shared nationality, birthplace and/ or one’s shared place of residence.

Accordingly, I would have to class myself as being a member of the German community in Reading (if there is such a thing), which I don’t. In fact, I don’t consider myself as belonging to any community in connection with being German (or living in Reading) at all. I believe that nationality is more or less irrelevant in terms of community membership, probably because you can’t really choose your nationality (sure you can change your nationality but you cannot do away with the fact that you were born and bred in a certain country to parents of a certain nationality).

There are undoubtedly many people who’d argue that their nationality engenders a feeling of community membership. A German friend of mine for example, who has been living in London for over ten years, would certainly consider herself as belonging to a German community within London. So what differentiates me from her? Is community membership a matter of personal choice? Or am I just in denial? Do I actually belong to a German community in Reading without being aware of it?

I would argue that community membership above all requires a strong sense of belonging and a firm belief in shared values, both of which I lack in terms of my nationality. Hence community membership clearly seems to involve more than just having something in common with others, be that nationality, sexuality, or ethnicity. Considering this it would be interesting to see how many heterosexuals as opposed to homosexuals identify themselves as being part of a community in relation to their sexuality.

Funnily enough, I wouldn’t deny being part of a particular type of village community relating to the street that I used to live in for most of my life and that I still return to when visiting my family. Membership of this street community usually involves get-togethers, such as an annual street party in the summer, birthday parties, barbecues, dinner parties, or coffee parties. Unlike with my friends, I barely stay in touch with my fellow street community members unless I go back to stay with my parents and one of the get-togethers is taking place at the time. This didn’t stop one of the members from inviting me to her wedding in April next year, which I’m planning to attend.

Is my feeling part of such a community but rarely getting involved enough though? Can I still count myself as a member of such a community even though I am now living miles away from the street that connects these people?

Community membership here also seems to be based upon mutual support, a lot like Rheingold’s notion of a gift economy. You know you can rely on the other members to help you out if necessary without being expected to give something in return.

This is similar to what I believe I experience as part of being a football supporter. Although admittedly mutual understanding would perhaps be a better term to describe the feeling. I therefore consider myself as being part of a football supporting community, both on a club level and on an international level. Strangely enough however I don’t feel as though I belong to any kind of student community despite sharing the same experiences and feelings with many other students. Maybe there is more to it than merely mutual understanding?

I also don’t feel part of any virtual communities even though I have a Facebook and Studivz account. Why? I don’t know. I guess I use these social networking sites as a means of communicating and staying in touch with people I rarely see (mostly because they live abroad and I can’t afford speaking to them on the phone) rather than anything else. Using the telephone as a means of communication doesn’t necessarily mean I belong to a telephone community, or does it?

I will bring this entry to an end now as brooding over the concept of community seems to leave me even more confused in trying to establish what constitutes a community. I hope that researching our group project will help me resolve this confusion.

Second Life

In Monday’s lecture Nigel brought the widely disputed online community Second Life to our attention.

Personally I have never considered establishing a Second Life presence, possibly because I’m already finding it difficult enough to cope with my (let’s call it) ‘First Life’. Two of my very good friends however are keen proponents of the virtual world, without allowing it to take over their life. Let me also assure you that, unlike some people might have thought, both of them are perfectly sane and enjoy a healthy social life (in the real world).

Second Life certainly offers them an opportunity to interact with people on a global scale, something the incredibly dull and mono-cultural village they live in seems to deny them.

I’m actually very tempted to make an unduly comparison here. Second Life for some appears to me to serve the same social function as nightclubs do for others. Rather than having an intimate party with close friends at home, many prefer to mingle (in small groups) with complete strangers in overpriced nightclubs. I’m not trying to suggest that both should be considered equal social activities since I don’t believe they are, not least because clubbing requires one’s physical presence.

This leads me to another interesting question raised in Monday’s class: Is meeting (in the sense of getting to know) people online less safe than meeting people in the flesh?

In my opinion this question is slightly complex. Virtual encounters indisputably cannot cause physical pain, i.e. in the virtual world you certainly won’t be (physically) raped, tortured, beaten, killed, etc. On the other hand, I don’t believe virtual contact prevents you from experiencing emotional pain caused by bullying or other forms of emotional abuse. Considering that in extreme cases this might lead to suicide, the answer to the above question seems less straight-forward. It becomes even more complicated when taking into account that paedophiles for example might use virtual communities as a realm to get to know future victims.

Anyway, I’m digressing. There’s one last thing I’d like to mention in regards to Second Life: the reactions provoked by the idea of people spending money on virtual commodities, be that cars or even a piece of land. Contemplating this idea, it occurred to me that we’re probably all guilty of purchasing items we don’t really need. We live in a consumption-driven society in which status (and maybe even class?) is determined by commodities, so why should online communities be different from that? I’m certainly not going to spend my money on virtual commodities anytime soon, but maybe we can regard these communities as a mere reflection of reality and evaluate our own habits and behaviour accordingly.

If, as Rheingold suggests, some virtual communities indeed operate ‘gift economies’,

‘in which people do things for one another out of a spirit of building something between them, rather than a spreadsheet- calculated quid pro quo’ (Rheingold. 1994: 59),

then perhaps we can even learn from them.

Rheingold, H. (1994) The Virtual Community: Surfing the Internet. Minerva: London (Yes, I still prefer reading print editions to online editions)

(First) Proposal of our Group Project Plan

The following (so far) also appears on our group wiki page

Virtual Communities

In order to look at virtual communities in more depth it first necessitates a definition of the term ‘community’:
What is a community, how do we define a community? What constitutes a virtual community as opposed to a community in real life? How might a virtual community be similar to or different from a community as we experience it in the real world?
Resources we think might be useful in considering the above:
Raymond Williams’ definition of the term ‘community’ in his Keywords (1976), dictionary definitions of ‘community’
Howard Rheingold’s work on virtual communities available here

From the above, the question arises as to whether virtual communities might have changed people's perception of the local-global nexus. We will aim to discuss this relationship between the local and the global in terms of cyberspace. This will require a definition of cyberspace, as well as take into account how cyberspace might have redrawn national boundaries and the consequences this might have.

At last we will explore the possible motivations (such as narcissism, confirmation, etc) of people joining virtual communities (such as Queeruption, MySpace, Facebook, etc). Whilst this will give an account of how virtual communities are often used to market oneself or to gain confirmation, we will also consider Rheingold’s concept of a ‘gift economy’. This will also enable us to assess the pros and cons of virtual communities (possibly by using two to four different virtual communities as case studies).

Conclusion: We will evaluate all of the above and hopefully come to a concise conclusion of how the emergence of virtual communities might have impacted upon our perception of the term community.

Planning...

This week involved the first stage in the process of completing our group project: planning – as the title of this entry indicates.

Elom, Karl, Neng and I have now determined the themes we would like to cover in our group project on virtual communities. I won’t go into much detail here in order to avoid being repetitive as I will post the (first) proposal of our project plan as it (at the moment) also appears on our group wiki page later on.

In brief, we have agreed upon covering the following:

1. give a definition of the term ‘community’ and look at what constitutes a virtual community,
2. discuss the local-global nexus in regards to cyberspace,
3. and examine the possible motivations (such asnarcissism, confirmation, etc) of people joining virtual communities (such asQueeruption, MySpace, Facebook, etc).

The summary above might sound a little vague and is explained in more detail in the project plan. I also think some themes will consolidate once we have completed our research.

In order to relieve the work load and thus work more efficiently, I suggested to my fellow group members that we could divide the topics between the four of us. One of my group members however objected to this and pointed out that each of us might arrive at different readings of the same text. This will then enable us to form a more balanced argument on virtual communities. Whilst I recognize the validity of this argument, I fear that the time we have at our disposal might not allow us to do so. We will have to find a plausible solution of how to best approach this problem soon, in particular to avoid all of us concentrating on researching the same topics and as a result ending up with insufficient information on others.

Unfortunately I also have to point out that we already seem to be experiencing communication problems. The attempt to communicate via e-mail so far has proven somewhat problematic. It might therefore be worth picking a day for us to meet in person and exchange our ideas and thoughts on the project that way.

We have also decided to put a picture of ourselves on our group wiki page. I have to say that as yet I’m quite pleased with how easy it appears to be to construct (or rather edit) the wiki page (*touch wood*). Nonetheless, our creative abilities will clearly be challenged. At present I’m not satisfied with the design of our page and, as it was me who posted the project plan onto the page, I am willing to take full responsibility for that.

Correction

In my entry on open source software I erroneously claimed that PBWiki is open source software. This was kindly pointed out to me by Nigel in a comment (thank you!).

I acknowledge this mistake and have now edited the entry accordingly. Although wiki enables people to add, remove, edit and change content of a wiki page, the software itself doesn’t allow for active participation in its development.

I hope I got it right this time. ;o)