I recently came acrosss something that struck my interest on the BBC website. It was called In Pictures: Maryland voter's views, Primary elections.
Primary Elections
I didn't know what to expect when I clicked this link. I imagined it would just be photographs of the Maryland primaries. However, I was very suprized to discover that it was a 10-part series of differnet primary voter's street-style portraits, a short bio and finally who they were castinf their vote for and why.
This may not seem like a revolutionary idea - in it's simplest form it is just a quick survey of Maryland voters. But to me, this idea has a unique appeal. Not only does it give you real life faces of consitutents, but it offers real insight into the voter's mind.
Of course there are always polls attempting to gague voter's opinions and cast light on the unfolding situation. But this feature really put you into the mids of Maryland voters. It gives you real, unmitigated, opinions of what voters think about candidates and the state of our nation. Additionally, I thought the BBC did a great job of collecting a variety of opinions. They had not only racial variety, but gender, age and class diversity. The opinions given by each voter refleted a little bit about each person and a little bit about our electoral system - namely the way voters approach their decisions.
I found it intriguing to read about why different people were voting for which candidate. Reasons ranged from having a woman in power, to a president being too old, to who can win against Obama. THis feature really sheds a lot of light on the differnt facets of a presidential candidate that are weighed in his electability factor and which kind of person values which facet.
As a photographer the portraits of these people were interesting to me because they were obviously quick set ups -but they were also more than just a quick news photo. The photographer took time with each one to capture a certain expression or feeling from each photo. For that reason I believe the photos flowed well with the text to make a unique and appealing web feature.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Web 2.0 doesn't live up to it's name
(sorry this post is late!!!!)
From this Slate article, I gathered that the main criticism of Web 2.0 is that the "web 2.0" term is limiting and simlutaneously beffudled behind a mass of big words and technological phrases.
For example: "Web 2.0 is the network as platform, spanning all connected devices; Web 2.0 applications are those that make the most of the intrinsic advantages of that platform."
What does that mean? The term Web 2.0 can describe any interaction over the internet that contributes to a web-community, interactive intelligence, or fosters a new sense of web-based livelyhood (namely video, sound, and image interaction.)
I think that this article is too hard on Web 2.0. Sure the name is confusing - the definition changes daily with emerging technology. But the sentiment behind the movement is the same - finding a way to communicate with people online. And not just communicate, but inform, explore and learn common interests of people you might never see face to face.
It's understandable that some would fear this new system of communication. Who knows what it could lead to? Will the communities that are formed on the internet through flickr, myspace, youtube, and wikipedia come to replace the face to face interactions that have permeated our world since the era of man? If so, what does this mean for the future of our political system, our economy, and of course, our social structure.
I believe the web has the ability to connect people more than it has the ability to destroy society. Maybe it's my naive personality that hopes, but despite all the commercialization, invasion of privacy, and proliferation of sex offenders, I believe in the good of the internet. Web 2.0 has the potential to make us the most advnaced species - by leaps and bounds. People's intelligence can finally feed of eachother an grow. With all the problems plaguing the world now - let's hope we use this intelligence for good, not evil.
From this Slate article, I gathered that the main criticism of Web 2.0 is that the "web 2.0" term is limiting and simlutaneously beffudled behind a mass of big words and technological phrases.
For example: "Web 2.0 is the network as platform, spanning all connected devices; Web 2.0 applications are those that make the most of the intrinsic advantages of that platform."
What does that mean? The term Web 2.0 can describe any interaction over the internet that contributes to a web-community, interactive intelligence, or fosters a new sense of web-based livelyhood (namely video, sound, and image interaction.)
I think that this article is too hard on Web 2.0. Sure the name is confusing - the definition changes daily with emerging technology. But the sentiment behind the movement is the same - finding a way to communicate with people online. And not just communicate, but inform, explore and learn common interests of people you might never see face to face.
It's understandable that some would fear this new system of communication. Who knows what it could lead to? Will the communities that are formed on the internet through flickr, myspace, youtube, and wikipedia come to replace the face to face interactions that have permeated our world since the era of man? If so, what does this mean for the future of our political system, our economy, and of course, our social structure.
I believe the web has the ability to connect people more than it has the ability to destroy society. Maybe it's my naive personality that hopes, but despite all the commercialization, invasion of privacy, and proliferation of sex offenders, I believe in the good of the internet. Web 2.0 has the potential to make us the most advnaced species - by leaps and bounds. People's intelligence can finally feed of eachother an grow. With all the problems plaguing the world now - let's hope we use this intelligence for good, not evil.
Monday, February 4, 2008
The New Wisdom of the Web
I really enjoyed reading the Newsweek article, "The New Wisdom of the Web," by Steven Levy and Brad Stone.
The article - mainly about the innovative companies Flickr and Myspace - explained why my generation is becoming the web 2.0 generation. No longer satisfied with just browsing website and learning from them, my generation is eager to learn from each other - about each other. It's this curiosity that led to the boom in the web 2.0 industry. With over " 65 million (mostly young) people, and thousands of rock bands, movie stars and marketers," on myspace and "a 2.5 million-member community solely around a passion for sharing photos," it's obvious that times have changed.
As Levy and Stone state of web 2.0 innovations, "It's the main news source for the non-arthritic population, and a megaphone for those who make their own media. "
For me this really rings true. As a photojournalism major, we are constantly learning how to interact more with our audiences using developing technology. Videos, slideshows and soundclips are quickly changing the way most people get their news. Many sites are emerging that encourage readers to participate by leaving comments on articles they read. Additionally, most major newspapers now have a blog - where you can read more than just what the newspaper publishes and comment about your opinions.
In regard to Flickr - I find this site to be enormously helpful as a photographer. It's a great place to store all your photos, search quickly through them and share albums with friends. Additionally, the site can be used as a learning and networking tool for emerging photographers. By commenting on others photos, you can make connections and maybe even learn a new technique.
I also agree with Levy and Stone that web 2.0 emphasizes a collective intelligence. Wikipedia is a solid source for quick facts, in my opinion. While it isn't 100% reliable, the collective intelligence of everyone who reads, edits and adds to subject posts helps to validate it's authenticity.
It's clear from Levy and Stone's article that this web 2.0 phenomena isn't going anywhere. With hundreds of thousands of new users signing up to join myspace everyday - it seems safe to say that my generation is vehement about communicating and interacting on the web. What has yet to be said is what long-term impacts this collective community could have on my or future generations of web 2.0 users.
The article - mainly about the innovative companies Flickr and Myspace - explained why my generation is becoming the web 2.0 generation. No longer satisfied with just browsing website and learning from them, my generation is eager to learn from each other - about each other. It's this curiosity that led to the boom in the web 2.0 industry. With over " 65 million (mostly young) people, and thousands of rock bands, movie stars and marketers," on myspace and "a 2.5 million-member community solely around a passion for sharing photos," it's obvious that times have changed.
As Levy and Stone state of web 2.0 innovations, "It's the main news source for the non-arthritic population, and a megaphone for those who make their own media. "
For me this really rings true. As a photojournalism major, we are constantly learning how to interact more with our audiences using developing technology. Videos, slideshows and soundclips are quickly changing the way most people get their news. Many sites are emerging that encourage readers to participate by leaving comments on articles they read. Additionally, most major newspapers now have a blog - where you can read more than just what the newspaper publishes and comment about your opinions.
In regard to Flickr - I find this site to be enormously helpful as a photographer. It's a great place to store all your photos, search quickly through them and share albums with friends. Additionally, the site can be used as a learning and networking tool for emerging photographers. By commenting on others photos, you can make connections and maybe even learn a new technique.
I also agree with Levy and Stone that web 2.0 emphasizes a collective intelligence. Wikipedia is a solid source for quick facts, in my opinion. While it isn't 100% reliable, the collective intelligence of everyone who reads, edits and adds to subject posts helps to validate it's authenticity.
It's clear from Levy and Stone's article that this web 2.0 phenomena isn't going anywhere. With hundreds of thousands of new users signing up to join myspace everyday - it seems safe to say that my generation is vehement about communicating and interacting on the web. What has yet to be said is what long-term impacts this collective community could have on my or future generations of web 2.0 users.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)