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