Yesterday I worked from home, I do so two out of five days most weeks. During the course of the day I took part in a number of one to one meetings via telephone and on Facetime, as well as group conference calls. With Facetime in particular I find the experience almost identical to a face to face catch up. All of the visual and auditory clues one consciously or subconsciously notices are present and the interiors of co-workers home offices can become familiar places where ones ‘disembodied’ self can go, without having ever visited them in real life.
The article linked above states that “Microsoft Research, […] says the Beam enables its staff in Russia, India and China to have casual chats in the same way as if they bumped into someone in the hallway.” However, this does appear to indicate that this is a one to one conversation that would lack the serendipitous input of those not directly involved in a face to face meeting, who overhear something they are able to contribute to (sometimes positively!) The nearest online equivalent I can think of is the hash tag in Twitter, which can elicit unexpected input in a very similar way. However, unless you’re constant ‘tuned in’ to Twitter those sorts of interventions are rarely sufficiently synchronous to alter the course of a real-time conversation. Maybe that’s where algorithms would come in with the remotely controlled robot selves – spotting patterns in conversations one might be interested in and alerting you to get involved. Scary stuff when one considers some of the office banter one can get involved in!
When I first saw this timeline my baser instincts thought this was a timeline of pornography (paintings in 1478, video in 1977, CD in 2006 and virtual reality in 2016)! However, I’m sure there’s more significance to the dates and it’s probably not the following:
1478 – First printing of Anathomia corporis humani (the first complete published anatomical text).
1977 – VHS video machines released in USA
2006 – Introduction of Blu-ray Disc
2016 – TNW is the logo for ‘The next web’. Linking back to the 1478 date the 2016 date might relate to a VR tour inside the human body that was released on Steam and the Oculus store.
The relevance here is to the periodisation Sterne (2006) refers to. I’m beginning to see that the three blocks of this course, cyberculture, community culture and algorithmic cultures do not refer to particular eras and I will return to this later when we’ve concluded all three block.
Sterne, J (2006) The historiography of cyberculture, chapter 1 of Critical cyberculture studies. New York University Press. pp.17-28. (ebook)
I’m pleased with how my visual artefact turned out and even more pleased that it has prompted lots of interesting and varied interpretation.
I’ve written elsewhere that I can’t lay claim to having considered half of what my fellow students and our tutors have seen in the piece, but one of the benefits of presenting ones thoughts and feeling about a subject in this way is that that it opens up an additional level of discourse and expands one’s own thinking.
I decided to complete as MSc in digital education for two reasons. Firstly I wanted to understand more about a field that was relatively new to me and, secondly, I wanted to experience digital education first hand, to give me some indication of how the experience might feel for the learners I support in my professional practice.
One of the ‘halo benefits’ of this is that the course has exposed me to lots of digital tools that I might not have tried otherwise. WordPress is one of these. It’s something of an ‘industry standard’ and for that reason we adopted it as the blogging platform for our company’s learning academy. This education and digital cultures course is the first time I’ve ‘delved under the hood’ of WordPress and it has been a very useful experience, enabling me to help our bloggers present their own blogs in a more accessible and organised way.
This is great, Nigel! How did you make it? There is so much in this image.
I like the way you’ve used the juxtaposition of what’s happening inside and outside to make a comment on the prevalence of technology, as well as its inherent possibility for variance. Is there something too about the way in which technology can absorb our attention, physically(?) preventing us from seeing what’s beyond it?
from Comments for Nigel’s EDC blog http://ift.tt/2kt3c7n