I think Livingstone's point about us changing the way we communicate online does have some truth behind it...although i don't know to what extent this is. I don't particularly think the change is that huge, but it's bound not to be exactly the same, because, quite simply...it's not! Communicating to somebody in real life can hardly compare to communicating via the internet, for many reasons....
In the sense of the online forums and blogging, that we're doing within study groups, i personally feel that it doesn't feel as much as a 'turn-taking' conversation as it should- maybe this is just because people aren't really used to it yet, and are not consistent with their posts??
One thing about the forums etc that i think is positive, however, is that in seminars, or other real-life senarios, people can often be talked over, or drowned out by louder, more confident members of a group. Using a forum lets people get their point across much more easily, as there is no real time-limit (as opposed to the hour-long seminars in which you either have to say all you want to say, or you sit and listen to others talking!)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi Dani,
ReplyDeleteI think her major point is that some aspects of media seem to be the same -partly becase we use the same words for them, but they're not. As you say, the differences aren't huge, but they can be key. Her example is reading, but it's just as true for writing, making AV media -and especially the combination (or layout) of the various media -and that's where the big difference comes don't you think?
I think your points about seminars are good. IRL communication forms aren't perfect are they? Often detractors of new media present a utopian view of meatspace comms. As you say, both have their strengths and weaknesses which overlap.