Moving with the Future

JOMC 240:  Issues in Mass Communication- a course that should be titled "Media Disruption".  From class discussion to lectures from the great Professor John Robinson to researching for blog topics, I learned that the media around us is in a state of disruption.  Within this broad category, I learned about the past, present, and future of media disruption and about both the beneficial and negative consequences that these changes in mass communication and technology will have on my life.

Out of all this "media chatter," I think that one quote that Professor Robinson shared with us on the last day of class really sums up the most relevant and meaningful thing I learned this semester: "I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it's been."  Spoken by the famous Wayne Gretzky, this quote really highlights the action that we should take in our current state of media disruption.

The puck represents mass communication and tools of mass communication.  They are constantly moving and changing direction.  Technology has generated stronger players in the world of mass communication, causing the puck to accelerate and turn at even faster paces.  This puck has always been moving, but today its speed is faster than ever before, making our ability to keep up harder and harder.

Although we cannot predict the future, JOMC 240 taught me that we can try and that it is important to always skate towards where we think the puck is going.  Not only can it be helpful in both our personal and professional lives to know the puck's next move, but it is really interesting to think about where media is going and where it has been. 

I have reflected on the days of AIM, AM Radio, and the primitive stages of twitter and e-mail and have shared my opinions on the future of virtual reality, online identity, wearable technology, and even jeans! Through this, I learned that mass communication has always been conditioned to change, and its tools have been continuously replaced with new ones.  

The bottom line is that, currently, a strong wind of this change and disruption is upon us.  Today's change, just as change in the past, will be met with hostility and disapproval from many.  For example, Google Glass has fostered criticism from those who find them intrusive and ostentatious.  We often overlook all of the good that comes from the new, because we are fixated on the potential negatives. 

With that said, seemingly futuristic modes of communication are a reality, and we have to learn to move past the fear of the unfamiliar to take advantage of the benefits that these new tools can bring us.  Google Glass has opened major doors for the future of wearable technology and has proved valuable in several situations, like aiding individuals with visual impairments and providing opportunities for young patients in a children's hospital.

Each new development connects us further and quicker- creating a new identity for ourselves in the online world of communication.  While we should accept these new developments and use them for connecting, communicating, and bettering ourselves and society, at the same time, it is crucial to be aware of and educated on the implications that new forms of mass communication and technology will have on our brains, relationships, and personal security.

Mass communication extends into every part of our personal and professional lives, and, like with any thing that bears a heavy impact on our lives, we need to be fully educated on both its positive and negative effects.  We must keep up with the puck, while knowing its position the best that we can.

What's a Video Phone?

Today, we have several means through which we can communicate with others via video.  To name just a few, there's Skype, FaceTime, and SnapChat.  The company that I work for even has video calling tools in their personal software.  Video communication is all around us, and we use it all of the time.  It is easy to forget that video chatting is a fairly new universal development... or is it?  

Well.. the video chatting that we use today is a contemporary concept, but video communication has been around - or at least thought of - since the late nineteenth century.  However, it wasn't until the mid-1900's when the first video calling device was released for the public's use.  When I first heard about its existence, I was shocked.  But after reading this Mashable article that described it is a "historical failure," I wasn't surprised in the least that I never had heard of it before.

Fifty years ago today, Americans got the opportunity to make their first video telephone call.  The device, Bell's Model One PicturePhone, consisted of a black and white screen and required callers to remain completely motionless in order to see each other on the other end.

If the PicturePhone was released in the 50's, then why did it take so long for video calling to become a universal phenomenon?  The mashable article explains one answer:  "At $16 for three minutes, your up-to-15 minute video call could cost as much as $80 - the equivalent of $610 in 2014 dollars." But despite its costly use and unpopularity, companies continued to produce new and updated versions of the device for over forty years.

I have to agree with Mashable when it credits its downfall to "the need to buy not one, but two dedicated pieces of equipment."  If you wanted to make a video call, the receiver also had to own a PicturePhone to connect with you.   Because video calling was confined to one specific device, it ultimately failed.

What flipped the switch was the advent of the Internet and internet-enabled devices.  Practically anyone who is likely to make video calls owns a computer, cell phone, or other device that allows them to do so.  And, the calls are practically free.  

The story of the videophone makes me think that without the internet, we could still be limited to a specific device for video chatting.  Also, I wonder what the video chatting of today would look like if the 1956 PicturePhone had been commonly used in society.  If they could have made it smaller and more affordable, with higher quality, then maybe we would still be using the PicturePhone- or some version of it- today.  

It's crazy to think how far we have come in the world of video communication.  But it's also interesting to take a step back and actually see all of the places that we have been. 

Keep the Comments

Blog posts and articles posted online open doors for commentary and criticism from readers.  Some of these responses are harmless comments, while some are spam or promotions for another company or product.  Some even result in hurtful attacks and bullying. For example, from Kristin's stolen identity story, you can see an account of some negative responses from within the community.

These nasty and sometimes pointless comments can build up and potentially ruin the intent or legitimacy of the original post.  We're often told to ignore the negative feedback that may come from others, and some people even suggest that there should be an option to close a comments section altogether.

However, I think that regardless of the comments that are made, a comment section adds value to a blog.  It creates a conversation (or an opportunity for a conversation) between the author and the reader.  The poster can make their argument, and the option to comment leaves the reader with a chance to refute, critique, or even add to the claims that the poster made.

Whenever I read a blog that has left me curious for more information or for a different viewpoint, I immediately scroll down to see if there are any comments.  Even though I often have to sift through the ignorant responses and the spam messages promising me a new job, the comment section rarely ever fails to provide me with further insight on the topic.  Sometimes it even proves to be pretty entertaining.

SocialMedia Today agrees with me on keeping the convo open, and goes further to discuss the importance of comments for brands.  It suggests controlling the offensive remarks through "outside moderators" and making sure to engage on social media to continue a conversation.

Even if the comment section does not actually start a conversation between the reader and the poster, I think that it is important that a comment section exists.  It creates a more inviting and open environment within a blog, which, to me, is one of the coolest parts of blogs in the first place.  They're not a news article or definite information source.  They give readers an individual's personal opinions and thoughts on real topics and events.  Their subjective nature is furthered through their supplemental comments and makes them more interesting than a typical news article online.

Although they may sometimes be pointless, negative, or just downright mean, comments should not be eliminated from blogs and online posts.  Sometimes we must ignore the hurtful commentary to have the opportunity to benefit from the valuable outlooks of readers.  Perhaps tools will be created that eliminate comments of spam or irrelevance and sort the good comments from the bad.  But until then, we just need to learn to suck it up and see the potential value that readers can add to any post.

(Feel free to add your own comments below)

The Ancient Times of AIM

In discussing more recent disruption in mass communication tools, we tend to focus on Myspace, Vine, and even the newspaper.  But we have overlooked one of the greatest communication innovations of our time.. or my time at least.. AOL Instant Messaging.  Better known as AIM- pronounced A.I.M. or 'aim' if you're feeling really hip.  

In the days of screen names, away messages, and buddy lists, AIM started and took over the instant messaging world.  Under the super cool screen names of "billabongbaby" and "dancinqt94," I would spend hours each day on AIM, chatting with friends (sometimes even robots) and updating my profile.

AIM was the main medium through which I communicated with others, and I spent the majority of my free time there.  But looking back, I cannot pinpoint what caused me to stop using the instant messaging device and when AIM really started to disappear. Luckily, Mashable posted an article about the "rise and fall of AIM" that provides readers with a detailed history of the messenger.  I'll summarize their explanation...

In the 1990's, AOL became the dominant internet service provider in America, and users paid a monthly subscription fee to use it.  One of its first features was being able to request to see if a certain user was online.  As more and more people used AOL, and more and more people began trying to check if someone was online at once, crashes occurred more frequently, and the buddy list was born.  The buddy list allowed users to see who and who was not online at the time, without having to specifically request knowing their status. 

Shortly after the buddy list, AOL switched its subscription fee from an hourly rate to a flat fee for users. The flat flee fueled the more frequent presence of users online, and soon the service experienced further crashes within its messaging systems.  A small team of AOL employees knew that something had to be done.. that a messenger tool needed to be created outside of the "garden walls" of the AOL system.

Behind the backs of AOL executives, the team produced AIM.  They showed their final product to AOL, but the company, who charged subscription fees to members, was not pleased with the fact that a major tool of AOL would be provided for free.  However, the messenger was released, without the support of the executives.

AIM was met with early success, and the struggle of "AIM versus AOL" emerged.  "Every single executive wanted to shut it down and kill it."  But AIM continued to flourish and soon expanded to 18 million users. 

A great tool amongst employees in the workplace, "AIM became how all of Wall Street communicated," and at that point, there was no killing it.  Some of the features that developed, many of them slipping past AOL, were warnings, the away message- labeled as a "corporate need"- and buddy icons. Later, more advanced developments were made with mobile chat and the voice call. These later developments were far ahead of any other communication tool, and AIM could be said to be almost before its time.

As AOL continued to express their lack of support for the messenger, AIM pushed to monetize itself through advertisements.  However, they never ended up spending money on any outside ads and only ran promotions for AOL.  Perhaps with funding through outside advertising, AIM could have continued to make further developments.

Another factor that contributed to its stagnancy in development was its refusal to work with third party developers.  Outside companies wanted to create their own features for the messenger, but AIM rejected their ideas, because they were adamant about creating their own.  Soon other messenger tools and social media applications arose, and AIM began to fall behind and become the "ghost town" that it is today.

It is crazy to think of the success of AIM, when it lacked major support from AOL.  Perhaps if AOL would have worked to monetize the tool, take advertising opportunities, and allow outside developers to intervene, AIM could have been one of the first big names in social media.  The story of AIM tells of the importance of monetization and of constant disruption of communication tools by the rise of new ones.

I personally think that my disconnect with AIM must have been a result of the acceptance of texting and Myspace.  Texting allowed users to be more mobile, and Myspace encouraged more personalized profiles, opened conversations, and sharing of thoughts and comments.  

Despite its shortcomings, AIM will not only be a valuable part of my childhood and early teen years, but it will be a valuable step in the history of progress of communication technology.  Just think of all of the social media and communication applications that incorporate an instant messenger that reflects the original AIM in some way.  From the days of 'billabongbaby' to today's Facebook, we continue to feel the AIM legacy that the instant messenger left behind.

For some further reminiscing about AIM, I suggest reading this Buzzfeed article on "The 15 Away Messages You Definitely had Growing Up."

GoogleLenses

Wearables have taken over the world of technological innovation.  From the Nike Fuel Band to smart watches, wearable tech devices are popping up everywhere.  Perhaps the most popular of these new devices is Google Glass- you can read some of my opinions of the glasses here and here. 

Met with much criticism, Google Glass is a huge step in the future of wearables and just recently, Google has taken this visual computing concept one step further...

Google has patented tiny cameras that can be embedded in contact lenses.  These cameras can be used for both personal photo and video-capturing endeavors and as a visual assistive device.  However, it is easy to predict the hostility towards the lenses after examining the backlash to the release of Google Glass.

While the lenses would protect wearers from the assault that some Glass users have experienced, they will surely fuel skepticism in many non-wearers because of their secret intrusive nature.  People who fear being recorded by Google Glass without their knowledge will now not even know if a peer is wearing the lenses.

Initially, this seems a little creepy.. But when focusing on the "surveillance environment" that the universal acceptance of these lenses could create, it is easy to overlook the implications that this development will have on individuals with visual impairments and on the future development of contact lenses.

For example, Google recently released news about contact lenses that would monitor blood glucose levels of diabetics.  This has huge benefits for people who live with diabetes, and it is important to acknowledge the benefits that the camera lenses will have for those who are blind or visually impaired.

The contact lenses operate through blinking patterns and have wireless capabilities that allow them to communicate with a wearer's smartphone.  They could spot obstacles in a users line of vision and alert them of any dangers or obstructions.  To me, the coolest function of the lenses is their potential for face recognition.  The Week says, "the system will also be able to detect faces, helping the blind to recognize people they know."

I think the lenses are awesome, and if they gain traction in society, they will significantly help individuals with visual impairments and will lead to further advancements in the realm of visual computing.  Perhaps one day (maybe very soon), our contacts will have the entire computing capabilities of Google Glass.  

It's time to notice the extreme benefits of wearable devices.  Sometimes we need to ignore the potential unfamiliarity and fear of new tech and realize its more important advantages.


Further reading : http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/google-patents-tiny-cameras-embedded-in-contact-lenses/

Telecommuting Troubles

As technological advances have made our society more mobile and connected, we are being driven into an age of telecommuting.  Telecommuting, a term coined by a rocket science at NASA in the seventies, basically means working from home.

Our ability to use technology to communicate in different ways, with different people, and across different mediums has allowed jobs to be taken from the office to the bedroom.  It is strange to think that only forty years ago, working from home wasn't even a common option when choosing a career. And today, most of my friends parents work out of their home offices or at least complete some of their work in a home setting.

The telephone made instant communication possible.  The internet made information more accessible and in-office tasks portable.  And then innovations like Skype and group messaging lead to video conference calls and the ability to communicate with an entire team of staff all the way across the globe.

These tools have sparked an age of telecommuting, which I believe can have both positive and negative implications for companies, individuals, and our world as whole.  

One of the benefits of telecommuting is not having to physically commute to a workplace.  Not only is this convenient for an employee, but it reduces traffic congestion and environmental impact.  Also, a company does not have to limit its hiring process to individuals who live or would live in the area, and employees do not have to move for their career.

Although telecommuting saves time, employee energy, and the environment, telecommuting presents major setbacks for the company that has distributed staff members.  It eliminates the real face-to-face connections that exist in a normal work environment and limits the team-centered atmosphere of a workplace.  

My own experiences with working in an office have revealed the value of working side-by-side with the entire staff.  I work for a wealth management firm, and communication technologies are used in pretty much everything that we do.  Whether its calling clients, distributing an electronic newsletter, emailing home office, or having an appointment with a client over Skype, communication technology is involved in almost every task.

With that said, it would definitely be easy for anyone in the office to work right from home.  But.. being in the same building as everyone else, you see how the team atmosphere is a breeding ground for learning from one another and developing new ideas.  

My favorite part of the week is our Monday team meetings. We come together on Monday afternoons to talk about updates and goals for the week.  Sure, we could have the meeting over Skype, but there is something about having real, face-to-face interactions with all of the staff that adds value to the experience.  I think this mashable article puts it best when describing being in the same room as your co-workers- "you can see facial expressions, you can feel energy in a room."

I think that if telecommuting becomes a reality for most careers and we begin to rely on video conference calls and email as our sole forms of interaction, we will weaken our capability to communicate with others and truly work with a team.  Think of all of the invaluable ideas that have resulted from those "water cooler" conversations that take place in the office.  

While communication technologies have definitely added value to the workplace, they are not a substitution for real-life communication with co-workers.

"On the other hand, consider serendipity. If you put dozens or thousands of creative people under one roof, a few might connect and create something that they wouldn't have thought of if they stayed home in their pajamas." - check out a full article about Mashable's thoughts

Finding the Good in Glass

I think that Clare made an interesting point of focusing on the positive effects of adopting Google Glass in society.  We tend to focus on the unfamiliarity of the device and its use in everyday silly tasks.  We forget what innovations like Google Glass and virtual reality can mean for education, healthcare, and even happiness.

Children's Memorial Hermann Hospital in Houston, Texas is proof that good can come from Glass. The hospital is using the wearables to give young patients the opportunity to take virtual tours of the Houston zoo.  Facetiming with a real zookeeper, they get a full tour of the zoo and get to interact and speak with the keeper about the animals and the facility.

Seeing the smile on the little boy's face in the video was enough to turn me into a Glass supporter.  New technology, like Google Glass or Facebook's Oculus Rift,  can allow patients to temporarily escape from the everyday walls of the hospital.  They could go to a petting zoo, explore a tropical island, or ride a roller coaster, all from the comfort of their own bed.

Virtual reality devices and wearables will surely dominate the future of technology.  It is important that we consider how we can use these new innovations to better society. When you consider their educational value, the temporary escape that they provide, and the excitement on the young patient's face, it seems silly to protest the glasses simply because they are unfamiliar or appear intrusive.

The Internet & Religion

The Internet has not only changed the way we access information and complete tasks, but it has changed the way we think and interact. It has impacted all aspects of society and contemporary culture, but until I read a recent CNN blogpost, I never thought about how it influences religion.

The article explores a number of statistics that suggest a correlation between internet use and religious 'unaffiliation.'  For example, with the rise of the Internet, the number of first year-college students who are unaffiliated has increased from only eight percent to twenty-five percent since 1985.  

Allen Downey, who completed the study, does acknowledge that other factors could have created this difference, but still claims that a correlation between internet use and religious unaffiliation definitely exists.  I believe that there are way too many other underlying factors in internet use to prove such a relationship.  For example, in general, those who have better access to the internet are usually financially and/or educationally superior to those who do not use the internet as often. 

However, I do agree with Downey when he says that the Internet "opens up new ways of thinking to those living in homogeneous environments" and "allows those with doubts to find like-minded individuals around the world."  It provides easier opportunities for those to explore ideas outside of their up-bringing and affirm their beliefs through connecting with other people and info.

I also agree with Cheryl Casey, another person familiar with the topic, that technology leads to "massive cultural change" in "how God, or the ultimate, is thought of and spoken about."  

I do not think that the Internet is "killing religion" or causing the spike in number of people who do not affiliate with a specific religion.  Instead, the Internet, like any communication and information technology, is simply changing society, and therefore the culture and religion that surrounds it.

As the world progresses, society changes.  The Internet is making these changes easier, quicker, and more widespread.  It breaks down barriers to communication and knowledge, allowing people to access new information and other individuals that they wouldn't have before, to make decisions about what they believe.  

Also, when describing the internet as "killing" religion, it is easy to overlook the benefits and tools that the Internet provides for religion.  Take Christianity.. One of its main goals is to reach people and share its message with others.  The flattened world of the Internet era aids in connecting people and allowing them to share the message of Christianity to those who they may have not been able to reach before.

Andrew Brown, of the Guardian, believes that the Internet and irreligion go hand in hand mainly because "every hour you spend online is an hour spent not doing other things"- in this case, practicing religion.  But for me, the Internet has opened up doors for me to explore my own religious beliefs, seek out individuals who share my religious opinions, and practice my religion in new ways... live online sermons from my church in Wilmington and my hillsong pandora station are just two examples.

Religion isn't endangered- it's just changing.

Covering Up to Open Up

If you haven't watched the new advertising video campaign for Dermablend's beauty products, I suggest you watch both of the videos above.  The "camo confessions"  of the two women are inspiring and bring a new perspective to beauty.

As a whole, our society is consumed with physical appearances and beauty itself.  Societal perceptions of perfection are rampant in both the media and advertising.  We stigmatize this obsession with beauty as being shallow, fake, vain, etc.  We often focus on the negatives of appearance-altering mechanisms, like make-up, and we ignore the potential benefits of these products.

Dermablend turns society's perception of makeup and beauty on itself by focusing on how make-up allows you to be yourself, rather than actually altering who you really are.  Dermablend suggests that instead of covering them up, there are some instances where makeup allows individuals to reveal themselves.

Mashable comments that "the high performance cosmetic brand isn't here to make you beautiful, but rather, you are beautiful."  Through these "camo confessions" of two women, Dermablend sends the message of how "cosmetic lines helps them feel more comfortable with themselves."

The two videos show women with skin conditions that often draw the attention of others.  They serve as a distraction from the individual's actual personality, and by covering up these conditions, they can drive others' attention away from their physical appearance and allow them to see past it.  

This is an interesting argument for a makeup brand to make, and I think it is genius.  It's easy to justify the benefits of beauty products that alter someone's physical appearance when you hear the touching testimonies of these people, who's appearances affect their everyday interactions and relationships.  

While I think that there are a lot of negatives that come with altering our appearance, it is important to consider situations where it has positively impacted people's everyday lives.  Go Dermablend for sending such an empowering message to those who struggle with similar situations!

The Future of.... Jeans?

Now that we are constantly attached to technology, and more specifically our cell phones, people have started to consider the implications of this in other areas of our life- our health, our thought-processes, our relationships.  But one area that I hadn't really considered was our clothing.

Then... I stumbled upon an article about a fairly new pair of jeans that are specially designed to protect iPhone users and their iPhones.  WTFJeans include many features, like a specially lined pocket that is specifically fit for any type of iPhone and cleans your phone screen when you slide it out of your pocket.  The jeans are also water-resistant, and some styles include sections that block radiation.

My initial thought was that the jeans were pretty cool- I especially liked the pocket-cleaning feature.  But after reading the full article on the WTFJeans, all I could think was WTF...

To begin, the jeans come at a steep price of $157 dollars.  This amount of money is almost more than it is to just buy a new iPhone.  I think that maybe a cheaper pocket insert would be more plausible for the future of tech-protective clothing.  

Also, I do not think there is a valid argument to justify the necessity of owning a pair of the pricey pants.  For one, the water-resistant feature seems completely useless, because you don't ever really hear of people causing water damage to their phones when they were in their pocket.  Usually water damage results from dropping it in a body of water or the classic toilet drop.

In addition, there really is no way to protect against the most prevalent forms of iPhone damage- cracking the screen, losing it, and software malfunctions.  And while the radiation-blocking plate is a good idea in theory, we still do not know the full effects of technology radiation on our health- is this even a serious problem?

Overall, I think it is sad that concepts like WTFJeans are even considered in society today.  If we really have to design our clothes to cater to our technology and communication devices, then maybe we really have over-incorporated tech in our daily lives.  I'll save my $157 for something a bit more useful.

My Take on Nicole's Observations

In her most recent blogpost, Nicole presents an interesting point about media disruption in our lives today and how it has affected our ability to think.  She says that she cannot simply sit and think about things, because she "gets bored in seconds."  And she claims that this is a result of our comfort in "constant stimulation that fills our mind with meaningless chatter."  

Nicole's personal story really resonated with me when I thought about the last time that I have taken a moment to just sit and think, without the presence of technology.  This is a rare occurrence for me, but I do not necessarily think that it's because I would get bored easily or that I have a constant instinct to check my phone.

For me, I don't normally get an itching desire to check my phone at all times.  I would love to be able to sit in my car and listen to classical tunes, like her grandfather, but I simply do not have time.  Especially as a student, I feel pressure to spend every free moment that I have working on something productive.

I'm not necessarily saying that this a good thing- in fact, often times it leaves me stressed and burnt out.  But it is simply a result of our fast-paced society.  And although we may need to disconnect sometimes, I think technology has actually helped in making fast-paced life more bearable.

Take today for example... It's a beautiful seventy degree Saturday afternoon, but there's one problem. I have an endless amount of homework to try to complete by Monday.  I would love to relax outside and bask in the sun, but political science papers and journalism blogs are pulling me in another direction.

The solution:  I packed my book bag, set up camp outside of Caribou, whipped out my laptop, and have been able to enjoy the weather and company of others, while still completing my tasks for the day.

Technology has allowed me to bring leisure to my work.  Without my tech devices, I may previously have been confined to the library or a computer lab and missed the opportunity for some quality Vitamin D.  

Also, I do not think it is fair to blame technology for our inability to have long and undistracted thought.  Society's perceptions of productivity and free time are the main culprit of our constant need to be connected.  Fast-paced society limits me in having a few moments to myself to lay in the grass and people watch for an hour, but technology allows me to still enjoy moments that I may have previously missed.

Although our fast-paced lifestyle is to blame, I agree with Nicole in that, "it would be relaxing and enlightening to turn my brain and phone off for a while and to just think and absorb."  Every once in a while, we need to slow-down and enjoy the peace and bliss of doing nothing. 

The Past & the Future of Email

In my JOMC 240 class, we are constantly reminded that we live in an age of disruption.  Disruption is a part of history that has closed doors on 'old' forms of media and communication, while opening doors for new ones.  But in today's world, disruption happens more frequently than ever.  Take newspapers, Myspace, Vine, and even FlappyBird.  But after my typical Wednesday of cell-phoneless work for five hours, I checked my phone to see EIGHTEEN EMAILS.  And my only thought, why hasn't Email been disrupted yet?

Although Email is still relatively new in comparison with the newspaper and television, it seems that it has stuck around for far too long.  I've known about the concept of Email since I learned about computers for the first time, and the communication tool hasn't seemed to change very much since then.  One would think that texting would've endangered email, or social media messaging, or anything... come on.

But nope, it's still around.  Annoying, inconvenient, and constantly prodding with me every buzz of my phone that comes with a new message.  And for me, the worst part of Email is having access to it on my phone.  As I've switched to mobile, I like to be able to read my email, but I pretty much refuse to respond to a message until I am on my lap top.  So I'm constantly reminded of the overload of email messages that I need to respond to, without being able to do anything about them.

After searching for some support on my frustration, I found an article from HootSuite with a title that seemed to fit my attitude quite perfectly- "You Can't Kill Email, So Here's How to Keep it From Killing You."  It was written with little tips for frequent Emailers to "take back their inbox."  Less interested in the advice, I found some interesting facts about why Email may be important and refuses to die.

To begin, it interestingly claims that the idea of Email came before the idea of the Internet itself.  Then it goes on to suggest that the power behind Email today comes from the fact that it is secure, can be searchable, has its own infrastructure, and allows for one-to-one communication.  All of these made for good points of why Email is still alive and well, but I surely think that something has to change with the system soon.  Perhaps instead of letting it become such a nuisance that we end up "killing it," we could make the future of Email awesome.  And I found a Mashable article that claims awesome Email is a plausible future.

Mashable predicts that a wind of change is upon the "Internet's most boring application."  After gathering research from developers, they've made four major predictions about what the future holds for Email - unfortunately it will still be alive and kickin', but with these changes, I might be able to handle it.

1.  Third-Party Applications:  Third-Party Applications will rise that allow us to use our same email systems with new tools, in order to specialize our needs and wants.  So far, most email systems are restrictive in welcoming third-party applications, but Mashable strongly argues that this will have to change, making our Email easier to use and customize according to necessity.

2.  Smarter Input, History, and Management:  Another common prediction for all communication technology- expect robots to be delivering your messages aloud, and Siri to be typing up your responses.

3.  Personalization:  Email systems and the messages themselves will incorporate more "user personality."  While it may work for the interface of the email system, I do not think that having a user profile will really enhance my Email experience... Save it for social media.  However, Mashable's prediction of pre-built templates for messages, differing with who you are communicating with, sound pretty cool.

4. Larger user growth through mobile: ......duh

So, although I may have a love/hate relationship with my Email (mostly hate), it's not going anywhere. In fact, its future seems bright and perhaps even bearable.

Don't Change on me Twitter

As a major proponent of Twitter, I tend to ignore when people suggest that the social network is phasing out.  Since I first created my account, I have always kept up-to-date on my news feed and never hesitate to create a post when I have an interesting thought or share-worthy experience.  One of the things that keeps me going back to Twitter is that, in general, it hasn't really changed.

The concept has remained simple- 140 characters to encourage likes or retweets from fellow tweeters.  The interface has barely changed- a scrollable newsfeed organized by the time of posting.  And its main features reflect the same ones of the past- the tag and the hashtag.

Lately though, Twitter has started to push the edges of change with new developments within the platform.  A fellow classmate, Katherine, shared the new feature of Twitter that allows you to post up to four photos in a tweet and tag up to ten friends, without using up any of the precious 140 characters. 

Another classmate lead a discussion that focused on the elimination of tagging other users in posts, making Twitter more of a dialogue between users.  And yet another article that I found suggests the extinction of the hashtag.  

While some, like Katherine and Katie, think that these new additions will ultimately increase Twitter's popularity, I think that they will take away from what makes Twitter.. Twitter.  

Twitter is a forum for sharing and consuming a variety of thoughts and updates.  I enjoy reading through my timeline and seeing a mix of information and ideas.  I like not just being able to find out what my friends are doing, but being able to read news updates, live sports commentary, clever ideas and jokes, and current trends.  What makes Twitter enjoyable for me is the variety that it brings.

With the new features of Twitter, I think it will begin to lose this variety that distinguishes it from other social media.  Twitter is not a primary photo-sharing forum, so I don't see the necessity for the photo-tagging feature.  Twitter is not a messaging application, so I don't see the necessity of removing the "@" symbol.  And Twitter is not an independent sharing source, so I don't see how the lack of a hashtag would be plausible in a network that constantly connects others with others, others with ideas, and ideas with ideas.

Twitter does allow photo-sharing and dialogue between users, but its main focus is for users to share their thoughts, read others ideas, and connect and interact with users. I do not see the "@" symbol or hashtag going anywhere any time soon because of their abilities to create this interaction.  And I also hope that encouraging users to share more photos won't turn it into the next Instagram.

In a social media world that is becoming more heavily centered on pictures, with apps like Instagram and SnapChat,  I think Twitter holds its value in its 140 characters.  Its where I turn to actively read and engage, instead of just scroll through photos.  

Unlike a picture, words allow each viewer to see something different.  A picture may be worth a thousand words, but a word may be worth a thousand pictures. And 140 characters could make many words...

Are you Being Tracked?

Recently, I wrote a post about my opinion on the ability of users to track their emails.  I think that allowing senders to essentially put a "read receipt" on emails that they have sent- without the receiver's knowledge- crosses boundaries of personal privacy.

After reading the original post, you could imagine my response when I stumbled across an application that allows you to track emails on your iPhone- "Mailtracker." Mailtracker works through the iPhone mail app and informs users of when their email has been read, where it was opened, how many times it was opened, how long it was viewed, and what type of device was used to read it.

So.. basically my worst email nightmare.  Not only does it disagree with my personal opinion of email privacy, but it infringes on other aspects of privacy, like location.  Personally, I don't want others to be able to identify exactly where I am, simply because I opened their e-mail.

However, there are instances when being able to determine a receivers location can be helpful.  For example. the original idea for the application stemmed from a scam that the co-founder avoided by identifying the location of the receiver of one of his email messages.  While I see the usefulness of a tool like Mailtracker in cases like this,  I think its creepiness outweighs its benefits.  

To divert attention away from this creepiness, Mailtracker markets towards the sender, not the receiver.  It employs the slogan "stop guessing, start knowing," which seems convincing- even to me. But it fails to address the receiver of an email from a Mailtracker user. 

I would love to know if my professor, who never responded to my email, had actually even opened it.  It would would be awesome to be able to tell if my resume had been viewed by a potential employer and for how long they had looked at it.  I would definitely prefer to have this knowledge instead of always wondering, but not at the expense of my own privacy.

If Mailtracker became a common tool, I would surely start to leave e-mails sitting in my inbox for extended periods of time.  I would have to wait until I was at an appropriate place and time to open them, and I would most likely feel obligated to respond immediately.  Not only would this be annoying for me, but because I'm constantly on the go, it would be extremely inconvenient.

Some may argue that this is just the next obvious step following the read receipt on iMessage.  The read receipt already allows you to see if others have viewed your message. But Mailtracker is not the next step, it is a major leap.  It taps into the location and engagement of the receiver, without letting them decide if they want the sender to know any of this information about them.  

Read receipt is okay, because you get to decide if others can know whether you have read their message or not. Mailtracker leaves the receiver with no control, while crossing new lines of individual privacy.

To learn more about MailTracker read this article that I found: http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/28/mailtracker-for-ios-brings-read-receipt-functionality-to-apples-default-mail-application/?ncid=rss

Singing in the Rain

I have always been a frequent user of music apps that allow you to listen to playlists based on your current mood.  While others frequently turn to pandora or spotify, I visit services like 8tracks and Songza.  On both applications, I can select one or two words that describe how I'm feeling or the type of music that I am in the mood for, and it will direct me to a list of playlists that match my selections.

These types of music-listening tools are good for people who want to let others make their music decisions for them.  I have trouble deciding what specific songs I want to listen to, so I leave it up to Songza.  

Technology is getting closer and closer to being able to decide exactly what we want.  Eventually, it will know what we want before we know ourselves.  Songza took one step closer to this knowledge when it joined with the Weather Channel to coordinate weather conditions with music choices. 

This is genius for Songza, because two significant indicators of mood are music and weather.  Songza is combining the two to create a new level of listening experiences based upon mood.  And for people, like me, who don't like to make decisions for themselves, it's perfect!

Personally, I almost always alter my music preferences based on the weather.  When it's raining and miserable out, you'll most likely find me listening to calm acoustic or blaring some heartbreaking Adele.  When the first beautiful and warm day of late spring arrives (still waiting this year), I immediately hop in my car, roll the windows down, and cruise to upbeat anthems of summer.  

But imagine if these songs were determined for me, before I even had a chance to check the weather. I could get in my car, turn on Songza and have the music that I want to listen to ready to be played.  

Songza's new feature allows you to choose a playlist based on the weather.  For example, a thunderstorm may offer potential mood selections of "relaxing and soothing," "anxious and nervous," or "angry and brooding." In addition, the addition of weather-based choices will allow Songza to identify certain changes in a user's routine or mood with changes in weather- consequently, furthering their ability to offer suggestions that predict your mood more accurately in the future.

Some might argue against allowing technology to decide your mood for you.  I agree that this ultimately could cross boundaries and potentially limit our preferences. But.. if you know that the weather usually affects your mood anyways, why not utilize a convenience service that delivers music to match your preferences.  

I know that I will.  

Controlling the Experience

Everyone loves a good SnapChat- whether its receiving one or creating one.  This small flash of a selfie, digital finger-painting, or event allows us to share with others in a way much different than most of social media today.

But why is SnapChat so popular?

Tara attributes its success to the fact that it is a forum without judgement. She says that "it doesn't matter what your friend thought of that last really ugly face you pulled- it's gone by now, and your friend has probably already forgotten about it, too."  Unlike platforms like Facebook and Twitter, Snapchat doesn't provide a set mechanism for supporting, disapproving, or disregarding something that a social media peer has shared.

While I do agree that it is easier to share on SnapChat, without the anxiety of not receiving an appropriate amount of "likes," I do not necessarily think that judgement within its network is completely inexistent.  For instance, others may give you direct feedback by responding to your snap or indirect feedback by snapshotting or simply opening it.

SnapChat isn't judgement-free, its just judgement in a more private setting- away from other onlookers and "friends." Only you can see the feedback from those who you choose to share something with.

But there has to be more than just the fear of being judged that keeps us snapping all day.

In addition to being able to hide feedback from others, I think that a major factor of SnapChat's popularity is the higher level of control that users have over their experience. Ultimately we get to control the content that we post on any social sharing tool, but SnapChat allows us to control exactly who gets to see this content and for how long they get to see it.

Although these are only two small differences to other social media networks, they create the illusion of an experience that is completely controlled by the sender.  The lack of public approval or disapproval on SnapChat, that I discussed earlier, lends a hand to this control.  We get to choose how we want to present ourselves, without letting social media and other peers on social media determine it for us.

It is also important to take into consideration the popularity of specifically viewing SnapChats.  I had to dig deeper than my own personal experiences to see what makes viewing SnapChats more enjoyable than just passively scrolling through my Instagram feed.

And once again, I believe that it circles back to control and choice.  When we receive a SnapChat, we have to actively choose to open it, in order to view it.  We get to choose if and when we do this.  And what Danah Boyd, of Microsoft Research, suggests is that "when people do choose to open a Snap, they actually stop what they're doing and look."

This claim is true, at least for my personal use.  Whenever I receive a SnapChat, I often wait until I am in the right place and time to open it. That way, I can focus on it and interact  accordingly.

SnapChat offers no option of passivity like the norms of most social media.  We must choose, and therefore, we tend to focus.  Boyd points to this attention and more-personal feel of SnapChat as setting the app apart from other social networks- "Snapchat asks you to stand still and pay attention to the gift that someone in your network just gave you."