I am looking forward to exploring Taking IT Global and maintaining a presence there but I have decided to take my blog elsewhere to Http://francesbell.com.
I hope that our friends networks export seamlessly and I'll see you all there, and you can come to visit my new blog.
Those of us who spend time thinking, writing and generally wandering/wondering about the Internet at some time inevitably puzzle about time and space. There are many matrices to represent possibilities of time and space and map them on to technologies in the CSCW (Computer Supported Cooperative Work) and Learning Technology literatures, for example this one that dates back to 1988
.
Time Space taxonomy, Johansen (1988)
Taxonomies such as this, particularly when used to classify technologies, seem a long way away from what people do with their inventive and flexible use of technologies, defying the dead hand of classification. And yet, classification of technologies, as opposed to people’s multiplexity of use of technology, persists.
Something happened this morning that was a delightful puzzle, and then made me think about time and space more generally. Bird 1, Cat 0, Dog ?
My husband Terry called me out to the garden to see some tracks in the snow on a low wall outside our kitchen door. We thought the paw marks were from a cat and there were no feathers or blood so we imagined the scene of next door's cat pouncing on a bird that flew off and escaped. I had some fun taking pictures of the tracks and then taking more pictures around the garden. I called the image Bird 1 Cat 0 to indicate the bird’s triumph: an image (digital and in my mind) that was the trace of an event.
Later, whilst I was sorting and uploading the pictures to Flickr, Terry called me back to show me that the paw marks were exactly where our dog Billy touches the wall as he leaps over it on his way from the kitchen to try, in vain, to catch a squirrel. So …. the bird probably walked along the wall and flew off early this morning, then the dog jumped over the wall at a later time. We do not really know what happened but we did learn, that there was not necessarily one event, and that the traces were probably of two separate unrelated events, separated in time but coincidentally co-located in space. Snowfall was the only reason that this co-location was evident. In any other weather, unless I had seen the event, I would never have imagined that it took place.
Of course, our experiences do not fit neatly into conceptual boxes. On a family holiday to Iceland this year, we saw a statue on a volcanic sand beach at Vik in South Iceland, of a man leaning out towards the sea, its plaque inscribed with “Those who go down to the sea in ships and do business in great waters share a mutual respect and understanding with fellow seafarers.”
The statue is one of a pair, ‘For’ at Vik, the other being ‘Journey’ in Hull, as part of a fascinating project to symbolize the bond between people in Hull and South Iceland, in contrast to the usual ‘Cod War’ linkage between these people and places. The statue at Hull leans out to sea, its eyes following the route of trawlers to the Icelandic fishing grounds.
“Like I in italics, this bowsprit figure, clean as a sloping drift of snow, looks out and shows how close we are, how far, how cold, the last sea goes.” Angela Leighton
In each of those two examples, there are contradictions in their location in time and space. The links are conceptual (as well as the practical links within the project to commission and position the statues); primarily the links between the seafarers, their helpers and those who long for their return. Secondary are the links imagined by those who stand and look at one statue, located firmly in one time and space, and imagine the other statue (that they may or may not see, in the past or the future).
Such contradictions also exist in so-called synchronous and asynchronous information and communication technologies. Imagining is a powerful force both for enriching and hampering online communication (and face to face, come to that). ‘Literate’ users of media can employ multiple channels to enrich their communications: • Text or email message requesting someone to phone them • ‘Back-channel’ communication, online chat or texting whilst in audience of conference session e.g. at Moodlemoot 2005 • ‘whispering’ in a group chat • BCC (blind copying), printing and forwarding of email • Noticing someone is online and prompting them (by instant message) to participate in an ‘asynchronous’ forum e.g. in Moodle where online users are chosen with link to message them. These examples confound the taxonomy above, e.g. the backchannel communication example was both same time same place for the audience and presenter on one channel, but also same time different place for those in the audience and elsewhere on the chat channel. Because the audience got to talk in the chat channel, the (text) chat could seem as engaging as watching multimedia presentation.
Johansen, R. (1988) Groupware. Computer-Support for Business Teams, The Free Press, New York and London.
I wanted to test the feed from this blog, so I thought that I would share this joke with you. It is by Gregory from a New Yorker cartoon in a calendar that I bought in the January sales.
One dog says to another "I had my own blog for a while, but I decided to go back to just pointless, incessant barking" .
Chess is a theme in my extended family (though I have no great skills in it), and through family connections, I chanced to be in Iceland on holiday when the Fischer-Spassky match was on in 1972. Thanks to my brother Paul, we attended one of matches where the excitement was palpable. Watching the match was truly thrilling, surrounded by knowledgeable Icelanders.
Tom Hodgkinson (in the old media corner) squares up against the new(ish) contender Facebook.A quick google search reveals that Tom does have an Internet profile: he tells us that he plays the ukulele, and he does blog about his current reading in a convergent media fashion.Also, anyone who has a web site called the Idler (with a background of snails) can’t be all bad.
I found Tom’s article to be quite informative in parts but tiresomely Luddite in other parts.I do have some concerns about the ownership of media, being in a family that resists Sky cable because of Murdoch (and on my part because of all that football).Josie Fraser has some interesting comments on the dilemmas of ownership and profit and the non-neutrality of technology.She also picks him up on the generalisations he makes about the alienating effects of technology.To me this dystopic view detracts from some of the really interesting comments he makes on the financing of Facebook and legal issues.A sharp analysis of Facebook it isn’t – and neither is this blog post but I’ll content myself with a preliminary de-construction of his analysis of Facebook’s privacy policy.
Facebook's privacy policy
1 We will advertise at you
"When you use Facebook, you may set up your personal profile, form relationships, send messages, perform searches and queries, form groups, set up events, add applications, and transmit information through various channels. We collect this information so that we can provide you the service and offer personalised features."
Yes, you would have to be pretty stupid not to realise that Facebook is ‘free’ because of the market data supplied by its users.An urgent need is to increase media literacy amongst the general population so they can make their own decisions about what they supply/reveal.
2 You can't delete anything
"When you update information, we usually keep a backup copy of the prior version for a reasonable period of time to enable reversion to the prior version of that information."
It’s good to question what Facebook mean by this, and to assess the significance of Facebook’s willingness to change their policy under pressure. Tom Hodgkinson’s interpretation that this initial resistance will soon die away is open to question.One thing that is noticed about SNS is that people move on, and maybe we should be pushing for what we want in terms of privacy.The alternative – Stay away! Don’t engage! Ensures that you will definitely have no say in how technology is implemented and appropriated.
3 Anyone can glance at your intimate confessions
"... we cannot and do not guarantee that user content you post on the site will not be viewed by unauthorised persons. We are not responsible for circumvention of any privacy settings or security measures contained on the site. You understand and acknowledge that, even after removal, copies of user content may remain viewable in cached and archived pages or if other users have copied or stored your user content."
Another very strong argument for media literacy not banning.Do we keep our children indoors so they won’t get run over? Or help them be safe on the roads so they can achieve independence of us?
4 Our marketing profile of you will be unbeatable
"Facebook may also collect information about you from other sources, such as newspapers, blogs, instant messaging services, and other users of the Facebook service through the operation of the service (eg, photo tags) in order to provide you with more useful information and a more personalised experience."
An even stronger argument for media literacy in a convergent media world – since it is not only us who can post information about ourselves.
5 Opting out doesn't mean opting out
"Facebook reserves the right to send you notices about your account even if you opt out of all voluntary email notifications."
But they don’t very much do they?And if there was a big security problem, we’d want them to , wouldn’t we?
6 The CIA may look at the stuff when they feel like it
"By using Facebook, you are consenting to have your personal data transferred to and processed in the United States ... We may be required to disclose user information pursuant to lawful requests, such as subpoenas or court orders, or in compliance with applicable laws. We do not reveal information until we have a good faith belief that an information request by law enforcement or private litigants meets applicable legal standards. Additionally, we may share account or other information when we believe it is necessary to comply with law, to protect our interests or property, to prevent fraud or other illegal activity perpetrated through the Facebook service or using the Facebook name, or to prevent imminent bodily harm. This may include sharing information with other companies, lawyers, agents or government agencies."
Now he’s getting to it.We really should be discussing this, and I think it is a pity this wasn’t the main focus of the article.He should start a discussion group about this – maybe on Facebook.
Like many others, I am obliged to use an institutional VLE (in my case Blackboard) but get frustrated with updates being cumbersome and bookmarks being duplicated in the silos that are my Blackboard 'courses'.
I now manage links in del.icio.us and simply link to the appropriate tag from the relevant area of my Blackboard course, as you can see in this image.
2. I then create a link to this in Blackboard. As I add resources to del.icio.us, these become available in Blackboard.
3. It is possible to enrol students in collaborative tagging by linking to the tag in general, rather than just in your own tags, e.g. http://del.icio.us/tag/information-systems-context . That way, students can contribute their own links for the benefit of the group.
I am very interested to hear how others use social bookmarking in conjunction with traditional learning environments.
P.S.
Liz Bennett asked me about this so I thought I would post it rather than hiding it in an email. I am sure this is something that lots of people do and maybe they can contribute additional ideas.
I just received this fascinating comment on my blog post at Emerge , scroll down to read all of Cristina da Costa's comment.
"Just a quick note about bearded women:
In Portugal we usually use the expression Thick Bearded Women to refer to women who are educated, hard-working, courageous and sharp in their decisions and actions. In other words, someone you don’t really want to mess up with, but that you kind of look up to; Sophisticated, independent women. "
What a wonderful concept - I shall aspire to be thick bearded. I think Anne probably is, here is her story
Inspired by reading an article called Clear Thinking Saturday's Guardian newspaper, I have decided to out my untidy desk in an effort to reform myself as the article suggests. Theo Theobald (is that really his name?) struck home with these words
"Your desk is at the heart of this. For many, it has become a metaphor for their whole working persona: badly organised, over-burdened, with no sense of order. At the same time it acts as both a badge of honour (look how busy I am!) and a shield to hide behind."
Just look at the mess that is my desk at home (work colleagues can confirm my office desk is probably even worse). To see it in its full-size horror with notes check it out at Flickr.
So now I am publicly shamed, I just need to follow the 10 step solution
Ten-step detox
1. Clear the clutter. Instead of incrementally sorting through your drawers and desktop, start by dumping the lot somewhere else and only allowing the important things back.
2. Wipe as you go. Once the decks are cleared, keep them that way by reserving your desktop for live work, not pending.
3. Hydrate. Being dehydrated stops you concentrating. Once you've got a clear desk space, you can make room for a glass of water to keep sipping on; remember a little and often is the key.
4. Stop! Stop doing the things that don't matter and you'll have more time to work on the things that do.
5. Set your own standards. Organisational culture and peer pressure might turn you into a sheep. Be your own person.
6. Make a change a day and you'll get into the swing of accepting that the status quo never remains for long.
7. Stop self-sabotaging. You're the one who makes the work spin out to fit the time. Desist.
8. Volunteer for extra. Help someone else out and you'll find that you reap what you sow.
9. Curb your fear of success.
10. Do the daunting. Putting off tasks you hate takes more time and energy, than it would to get stuck in.
As you can see, in my usual methodical fashion, I started with no. 3. Well, readers can I complete the 10 step program?