The website i have chosen to analyse is http://www.skysports.com/, which has been around since July 1998. I have decided to analyse this website because i use it everyday because it is the quickest and most reliable site to get scores, results and information frequently updated on any sport.
It uses a very simple navigation system, providing the information for the reader in an easy to read format. The homepage is full of text, images and videos, however it is all layed out neatly, using a similar structure to a newspaper, making it familiar. It has the main story with a big picture in the top left of the page, main headlines to the right of that and then other stories, polls, scores and other links below them. It has a stylish sheet menu on the top on the page so you always know where you are and a search bar so anything can be located quickly. The homepage allwos the user to quickly browse over the page and know everything important that has happened throughout the day, without clicking on anything, very simple usage.
It includes an accessibility statement, help and FAQ's as well as contact information, therefore it can be trusted as being a well develped and a highly regarded website, as well as being very popular and very well known. It also has a privacy statement, so when i'm on it, or post a message in the forum, i feel safe. In addition it has a copyright notice and a terms and conditions notice, reassuring me that i am on a secure website with all the correct standard features.
As Lister points out, interactivity a very important commodity to a website and skysports.com is full of opportunities to get involved, as it provides forums to discuss the hot issues, blogs that anyone can post, emailing and even podcasting. Therefore it is very up to date with the 'new media' scene, providing something for everyone, allowing communication, discussions and opinion polls. This creates massive amounts of feedback for the website, providing users with the possibilty to have their say and get involved making it sociobly interactive. It is even possible to watch skysports live and even bet online on the current events.
Nevertheless, it is not this vast amount of interactivity and feedback options that appeal to me; it is the amount of information i can view and find out in such a short amount of time, that is updated as soon as they get the information, with very high standards of grammar and vocabulary. It is also so in tune with todays culture because at least every other person is interested in sport, and this website has all the information with all the gadgets, developing and changing in tandem with the new media scene.
Lister et al. (2003) New Media: A Critical Introduction, London: Routledge
Thursday, 26 February 2009
Week 6 tasks
What is a Community of Practice?
A Community of Practice (CofP), as Wenger states, is a group of people you feel most comfortable with to share concerns and difficulties, to figure them out and reslove them through day to day interactions (Wenger, 2003). These communities can be developed in businesses, schools, sports teams and bands etc. One CofP i belong to (as i have mentioned on the forum) is the local football team i play for at home, Inkberrow FC. It is a very close nit team, and socially it is brilliant. All the team members get on very well and we all get together after the game and interact off the field, usually by going to the pub! It has become a valuble commodity for me as it takes up my whole weekend, playing on a saturday and sunday and then socialising with everyone in the evenings. i believe it has made me mature as a person, because i am constantly communicating with people far older than me, and it has also provided me with some of my best memories.
Wenger states "These 'communities of practice' are mostly informal and distinct from organizational units" What do you think Wenger means by an "organizational unit"?
An "organisational unit" is the group or business surrounding the CofP(s), as they provide the opportunity for CofP's to be created, but they do not interlink with eachother. CofP's are much more personal and there are not any boundaries that exist and no one in charge. CofP's are "defined by knowledge, not by tasks" (Wenger, 2003) so it is people who come together that have things in common. Wenger puts it into a very simple format:
"People belong to communities of practice at the same time as they belong to other organizational structures. In their business units, they shape the organization. In their teams, they take care of projects. In their networks, they form relationships. And in their communities of practice, they develop the knowledge that lets them do these other tasks."
Therefore it is a process that creates these CofP allowing relationships to develop.
A Community of Practice (CofP), as Wenger states, is a group of people you feel most comfortable with to share concerns and difficulties, to figure them out and reslove them through day to day interactions (Wenger, 2003). These communities can be developed in businesses, schools, sports teams and bands etc. One CofP i belong to (as i have mentioned on the forum) is the local football team i play for at home, Inkberrow FC. It is a very close nit team, and socially it is brilliant. All the team members get on very well and we all get together after the game and interact off the field, usually by going to the pub! It has become a valuble commodity for me as it takes up my whole weekend, playing on a saturday and sunday and then socialising with everyone in the evenings. i believe it has made me mature as a person, because i am constantly communicating with people far older than me, and it has also provided me with some of my best memories.
Wenger states "These 'communities of practice' are mostly informal and distinct from organizational units" What do you think Wenger means by an "organizational unit"?
An "organisational unit" is the group or business surrounding the CofP(s), as they provide the opportunity for CofP's to be created, but they do not interlink with eachother. CofP's are much more personal and there are not any boundaries that exist and no one in charge. CofP's are "defined by knowledge, not by tasks" (Wenger, 2003) so it is people who come together that have things in common. Wenger puts it into a very simple format:
"People belong to communities of practice at the same time as they belong to other organizational structures. In their business units, they shape the organization. In their teams, they take care of projects. In their networks, they form relationships. And in their communities of practice, they develop the knowledge that lets them do these other tasks."
Therefore it is a process that creates these CofP allowing relationships to develop.
Thursday, 12 February 2009
Week 3 - Topic 2 Web Forums
A) Is withholding one’s identity ethically wrong?
It is obvious not to give your name and address out on the internet etc., but there is also the issue of pretending to be someone you are not. I do not believe it is that much of a problem, as long as there are boundaries, because i believe for some people it gives them the chance to be someone they are not, create a different character to an extent giving them more confidence to comment and interact with others. It allows a sort of escapism from their usual self, acting differently, an internet ID it could be called, because in a real life study group, some people may not contribute as they'd like and say what they want. It opens up opportunities to show different aspects of thinking and saying things. At times, if you say you are older, or have achieved things you havn't, you will get more respect in the forums, however there are limits to how far you go to changing your identity, such as stereotyping or taking the mickey out someone else or using your moulded identity to put across untolerable views.
B.) Should we always use our full name?
Similarly to the previous question, it is a matter of choice, that is the brilliance with the internet, you can be who you like, but again there a the limits of putting one of your mates full names and pretending to be a right idiot. Sometimes the best option is to use a nickname, as i don't really like putting my whole name on, it seems rather formal, i think it's better to be a bit more adventurous and playful.
C.) Far from adopting a ‘mask’, isn’t one appeal of the Net that you can express your true self among like minds?
This is a definate positive that web forums offer, as i was saying before, web forums give people the confidence to speak out in a group, due to there not being as much pressure compared to a seminar group or similar. Poeoples true feelings are expressed creating more of an argument and passion, which is shown as there is no fear of being shown up and it is subject specific to what you're interested in.
D.) What kinds of risk are involved in online self-expression? Online relationships?
It is often the case that characters collide whilst online, plainly because people have complete opposing opinions. Therefore when someone comes out with a rash statement, the believe to be true, others can find this offensive, and it gives that person a bad name. Therefore at times it is best to keep some views and attitudes on a piece of paper, rather than a forum. Online relationships are dangerous to get into, because that question of identity is asked once again, and no one can be sure who they are talking to. Also if two people get on well on the internet, doesn't mean they will get on in real life.
E.) If you are participating in online social interaction might you shape your identity and expression to ‘fit’ that group?
I beleive a person would have to shape their identity to have involvement in the discussion. This is because you would not be taken seriously and would get no respect in the first place. However this begs the question, why would you want to have social interation with a group you have nothing in common with? Wouldn't it be boring and unbeneficial, unless you were just having fun developing your own characters!
F.) If you are a ‘digital presence’ how can you be manipulated by others?
A person could easily get your attention and brainwash you by just saying he is somekind of genius. The media today is constantly manipulating people into believing things, and it is the same on forums, it is easy to be drawn into something someone tells you.
Lister et al. (2003) New Media: A Critical Introduction, London: Routledge.
It is obvious not to give your name and address out on the internet etc., but there is also the issue of pretending to be someone you are not. I do not believe it is that much of a problem, as long as there are boundaries, because i believe for some people it gives them the chance to be someone they are not, create a different character to an extent giving them more confidence to comment and interact with others. It allows a sort of escapism from their usual self, acting differently, an internet ID it could be called, because in a real life study group, some people may not contribute as they'd like and say what they want. It opens up opportunities to show different aspects of thinking and saying things. At times, if you say you are older, or have achieved things you havn't, you will get more respect in the forums, however there are limits to how far you go to changing your identity, such as stereotyping or taking the mickey out someone else or using your moulded identity to put across untolerable views.
B.) Should we always use our full name?
Similarly to the previous question, it is a matter of choice, that is the brilliance with the internet, you can be who you like, but again there a the limits of putting one of your mates full names and pretending to be a right idiot. Sometimes the best option is to use a nickname, as i don't really like putting my whole name on, it seems rather formal, i think it's better to be a bit more adventurous and playful.
C.) Far from adopting a ‘mask’, isn’t one appeal of the Net that you can express your true self among like minds?
This is a definate positive that web forums offer, as i was saying before, web forums give people the confidence to speak out in a group, due to there not being as much pressure compared to a seminar group or similar. Poeoples true feelings are expressed creating more of an argument and passion, which is shown as there is no fear of being shown up and it is subject specific to what you're interested in.
D.) What kinds of risk are involved in online self-expression? Online relationships?
It is often the case that characters collide whilst online, plainly because people have complete opposing opinions. Therefore when someone comes out with a rash statement, the believe to be true, others can find this offensive, and it gives that person a bad name. Therefore at times it is best to keep some views and attitudes on a piece of paper, rather than a forum. Online relationships are dangerous to get into, because that question of identity is asked once again, and no one can be sure who they are talking to. Also if two people get on well on the internet, doesn't mean they will get on in real life.
E.) If you are participating in online social interaction might you shape your identity and expression to ‘fit’ that group?
I beleive a person would have to shape their identity to have involvement in the discussion. This is because you would not be taken seriously and would get no respect in the first place. However this begs the question, why would you want to have social interation with a group you have nothing in common with? Wouldn't it be boring and unbeneficial, unless you were just having fun developing your own characters!
F.) If you are a ‘digital presence’ how can you be manipulated by others?
A person could easily get your attention and brainwash you by just saying he is somekind of genius. The media today is constantly manipulating people into believing things, and it is the same on forums, it is easy to be drawn into something someone tells you.
Lister et al. (2003) New Media: A Critical Introduction, London: Routledge.
Week 3 - Topic 1
E) Are online relationships the same as offline ones?
No! It is ridiculous to presume that you could have a relationship with someone you just chat to using just text based communication system. I believe this because the same old issue always pops up, online personas and real identity, can the person on the other end be trusted.
On the other hand, this question does throw up alot of different situations, such as have the two people ever met before? Is it a relationship between two friends, or more than that? Is it going to develop into anything else? All of these questions develop a different approach as there are so many responces and outcomes that can occur, it is difficult to come to a defined conclusion. Nevertheless, mine is just an opinion, and i believe online relationships could never feel the same, or have the same successful outcome as an offline one.
No! It is ridiculous to presume that you could have a relationship with someone you just chat to using just text based communication system. I believe this because the same old issue always pops up, online personas and real identity, can the person on the other end be trusted.
On the other hand, this question does throw up alot of different situations, such as have the two people ever met before? Is it a relationship between two friends, or more than that? Is it going to develop into anything else? All of these questions develop a different approach as there are so many responces and outcomes that can occur, it is difficult to come to a defined conclusion. Nevertheless, mine is just an opinion, and i believe online relationships could never feel the same, or have the same successful outcome as an offline one.
Week 2
Qb) According to Lister et al., some commentators stress the ‘newness’ of new media, but others (such as Kevin Robins) can be seen to be saying that nothing fundamental has changed, because new media technology is another product of capitalism, and therefore will fit into and serve a pre-existing capitalist society and culture, rather than transform it in any fundamental sense. Any thoughts? Can we critique this position?
There is a valid point put across in Lister et al., arguing against new media, saying that it is a product of Capitalsim because the government and others around media do have a massive influence on what goes on. However it is apparent that, although we do live in a capitalist society, i believe new media would have developed exactly the same if it were a different circumstance. i also believe it has transformed culture, just as much as the telephone has, as it is constant change, constant improvements and constant communication within the culture of new media, such as blogging! No one can control what we say on our blogs (to an extent), therefore how can it be a product of capitalism?
There is a valid point put across in Lister et al., arguing against new media, saying that it is a product of Capitalsim because the government and others around media do have a massive influence on what goes on. However it is apparent that, although we do live in a capitalist society, i believe new media would have developed exactly the same if it were a different circumstance. i also believe it has transformed culture, just as much as the telephone has, as it is constant change, constant improvements and constant communication within the culture of new media, such as blogging! No one can control what we say on our blogs (to an extent), therefore how can it be a product of capitalism?
Week 2
Qa) With Windows Vista replacing XP and Office 2007 replacing Office 2003, (and so on), what is ‘upgrade culture’ all about? Is some new media change just consumerism thought up by big business?
As a company as a whole Windows continually has to think up new ideas to make money and to attract people to buy there products and software. In addition, it is also about expanding the limits of software and making it look better, feel better and work better with new programs and more things to do. In my opinion i do not see much difference between XP and Vista, or Office 2003 and 2007, however 'upgrade culture' is all about change and contantly looking for improvments, even if they are of the smallest variety, such as a new type of font has been added, or a new desktop background. Therefore if these small changes are continually made throughout windows history, in twenty years or so there will be a massive contrast compared to now. I believe 'upgrade culture' is a system that improves the way of life for both the consumer and the big companies, we all get something out of it!
As a company as a whole Windows continually has to think up new ideas to make money and to attract people to buy there products and software. In addition, it is also about expanding the limits of software and making it look better, feel better and work better with new programs and more things to do. In my opinion i do not see much difference between XP and Vista, or Office 2003 and 2007, however 'upgrade culture' is all about change and contantly looking for improvments, even if they are of the smallest variety, such as a new type of font has been added, or a new desktop background. Therefore if these small changes are continually made throughout windows history, in twenty years or so there will be a massive contrast compared to now. I believe 'upgrade culture' is a system that improves the way of life for both the consumer and the big companies, we all get something out of it!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
