Difference between revisions of "Thursday 1900 EST"
|Line 212:||Line 212:|
Audio available (3:52 minutes)<br>
Revision as of 00:11, 4 December 2006
- 1 Group Overview
- 2 Assignment: Interview a SL personality
- 3 Project Discussion
- 4 Project Thesis
- 5 Project Podcasts
- 6 Project Topics
- 6.1 Topics candidates
- 6.2 Project Responsibilities
- 6.3 Project Deliverables (Tentative)
- 6.4 Project Script/Detail
- 6.4.1 Outline
Places & Times
- Meeting Time: Thursdays, 7:00 EDT
- Meeting Place: Berkman Island in SL
- Group Wiki page: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cyberone/wiki/Thursday_1900_EST
- Bridget Smith (Frappe Lapointe) [email@example.com]
- Brien Walton (Blaise Syaka)
- Esmond Kane (Pere Utu)
- William James (USA Brody)
- Yvette Wohn (Yvette Kumsung)
Assignment: Interview a SL personality
Due Monday (Oct 9) at 10:55 EST (Assignment in Moodle)
Anyone know if this is a group Assignment?
Yes. Sign up for an Interviewee here
Also see Topics and Thesis discussion here
Our podcasts are up here
Heed Typers When Voice Comes
Hypothesis: Voice is coming to SL and will bring new capabilities
Problem: Discrimination of typers in type-voice coexsiting environment
- 1.Typers are slower, making it more difficult to fit into conversations
- 2.Voice users may feel annoyed by chat windows, or get used to minimizing the window
- 3.Clash of typing sounds with voice
Why should we think of protecting the rights of typers?
- 1. May not be able to speak (mute, soar throat)
- 2. Situation where you cannot use voice (office)
- 4. Multitasking (chat while listening to music, etc.)
- 5. Efficiency in certain situations(Group chats, lectures)
Questions to Ask Ourselves
- 1. Who should be given the right to decide whether the zone is voice, text, or voice-text?
- 2. How can we create awareness?
- 3. Are we calling for technical attention from Linden or social attention from residents?
Solution/Action: "Heed Typers" Campaign?
Presentation Method Ideas:
- 1. Create rooms with streaming audio boxes.
- 2. Create machinima
|Real Name||SL Name||Introduction||For||Against||Conclusion||Machinima|
|Esmond Kane||Pere Utu||Yes|
|Bridget Smith||Frappe Lapointe||Yes|
|William James||USA Brody||Yes|
|Yvette Wohn||Yvette Kumsung||Yes|
Project Deliverables (Tentative)
- Saturday Dec 2 7pm: Text
- Sunday Dec 3 7pm: Audio
- Thursday Dec 8 7pm: Project Draft
- Tuesday Dec 12 7pm: Project Presentation
we are arguing for the choice of the avatar to be able to toggle voice integration
- Scence setting
- Mention of broad possibilities for discussion
- narrow focus
Full Audio available [here] (3:30 minutes)
New technology and the new media marketplace of the 21st century, have greatly changed the nature of information exchange and the very framework for Human communication. Cave paintings, stone and paper etchings, wax and clay records are now mere nano-scale metal etchings, polarised atoms, insubstantial radio waves, beams of light, electrons, even Quantum signatures on the border of Scientific research. We stand on the precipice of a convergence of all Human communication into a single datastream, the development of an Electronic Human network. (Singularity?) [Audio]: 37 seconds
The Older communication frameworks, favoured systems of proxies, designated champions and sporadic polls. The greater populace was excluded from meaningful participation in issues of commonality, the grand Economic, Political, Scientific, Religious debates, the Historical and Educational scholarly imperatives. It simply was not technically or administratively possible to include a large population in expansive dialogue when using the older frameworks. Technology has lowered the barrier to communicate and participate, now the greater populace, the everyday actors, participate in the recording of thought, the dialogue, discussion, the narration, negotiation, the persuasion, compromise and consensus, Human communication in all its facets is no longer the preserve or the arena of an elite minority. [Audio]: 50 Seconds
Massively Multiplayer Online Realities are one tool in the new communication framework. MMO's are technology showcases which emulate the physical presence and proximity of the participants by simulating each individual and a shared reality on are computer. These communities are vast forums for social networking and experimentation in culture and perception. Politics, Religion, Culture, Society, all the greater issues are emulated and the core principals modified and new concepts tested as the participants "play" with the boundaries of reality and society. [Audio]: 32 Seconds
In one such MMO, Second Life, despite the effort spent on implementing the âvirtual realityâ, communication is still based on the older framework. The visual aspects of the simulation have been prioritized in the development and dialogue has been relegated to a linear textual chat system seen in older communication systens. In essence, SL avatars are still etching thought onto a virtual clay or wax tablet when they type on a keyboard. The community has learned to adapt to the limits of the system but it cannot last. The introduction of Voice into Second Life will be another paradigm shift in communications technology. [Audio]: 40 Seconds
The emphasis on text chat in SL has facilitated the growth of the community to date but also impeded wider adoption by the non-technical or non-literate. Voice is a bridging technology and dictates that certain social and technical measures are implemented before it is widely adopted. SL must not discriminate against the members of the community who chose to communicate textually and we must not discriminate against those who choose to use voice. Second Life is not Reality, the participants in the community agree on what form their Reality takes, they opt-in to societal constraints. Similarly they must be able to toggle voice integration on demand and "play" with their voice technology and concpets. We must not encourage divisive tiers in Second Life built around text and voice or insist that the Real Life concerns are echoed in Virtual Reality ... [Audio]: 41 Seconds
We encourage Linden to implement text to speech synthesis and the reverse. Voice cannot discriminate, it must bridge the divide.
In Speakers Corner in Hyde Park in London. Members of the public can wax lyrical without fear of Legal Repercussions and without any guarantee of a receptive audience. Voice in Second Life must be similarly enshrined as a Free Speech Zone.
For: why voice is not discriminatory or it doesnt matter
- - Helps those that can not read and/or type.
Please feel free to edit!
Audio available (3:52 minutes)
++William++ Sorry for the delay, but I did not have internet access on Saturday. I tried to frame the part of my argument to feed off of Yvette's part and lead nicely to a conclusion. After the conclusion is submitted I will do a full edit of the entire essay and create a style and voice that is consistent with our argument and post it for peer review.
PS. Awesome Job Gang!
Against: why text is less discriminatory
The plea for voice is the smudge of a fingerprint on the lens that distorts the vista for a sensible individual to see the negative impacts of voice integration in Second Life. The integration of voice in Second Life is a nuisance in disguise, but primarily to the impoverished. To what degree the Second Life community fully appreciates the negative influence to the penniless is yet to come. However, computer networks that support voice over internet protocol and local area network gaming simultaneously need vast resources to operate properly. Let alone a new computer with the graphic needed to do both. The impact of the voice integration is only going to affect those who cannot afford these technologies.
Imagine a world where the virtual social normality is serene and peaceful with nothing other than the sounds of the keyboard and the avatar. A world where the destitute can afford to participate freely and type thoughts not normally expressed in everyday indigent life. Now take that picture, and tell the needy to buy a new computer that is capable of using the new Second Life voice integration. The picture of serenity for the indigent looking to escape the life of poverty from time to time then turns to that world recognized so well â exclusion. Excluded by class, and similar to that of real life where the poor are historically seen as less than human would follow them right into the virtual world they use to escape this evil of humanism.
Summary and Conclusion
- 'give us the choice'
- "it is open for all to decide what they want ot choose"
Hello team, I thought it might help everyone formalize their thoughts if I provided you with a contextual basis derived from the draft intro. In theory, the conclusion will support the premise of the introduction by distilling the issues from the arguments - proving or disproving each - and then explaining why the intro position was successfully defended. The following is an initial draft of where I'm heading and as we fill-in the arguments on both sides, I'll re-word the conclusion to be an emphatic support of what we want. Bridget and William: if I come accross any research on either side, I'll email you the links so that you integrate them too.
Draft conclusion, so everyone can see where this is heading...
The integration of voice into the second life environment presents concurrent advantages and disadvantages for its residents that are not mutually exclusive. We started our discussion by noting the progress that has been made by using massively multiplayer online realities as a medium to facilitate social networking. The traditional communication network was through the exclusive use of text messaging, which given the current state of technology, is akin to etchings on earthen clay tablet. With over 1.3 million residents in second life and more than half of that number being registrants from outside of the United States, according to the November 13, 2006, Wall Street Journal (citation omitted), the integration of voice would better enable the social networking to keep pace with population growth. For example, it is not currently possible in second life to conduct discussions in any other language aside from English, but with the ability to bypass text messaging and integrate an auditory component that is not limited by text recognition coding, more residents would be able to interact and thus enhance the network. In addition to the global benefit from the integration of voice, it would also facilitate greater ease-of-use by residents who are less literate, non-technical, or merely slow typers. It can also be argued that since second life is not reality, but merely virtual-reality, where residents make a choice of whether to register their citizenship, that the "opt-in" nature of avatar registration mandates a choice be presented to residents of whether to use text, or voice.
From this basis, it is our position that voice should be made available to all residents but that residents have the option as to whether they will use text, voice, or a combination of both in their interaction. This will allow voice technology to be a medium that is better able to facilitate global interaction, rather than exclude non-English speaking or nonliterate members of the global community.
Assuming that the Linden Labs' financial partners have resolved how voice integration would be funded, the key social issue to be resolved is who will set the standards for how voice technology is adapted to the environment. Our concern is that the integration of voice may create an environment through which certain members of the community may be discriminated against, as a result of their accent, vocabulary, or the existence of speech impediments. As indicated by our earlier discussion, we have resolved this issue through our findings that.....
Currently doing pre-edit with intro and Frappe's piece. Filming will take too much time. Compensating with editing stills. Open to suggestions for background music. Bought a Plantronics mike and will be able to participate in Skype conversations. [Yvette: 1213 09:49 EST]