I generally am fond of new media and its related technologies. I have to be, I work in that field. New Interactive Environments course in that aspect offered a lot of interesting academic articles with which I otherwise would not had the opportunity to get accuinted with.
I enjoyed Kiosis and his statements made about what interactive something is. And Jensen´s overview of interactivity was especially noted by me, as it might have been the first thorough reading on the subject of the core value of interactivity.
I would havew expected more case-study-type home-task and somewhat more academic readings as the subject is very broad and therefore with a multitude of scholars working on it. A course managed by Kaido Kikkas called "Ehtics and Law in New Media" has so far been the best course on the subject on New Media (by its structure and object-related tasks).
I can say that since the star of autumn I know have a better understanding of what interactivity is and how it truly plays its role in basically every social (and maybe more) action we currently are participating.
Showing posts with label nie. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nie. Show all posts
Thursday, December 16
Tuesday, December 14
Task 13 of NIE: Redesigning and re-instrumentalising activities
The main activity I carry out day by day, is the transportation of myself from point a to point b. When riding the bus to work, it always bothers me whether my bus will be on time or not. Currently there aren´t any solutions to find it out also.
I think here is the opportunity of digital media to fill this gap of knowledge and make public transportation more competitive towards cars. Why cannot there be LED screens in bus-stops that would display GPS-related information about nearby buses. Today all of public transportation is equipped with GPS-signal-emitting hardware. This signal could be in the future used through wireless fidelity to publish information about the bus´s whereabouts.
A small microchip inside the screen (or in some central processing station) could also calculate the approximate time when the bus will arrive to my station. In case of trains, this time could be manually input to the information system.
When this information would be in a central station, then we could easily create a real-time central information station (website) about current traffic - the idea would be that the more information-consuming passenger would have extensive abilities to plan their upcoming trips (rather then just watch a paper-based schedule).
I think here is the opportunity of digital media to fill this gap of knowledge and make public transportation more competitive towards cars. Why cannot there be LED screens in bus-stops that would display GPS-related information about nearby buses. Today all of public transportation is equipped with GPS-signal-emitting hardware. This signal could be in the future used through wireless fidelity to publish information about the bus´s whereabouts.
A small microchip inside the screen (or in some central processing station) could also calculate the approximate time when the bus will arrive to my station. In case of trains, this time could be manually input to the information system.
When this information would be in a central station, then we could easily create a real-time central information station (website) about current traffic - the idea would be that the more information-consuming passenger would have extensive abilities to plan their upcoming trips (rather then just watch a paper-based schedule).
Tuesday, December 7
Task 12 of NIE: Tool or medium?
First of all I'd like to note that the source text this time was one of the hardest one´s I´ve read so far (in the meaning of understanding the message of the author).
While Rückriem states in the end, that computer technology (and everything introduced by it) can be seen both as a medium or a tool (depending on one´s point of view), I firmly believe that it is a rapidly enhanced tool that now causes revolution in the society. The main reasons behind the revolution are its speed, accessibility and widespread (low-cost).
For digital technology to be a medium itself, I would expect it to introduce a new way of communication to the human mind (like television did) - however today digital technology simply ties all the old mediums together, doing it fast and seamlessly. Of course this is convenient and revolutionizing, but for me it isn't a new way of "mediating", but rather a rethought way of instruments offered so far for communication.
When theoretizizing about the statement made that “supplying people with guns creates a social world quite different from world in which people are disarmed” and putting this to a context where a gun is for example a internet-access, I still have to argue that internet, digital technology will not create a new world. It would be as "supplying people with automatic-guns creates a social worldquite more different from world in which people are with non-automatic guns". Yes automatic guns will revolutionize warfare (or digital technology the communication), but wars would still exists and battles be fought (communication in its essence stays the same).
One might now ask, was then the introduction of television with the same effect - no. Television for communication was what a-bomb was for warfare - on the politics of warfare (communication) new threats and opportunities were introduced.
Source
http://www.iscar.org/fi/ruckriem.pdf
While Rückriem states in the end, that computer technology (and everything introduced by it) can be seen both as a medium or a tool (depending on one´s point of view), I firmly believe that it is a rapidly enhanced tool that now causes revolution in the society. The main reasons behind the revolution are its speed, accessibility and widespread (low-cost).
For digital technology to be a medium itself, I would expect it to introduce a new way of communication to the human mind (like television did) - however today digital technology simply ties all the old mediums together, doing it fast and seamlessly. Of course this is convenient and revolutionizing, but for me it isn't a new way of "mediating", but rather a rethought way of instruments offered so far for communication.
When theoretizizing about the statement made that “supplying people with guns creates a social world quite different from world in which people are disarmed” and putting this to a context where a gun is for example a internet-access, I still have to argue that internet, digital technology will not create a new world. It would be as "supplying people with automatic-guns creates a social world
One might now ask, was then the introduction of television with the same effect - no. Television for communication was what a-bomb was for warfare - on the politics of warfare (communication) new threats and opportunities were introduced.
Source
http://www.iscar.org/fi/ruckriem.pdf
Thursday, December 2
Task 11 of NIE: Components
When comparing the components offered (http://piratepad.net/apsWT6vudX) to the one's introduced in activity theory, I'd state that all of the components necessary were definitely described. When taking the model described in (http://informationr.net/ir/13-2/paper340.html), I tried to sub-categorize all of the components in the list to the 6 main categories introduced by Uden et al (2008).
Subject -
Community -
Object (Outcome) -
Rules -
Division of Labour -
Mediating artefact (Tools) -
All in all there weren´t any new possible categories described in the list but it is a good idea to use parts of that list to elaborate the 6-category structure of the activity theory framework as the created list was in some categories very thorough.
Subject -
Community -
Object (Outcome) -
Rules -
Division of Labour -
Mediating artefact (Tools) -
Subject -
Community -
Object (Outcome) -
Rules -
Division of Labour -
Mediating artefact (Tools) -
Community -
Object (Outcome) -
Rules -
Division of Labour -
Mediating artefact (Tools) -
All in all there weren´t any new possible categories described in the list but it is a good idea to use parts of that list to elaborate the 6-category structure of the activity theory framework as the created list was in some categories very thorough.
Wednesday, December 1
Task 10 of NIE: Applying activity theory
When comparing the two courses according to the activity theory, I will now use a diagram first introduced to me in the article written by Uden et al. (2008):
NIE
Subject - Student.
Community - Faculty, Students.
Object (Outcome) - Knowledge about new interactive environments and their background.
Rules - Internet protocol, Ethics, Rules about the structure of studies, homework deadlines, participation demands.
Division of Labour - follows the grid of Community.
Mediating artefact (Tools) - Blog, Study environment, Voip.
PLENK
http://connect.downes.ca/
Subject - Student.
Community - Faculty, Students.
Object (Outcome) - Knowledge about concepts of personal learning environments and networks.
Rules - Session, forum, newsletter, wiki, readings carry-out rules and demands..
Division of Labour - follows the grid of Community.
Mediating artefact (Tools) - Newsletters, Wiki, Forums.
I see the two courses being very similar, with the major difference being only in the chosen tools offered and demanded by the faculty.
Ofcourse the thorough description of the PLENK course leaves no room for personal adaptions (everything is pre-described and therefore pre-ordered).
When thinking about the challenges and limitations one faces while implementing activity theory into practice in digitally mediated courses, the biggest problem in my view lies in the structure itself - as the community never exists in the idea of a classical community (no face to face interaction, no physical set boundaries), it always is questionable wheteher the community understands and accepts the tools, rules and division of labour coherently or are there conflicts in the understandings of one universal subject of the community.
Based on
http://informationr.net/ir/13-2/paper340.html
Subject - Student.
Community - Faculty, Students.
Object (Outcome) - Knowledge about new interactive environments and their background.
Rules - Internet protocol, Ethics, Rules about the structure of studies, homework deadlines, participation demands.
Division of Labour - follows the grid of Community.
Mediating artefact (Tools) - Blog, Study environment, Voip.
PLENK
http://connect.downes.ca/
Subject - Student.
Community - Faculty, Students.
Object (Outcome) - Knowledge about concepts of personal learning environments and networks.
Rules - Session, forum, newsletter, wiki, readings carry-out rules and demands..
Division of Labour - follows the grid of Community.
Mediating artefact (Tools) - Newsletters, Wiki, Forums.
I see the two courses being very similar, with the major difference being only in the chosen tools offered and demanded by the faculty.
Ofcourse the thorough description of the PLENK course leaves no room for personal adaptions (everything is pre-described and therefore pre-ordered).
When thinking about the challenges and limitations one faces while implementing activity theory into practice in digitally mediated courses, the biggest problem in my view lies in the structure itself - as the community never exists in the idea of a classical community (no face to face interaction, no physical set boundaries), it always is questionable wheteher the community understands and accepts the tools, rules and division of labour coherently or are there conflicts in the understandings of one universal subject of the community.
Based on
http://informationr.net/ir/13-2/paper340.html
Friday, November 12
Task 9 of NIE: Exploring activity theory
To better my understanding of acitivity theory and its implementation and usage in activity systems I read the article "An activity-theory-based model to analyse Web application requirements" by L.Uden & P.Valderas (2008).
There they describe and theoretizese over the possibility of using activity theory to better create a website - actually the correct notion should be how to create web-based applications, that meet the needs of both the consumer and producer, with the maximum satisfaction possible.
This subject is currently quite important to me as I am a head of a web-application project, where my ideas and beliefs are co-existing with the needs and wishes of the customer (these are elaborated by myself), and I do feel that traditional technical ways to lead this project (more precicly the creation of the action-plan) might be un-effective, as I fail to describe both my visions and the needs of the customer thouroughly - I can introduce examples and I can defend these ideas, but saying "menu X should be like variant Y" is not thorough enough for me. This is elaborately described by Uden & Valderas, who state that "Most established requirements engineering techniques however, do not adequately address the critical organizational and ‘softer', people-related issues of software systems."
In such situation the usage of the model introduced by Uden & Valderas could be very useful. To my belief this usefulness comes from the statement made by the authors where "Using the activity system as its unit of analysis, activity theory avoids simple causal explanation". In modern times thorough explanations are always needed.
So what is activity theory itself to my? First of all the article I read, offered a wonderful scheme of the theory:
As the theory itself states, its about activity. This means that the core subject - activity - firstly needs to be described. Uden & Valderas cite this definition as following: ".. the three levels that activities have: activity, action and operation". This means that every action we foretake, cannot be easily classified as activity - other categories exist. I especially liked the description that authors offered for this statement - "activities may be automated and frozen when carried out repeatedly under similar circumstances, making conscious control unnecessary, thus transforming the acts into operational constituents of an action".
As with any such elaborate system (more socio- than technological) it is apparent that there are some short-comings to the system. I agree with Uden & Valderas, who state that "key limitation of this approach is that the researcher must have a complete understanding of the activity system under observation, including the dynamic interplay of all the units of the activity system and such understanding takes time to acquire". Altough if this time-consuming actionplan would be carried through, we could easily state as Uden & Valderas do, that "activity theory also provides us with adequate period of time for understanding users' behaviour and their motivation".
This can be especially said in my described case before, where my stances all do not actually have researched backgrounds - this could lead to a situation where some short time period later I'd have to state that the needs of my customers are changed while they simply were left un-researched.
Source
http://informationr.net/ir/13-2/paper340.html
Thursday, November 4
Task 7 of NIE: My own understanding of interactivity
Although the articles reviewed in the former tasks were old in their datum, I think the messages delivered still exist today. While there has been in the past an immensely large proportion of overview put in to the types of interactive "something", I think interactivity has evolved to be as common, or as basic as air is.
For example we didn't do any research on the type of paper our daily newspapers were made "in the old days". Interactivity research I'm afraid will become as extinct as this offered idea already was back then and is now.
A human being is a interactive person. As we communicate with our five senses, so far the media consumption has been one-way consumed, the future (and in a large amount of fields "the today" already) will make this senses-dependent communication finally two-way. We shall not get any normative functionality from the objects without interacting with them.
For example we didn't do any research on the type of paper our daily newspapers were made "in the old days". Interactivity research I'm afraid will become as extinct as this offered idea already was back then and is now.
A human being is a interactive person. As we communicate with our five senses, so far the media consumption has been one-way consumed, the future (and in a large amount of fields "the today" already) will make this senses-dependent communication finally two-way. We shall not get any normative functionality from the objects without interacting with them.
Wednesday, October 27
Task 6 of NIE: Kiousis, S.: Interactivity: a concept explication
The article written by Kiousis focuses on the issue that has troubled me many times, when trying to academically define what an interactive “something” is. While in the previous post I stated out interactivity as a meaning, it still is pretty un-academic for my research to implement on.
For example one example that always rises in my mind when talking about interactivity, is the existence of one. For example while teletext for television has been thought to be an interactive solution, a RDS capable-radio station is still a linear channel.
In that sense I greet Kiousis notion where “major limitation with some experimental inquiries is that a condition is often called ‘interactive’ without considering multiple levels of the variable, let alone defining its meaning.“ Over the years more and more troubling will it be for academics to define the existence of interactivity. It simply will be implemented to everything. In that sense the study of interactivity might one day be like the study of matter – our subject exist everywhere but has just different peculiarities.
As a firm believer of this tendency (the borderless widespread of interactive everything) I greet the focus put forward by Kiousis to further investigate the levels or dimensions of interactivity, leaving the questions, whether interactivity occurs or not, out of the way. A television set is interactive as it cannot be totally linear or one-way (there’s an option to change the channel for example). The same might be in the case of printed books – whether it is choice-based story-telling or a fairy-tale with movable pictures. These examples do have a minor level interactivity, which exist for example in a medium deemed to be highly interactive – internet. In the case of the before-mentioned book, a web-based e-card offers the same functionality.
For the time being the capable method of defining interactivity surely can be the one formulated by Kiousis: “… definition of interactivity that includes the following as major dimensions: (1) the structure of a medium (Steuer, 1992); (2) the context of communication settings (Rafaeli, 1988); and (3) the perceptions of users (Wu, 1999). “
Source:
http://rcirib.ir/articles/pdfs/cd1%5CIngenta_Sage_Articles_on_194_225_11_89/Ingenta866.pdf
For example one example that always rises in my mind when talking about interactivity, is the existence of one. For example while teletext for television has been thought to be an interactive solution, a RDS capable-radio station is still a linear channel.
In that sense I greet Kiousis notion where “major limitation with some experimental inquiries is that a condition is often called ‘interactive’ without considering multiple levels of the variable, let alone defining its meaning.“ Over the years more and more troubling will it be for academics to define the existence of interactivity. It simply will be implemented to everything. In that sense the study of interactivity might one day be like the study of matter – our subject exist everywhere but has just different peculiarities.
As a firm believer of this tendency (the borderless widespread of interactive everything) I greet the focus put forward by Kiousis to further investigate the levels or dimensions of interactivity, leaving the questions, whether interactivity occurs or not, out of the way. A television set is interactive as it cannot be totally linear or one-way (there’s an option to change the channel for example). The same might be in the case of printed books – whether it is choice-based story-telling or a fairy-tale with movable pictures. These examples do have a minor level interactivity, which exist for example in a medium deemed to be highly interactive – internet. In the case of the before-mentioned book, a web-based e-card offers the same functionality.
For the time being the capable method of defining interactivity surely can be the one formulated by Kiousis: “… definition of interactivity that includes the following as major dimensions: (1) the structure of a medium (Steuer, 1992); (2) the context of communication settings (Rafaeli, 1988); and (3) the perceptions of users (Wu, 1999). “
Source:
http://rcirib.ir/articles/pdfs/cd1%5CIngenta_Sage_Articles_on_194_225_11_89/Ingenta866.pdf
Tuesday, October 26
Task 5 of NIE: Jensen, J.F.: Interactivity: tracking a new concept in media and communication studies
Interactivity is definitely a subject that is most vital for me, as my studies greatly based on it. Over the years, academic years, I have repeatedly been introduced to different concepts of how to understand the definition of interactive media. I focus on the media because it has been one of the core-subjects of my curriculum.
For years I have studied the principles of communication – whether it is the message, the medium, the communicator, the noise or the receivers. Interactivity in these patterns of relationships can occur in various places; therefore a descriptive notion of the one has always been in my mind.
To me interactive media or interactive “something” means the communication with that something is an input-output symbiosis. This means that one (output) cannot live or survive without the other (input) and vice versa. This means that in the case of media the message or content cannot survive or be whole without the input of the receiver.
Of course this definition lacks the originality, or rather the ability to implement it to a variety of interactive solutions available in the market. But as Jensen conclusively reports, this try of universality is quite problematic, as what might be thought as a feature of interactivity has no common ground – the ability to see a TV-guide through my television is not interactivity to me, but rather an intra-channel of the main channel. To others it very well might be.
But I’m willing to rethink my concept of interactivity, as the one offered by Jensen is quite rational – “interactivity can … be reduced to four dimensions which can be understood using the communication patterns: transmission, consultation, conversation and registration”.
As a traditionally un-interactive channel newspaper can be thought as a transmission channel and registration based communication has a fixed amount of input and output; then truly interactive channels can be consultation and conversation, as there exists the before-mentioned input-output symbiosis. By Jensen this symbiosis can be described as follows: “Interaction occurs as soon as the actions of two or more individuals are observed to be mutually interdependent”.
Source:
http:// www.nordicom.gu.se/ reviewcontents/ ncomreview/
ncomreview198/ jensen.pdf
For years I have studied the principles of communication – whether it is the message, the medium, the communicator, the noise or the receivers. Interactivity in these patterns of relationships can occur in various places; therefore a descriptive notion of the one has always been in my mind.
To me interactive media or interactive “something” means the communication with that something is an input-output symbiosis. This means that one (output) cannot live or survive without the other (input) and vice versa. This means that in the case of media the message or content cannot survive or be whole without the input of the receiver.
Of course this definition lacks the originality, or rather the ability to implement it to a variety of interactive solutions available in the market. But as Jensen conclusively reports, this try of universality is quite problematic, as what might be thought as a feature of interactivity has no common ground – the ability to see a TV-guide through my television is not interactivity to me, but rather an intra-channel of the main channel. To others it very well might be.
But I’m willing to rethink my concept of interactivity, as the one offered by Jensen is quite rational – “interactivity can … be reduced to four dimensions which can be understood using the communication patterns: transmission, consultation, conversation and registration”.
As a traditionally un-interactive channel newspaper can be thought as a transmission channel and registration based communication has a fixed amount of input and output; then truly interactive channels can be consultation and conversation, as there exists the before-mentioned input-output symbiosis. By Jensen this symbiosis can be described as follows: “Interaction occurs as soon as the actions of two or more individuals are observed to be mutually interdependent”.
Source:
http:// www.nordicom.gu.se/ reviewcontents/ ncomreview/
ncomreview198/ jensen.pdf
Wednesday, October 13
Task 3 of NIE: comparison of study plans
What elements, components, etc. have been used by others to describe their activity?
It surprised me as all of the reviewed authors had used mind-mapping to describe their activities. Maarja and Maibritt were very informative about the processes but all/in-all the mind-maps showed with detail of how th students prepare for their upcoming semester.
What level of detail?
I had a feeling that all of the reviewed mind-maps were descriptive enough to put them to use instantly. I guess for a graduate student this sort of task is a retelling task - we all have "mindmapped" our study processes for years now. I personally liked Maibritt's map, as it was familiar to my actions each start of semester.
What structural aspects are showing up in their descriptions/visualizations?
It is clear that our students fall in to two groups - one's with a career/work and family and the ones with time (better one's for the university I guess :)). All of the working students first dealt with coping the study plan to their work and family related happenings, while the other group just looked for fun, interesting subjects that were interesting enough.
What is missing?
Maybe some descriptive outcomes could have been published also - for example the student's desired study plan at start and where did he or she end up after these processes.
What are pros and cons of the different approaches?
I will take the liberty to name these approaches workman-approach and a student-approach. While the first one is good with its clear structure ("my free time is on x,y,z dates for xx to xx time), it is of-course bad because physiologically it is questionable how productive can one be after 9 hours of work, plus family time. It would be ten times better, if a workman can come to school at 8 am and simply deal with his or her curriculum. Sadly there aren't so many rich students in Estonia who can afford this sort of life.
The second approach (the rich students :)) is of-course best for reasons mentioned before, but I do think there are some cons / for example a workman student knows for sure what she or he needs and therefore acts to receive it - whether it is submitting to classes important to him, asking the right questions in the auditorium or doing home/works with real/life issues related.
Samples:
I http://reimoverse.wordpress.com/2010/10/11/task-2-activity-plan-fall-2010/
II http://www.tlu.ee/~jkangur/task2_j_kangur.pdf
III http://maibrittk.blogspot.com/2010/10/new-interactive-environments-task-two.html
IV http://maarjapajusalu.wordpress.com/2010/10/09/task-2-process-of-creating-my-study-plan/
V http://kerstin-and-imke.blogspot.com/2010/10/new-interactive-environments-task-2.html
It surprised me as all of the reviewed authors had used mind-mapping to describe their activities. Maarja and Maibritt were very informative about the processes but all/in-all the mind-maps showed with detail of how th students prepare for their upcoming semester.
What level of detail?
I had a feeling that all of the reviewed mind-maps were descriptive enough to put them to use instantly. I guess for a graduate student this sort of task is a retelling task - we all have "mindmapped" our study processes for years now. I personally liked Maibritt's map, as it was familiar to my actions each start of semester.
What structural aspects are showing up in their descriptions/visualizations?
It is clear that our students fall in to two groups - one's with a career/work and family and the ones with time (better one's for the university I guess :)). All of the working students first dealt with coping the study plan to their work and family related happenings, while the other group just looked for fun, interesting subjects that were interesting enough.
What is missing?
Maybe some descriptive outcomes could have been published also - for example the student's desired study plan at start and where did he or she end up after these processes.
What are pros and cons of the different approaches?
I will take the liberty to name these approaches workman-approach and a student-approach. While the first one is good with its clear structure ("my free time is on x,y,z dates for xx to xx time), it is of-course bad because physiologically it is questionable how productive can one be after 9 hours of work, plus family time. It would be ten times better, if a workman can come to school at 8 am and simply deal with his or her curriculum. Sadly there aren't so many rich students in Estonia who can afford this sort of life.
The second approach (the rich students :)) is of-course best for reasons mentioned before, but I do think there are some cons / for example a workman student knows for sure what she or he needs and therefore acts to receive it - whether it is submitting to classes important to him, asking the right questions in the auditorium or doing home/works with real/life issues related.
Samples:
I http://reimoverse.wordpress.com/2010/10/11/task-2-activity-plan-fall-2010/
II http://www.tlu.ee/~jkangur/task2_j_kangur.pdf
III http://maibrittk.blogspot.com/2010/10/new-interactive-environments-task-two.html
IV http://maarjapajusalu.wordpress.com/2010/10/09/task-2-process-of-creating-my-study-plan/
V http://kerstin-and-imke.blogspot.com/2010/10/new-interactive-environments-task-2.html
Wednesday, October 6
NIE Task 2: Creating a study plan
When planning my weekly activities, theres four fields of activities that are needed to be unified / my hobbies, my work, my studies and my family.
I usually plan these related events to my Google Calendar. Sadly during the last years all of my time-planning has gone over to that application, meaning I cannot promise no school-, hobbies- or family-related tasks before checking availabilities.
This principle of course requires me to regularly check my upcoming events which has made me check my calendar at least 3 times a day. Although this sounds pretty sad, I wouldn't imagine my life without these kind of calendar applications.
But onto to the main question - what are the processes I go through when planning my study semester? First of all I register myself to all available IMKE (my major) subjects as there are always a lack of them. Later on I import the IMKE calendar to my Google Calendar and then start re/organizing all of the events that were scheduled to the dates when IMKE courses take exist, in favor for IMKE subjects.
For the next step I browse through the university`s subjects catalog found in the study info system and I filter out all of the subject related to my interests - mostly media, management etc. related subjects. Then I look into the ASIO calendar base where I seek the dates of each of these interesting courses to me. If the date of a particular course suits me - meaning my calendar has open spaces at that time, I register myself to that course. I continue this route of actions until I have reached a 34-38 ECTS quantity in my semester study plan.
For the final step I share my calendar with my family so they can be in touch with my whereabouts on different days.
I usually plan these related events to my Google Calendar. Sadly during the last years all of my time-planning has gone over to that application, meaning I cannot promise no school-, hobbies- or family-related tasks before checking availabilities.
This principle of course requires me to regularly check my upcoming events which has made me check my calendar at least 3 times a day. Although this sounds pretty sad, I wouldn't imagine my life without these kind of calendar applications.
But onto to the main question - what are the processes I go through when planning my study semester? First of all I register myself to all available IMKE (my major) subjects as there are always a lack of them. Later on I import the IMKE calendar to my Google Calendar and then start re/organizing all of the events that were scheduled to the dates when IMKE courses take exist, in favor for IMKE subjects.
For the next step I browse through the university`s subjects catalog found in the study info system and I filter out all of the subject related to my interests - mostly media, management etc. related subjects. Then I look into the ASIO calendar base where I seek the dates of each of these interesting courses to me. If the date of a particular course suits me - meaning my calendar has open spaces at that time, I register myself to that course. I continue this route of actions until I have reached a 34-38 ECTS quantity in my semester study plan.
For the final step I share my calendar with my family so they can be in touch with my whereabouts on different days.
Monday, October 4
Task 1: experiences with Webpublishing
My experience with web-publishing is rather long as I have kept a personal blog from the year 2003. I am also a eager user of different new innovative communication channels - for example, Skype was installed in my Windows ME edition, long before its global-wide success-story. Sadly at that time there weren't many people to talk to.
When talking about social media, I do participate in Facebook, but I'm trying to cut down this kind of web-activity as it is too intrusive to my privacy.
Using web-publishing tools has definitely been a boost to my work/related aspirations as my study/centered blogs have been interesting to persons other than me.
All in all when taking to account that I am currently writing a project about a website with a variety of web-publishing features, I consider myself quite a novice in this field.
When talking about social media, I do participate in Facebook, but I'm trying to cut down this kind of web-activity as it is too intrusive to my privacy.
Using web-publishing tools has definitely been a boost to my work/related aspirations as my study/centered blogs have been interesting to persons other than me.
All in all when taking to account that I am currently writing a project about a website with a variety of web-publishing features, I consider myself quite a novice in this field.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)