Puttin' the COM in POSITION

Here is the link to our final project.

Enjoy! (click the link to hear it)

First off, my sincere apologies to Jeremy for not being able to view the video. It was in the Sandbox folder, however, it never made its way onto our website due to technical issues that have not been resolved. It seems that many of our reviewers suggesttions overlapped one another. To start, the biggest problem viewers had with our video is that they were not able to clearly read the text on screen. This will be resolved and zooming will take place. Shayla suggested that we put more content on the webpage and that will be coming with the final product as well, along with instructions of what order to view the content on the website. It seems that voice overs should be used and those too will be part of the final product. Shayla made an interesting point about whether or not this is actually a book review, and upon further investigation of our project, I would agree that we did not exactly produce a “book review” as an end result but more so a comment on Jackson’s argument. As a group, we will need to discuss how our final project should be “presented” and if it still fits into the Kairos book review section. The suggestions we received were very helpful  and will surely help us make a better end product.

-Jason

So far, my part of the project is on target. I have completed my part of the script for our book review. We have also filmed my part of the project, although, it has not been edited yet. On Monday, we will finish filming for the rest of the project, given no technical errors occur.

In her book, Distracted, Maggie Jackson argues that the advent of the Internet and various other technological “distractions” will lead our society into a “coming dark age.” These distractions such as text messages, Google, e-mail, and instant messaging are hindering our ability to think deeply. “We can contact millions of people across the globe, yet we increasingly connect with even our most intimate friends and family via instant messaging, virtual visits, and fleeting meetings that are rescheduled a half dozen times, then punctuated when they do occur by pings and beeps and multitasking” (13). However, I do not agree with Jackson for various reasons. For one, she fails to express to her readers why it may be easier for some people to connect via messaging or online outlets. For example, in the section or her book titled “Focus: E-mailing the Dead and Other Forays into Virtual Living”, Jackson uses the example of the loss of a loved one to show how “virtual graveyards” are hindering our ability to grieve over the dead. She stresses the importance of the actual act of coming together as physical beings as a way of healthy grieving but she ignores that it may, in fact, be easier for some who were not as close to the loved one to post on a Facebook memorial page rather than grieving with the person’s family. This particular argument by Jackson appeals to me because it relates to something that occurred in my life.

A few years back I was attending college in Santa Fe, New Mexico. It was my first semester and I had made quite a few new friends from all over the country. Then winter break came around and we all went back to our respective states for a month. One day, over break, I received a phone call from one of my friends who lived in Texas. He was crying. He had just been contacted by the parents of his roommate, who was from Washington, telling him that his roommate, our friend, had passed away in an automobile accident. We were stunned, however, it was impossible at that time of break for all of us who knew him to get together to grieve in person. So the next logical step for us was to post on our dead friend’s Facebook page or to send text messages to one another talking about the memories we had shared with him. In this sense, Jackson’s argument does not work. It wasn’t feasible, or even possible for us to fly to Washington to attend his funeral with his family. His Facebook page, then, became a place that we could all come together to grieve his loss. In a sense, the form fit the content.

Jackson fails to account for instances in which technology can actually work as an important meeting place. Sure, it may be fitting for the brother, mother, father, or sister of the deceased to grieve in person, in fact, it would be problematic, in our culture, if they didn’t. This leads to another flaw in Jackson’s argument; its one-sidedness. Jackson tends to speak to a demographic that may not have grown up with the technologies that younger generations have and she fails to recognize this.

“When Revision is Redesign: Key Questions for Digital Scholarship” really got me thinking about how our project is going to be presented, as a final product, and how it will be viewed. Our group’s main goal is to submit our final project as a video, however, in thinking about this further, not all monitors are the same size nor are all monitors of the same resolution. When I envisioned this project, I envisioned a viewer would see this video like it was their own computer screen, like they were the ones controlling the computer (without actually doing so of course). Currently, I do not know what to do about this situation or if it is actually a “situation” at all, although, further investigation into the issue may solve this. For instance, I know that Youtube allows a user to view a video in different sizes, although, I do not know if a user must submit said video in each size that it can be viewed in.

Attached are our group roles and storyboard.

storyboard.pptx.pptroles1.docx.doc

I became fascinated with this concept of distraction from my rhetoric class, however, it seemed to amply apply to multimodal composition in that multimodal composition requires you to use different modes of composing. One (or shall I say myself) cannot switch between different modes of compostition without becoming distracted. For instance, every time I go online to make a blog post for this class I will undoubtadly first, check my email, then Facebook, then some type of forum, and then start my blog post, and then check Facebook again. It is a force of habit while on the Internet. At all times, there are at least two tabs open that I am switching between but this does not mean that because I am “off task” I am not learning anytime. I may go on Facebook and click a link that one of my friends has posted about the link between drug use and abilities to compose music or something of that nature. By being distracted, I am also reading and gaining knowledge of new things. I feel like older generations judge younger generations becasue they multi-task constantly but in truth, such multi-taskings are helping up learn more.

Kairos

Out of the three journals we were told to look at, Kairos seemed to be the most “academic.” It seems that the goal of Kairos is to publish work that is directly related to academia. By this I mean, it should be work that could be able to replace a traditional academic text. Kairos values texts that can be used on the web, or webtexts. These texts should must be relative to English Studies and they should employ some element of outside media in production. The content of their journal seems fairly relevant to their audience, who I gather are likely to be professors themselves. I make this assumption because much of their content is scholarly, they also interview scholars as noted on the About page. The values and submission requirements of Kairos are mildly similar to those that we drafted in class. For one, they emphasize for as it is related to content. To quote from the Submissions page, “Praxis encourages authors to consider the appropriate, scholarly use of video, audio, image, and design possibilities in composing webtexts, but the Editors will also consider conventional linear submissions.” Such choices in submission are also relative to audience and how they may perceive a text, which was also one of our criteria. A main thing that Kairos emphasizes is the relationship of a work to its author; copyright. As a class, we didn’t much talk about this. however, I feel that it is still important. Kairos allows authors to copyright their own work so long as if it gets published elsewhere, they note that it was originally published in Kairos.

TheJump

TheJump struck me as interesting because it emphasizes undergraduate work; work that is being done by undergrads, in undergraduate classrooms. They seem to value ANY type of work, webtexts, audio, video, and so forth. TheJump seems to be a very open journal. They write, “Currently we accept submissions in a variety of mediums and a variety formats (from websites to digital videos to the Sophie “books”). Specific submission issues will be handled on a case-by-case basis, but if you have any questions about the logistics of your submission or you are uncertain as to how a particular format/form/style might be considered, send the editor an email with your inquiry.” TheJump differs from other journals in that it requires reflections/analysis from the student and the teacher. However, like Kairos, TheJump does not copyright any of the contributor’s texts. TheJump seems to take more audio/video projects than webtexts, which focus on a variety of social issues. Their evaluation criteria seemed awfully vague, however, it directly relates to our criteria because the work done in TheJump is being produced by students just like us.

Computers and Composition

Like Kairos, Computers and Composition emphasizes texts that utilize the web. It also seems to be geared more towards an academic audience. While investigating further into those who they interview for their issues, I found that ALL people interviewed were from a university setting. Thus, they value work produced in academia. Computers and Composition is interested in theoretical work as well as rhetorical work. Other than that, their guidelines for submission seem relatively lax so long as they are web based.

Final Thoughts:

Each one of these journals seemed to value professionalism and work that has been revised carefully. This seems to be an important part of the creative process, as nothing is perfect. I think that a “careful revision/thought process” can be added to our criteria. I do not mean that it should be a point of analysis of a piece but that it should be something that one should think about while creating their projects.

After much debate, I decided that Mike, Shane, and Billy’s evaluation criteria were the best to use to analyze “Violence of Text”. I will run through their criteria as a list to evaluate the piece.

Purpose/Goal

“Violence of Text” was clearly organized. The introduction by Miles stated the exact purpose of the collaborative project. Once the reader actually gets into the pieces by each individual, navigation seems pretty clear to the audience, on top of how Miles told us the pieces worked. Any computer literate person who reads Kairos should be able to navigate each piece. Each argument also seemed relevant to the text because it heavily used quotes and references to explain the purpose of text, navigation, and the digitalization of text. For example, hypertext. While some of the language employed was difficult, their argument was still clear and the readers of the journal should have the know how or drive to look up any language that may not have been clear. Mark Amerika’s piece actually includes a glossary just in case a reader does not know what he is talking about. This is the perfect example of making a message even more accessible to any given audience.

Content

The form absolutely fits the content. For one, the pieces are in depth and thorough in ideas and text as well as form. For example, the piece where a reader scrolls and losses text each time. The choices are relevant to the argument, purpose, and design. Each piece differs in design and yet it is still linked to the way in which we are presented the content. The argument is researched well and each author offers quotes and sources.