In-Class Video/Audio Editing Assignment

It was a fun assignment composing a video and audio file (finished clips below) with the samples that you provided us in class – mainly because I don’t typically work with these media. I liked using the two media, video and audio, to create one project because it allowed me to create a certain feeling, or mood, to the final video. Below is a brief description of the approach that I used for this assignment.

I began the editing process by watching and listening all of the clips. Then, I imported the video clips into Windows Movie Maker in chronological order, and I also imported a song that I thought complimented it. After trimming this song to match the length of the video, I watched what I had so far, and it looked a bit rough. To make the scenes flow together more smoothly, I added a few transitions. This was a little challenging because I didn’t want to add too many different transitions, but I didn’t want to just use the traditional fade either. After finding a healthy balance, I added some opening and closing titles and watched the video again. Overall, I liked what I had, but I thought that it needed a little something extra. That’s when I started to experiment with different video effects, and I was very happy with “Film Age, Old” because I felt that it added to the nostalgic feeling of the video.

There were a few challenges that I ran into with the editing of this video, aside from the transitions. Although I liked the music that I layered behind the video, there were some scenes where the music wasn’t synching well. I overcame this to a degree by speeding up certain scenes, but overall the synching still isn’t great. Another constraint was that I wanted to split the sound from the video files that you gave us so that I could delete some of the background noise, but I wasn’t sure how to do that.

I also created an audio file by using Audacity, and I thought that this was more difficult than the video editing process. As with the video, I listened to all of the narrated clips, and I organized them into what I thought was the chronological order. Then, I imported them into Audacity, and listened to what I had so far. At this point, I realized that I needed to edit some of the silence out and some of the narration so that it transitioned better. I repeated the process of listening to the entire file and editing parts out until I was relatively happy with what I had.

Although I’m not used to working with these programs or media, the editing process wasn’t all that different than writing/editing a paper. For example, before I start a paper, I read the materials that my paper’s about, and then I organize my thoughts into chronological order. Once I have a draft, I read it over and edit it. Then I read it again, revise it further, and reread it until I’m happy with it.

Shaun's Commute.wa...

Hosted by eSnips

Book Report - Delete: The Virtue Of Forgetting in the Digital Age

For this assignment, I chose to read Delete: The Virtue of Forgetting in the Digital Age by Viktor Mayer-Schonberger because it addresses an intriguing topic – the importance of forgetting. In the past, it was easy, even normal, for people to forget details over time, but in today’s digital age, it’s nearly impossible due to these four factors: digitization, cheap storage, easy retrieval, and global reach. But even though it’s easy and cheap to remember, it’s necessary to forget because people and their views change over time. It’s not fair that information, whether offered voluntarily or not, can follow a person for their lifetime. Of course, there are some steps that people can take to protect their personal privacy, such as digital abstinence, but not even this response is foolproof.

One person who especially wishes that the Internet could forget is Stacy Snyder, who in 2006 was looking forward to starting her teaching career. She had satisfactorily completed all of her coursework when she was told by her university that her teaching certificate would be denied due to her inappropriate behavior. It turns out that a teacher, who worked at the school where Stacy was interning discovered that Stacey, like 110 million people, had a MySpace page, and on this page, she had posted a picture of herself dressed as a pirate drinking from a cup with the caption, “Drunken Pirate.” Although Stacy was over the legal drinking age, the teacher argued that students could potentially find this picture of her consuming alcohol. Perhaps Stacey should have shown better judgment and not posted the questionable picture, but the author cautions, “Should everyone who self-discloses information lose control over that information forever, and have no say about whether and when the Internet forgets this information (4)?”

Similarly, Canadian psychotherapist, Andrew Feldmar, wishes that some of his personal information could be forgotten. In 2006, he was attempting to cross the U.S./Canadian border when a guard decided to enter his name into an Internet search engine. The guard found an article that the respected psychotherapist had written for a 2001 journal, in which he admitted taking LSD in the 1960s and because of this article, Feldmar was denied further entry to the United States (4).

In these two cases, personal information was volunteered, but in most instances people provide information about themselves without realizing it. For example, in 2007 Google reported that it had a record of every query that every user had entered, and it knew whether that user clicked on one of the results that it had returned or not. It would seem that Google remembers more details about us than we remember about ourselves. Other organizations, such as travel Web sites, doctor’s offices, credit bureaus, and law enforcement agencies, keep digitized records that contain our personal information too (6-9).

Mayer-Schonberger concedes that there are some benefits to a digital comprehensive memory, but the cons outweigh them. Since the Internet and other digital devices, like camera memory cards and USB storage devices, keep a perfect memory of the information that people provide (knowingly or not) people will not only be judged by their present peers, but also their future peers (11). In the past, when a teenager wrote an article for a school newspaper, she didn’t have to worry about that article following her around for her entire career. Today, it is more likely that the article would remain attached to her long after her views have potentially changed over the years. As people are becoming more aware of the Internet’s ability to remember them and negative cases, such as Snyder and Feldmar’s are becoming more common, people are becoming more hesitant to express their true beliefs. The author smartly concludes that, “the future has a chilling effect on what we do in the present (12).”

Human memory is complex, and for thousands of years, our ancestors have been looking for ways to increase it. Remembering consists of two parts: storing information and later being able to retrieve that information. Early humans realized that if they repeated an act, like sewing, that they would be able to commit it to their memory, and this is known as procedural memory. Another type, declarative memory, is when “recall from procedural memory is automatic (19).” For instance, remembering a special occasion would fall into the latter category. One simply searches their brain for this information and they can remember it. Scientists are also unsure of what it means to forget. Many believe that information can’t be erased from the brain unless if psychological damage occurs. Rather the information is still stored in the brain, but there is no link to it (16-19).

Throughout the years, remembering was made easier for humans by language and other media, such as paintings and script. Language made it easier for people to communicate information to one another, and it also allowed for information to be spread geographically and for it to be passed from generation to generation. However, it took a lot of time and effort to communicate via language. Likely, information had to be repeated numerous times for the other person to remember it accurately. People soon realized that it would be easier to remember by using external memory. During the Renaissance, it was chic for families to hire a painter to capture a moment in time by painting a family portrait. This, however, was time-consuming and expensive. Writing was another means that our ancestors used to preserve memories, but this too was costly. Even with Johannes Guttenberg’s printing press, books were still a novelty until the 20th century. Similarly, film and photography were expensive ways of creating memories. In the 1850s, it cost 50¢ - $10 to develop a photo, which was the equivalent of $100 - $2,000 in 2006. Furthermore, a negative of the image wasn’t produced (23-46).

Now, however, it’s much easier and cheaper to remember because of digitization, cheap storage, easy retrieval, and global reach. Many media today are kept in a digital format: music, photography, video, and newsletters; even personal files, such as letters and journals are stored digitally. And unlike analog media, digital media withstands time and perfect copies of digital files can be made. Furthermore, it’s cheap to store these digital files. Consider that “in 2008, the cost of storage for one megabyte of information had been reduced to one hundredth of a cent (63).” If a person runs out of room on their storage device, they can simply purchase another one rather inexpensively. Digital storage in most cases is even cheaper than keeping an analog version. For example, a laser-printed piece of paper costs around 10¢, and a megabyte worth of text would cost around $50, whereas a megabyte of digital storage costs around one hundredth of a cent. It’s also easier to retrieve information when it exists digitally. One simply has to type a few words into a search box to find the relevant information, opposed to searching an index. Finally, a person can access stored information regardless of their location, as long as they are connected to that network (52-79).

“Until a few decades ago…to remember was the exception; to forget, the default (92).” But now, it’s costly to forget, and as a result we will all pay a price. In the past, people had more control over the information that they shared with others. For example, Stacy Snyder may have only intended for her friends to view the “drunken pirate” picture, but her supervisors also viewed it. Furthermore, a perfect copy of this photo could be redistributed to anyone without Stacy’s knowledge. There is also a comprehensive amount of information that is collected on individuals in various databases over time. It’s truly frightening that some information providers collect this information and create bundles that include a person’s interests, friends, and beliefs, and they will sell this information to anyone for a relatively small sum. In the past, a person had the opportunity of creating a fresh start in a new location, but not so much anymore (97-104).

There are some steps that people can take to protect themselves, but the effectiveness is questionable. Perhaps the most obvious action is digital abstinence. It would seem that if people avoid providing their information to a digital memory, they could easily be forgotten. However, they would also have to avoid search engines, like Google, and other ecommerce sites, such as Amazon. A major problem with giving all of this up is that a person wouldn’t receive the benefits of these sites. They make browsing easy. Another solution would be to enforce stricter information privacy rights. This would be tricky though. In theory, a person would give a company, such as the Post Office, a property right to her personal information, and she would relinquish control. However, what if she wanted the Post Office to have her new address, but she didn’t want to allow them to provide this information to a third party? These laws would have to be carefully crafted to work. The author also proposes an information ecology, in which digital files can only be kept for a certain time period. For example, DNA collected from witnesses and cleared suspects is deleted from databases in some U.S. states. Another “possible response aimed at preventing or mitigating the challenges of power and time posed by digital memory (128)” is perfect contextualization. In this case, people would have to evaluate the various information that is collected on a person and come to their own conclusions. This policy would create “a transparent society, in which comprehensive information about everything is available to everyone, and individual information control would be replaced by general transparency (164).” This system, too, has flaws. In this type of society, people would feel as though they were constantly being watched, and they would act with that in mind (128-165).

I really enjoyed this book because I agree with the author, Viktor Mayer-Schonberger, that our privacy rights are severely compromised in the digital age, and that we all have “the right to be forgotten (ix).” It’s tough because I, like many people, want to provide some personal information to various sites for different reasons. For example, I upload some personal details to my Facebook profile because it’s a way of socializing and keeping my friends updated on my life. I also use Google religiously. Before this book, I knew that it kept a record of searches, but I was shocked by the accuracy and details of their records. It’s truly frightening that they could tell me what I searched for in 2002 – something that I have clearly forgotten. Furthermore, it’s unsettling that some companies collect information about me that is stored in several databases, and this information is for sale. As the book details, until recent years, it was normal for humans to forget, and this allowed for people to act in the present. Now, however, it’s more expensive and difficult to forget, due to digitization, cheap storage, easy retrieval, and global reach. After reading this book, I’m going to limit the amount of personal information, in the form of pictures, videos, and blogs that I post online. I’m not scared of being judged by my peers now, but I don’t want to be judged by future peers. I also hope that we as a society will take careful consideration before judging others based on ideas that they express in a digital environment.

Works Cited

Mayer-Schonberger, Viktor. Delete: The Virtue of Forgetting in the Digital Age. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2009.

"An Interview with Andrew Feenberg," by Mark Zachry

In 2007, Mark Zachry interviewed Andrew Feenberg - a leader in the philosophy of technology, whose work deals with the relationship between technology and society, for Technical Communication Quarterly. Zachry explains that before Feenberg’s work, “technology was treated as an irresistible or deterministic force (453).” Since then, it is accepted that people play a key role in the evolution of technology, and society’s actions determine technology’s course. (It seems that Feenberg and Marshall McLuhan are on opposite ends of the spectrum here).

One of the first questions that Zachry asks Feenberg is, “How did you get interested in computers?” and the answer contains an interesting history lesson. He was working at the Western Behavioral Sciences Institute in the early 1980s when he received his first computer. At this time computers were rare, and a personal computer cost around $5,000! Also, in these early days, computers were used primarily for filing and calculating, but he and his colleagues used them for communicating. He refers to this as “computer-mediated communication (456).”

He continued to study computer-mediated communication through his work with the Minitel, which was “a domestic computing network with a very simple interface that anyone could learn to use (457).” The Minitel was intended as a means for people to access information, such as, train schedules and phone listings, but hackers figured out how to instant message via the technology. (Wouldn’t this be an example of remediation?)

Throughout the interview it is obvious that Feenberg, like Donald Norman, is very interested in the influence that user’s have on the redesign of technology. He explains that the design of the Internet changed because it’s more commonly used as a communications device opposed to an information device. Another interesting detail that he provides is that computer companies used to think that they were connecting people to machines, but there came a time when they realized that they were rather connecting people to people. This observation lead them to design a program that allowed people to communicate with one another (458).

Zachry also asks about the relationship between critical theory and the design process. As Feenberg explains, critical theory “is a critique of domination exercised through the organization of technically mediated institutions (459).” I’m still not sure that I understand this term, but I think that it refers to a generalization of the characteristics of society, and companies design products with these characteristics in mind.

Towards the end of the article, they discuss online communities and education, and I thought that this section was particularly interesting. In the 1980s, Feenberg spent years experimenting with online education, but it never really went anywhere until years later when this technology became all the rage. All of a sudden, the president of the state college and university system in California decided to put the equipment into the classrooms for online education, even though nobody knew how they were supposed to use this technology to teach (468). This reminds me of the Norman reading, when he discusses the implementation of the university’s phone system. They spent millions of dollars installing these fancy phones without trying them out, and unfortunately most of the staff dislikes the phones (Norman 19). In both cases, the ideal would be to test the equipment and work out the kinks before installing such expensive equipment.

Click here to view the entire Interview.

Works Cited

Norman, Donald A. The Design of Everyday Things. Basic Books, 1988.

Zachry, Mark. "An Interview with Andrew Feenberg." Technical Communications Quarterly, 16.4 (2007): 453-472.

The Design of Everyday Things, by Donald Norman

Preface to the 2002 Edition

Donald A. Norman’s goal with his book, The Design of Everyday Things (DOET), is to encourage designers to employ good designs when it comes to everyday items so that these items can be used easily, efficiently, and enjoyably by the consumer. He explains that too many objects, such as, doors, telephones, and automobiles are designed poorly, and in effect bring frustration to the user.

Through his work as a cognitive scientist, Norman became especially interested in human error. At first, he focused his work on finding ways to help people avoid making mistakes. His interests shifted though after he participated on a team that was supposed to investigate the mistakes of control-room operators at a nuclear power plant accident. Instead, he and the team found that the errors were caused by the design of the room and not the operators (viii).

Similarly, he began to notice that the designs of everyday items were designed poorly. For instance, during his time at the Applied Psychology unit in Cambridge, England, he was puzzled by the doors; some slid open, while others required a push or pull. In any case, there were no visual clues that indicated which method to use. His annoyance with the complexity of these types of items inspired him to write this book, which was originally titled, The Psychology of Everyday Things (POET). He later switched the title to DOET after learning that the book was being shelved in the psychology section of the bookstore opposed to the design section because of the word “psychology” (viii-x).

The three main topics that DOET covers are:

1. It’s not your fault: I feel so much better about myself after reading this selection because there are a few common items that I occasionally have trouble with, such as, the DVD player, oven stove, and telephone at work. It’s good to hear that many people have similar issues with appliances that should be simple to use. However, they aren’t because of poor design (x).


2. Design principles: Principles (a short list follows) are discussed so that designers can create easy-to-use products. (a.) Conceptual models – Items should explain how they work through their appearance. There should be “an obvious and natural relationship between the location and operation of the controls, so you always know what does what (xi-xii),” and Norman refers to this as “natural mapping.” (b.) Feedback – It’s important for a person to receive feedback so that they know the effect of their action. For example, at work I have to submit various requests online and after I submit them, I receive an e-mail, which tells me that my request was successfully submitted. Without that, I wouldn’t know whether my request was received or not. (c.) Constraints – Designers should create a product so that it can only be used one way. For instance, batteries should only be able to be inserted into a device one way, or if there are multiple ways, each way should work. (d.) Affordances – The proper actions of an item should be obvious to a person, while the improper actions shouldn’t (xi-xii).


3. The power of observation: Learn to watch people and the way that they use objects. This, according to Norman, is the most important advice to take away from the book (xii).

Successful Designs take all of these items into account, in addition to cost and aesthetics. And although this book debuted in 1988, these design principles are still critical when it comes to newer technologies, like cell phones and computers. Norman writes that “high technology changes rapidly, but everyday life changes slowly (xiv).” Therefore the design of these items needs to be intuitive to a user so that they can understand how to use them properly and easily.

The Psychopathology of Everyday Things

The first chapter continues to explain that the difference between easy and hard-to-use items is their design. “Well-designed objects are easy to interpret and contain visible clues to their operation (2),” whereas poorly-designed objects are difficult to use and contain false, or no visible clues.

Two pieces of advice that Norman provides for creating good designs are:

1. “Provide a good conceptual model,” and
2. “make things visible (13).”

He acknowledges that some tasks, such as flying an airplane, would be difficult to the average person, even if the airplane was designed well. However, turning on light switches and faucets, and opening doors should be easy. He provides an example about one of his friends who was temporarily trapped in a post office in Europe. While the typical door has a hinge on one side, and to open it, one must pull or push on the opposite side, the doors to the post office didn’t have any visible hinges or pillars. The friend was trapped between two sets of doors because it turned out that he was unknowingly pushing on the hinged side of the door, and he didn’t escape until another group passed through. This was a frustrating situation that happened because the necessary parts of the object were invisible to the user, and the function of the object was unclear. The designer could have created visibility by including a flat plate on the doors so that people would naturally know to push on that spot to open them. This concept would refer to natural design (3-4).

I have another example of a design that has poor visibility. A few weeks ago, I bought a Honda Civic, and when I went to fill it up with gas for the first time, I spent nearly 10 minutes figuring out how to open the gas casket. In my previous car and the other cars that I’m familiar with, there’s a visible ridge on the casket that naturally tells you to lift up. Since this ridge doesn’t exist on my new car, I tried to push the casket and then I tried to pry it open. Neither of these actions worked, and embarrassed, I got into my car and started to read the manual. It turns out that there is a button on the floor by the door that you need to push in to open the gas casket. This button isn’t visible or obvious to a person who has never had a Honda.

Another principle that Norman discusses in detail is mapping, which means “the relationship between two things (23),” and I think that I can illustrate this term by explaining an everyday item that I occasionally have problems with - the stove. There is nothing special about my stove – it has two back burners, two front burners, and four knobs that control the burners, which run left to right. The problem is that I’ll sometimes intend to turn on the back burner, and I realize minutes later that I actually turned on the front burner. Why are the knobs in a horizontal line? I would understand which knob is associated with which burner better if two knobs were on the left in a vertical line and two knobs were on the right in a vertical line. This mapping would be more natural for me.

Other devices, like telephones, can be difficult to use because they have the ability to perform so many functions (assuming that the user can correctly execute them) and coincidentally have too many controls. Why add 50 functions to a telephone when the average user only knows how to perform a handful of them? A few days ago at work, I spent nearly 20 minutes trying to change my voicemail. (I checked the manual, and there were no instructions). I had to dial my number, login with my password, and skip through all of my voicemails before I got to a recording that went something like this, “You have finished playing all of your voicemails. For more options press 7*.” Then, I had the option of pressing one, for more voicemail commands or two, for mailbox commands. After several menus and selecting random numbers, I did finally get to change my voicemail, but why couldn’t I get to my greeting right away? Why did I have to listen to all of my saved voicemails first? Perhaps if I pressed 7* in the beginning I would have been able to get to the proper menu faster, but why did the designer choose an arbitrary number like 7*?

Works Cited

Norman, Donald A. The Design of Everyday Things. Basic Books, 1988.

"Social Media Revolution" (YouTube video)

The video “Social Media Revolution” opens with the question, “Is social media a fad?” and according to the multitude of information that it provides, the answer is an overwhelming “No.” The statistic in it that really blows my mind is the time that it took older media to reach 50 million users opposed to newer media. For the radio it was 38 years and for TV it took 13 years; whereas the Internet only took four years and Facebook had 100 million people create an account in less than 9 months!

It’s an interesting time right now because so many people are now turning to the Web and social networking sites for news. It’s exciting because a plethora of information is available instantly, and users can also receive input from “word of mouth.” For instance, if a person is interested in trying a new restaurant, they can easily find a review for it on the Web. On the other hand, this could be bad for advertisers because if somebody has a bad experience with their company, that person can tell virtually everybody about it.

This digital shift has other cons. One of the points in the video is that 24 of the 25 biggest newspapers are suffering record losses in circulation. Not only am I concerned for those who work in the newspaper industry, but I’m also fearful that print media will disappear altogether. Maybe I’m just old-fashioned, but I think that the experience of reading a hard copy is much more enjoyable than reading online – when I have the time.

Another thing that worries me is the amount of information that people make about themselves available online. I think that it was cute that the video made this point by saying, “What happens in Vegas stays on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube.” It’s obvious that the amount of privacy that an individual has is much less in this environment. In the past, if somebody made a mistake, they could forget about it and move one, but now their digital footprint follows them throughout their lifetime.

For some reason it also unsettles me that Ashton Kutcher and Ellen DeGenres have so many followers on Twitter. Obviously the Internet contains an infinite amount of information, but how much of it is relative or helpful? Are we just filling ourselves up with useless information?

I don’t want to give anyone the wrong impression. I love the Internet and social networking sites, but I feel like everyone is always such a cheerleader for it, and they don’t pause to think of the negatives (hmm…that sounds awfully McLuhanesque). Anyways, here are some of the other facts that surprised me in the video:

• Facebook has a large enough population that it could be the fourth largest country;
• the fastest growing sector on Facebook is 55-65 year-old ladies;
• 1.5 million pieces of information (pictures, videos, blogs, status updates, etc.) are shared on Facebook everyday.

Works Cited

"Social Media Revolution" YouTubehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twwURpa52ho>

Pew Internet Report - "Digital Footprints"

The Pew Internet Report, Digital Footprints, by Mary Madden, Susannah Fox, Aaron Smith, and Jessica Vitak discusses how personal information is changing due to the popularity of the Web and social networking sites, such as Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter. Virtually everybody has a digital footprint, or a trail of online information, whether it is personal details that are entered intentionally or information that is uploaded by another party, and it’s important to understand that this information can be searchable by anyone, and furthermore, that it’s attached to an individual forever.

Although most online adults are aware that the information that they make available is open to the world, they don’t take steps to protect this information. I’m surprised by this because I, like 21% of adult Internet users, am cautious about the information that I post online (ii). Usually, I don’t even update my status on Facebook because I don’t necessarily want everybody to know what I’m doing or what I’m thinking.

I do regulate the amount and type of personal details that I post on the Web, but I don’t often search for information about myself. I fortunately and unfortunately have a very common name. In addition to the 4,500 Jessica Moore’s with a Facebook account, there is a Jessica Moore porn star, WNBA player, and Australian tennis player. It disappoints me because I don’t want a potential employer or an acquaintance to think that I’m one of these other girls (especially the porn star), but it’s also comforting because although I don’t post negative information online, I do like privacy. However, I fall into the minority - 87% of individuals who search for information about themselves online say that the information is accurate (iii).

Like most Internet users, I’m not sure how much of my personal information is available online, aside from the information that I actively provide on Facebook. On my profile, I list my political affiliation, who I date, my favorite TV shows, what I like to do in my spare time, and I occasionally post photos. I’m not sure, however, about my passive digital footprint, which is “personal data made accessible online with no deliberate intervention from an individual (3).” I’m sure that my e-mail address, home address, and employer are somewhere on the open Web, but I didn’t find them through a simple Google search.

Even though I don’t Google my own name all that often, I do regularly use a search engine to find information on other people, and in fact more than 50% of online adults have also done this. Usually, I (and the others) am searching for contact information or we are searching for somebody from our past that we lost contact with (iv).

Before the reading, I knew that a digital footprint follows every Internet user around, but this article made me think. I’ve come to expect that an individual’s personal and basic information is available; I didn’t consider that this sort of information used to take professional investigators months to find. Even though I consider myself to be cautious of the material that I post online, I don’t like the idea that a random person could potentially find out where I work, who my friends are, and where I live.

Works Cited

Madden, Mary, Susannah Fox, Aaron Smith, Jessica Vitak. "Digital Footprints." Pew Internet & American Life Project. 16 Dec. 2007. 17 Oct. 2009 http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2007/Digital-Footprints.aspx>

“What value do users derive from social networking applications?” by Rebekah Russell-Bennett & Larry Neale

This article by Rebekah Russell-Bennett and Larry Neale examines the qualities that online applications, such as “Scrabble,” “Which Sex and the City Character are You?” and “Green Patch,” must possess for users of a social networking site (SNS) to recommend them to their friends. This study is relevant because advertisers are turning to SNS to reach Generation Y consumers, and since advertising on these sites is expensive, they are creating applications, which are cheap to develop and free to distribute. The success of these applications depends on users recommending them to their friends, and for this to happen, an application must offer the user value (2).

According to the authors, “value is relevant to social networking where the exchange between customer and organization is not currency, but time and information (3).” The four categories of value that Facebook applications provide are emotional, functional, social, and altruistic. Emotional value refers to the enjoyment one gets by using an application; functional value applies to the performance; social value is created when people connect to one another; and altruistic value is gained when an application can help society (3).

To answer the key questions, “What value do users get from applications?” and “What qualities of an application encourage or discourage somebody from passing them on to friends?” this study asked these questions in an anonymous online survey:

• What makes an application cool?
• What would encourage or discourage you from passing an application on to a friend?

Some of the answers to the first question are the application’s allowance for self-categorization and interactivity, as well as, novelty and rarity. The next question isn’t as easy to answer because it varies from user to user. For instance, some people recommend an application because it wastes time. For those who have time to waste, they might recommend, but for those who find wasting time pointless, they would not. Another example to prove this point is competition. Some people (more men than women) like applications that rank them among their peers, whereas others find this to be judgmental (4-7).

While men tend to like applications that promote competition, women prefer features that allow them to express themselves. I don’t regularly do applications on Facebook because I don’t have a lot of time, but I have done “Which Sex and the City Character are You?” and a few others that would fall into the social category. In every case, the applications that I have recommended to a friend have been applications that didn’t take up too much time and didn’t feature competition.

I think it’s interesting that the applications that a user spends time on are another piece that shapes their digital footprint. For example, if you know nothing about a person, but you see on their profile that they are most like the character Samantha from Sex and the City, that tells you something about them. Or, if somebody takes a quiz and it turns out that they are funnier than their friends, an aspect of their personality is revealed. Before reading this article and the Pew Internet Report, Digital Footprints, I hadn’t considered this.

Works Cited

Neale, Larry & Rebekah Russell-Bennett. "What value do users derive from social networking applications?" First Monday, Volume 14. 17 Oct. 2009 http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2506/2278>