Presentation Development

Here are a few resources for presenting in the digital age. :)

1) find a ted talk or two-watch them and see how they do what they do

2) Use the speech outline to help you construct your presentation notes (in Canvas)

And most important-
...keep it simple-remember you are communicating with an audience about your research
...get rest and a little bit of exercise before your presentation
...breathe
...adapt if things do not go as planned
...you are human and the audience members who understand that are your target audience :)

In relation to the Harold piece on pranks and parody, and marketing and advertising, I came across this site..and these videos too.

See what you you think!

First there's this, I also shared it on my facebook....

A company making fun of advertising...to advertise. 



rigggghhht. Don't get me wrong, the poking fun at cliches is clever and does a great job making a point, just wish it wasn't advertising low fat yogurt.


Next up...The Illusionists, a short documentary "about the body as the “finest consumer object” and the pursuit of ideal beauty around the world. Or: how corporations are getting richer by making us feeling insecure about the way we look." (taken from the website.) 

THE ILLUSIONISTS documentary – teaser from Illusionists Documentary on Vimeo.

Why not Hate the Player?

Okay, after reading this...there are several things that (if I have read and understood them correctly) have blown.my.mind.

1) That these "Gold farmers" that are paid to "play online all day, every day, gathering artificial gold coins and other virtual loot that, 'as it turns out, can be transformed into real cash." really exist!! (133) IS THIS FOR REALZ?! ....mind blown.

this first one, which leads into my next case of mind being blown is making my insides cringe and shudder...and my ethic and moral little person on my shoulder want to scream and shout and jump up and down and sit down and have a talk with every player in WoW that has anything to do with the machinima ---->(which, "allows users to extend its [the games] representational or narrative space.." (135))....back to my mini rant...I want to sit down with any players that support or created that "Ni Hao" video! Mind if I continue my rant on this one a little? Well..I'm going to, forgive me for getting sidetracked, BUT. I feel like the players in WoW that feel the need to discriminate, torment, kill-off or whatever else they may do to these "farmers" or Chinese players are only doing this out of fear...fear of the Chinese players who are playing as leisure players, that I hope to goodness are kicking some ignorant naive WoW players butt. The players that head hunt the farmers only go for the farmers because they are an easy target, they know (okay, maybe they don't, I'm honestly not that familiar with the game, but from a non-gamers point of view..)they cant spot out a Chinese player, and even if they could, they know better than to mess with them..if they are playing within the same server. Well...okay that was basically the 2) that I was going to get to..but I kind of got a little worked up as I was typing..So to make it clear:

2) That there are players in this virtual world that want to (and somehow manage to) bring an aspect of our reality that our society has been trying to be rid of for decades. Why I ask?! WHY?

Okay, sorry for my rant..and I apologize if some of the things I said were incorrect concerning the game..just my understanding from the reading, and my opinions. The Asian culture is beautiful, serene and DESIRABLE, to think that so long as these "'farmers are figured as unwanted guest workers within the culture of MMOs," that this beautiful culture is seen as a threat to the beauty and desirability of the virtual space is absurd. What's threatening is that racism is being dragged into virtual spaces.

Cyber-Warfare..Oh boy

Okay, I'm going to be brutally honest..and I hope no one takes offense to this, but this was one of THE driest (most boring) pieces we have yet read. I'm sorry, this just killed me, like yes it's pretty important and has quite an impact on the field we are in..and the world in general, but I just couldn't do it..I mean I read it (okay, more honesty-about 83% of it..ok 73%!!)

Now, from what I read there are several big terms (that I hope we go over in class/not really) but it discussed terms such as belligerent humanitarianism, warhawk hysteria, traumatized nationalism and realpolitik...now can't say I went and looked these terms up, but the gist of all of this is that the US and China have both been relying on forms of rhetoric to influence how their citizens and our global society perceives them. Also, the main point of this article was this whole concept of China either cyber-spying on US and Google, or cyber-intrusions, whatever they finally decided to term it...they claim it was happening, happening so that China could begin forming their own Silicon Valley by stealing Google's algorithms...another concept I picked up on was that (and I may be confused) but that there was argumentation over whether this whole situation was Google pulling away from China..or China pulling away from the world (aka Google). And an overall concept being international rights and free speech- but as I said, I gotta continue to be honest..I was not into this reading at all...

one quote I did like, when it was talking about Hilary Clinton's speech concerning belligerent humanitarianism, was how she began, "the spread of information networks is forming a new nervous system for our planet." and that the US "stand[s] for a single Internet where all of humanity has equal access to knowledge and ideas." (417) Oh! and another one from the same page, "the new iconic infrastructure of our age is the Internet. Instead of division, it stands for connection." (which was after she made a reference to the Berlin Wall.

Anyways..on to the next readings...sorry for the delay, Charlie Kang has been stealing all of my attention.

Harold

This essay gives many instances of "pranks" that have occurred in the media world as a form of activism. Commercial "pranksters" rhetorically challenge brands and corporations, in hopes of making them better and not turning into a monopoly. These pranksters, however, are taking the idea too far, and becoming more comedians than social activists.

I don't necessarily agree with the idea of pranking because the pranksters are not only attacking a certain product that they might not agree with, but the brand as a whole. I suppose it becomes a question of whether they are doing that intentionally or not, but I think that maybe sometimes they ruin the reputation of a brand a lot faster than they do a product.

Do parodies have a lot to do with the same idea of pranking? I thought about the Harlem Shake right now, and how it is a form of a parody and how people seem to think it is funny. This takes away from the original Harlem Shake, as many pranks that were mentioned in this article take away from the original brand. Imagine if those pranks on brands went so far that we forgot what logos like the Nike Swoosh are.

Nakamura

Racism in a video game... This isn't that much of a surprise to me, to be completely honest. This is just the first time I've heard of anyone calling attention to it. Actually, come to think of it, almost every video game that I have seen is racist in some way or another. Just think of games like Grand Theft Auto - one of the most popular and best-selling video games there has been on the market; extremely racist against African Americans. It is even more odd to me that this appears in World of Warcraft against Asians, when the majority of MMO games originating in Asia.

I thought it was interesting how Nakamura thinks that it is good for the video game industry if cheating occurs. Cheating keeps users from getting "stuck" in a certain part of the game and bored with it. I can remember a lot of games that I had played when I was younger and got really bored with because there was no way to get passed a certain point (also, I was way too stubborn to ask my older brother for help).

There is no way in the game to know if a player is Asian or not, so how is it bad that the farmers in the game are a racist remark? Asians who play World of Warcraft can choose to be any other player of the game can't they? Not only are the farmers in the game made to look and sound exactly like those of Asian heritage,  they are made to be one of the most hated players in the game, making users who play the game who may not be very familiar with the ethnicity biased.

My real blog posts are coming up soon...

This article just totally distracted me....check it out ladies. Gotta getchya' rep up!

Your Reputation Will Be The Currency Of The Future

Hartnett (Stephen, not Josh)

When I read the author of this at first, I really hoped it was by Josh Hartnett....

This article takes a very bold step in expressing something that I think a lot of Americans share the same thoughts on: the idea that American politicians are very quick to accuse others in a much more dramatic way than other countries' leaders. This case is illustrated very well when they mentioned the "cyber-war" against China. Google is not a politician, but naming China as the source of the attacks very early on set our country into a seat of attack. Accusing their whole country (as apposed to a group of people in their country) was not a very thought-out act and the rhetoric of Google was sacrificed when they told China that they would redirect all web searches coming from their country to an un-filtered server.

The Google issue was something that makes us realize that, rhetorically, a global website can challenge foreign relations and investing. We, as Americans, have been thinking of Google the same way that we do many of the politics in our country. We see black and white - right and wrong, we do not see the grey area in between, and China see's us as a place that does not question our corporate leaders. Google is no exception. The scandal that broke out between Google and China was not questioned. American leaders, such as Hilary Clinton, were quick to defend Google and accuse others of being guilty without fulling knowing the extreme circumstances at hand.

I find it very interesting that America has always seen itself as a world leader in every aspect. Rhetorically, this is not a very good choice because we are constantly questioning other countries' digital sphere, but not our own.

A little cheat sheet...

As I was reading the Carnegie article, I noticed a few terms came up that we have used in this class a lot, and I thought that they did a grew job of defining them. So, I'm going to list them here!

Interface: a place of interaction, whether the interactions are between the user and the computer, user and software, computer and software, user and content, software and content, user and culture, and the user and other users.

New Media: provides users the means to generate, seek, and share content selectively, and to interact with other individuals and groups, on a scale that was impractical with traditional mass media. A combanation of the artifacts or devices that enable and extend our abilities to communicate; the communcation activities or practices we engage in to develop and use these devices; and the social arrangements or organizationas that form around the devices and practices.

Multi-directionality: a mode of interactivity associated with with systems that have been networked and nodal  points of contact and interaction.

Hypertextuality: a means for linking the objects.

Intertextuality: a method by which objects can draw upon and refer to other objects for contextualization and to build meaning.

Interactivity: the extent to which messages in a sequence relate to each other, and especially the extent to which later messages recount the relatedness of earlier messages.

Review: consists of asking users to fill out a form in which the user rates and comments on a product or service.

Digitization: gives rise to the mode of manipubility.

Presence: a move of interactivity that materializes as a result of the convergence of media with computer technology that has formed a new media.

Spacial presence - a user's sense of being present in a "place" or a meditated environment distinct from the place in which the user physically exists.

Schemas: cognitive frameworks that map the experience and outline the scripts and actions required for given situations.

Flow: a condition in which an individual loses a sense of self and time and become sintensely focused on the task at hand.


The article was about how new media functions rhetorically today and how we as users of new media can correctly view these new means of interactivity in a way that develops our understanding of multi-directionality. This means that not only we as users of technology interact with a computer, or a website, or any other platform, but it also interacts with us and others. This creates a web of users interacting who do not even realize they are - a blind network on the world wide web.

Pranking Rhetoric - Harold

This article introduced a lot of new ideas to me. The idea of undermining the rhetoric marketing companies introduce intrigues me, because I studied marketing last semester and I know how much effort goes into putting on a marketing campaign. Harold then talked about the ad campaigns put on by The Gap and Camel cigarettes and how they were parodied. I like the idea of taking these messages and challenging them rhetorically, especially Camel cigarettes, because I've never been an advocate of smoking. I do like how Harold classifies pranksters as being more playful and provocative than negative and harmful, because I do think that when people prank, they (usually) mean it in a good way or to advance some aspect of culture.

The difference that's given between parodists and comedians is also a lot of food for thought. I never really considered the difference between the two, but I knew they were different somehow. To say that parodists try to change things and comedians only try to bring situations to light is a good way of putting it, I think. Most comedians I've heard at least just seem to poke fun, without too much rhetoric. Parodists, on the other hand (especially political ones), are meant to inspire a change in point of view.

The Mattel prank was quite outstanding. I grew up with Barbies, but from what I remember, I was never pressured into thinking they were the norm, nor was I convinced I had to become a Barbie. (That was largely due to how athletic I was and positive reinforcement from my mother). I do think that some young girls don't have positive role models to look up to, and can rely on Barbie as their ideal woman figure, which isn't the best message to begin with. The idea that the talking Barbies said things like, "I love shopping", or "Will we ever have enough clothes" really irritates me. I'm sure the creators of Barbie or the people that run Barbie aren't as vapid and vain as they made Barbie out to be. I don't understand why they couldn't put more positive sentiments into their dolls.

I think by switching out the G.I. Joe voice chips with the Barbie ones is a good way to show just how inappropriate a message that is for young girls (or boys for that matter - believing they need to be tough and violent in order to be a "real man"). This is because when you see a thin doll with blonde hair and breasts, the phrases may not seem so strange, but when you take them out of their plastic limbs and put them into a G.I. Joe, they seem ridiculous, which they were to begin with. Enough about that rant though, and back to the article.

The idea of pieing the affluent business people is a bit strange. Yes, I think it would jar them and take away their credibility for a bit, but I don't think it's a particularly damaging thing to someone's reputation - especially if they handle it lightly and laugh it off in the face of cameras. I remember a high school fundraiser was to pie a teacher (or administrator) in the face, and they volunteered for it! I think the rhetorical message it can send can be a strong one, however.It just amazes me how creative some people are. The idea of the Truth campaign I also really like. I've never seen the allure to smoking other than it can seem "rebellious", as is mentioned in the article. The Truth campaign, I think, is rhetorically genius because it turns the situation around to the people who are smoking are following the norm, and those who chose not to smoke are breaking the mold and being rebellious. I think that's a good way to look at it, and I think that's why it's been a strategy that's gotten recognition.

Don't Hate the Player, Hate the Game - Nakamura

This article was interesting to read, for sure. As I'm sure I've said before, I don't play video games like World of Warcraft, nor do I particularly find it interesting, so much of this article went over my head. One of the things I liked, however, was the abstract at the beginning of the article. It helped to give me a deeper idea of what I should do with my abstract, once I weave my paper together. It was very clear and concise as to the main points, and I hope I'll be able to do that with my own abstract.

I knew people cheated in video games (as my brothers have always been video gamers) and sought out cheat codes. What I didn't know was that people were making money from selling aspects of the game. I found this really interesting. Nakamura called it real-money trading. First off, I fail to see how anyone could be so addicted to a virtual game that they would be willing to spend money to level themselves up or further themselves in the game. To me, that just seems like a waste of money and like it would take some of the fun away from actually playing the game. I wouldn't want to be seen as a "good" or "high" player without having earned it.

This article largely talked about race, however. It talked a lot about gold-farmers and Chinese. One quote I liked particularly well was "calling someone 'Chinese' is a general insult that seems aimed more at one's style of play than one's real-world ethnicity". This sounded like (excuse me for the reference) Tech students driving behind someone and saying, 'they're a bad driver, they must be Asian'. Similar to the video game world, you have no way of knowing who is in the car unless you physically pass them. In the video game world, you can't ever actually see the person. It seems as though people are putting race into a situation that can't really be categorized by race.

The article also mentioned people that other players assumed to be gold farmers and noted that the other players try to kill or harm that person, for no cause other than they MIGHT be a gold farmer. This is really interesting to me because (and maybe I would know more of the patterns if I were a player) how would anyone be able to make that judgement and assume that a player is Chinese? The International Gaming Exchange is mentioned as being American in this article and as being "one of the largest re-sellers of gold, avatar level-ups, and other virtual property", yet the Chinese are still taking all the blame. It's mind boggling to me.

The article also mentioned that the avatar of a female dwarf has been associated with Chinese gold farmers, and now is "unplayable" as a character because of the way other players view them.This is interesting to me for several reasons. If I were to join WOW and decide I like the female dwarf the best, how would I know that puts a target on my back as being a Chinese gold farmer? I wouldn't. I would then be playing and other players may be extra wary or violent to me for that reason. Also, the fact that enough gold farmers assumed this avatar to make it "unplayable" is incredible to me. I'm not sure how many avatars there are, but I would think there would be enough for the gold farmers to spread out and choose other avatars as well.

Google and the "Twisted Cyber Spy" Affair - Hartnett

This reading didn't hold as much allure for me as the previous article, since I'm not into politics at all. I did get some useful hints about the structure of an analysis, however. Plus, some of the content held interesting ideas about history. First, Hartnett set this article up by giving plenty of context, so people like me, who don't follow politics or even a lot of history, for that matter, can understand where the article is headed and what it will talk about. Since I'm assuming my audience to not be Pinterest users, I will follow this strategy.

Hartnett also uses phrases such as: "my analysis also demonstrates", "as I will address in the epilogue to this essay", and "I proceed with the understanding that". These sort of phrases are waht I was told never to use during elementary, middle, and high school because they were too "personal" and detracted from the academic content of the article. Now, however, as I have grown through this class, I feel much more confident in using such phrases, and also recognize that saying these sort of phrases also helps to provide some sense of a disclaimer for the reader. What I mean is if I say this is my idea, then readers will know it's my analysis, and take it for what it's worth. So I thought that was cool.

He also described how he would do the analysis, saying it "unfolds in three steps". I like this as well because it gives a clear idea of direction to the user. Throughout the article, Hartnett also gives more context information, as well as historical context as it relates to the current topic at hand. I like that. He also talks about the good and the bad of the situation, which helps to remove bias and strengthen the overall argument by rhetorically challenging the user to see what he sees.

Like the previous article, this one also uses headings. I think I'll keep mine in my paper so the reader will have manageable chunks of information, as well as direction as to what the next chunk is and how it relates. I've noticed that as a reader, I like the headings. I also found his vocabulary to be inspiring, as he uses words such as "dovetails" on page 425 near the bottom of the first paragraph. I think that adding words such as these, the article as a whole gains another dimension, because no matter how small such a thing as vocabulary seems, it gives a different feel to the text, and I like that.

He also addresses the reader in his analysis, saying "readers should recall". This stood out to me because he's bringing us in with the information and making it personal to us. I thought that was a good strategy. The last thing I want to mention is his epilogue. He takes all the ideas and rants throughout the paper and ties it all together, bringing it back to the main point of the article. I think this is the part I may struggle with most with my analysis, so I enjoyed reading his and seeing how he did it.

Interface and Exordium: The Rhetoric of Interactivity - Carnegie

I liked how this article started with an abstract. It gave me an idea of what an abstract is, since I have never written one before - it's always just been an introduction. I also liked that all the headings were numbered. I felt that the structure of the paper was very clear and easy to follow. That being said, there was a lot of information in this piece that I really liked and feel I will be able to use for my analysis.

I like when the author says, "the interface functions rhetorically by asking how it makes the audience/user "well disposed, attentive, and receptive" (Cicero, 1960)". I think this idea, shared by Cicero and Carnegie, is fantastic, since it's about transforming the user simply by interface. I can make a similar argument about the interface of Pinterest. This article also distinguishes between physical human-computer interface (known as HCI) and user operation. I'm in a Usability course right now, so this is all very familiar with me as well (and I've actually quoted some articles from that class in some of my digital rhetorics papers). I think the distinction between the two terms is good, because the user centered operation is defined as more the screen with it's images, not so much the mouse or keyboard, which both affect the screen.

I also agree with the idea that the good interfaces are the ones that are not noticed by the users. This made me think twice about Pinterest, however. When I began using Pinterest, the first thing I noticed was the interface  but I noticed it because it was very different than anything I had seen before, and it worked well. This led me to think deeper about Pinteret's interface. This article also spoke about "the rhetorical implications that interfaces may have", and I like this thought because Pinterest's interface can very well influence it's users to a certain action, though the action may be different depending on the needs of the user.

As I'm looking through this article and my notes, I see so much that that I really like, and to talk about it all in detail would take way too long, so I'm just going to post the ideas I found interesting and that I feel could apply to my analysis. The interface as a place of interaction, what new media provides users with (in terms of being able to share content), and the engagement of the user in the interface. Also, the three modes of interactivity: multi-directionality, maipulability, and presence. Carnegie also spoke about the interface as being an exordium, which I liked because I'd never heard of the word before. This article also asked several questions in it's conclusion, and all of which were great to create more thought, which, I think, was the point.

LIFE IS MESSY.

Okay,

So first off, loved our class meeting today, and I apologize for the tangents that did not allow us to discuss the articles fully. However, I feel that when we post about them on here, it may even be a better medium to "discuss" the articles in (just think, no interruptions, and tangents are less likely) Anyways...

The Grabill and Rigg article was an analysis done on a scientific/museum blog. The researches were studying and analyzing (and discussing) a couple key things:

The challenges we face methodologically when trying to study engagement in open digital spaces.
      -and to do this they articulated the museum blog Science Buzz      -specifically, they were looking at identity leverage w/in the space and how it is a rhetorical agency
      -they argue that "int he context of open forums like Science Buzz these identity performances are crucial as rhetorical agencies, creating space as they function to move discussion."

(*yes, I got this information from the abstract, but trust me, I READ THE ARTICLE--the abstract just makes the summary of the article so concise it's hard not to reference it.)

What I found in the article was how in-depth the went into their study. They looked as specific instances ("threads") within the blog, while keeping in mind that they are only just barely scratching the surface of everything held w/in it, they express that in order to gain an understanding for their study they must break through this constraint and, in simple words, work with what they got. And what they got, as I was saying were specific "threads" of conversation, where they analyzed who contributed to the conversation, what that users background was (for ethos recognition), and attempted to analyze how their contributions to the thread "move the conversation." (109)

I could go on about this detailed articulation they made, but find it more helpful to mention several of their key terms and concepts they discuss, which I will only be listing for now...

-Argument
-Questioning
-Identity (performance, community, connections...)
-Information

And they intertwine and relate all of these terms within their analysis, which shows that for our next paper, we will have to similarly define terms and use them in support of our research question. I've also learned from reading this article that there will be many instances where new information and questions will be uncovered and that in order to remain focused on my question I may have to save certain new questions and concepts for later research.

Anways..I have a website to code from scratch because DreamWeaver did not get me through the night. (NOTE: GARY WRIGHT reference)

Messy Rhetoric: Grabill & Pigg

This article was also very interesting, and parts of it, I feel, are also applicable to my paper. The first thing they said that I really liked was "identity is performed and leveraged in small, momentary  and fleeting acts". I like this because first, it makes sense, and second, within Pinterest, everything you do could be considered a small, irrelevant act. I also liked the quote a sentence beneath the previous one, reading, "those who do not hold traditional forms of expertise participate by performing identity in ways that extend beyond establishing individual credibility". I like this one as well because, again, with Pinterest someone who isn't an expert at crafts may feel the need to step up more and re-pin things as opposed to producing original pins.

The authors also talked about learning, which I enjoyed. They said that "people are motivated to learn new things when they need to learn them". This could apply to many things in life, so I'm going to apply it to my project. Until yesterday I never cared or needed to know how to get spray paint off concrete, but when the problem arose, I was motivated to learn how to remove it. I believe the same applies to crafts and DIY's. People get bored or want to do something crafty, so they're motivated to find something. The authors also noted that motivations are different, meaning the users are "quite diverse and not at all coherent as a group". I like this quote, however, I have to disagree in general terms. I believe that for maps, this is very true. People will want to take different ways. However, for other things, such as social media, it is relatively easy to get a large group of people moving in one direction. With Pinterest it's the same way. The board is DIY & Crafts, so all who use it are motivated to find or share DIY's and craft ideas.

I also found the section where the authors discuss identity in academic papers, saying that all too often other authors fail to discuss it, resulting in the "lack [of] descriptive validity and coherence". This made me smile, since my whole paper is going to be about identity and I'm going to try to tie everything back to identity. They also termed or used, identity-in-use. This was interesting for me to read about, since I've never thought about how an identity is constructed before this project. The authors said, "identity is understood as an "emergent product rather than the pre-existing source of...semiotic practices"". This is another perfect quote for me, as I'm going to be arguing that users bring their own identity to Pinterest, but leave with a different identity that is shaped by the medium, a new identity that has emerged.

Two more quotes I want to briefly state are: "participants often do not build fully formed or coherent portraits of who they are as people, but rather draw on parts of their identity", so they don't bring their entire personality, rather it comes in pieces, such as with different re-pins, likes, or comments. Another was, "online "spaces" and dynamics enabled multiple identities", this is my whole argument, but dealing specifically, so I like this quote. A quote found further in the paper says, "identity performance act not only as ways to convince an audience of one's credibility or status but also as catalysts for more conversation". I like this, since within Pinterest, all pins are essentially starting a new conversation, and each time it is re-pinned, the conversation is pushed forward.

Urban Mappings and Messy Rhetoric

There is a challenge in studying rhetoric in open digital spaces. In "Messy Rhetoric: Identity Performance as Rhetorical Agency in Online Public Forums" they discuss the issues and benefits in engaging in public discussions online. From a rhetorical standpoint, forums allow public issues to be questioned and a discussion keeps going and this discussion turns from talking about a certain group, to that certain group responding. Unlike traditional text, online forums can be a discussion between the author and the audience can respond.

The specific example that they used was about a forum called Science Buzz and a specific forum posting by someone wanting to know about the HPV vaccination because they could not find a reliable source to learn the side effects of the drugs. While people can use forums as a way to get their questions answered, there is no guarantee that the people responding are a reputable source. Sometimes, like in the case of the HPV article, there will be people who like to "troll" posts as well, and make remarks that do not pertain to the actual discussion.

In "Urban Mappings", Rice talks about the challenges in evaluating the rhetoric of mapping software. While the software represents something that is concrete, it can easily be ignored and manipulated. For instance, he uses the example of taking a different route in Detroit because he knows that route better and likes that this route is slower and safer for him. Although the software was telling him to take a way that less than half of the time of the way that he likes, he knows this route better and can associate it with personal meaning. Mapping software is different rhetorically than any other digital space because it corresponds to something that is concrete, but it can be changed to another thing that is also concrete. So, whether it is "right" or "wrong" is never quite possible to determine; it puts more responsibility in the hands of the user.

Urban Mappings: Jeff Rice

This reading was really interesting to read, because it's about a city that I grew up near to and grew up hearing about. It was also interesting to read about things such as Google Maps and other mapping software, since I've never really thought about them before. I like a lot of the points Rice makes in this analysis, as well as the way that it's set up. Several of the points relating to identity I believe I will be able to use in my own analysis, which is helpful. He says things such as, "it's not enough to have a supply of things to say, but it is also necessary to say it in the right way", and the user is "cutting and pasting, combining, and appropriating. Through such acts, Dickinson write, the rhetor creates "a stylized invention of the self"". I love that second quote, because while not related, it fits so perfectly into my paper!

He also talks about personal interactions and associations with not only places, but also mapping software, saying that while Google Maps tells him to go through Path A because it's quicker and the traffic is smoother, he prefers to take Path B not because of the speed limit or number of stop lights, but because of the images he associated with the path, the music and people he hears and sees, and the feelings he get. I found this very interesting, because I do the same thing, but have never thought about it before. It made me think of when I'm driving with a GPS device and take a "wrong turn", it'll try to reroute me to a new street, when in reality I'm taking a "back way".

Additionally, he talks about invention and the originality of ideas a lot, which for my analysis will be helpful, since the particular aspect of Pinterest that I am looking at not only inspires, but expects creativity and innovation from its users. He also says, "ideas must be appropriate not only to the situation but also to the proper place within the discourse". I love this quote and think it'll work well in my analysis. Regarding invention, Rice says, "one must be able to imagine ways to connect information that previous set-ups have not yet allowed for". I also like this quote because I believe that Pinterest (at least the DIY and Crafts board) is all about the birth of new ideas.

Structure is another thing that he discusses, and it related to my project in that the structure of Pinterest is very loose and all over the place, but at the same time it is a very carefully calculated layout and is always the same. It's fascinating to me how both those statements can be true, but when I analyze it, they are. One thing he says is that the "structuring of the page affected the structuring of ideas". This I like as well, since (I'm relating it back to Pinterest again, bear with me) the layout seems like its very free flowing and unorganized, users may feel more inspired, feeling like they don't need to conform to a regular or stiff layout, when in reality, the layout is very structured. Rice also says, "invention situated within a database structure affects a specific kind of identity", and I believe this to be true, and related to my project.

While Researching...

I found this fun little info-graphic.

http://www.welivesecurity.com/wp-content/media_files/Google-Privacy-Infographic-780p.jpg