23. Human-computer interfaces"The Internet was originally designed to enable humans to instruct computers to act at a distance. The Internet still has this capacity; thus, we begin to see the emergence of a cultural sensibility in which the hard and fast distinctions between humans and computers as different kinds of ‘communicating devices’ breaks down. Telnet and similar functions on the Internet are different to programming and interacting with a computer on your desktop because you can’t physically see the computer at the other end of the connection.This phenomenon has been exploited, for fun and research, by artificial intelligence programmers and language program developers. In one famous case, a ‘bot’ (robot) called Julia was developed (essentially a sophisticated program) that could, via IRC, fool people for at least a little while into believing it was a real human. It has been said that this example proves more about the lack of communication skills of humans than the abilities of computers.The Internet lessens the recognition of difference between humans and computers because, at a distance, it is often feels similar to communicate and act on the Internet regardless of whether one is speaking with a human or a machine.Interacting with websites feels similarly impersonal or, more subtly, further indicates the extent to which humans readily accept the presence of machine-like ‘intelligence’ in their lives." (Allen, N.D.)Response:
Technological advances have allowed humans to readily accept intelligent machines in their lives. It is the subtly that modern browsers and applications afford that allows this acceptance. In the early days of the web users accessing information on other computers had to be conversant with the language and functions of computers and the networks they were accessing, it was an experience limited to a selected group of people with the skills, knowledge and interest required to participate. Modern browsers take away the complexity of connecting with others computers, when you use telnet, the process make obvious you are connecting to another computer.
Not anymore, anyone with a computer and modem can access the web, with only a vague understanding of how it works… you click a button and the magical Internet fairies deliver the information to you. Did we accept the machines or did they just get easier to use?
What are our day-to-day experiences with humanity? As technology becomes more sophisticated and more subtle, the human experience will be more accurately replicated by machines.
I looked at the Turing Test; in essence it is a test of how well a machine can imitate human responses. Through reflection on this concept I propose that we have evolved to the point where human responses are being conditioned to imitate machines. Images from the Terminator movies haunt the concept of intelligent machines but are we ourselves evolving into those machines that take over the world?
10 years ago I was in Tasmania, it was regarded that Tasmania, then, was 20 years behind the mainland. We found the people amazing. You would pull up for fuel and the attendant would wander out, lean on the bowser and engage you in conversation, genuinely interested in where you where from and going. We experienced this over and over again throughout our trip and where the recipients of many little kindnesses. When we told others about this it the general opinion is that’s the way things used to be. People had time for each other, even total strangers.
I go to a fast food restaurant and order lunch, what is there to distinguish the transaction that takes place to the transaction of requesting information on a dynamic web site? I contest very little, (other than the fact that the web site usually gets it right) at least when dealing with machines you expect no empathy and engagement, even when dealing with a pleasant and efficient staff member, are the smile and courtesy not pre-programmed through training?
I could put the day-to-day interaction I have with humans to the Turing Test and come up with similar results. Modern conditioning is diluting our humanity; we are gradually becoming less interested in each other, more machine like in our attitude to those we don’t know, at the same time, machines are becoming more adept in their ability to mimic the best parts of human behaviour, for example, question answering bots on webs sites are helpful and courteous, automated voice recognition answering systems are getting more efficient and user friendly.
Web based resources/sites:Site 1: Oppy, Graham; Dowe, Bruce (2008). The Turing Test.Retrieved 8th August 2008.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/turing-test/This page is dedicated to the pioneering work of Alan Turing. It deals with many of his experiments based around the theme of computing machinery and intelligence. Turing’s idea was not so much about machines ‘fooling’ people, but their ability to imitate people. Incredibly he expressed these ideas in 1950, it seems perceivable now that machines could be subtle enough to mimic humans, but then it was groundbreaking work. This page also offers alternates to the Turing Test; some suggesting it is variously, too hard, too easy, or too narrow. The Test has received copious amounts of acclaim and criticism, but it has an important place in the history of discussion on artificial intelligence.
Site 2: Tatai, Gabor; Laufer, Laszlo; Arpad Kiss, Annamaria Csordis; Szalo, Attila (2003). The Chatbot Who Loved Me.AAMAS02 Workshop on 'Embodied conversational agents - let's specify and evaluate them. Retrieved 8th August 2008.
http://64.233.179.104/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache:_vec8HMXBNIJ:www.vhml.or/workshops/aamas2003/papers/tatai/tatai.pdf+customer+service+chat+botI found this paper interesting, even though it was written in 2003 and could possibly be considered outdated. I found the level of research and development being targeted at improving machines emotional responses to humans fascinating. It opened my eyes to how seriously some researchers are trying to develop software that imitates and manipulates human emotional responses. This type of work confirms my assertion that the gap between human and machine behaviours is narrowing and will narrow further as machines ‘catch up’. This type of development has repercussions for society; as with the Turing Test, if a machine can convince you it cares, does it really care?
20. Active communication generates identity awareness"The common term for people who belong to lists (or other internet communities of discussion) and who do not actively participate is 'lurkers'. Lurkers, obviously, are real people who exist in many ways. Yet, within the context of a particular list, if they are not posting, then they appear invisible and, indeed, can lack identity completely.One can only generate awareness of one's membership of an email list by posting messages; others' awareness of your identity will enable them to include you in their discussions and enable you to play your part in the community that is the listWhen many people create a website, they do so not to present information, or to ground communication, but instead to create themselves online. Part of the difficulty in sifting through and using web-based information sources is that this motivation can make the resulting websites misleading, partial or confusing. (Allan, N.D.).
Response:
People need to post if they want to establish their personality in a group. Even if they barley contribute to the discussion, regular posts allow them to get their ‘brand’ out there. By posting we are establishing our brand, and the nature of what is posted will determine others attitude to the brand.In real life we have expectations of how our friends and colleagues will react to certain information and situations, so to do we learn how some members of these groups will contribute and react to information that is posted. Online people present a condensed version of themselves. But is the way they represent themselves online a true reflection of their personality?
I think it depends on the nature of the discussion group and the motivation of the poster. They may be posting to establish their expertise in a particular subject, or for amusement, or even as a form of escapism. It also depends on whether they ever intended to meet other members of the group, people may treat the facts a little more recklessly if they were and intended to remain anonymous.
A community is not just about the information it produces, it is important how that information affects its readers, and this is often unknown. Once published information can change the script of the reader’s life, it may directly affect a person’s attitude and behaviour. However part of that reaction may not include an online response.
So although a person may be a ‘lurker’ on a discussion board, and effectively have no online identity in that forum, the information contained on the discussion may affect the ‘lurker’ who absorbs, but does not comment, more than any other member of the board. A lurker may not comment, perhaps due to a lack of knowledge on the topic, or a lack of confidence expressing, defending or attacking views.
The idea that people create a personal web site in order to create an online presence is interesting, but similar to what happens in discussion groups. The question is; is the online version of the person an accurate representation of the offline version. In many cases it is not.
Online people can concentrate on their strengths or, importantly, shore up their weaknesses. This is very shaky ground as far as I am concerned; there is an illusion of anonymity online. This can create a level of disinhibition that can lead to a person leaving themselves very exposed in the online community. Once its out there it is very hard to get it back! In most cases this feeling of anonymity is pure illusion. If people have the desire and know-how to find out who someone is they can.
The need to create an online presence is at the heart of bloging, the idea that people want their views to be stated, if not heard. The majority of blogs would never be read, other than by the author and a few close friends.
Web based resources/sites:Site 1: Nonnecke, Blair; Preece, Jenny (2001). Why lurkers lurk. Americas Conference on Information Systems 2001.
Retrived 5th August 2008.
http://64.233.179.104/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache:CKWV5N2aEUwJ:www.cis.uoguelph.ca/~nonnecke/research/whylurk.pdf+lurkerThis paper examines why people lurk and discusses the online identity. It asserts that the majority of members of online discussion boards are lurkers, which supports my suggestion that a lot of people read the posts in a group and are affected by the information contained there but part of that reaction may not include a posted response. Its analysis of why people lurk claims it can be a lack of confidence and a “level of passivity associated with TV viewers”. Interestingly it found that most interviewee’s lurked in some forums, but where strong contributors in other, so it appears to depend on topic and the ‘feel’ of the forum.
Site 2: Waiter, Katherine (2001). Online Communication: Changing the Way We Perceive Others and Ourselves?
Retrieved 9th August 2008.
http://64.233.179.104/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache:KBW95pxOO60J:www.watier.org/kathy/papers/CMCpaper.pdf+truthful+presentation+of+self+onlineThis paper discusses many of the issues covered in my assignment. It deals with anonymity and the effect that has on the individual posting the information. I believe this applies to people posting on blogs and discussion boards. The fact that they think they are anonymous gives them a freedom to express themselves however they like. It also put forth in this paper that a person may lose their self of self and conform to the group identity. It is interesting but I think the truth is there are many facets to people’s personalities, and the virtual arena gives people the opportunity to indulge each facet.
17. The impact of text-based real-time chat"You might think that, with the widespread availability of telephones, an internet-based system of real-time communication involving the typing of text messages would be hardly used, or at least, of little relevance. You would be wrong. Real-time internet-based text chat is a significant part of contemporary internet use. The question then to be asked is: what is the difference here that makes this mode of communication popular; and then what impact does it have of the kinds of communication and social interaction that take place? Communicating in real-time with text enables a form of 'authoring of the self' that is similar to the processes of face-to-face speech but which is much more amenable to authorial control, experimentation and reflection. Further, text-based communication carries with it the possibility for multiple, differing conversations occurring simultaneously, relying on the ability of the human brain to deal with text much better than speech."
(Allen, N.D.)Response:
I am new to text based real time chat, but I am a permanent convert. It is a brilliant way to communicate. It sits in the background without the normal time constraints one normally applies to more direct form, like telephone conversations. You have time to give considered responses.
I think you can easily communicate on a level that normal face-to-face or telephone conversations rarely achieve. It lacks the dynamic of face to face, that is all the subconscious pressures and preconceived ideas that come with appearances, speech patterns, body language and the social environment your in. It also allows peoples personality to emerge without the limiting assumptions people may feel apply to them, good and bad. You get to see the opinions and banter a person can contribute in a virtually preconception free zone.
This is, of course, ignoring the information and profile we make of people based on whatever information is at hand, such as username, icon style, and the manner in which they express themselves; the words they use, capitalisation and punctuation etc.
I have read that, as instant messaging is a conversation that lacks the visual cues of face-to-face communication, “we can develop a more intimate bond with others”. I wonder if this reflects on the words we use and allows our imagination to play a more active role in the translation of the written sentence, we think more about what is being said, rather than making assumptions based on voice tone and visual cues.
It makes a difference if you know the person you are chatting with, credibility is important, the people I have chatted with from NET11 have no reason to present themselves in an unrealistic manner, it is not like an anonymous meeting, we know a little about each other… even if only a real name, but I have found that reassuring in being able to confidently share information with a degree of implicit trust. Whilst taking part in chats, unsolicited chatters have contacted me, and I have instant reservations about them… what are there motives and so on.
A classmate proposed that people tend to reveal more about themselves in instant messaging chat than they would in face to face or during telephone conversations. It was proposed that the anonymous nature of the chat leads people to reveal more in order to give a degree of realism to the conversation. This is an ironic betrayal of the anonymous nature of the medium. This view is supported by research that suggests we disclose personal information as a way to build intimacy and establish trust.
In the past instant messaging in the workplace has been perceived as a time waster but there is the new research that indicates instant messaging can make a more efficient workforce, people can send a quick IM to ask if they are busy before they come and see them, a quick reply saying yes or no saves a situation where a persons concentration is disturbed by a visitor, who has to arrange to come back later, and the addition of whatever small talk that may accompany such a visit.
It appears instant messaging is paradoxically both further isolating us from each other, by reducing our need to interact, and allowing deeper interaction between people with disihibtion at work.
Web based resources/sites:
Site 1: Waiter, Katherine (2001). Online Communication: Changing the Way We Perceive Others and Ourselves? Retrieved 9th August 2008.
http://64.233.179.104/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache:KBW95pxOO60J:www.watier.org/kathy/papers/CMCpaper.pdf+truthful+presentation+of+self+onlineThis paper suggests that people are using the Internet to create and sustain social relationships. It also speaks of the growing amount of literature arguing that the lack of visual cues allows the user a more intimate bond, as I have expanded upon above. My assertion that text based messaging allows intimate relationships to develop is supported by this paper, it cites an experiment between to groups of people, one whom was computer based, and the other group met for face to face conversations. The text message group displayed a far higher level of personal interaction outside the set tasks that were laid down.
Site 2: Rennecker, Julie; Goodwin, Lindsey. (2003). Theorizing the Unintended Consequences of Instant Messaging for Worker Productivity. Retrieved 10th August 2008.
http://64.233.179.104/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache:uiNEPzyor9IJ:interruptions.net/literature/Rennecker-Sprouts03.pdf+time+saving+instant+messagingThis paper investigates the impact of instant messaging across a spectrum of employee types, that is amongst semi-independent workers to people working as part of a particular function group. It ignores the productivity loss that may arise from “unbridled social interaction” through instant messaging. It has an immediacy that can have a significant effect on productivity. You can see if someone is “online” at their desk and if so get an immediate response to a question, which beats email or a personal visit; and the ensuing social interaction that then occurs; if it was even possible with employees working in areas remote from each other,
3. Effective Internet communication combines technical and communicative competence"People who know their email programs inside out and can number the dozens of official documents relating to mail protocols often send hopeless email messages; people who, face-to-face or on paper, communicate brilliantly often stumble when on the Internet. Why? Well, besides general issues about intelligence and knowledge not being enough for communication, the answer lies in the fact that the technologies of Internet communication are not 'invisible': because they are new (to most of us) and change the rules about communication we can't divorce (say) writing skill from knowing what an email program does when it store messages. Both aspects are essential.Because Internet technologies for communication are so much more powerful in their ability to manipulate, transform and process data (a pen, for example, can't store words as well as write them), information processing and communicative skills must be developed in concert.Similarly, advanced searching involves the development of both techniques (including, for example, detailed knowledge of Boolean logic, but also speed in filling out search engines), and also informational competence, in which you instinctively consider and apply your knowledge of the ways information can be categorised and organised, translating from others classifications into the pattern that you are establishing. Technical skill in searching is not, thus, sufficient."
(Allan, N.D.)Response:
The Internet revolution has made e-mail communication standard. This has meant that people who previously would only rarely, if ever, sit down and hand write a letter to someone, now feel empowered to participate in this form of communication. Previously they may have limited themselves to telephone conversations. This, it seems, has not necessarily led to an improvement in writing skills. In has been suggested that email should be considered a written form of verbal communication rather than 'real' writing.
We accept a lower level of literacy and skill from e-mail’s that we would not expect to see in a hand written letter. E-mail has a level of informality, it is egalitarian, all comers are welcome, but will this lower standard eventually drag the standard of all written material down? Their has been a lot of research suggests done on this topic and it suggests not. I am not sure I agree with this research, a lot of it appears based around adolescent’s use of language, and how that usage changes as they mature.
My experience is that there are a lot of adult email users who feel it is acceptable to send emails that lack capitalisation, punctuation, and passable grammar and spelling. I am not saying this is a bad thing, this informal vibe around email has opened communication channels that where previously unavailable to some, and the level of care people take when constructing an email would depend on the nature of the message and audience. The form in which an email is written affect the tone in which it is read, all lower case suggests a quick response, the same email with capitalisation and punctuation could be read in a different way. There is a compelling argument that in order manipulate or deconstruct the language, you first need a good understanding of it.
There will always be those who have the skill to write in a manner appropriate to the situation, but some of the e-mails and discussion board posts I read appear the have been constructed by semi literate people, some of these people I know, and for the most part they are normal, reasonably to highly intelligent; reasonably to highly educated, people. Do they just lack the skill to write well, or is it the due to the false perception that email in ephemeral, and so doesn’t require the care put into other forms of communication.
I don’t think that the technical knowledge you need to use email or search engines is, these days, advanced. To be a good user and to be able to get the full performance out of these types of applications, yes, but e-mailing is often the first step into the internet for people, quickly followed by a visit to google to search for whatever personal information they are interested in. Unfortunately the research doesn’t support my statement, but I feel this is because the research group was probably biased to people who work in office environments, and access email as a regular part of their daily employment.
Web based resources/sites:
Site 1: Baron, Naomi S; Alphabet to Email, How Written English Evolved and Where It’s Heading. 2000. Retrieved 10/08/2008.
http://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=9JU8pDZhvc0C&oi=fnd&pg=PT10&dq=email+writing+skill&ots=eAvDXQzKS&sig=2gGlFnKxYKDcmXElH4rtKhQXG44 - PPP1,M1
This book suggests that we should consider email to be a written verbal rather than real writing. It tries to define what email writing is and states that it is a contentious issue, but it seems that email writing is a mix of verbal and traditional writing styles. I agree with this and think this concept allows for a more relaxed view on what to expect from email communication. It talks about the future of language and discusses that all languages evolve and email and instant messaging are simply steeping stones in the evolution of ours.
Site 2: Baron, Naomi S; Why email looks like speech. From: New Media Language, Edited by Aitchison, J; Lewis, D. 2005. Retrieved 10/08/2008.
http://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=lbcM0BTL-GcC&oi=fnd&pg=PA85&dq=what+emails+look+like+speech&ots=4KAswK5hTk&sig=qmSnZe39E_s81sZLWBFM2szaRsEIn this essay Naomi Baron discusses the nature of email. Although there is a lot of research going on into the nature of the way we perceive email as a medium, it seems it is not easily understood. It is a mixture of many forms of communication; in the paper she has a table where she compares email characteristics to face-to-face communication. It also discus’s the general lax attitude to editing email due to our perception that it seems ephemeral which results in a very candid form of writing. She finishes by suggesting that email looks more like speech because writing in general has become more speech like
Site 3:http://www.emaillabs.com/tools/email-marketing-statistics.htmlThis site has a wealth of statistics on email use, It claims that most email users have a high level of technical ability, and that email is not only used for sending and receiving messages, but for disseminating all kinds of information via attachments. Whilst I agree with this I feel that this is no longer considered an advanced function. My mother is 60 years old, she has had an email account for 6 months, her and her quilting group regularly send each other emails with photo attachments of their latest work.
