ye olde net…

An article on the resurgence of ‘closed’ social media sites or ways of limiting your social media networks to *actual* friends or net acquaintances – which the writer suggests are remininiscent of old style news boards, bbs’s, and … email lists, for my money.

a short excerpt:

Rebecca Greenfield, writing for Fast Company, traces the return of the internet newsletter to the death of Google Reader. A representative from TinyLetter told her that there was an uptick in users just as Google pulled the plug last year. Some of us switched to other RSS readers, nevertheless a number of bloggers saw their community and traffic take a hit, and posted less as a result. (By the way, Aaron Straup Cope has a tool to read TinyLetters with RSS). Sara Watson told me TinyLetter is one of the sponsors for “99% invisible,” a podcast with an audience of a number of bloggers and former bloggers. There’s another reason why people are turning to newsletters to publish content now: it is a not-quite public and not-quite private way to share information.


anyway, one for the files:



Affordances of the screen versus the page

Materiality is the main factor in the difference in affordances between screen and page.
Reading online is becoming quite common and required for many research projects and in academia. Dissertations submitted for marking at many universities are done electronically and sent to markers in PDF form. Amazon has been offering books in Kindle format for some time. Yet paper-based books continue to be published and sold.

‘Materiality’ here pertains to the discrete object which is the tactile and separate artefact having printed text and diagrams on the surface of separate pages. It is distinct from the published or written or graphic work which can be saved in a file in a computer. Although laptops and computer hardware in general are artefacts and material objects that can be transported, their affordances lie in the amount or quantity of files and texts which can be stored on the one hard drive. At the time of writing these are still somewhat heavy and unwieldy so that they are difficult to read in bed or put in one’s pocket for example. However, even with advances in technology that allow small lightweight personal readers such as Kindle to be manufactured and thus easily transported, there are still differences in the affordances of each modality that lend the book and paper magazine their continuing allure.

Now we have the prospect of Apple releasing their iSlate, a small transportable mobile phone enhanced reader – and one might also guess (hope) further enhanced with the capabilities that Han earlier introduced, that is to say, touch screen interfacing.
Here’s one of the latest rumour milling-abouts from Wired: [btw, sorry, but the taped interview is in french – the article tho is in english]

Read the rest of this entry »

Meta – Responses as an Aspect of Following

source thread

It seems to me a response, my response, to be found relevant, will come about, as-it-were, in the eye of the beholder.

Alternately, a response is relevant simply because it was evoked by the ‘ecology’ given by the thread.

Whether your reader is following your thread may or may not be ascertained from this same reader’s responses.

My own opinion is: you may have evidence that I wasn’t following your comments, but, at the same time, you may be ignoring evidence that my responses are following your comments.

Of course, this depends what ‘follow’ means. This also points in the direction of a question about what certain evidence is, where it concerns the fact of a response following from a comment.

Actually, I’d be interested in how ‘following’ is ascertained as a matter of analysis of language. It seems to me ‘following’ as a tangible aspect, marked as it would be by references back to the/a comment would be ascertainable to some degree. But, this would not then provide certain evidence that the comment was or was not being followed in the wider, sense of what the respondent actually was following.

Also, I assume the suspicion one’s comment is not being followed in the narrow sense given by analysis of references, etc., means—sort of—that absence of references at least means the response doesn’t follow.

Which is to suggest: the writer cannot know whether their writing is being followed, unless a response indicates the writing is being followed. However, this seems to imply also that the writer’s attitude about being followed, if there is no such indication, would realistically be agnostic about the fact of being followed, or not followed.

This problem also penetrates the affectual domain, since it is common enough that unrelated responses or lack of responses may lead the writer to feeling ignored.

Subscribe: Entries | Comments

Copyright © NetDynam 2.0 2017 | NetDynam 2.0 is proudly powered by WordPress and Ani World.

Proudly using Dynamic Headers by Nicasio WordPress Design