Analog and Digital

As the reading (Being Analog) has stated, humans are biological animals and are inherently analog beings..
Personally, I just don't know how much I agree with that, at least nowadays.

I think it really has a lot to do with the time period you were born in. I was born in 1990 when the computer and technological craze was at its forefront. Looking back, I always remember growing up having a personal computer, albeit much slower, I still had one and used it all the time. When I was little I used to go over my friends houses to play super nintendo, or link up our gameboys to battle each other. It was a different time with different ways of communicating and entertaining ourselves, one that somebody who was born just 10 years before I wouldn't have experienced.

If I had gotten assigned a huge 12 page essay, I know how I would plan it out right away. Do as much research as I can on the computer, maybe dabble a little bit in a couple books (which I would of researched on google first to see which served my purpose the best anyway) then I would make an outline on microsoft word and go from there. Someone in their 40's or older would probably have a completely different plan and would maybe even look down on my own. I am not speaking for everybody, but the question of whether "we" are analog or digital beings seems too complex. There are people who cant turn on the computer, and who would love spending coutless hours in the library with paper and pen busting out a huge essay, and there are also people who are so tech-savy they dont even know what a book is, and every possible combination inbetween.

Shannon-Weaver and Kanye West

I feel that the Shannon-Weaver model is essentially just as relevant today as it was when developed. While the intentions may not seem the same, most steps are very applicable to modern digital communications, even if those steps are interpreted in a different way. I think an interesting way of exemplifying this would be to look at digital communication through the perspective of a public figure, say Kanye West. Kanye is known for always having messages he wishes to spread to his audience, making him the source. For this example, lets simply say he would like to promote his new album. The encoding process may be reducing his message to 140 characters, and deciding on text that will attract the most attention. As mentioned, his message would be to promote his album, however the message itself may not actually have much substance to it. Kanye must then decide which social media he should utilize to send out this message, although nowadays there does not have to be one singular channel, as suggested by the model. The noise this message would potentially face would be media misconceptions or simply the broken English/not yet common vocabulary that not many understand. I would argue that if it happens at all, the decoding process would happen once the receiver (his followers on Twitter) takes in the message, rather than before. The decoding process would clarify the noise. Feedback, of course, would be traced most immediately in terms of retweets and later in terms of album sales.The more feedback Kanye gets, the stronger his presence as a source gets, and the more ready and apt he is to continue this model again.

Ways of Communication Present and Past

Communication in today's would not only be face to face and phone conversation, it would also be considered as social networking and medias such as texting, face-booking and tweeting. That is where most of us communicate with each other and gather information from each other. Now that compared with how society gathered and communicated information with each other is a pretty big difference on many levels. Back in 1948 when the Shannon-Weaver model was first established, communication then was just considered face to face, mail, phone conversation and binary codes through limited computers. Even though there were such limited was of communication compared to today I believe the process of the model essentially applies how information is communicated today through those mediums.

For example, a message is conveyed through a social network such as a facebook message. I am the sender, the encoder is my laptop, the channel is the internet, the noise can be internet connection or even the way internet understands my text. The reception is twitter itself, and finally the receiver is the person who is reading my message and the laptop they are reading it off of. This example compared to an example I found about a telephone conversation uses the same format, the only difference is that today through this new form of communication, there are more factors to consider when breaking down the model.

So communication today can be passed thorough many forms than it was back in the late 40s, but it may be that Shannon had considered that when making this model. Even through its criticism of being so simple, simplicity can sometime be key in a any type of design. This model shows that it can be applied to every way of communication to date the only factor is the different ways that can be used for each element.  

Analoger

If I am asked, I will say that I am an analog person. When I work, I write and scribble on sheets of paper, spread them around me, select my favorite ones, put them together and then transfer the work to my PC. This has been the case since my school days. The reason why I do this is, I can keep track of what I am doing, makes me feel satisfied, saves me some headache and eye pain and most importantly I am not laying barriers for my work with softwares ie., when working with softwares, I keep thinking about what is possible and what is not possible with the software knowledge I have and this puts me under a line that makes me do what the software allows me to do and not what I really like to do.

Once, I was going through a typography book and came across an interview of a famous designer from Canada whose name I don't remember! When he was asked about the way he hires people, he gave an instance as example. It went something like this: "I short listed four best people out of everybody who applied for the job and gave them a topic to design. They had to create the concept, design it and bring it back to me in the next seven days. After seven days they all came with their work and I ended up hiring none! Their works clearly showed that they had focussed on showing the software skills they had which resulted in a lifeless design. Sometimes I felt like the design hardly focussed on the topic given. All I wanted was a simple meaningful design that could've been a paper drawing that can later be illustrated.". Apparently he believed in working with paper first. The same is the case of most of the designers, coders, etc.

The digital world has its importance too. Its just that being analog makes the task easier.

Pen in hand . . .

Moments ago I was sitting here making little notes about what I wanted to write about when I realized the irony of what I was doing. I was using an analog tool to start things off to only end up finalizing my thoughts with a digital medium. I grew up analog and have gotten to see the digital revolution from its very beginnings. I have noticed at least three very striking things about what has happened.

Because of some of my other activities that I enjoy; cycling, hiking, camping; I have noticed a large increase in people looking for ways to connect with their surroundings. Over the past 10 - 15 years the growth in the "adventure" market has been steady. I noticed from my various readings that this growth seemed to correlate with the rapid progression of technology. Mind you its not a direct relationship but it does seem to be noticeable. For as much as we are connected I think many people feel unconnected to the world around them.

The digital world seems to want to incorporate the analog more and more. Evidence of this is the introduction of the Wacom Inkling and the Livescribe pens. What looks like a normal analog pen is actually a digital recorder that can store your writings and drawings. The rational behind these inventions is that we as humans need a tactile tool to help inspire us, to make us feel connected to what we do. Yes I know there is a large amount of scientific study to back up that pens are more ergonomically better for us, but I think it goes to a much more basic instinct then numbers can sum up.

Lastly I am slowly seeing the isolation of the individual. Look at how we communicate more and more. We won't go to talk to some one face to face, we instead send a text or an email. We reply on our electronic extensions to be part of ourselves. Think of how often you might have had a slight panic attack when you can't find your phone. We are so dependent on these devises to stay connected, but are we truly connected? Does "talking" electronically equate to being in front of the person? Does it even carry the same emotional value of being with the person?

I am so intrigued to see what will happen in the near future. What will we reject, what will we accept. Time and the masses can only tell us.

Analog or Digital

The blog had great examples, but I think humans are both analog and digital. There are the simple people who want simple programs, and complex people who want multitasking programs. I think that no matter how well we design programs, apps, software, and hardware it’ll never be exactly what we want, making some lean toward analog and others toward digital. Some humans want more features, and some want less. As designers we need to keep this in mind.

A big factor is that technology isn’t able to evolve at specific times (like how new car models showcase in August). Plasma TVs were in style a few years back, now its LED HD TVs… its LED HD 3D TVs. There are too many loose variables for us to control, and this could make being digital difficult. Mac Vs. PCs, Nvidia Vs. ATI, Intel Vs. AMD, Kingston Vs. Crucial. My ancient nokia cell phone never shut down from failure, it was impossible to overload. But, my new HTC, with all the best new features, will shut down if it overloads running GPS. We have browsers battle on what a designer can and can’t use. These technology wars will never stop, and to make it worse, there are already too many hands in the pot. As humans we need to find our niche and educate ourselves on the technology most relevant to our specific needs.

There are many levels when it comes to understanding technology. We have people who still don’t know how to turn on a PC, and we have people designing/testing hard drives that record at light speed. When designing websites, programs, or apps we have to think of both sides of that spectrum. There’s so much chaos in the field of technology, but in some crazy way humans continue to reach new heights. Each individual has their own choice between analog and digital, and each designer can try to bridge the gaps between the two. I don’t think age affects the choice between analog and digital; it’s more reliant on the individual. I know my uncle still uses index cards to keep count of rent collection, and to switch to an excel spreadsheet wouldn’t fit his needs.

The world will always have its balance of analog and digital. I think that technology is evolving just like our tools and languages did over centuries of exposure; and in time we may have a better relationship with technology.

Shannon-Weaver Model and Communication

The old adage …  “There’s a time and place for everything” continually came to mind while reading about the Shannon-Weaver Model and the article by Don Norman.  Certainly, I think that the Shannon-Weaver had a significant impact on what we “understand” communication today, but so many forms of communication have been development since the publication of this model in 1948.  Hence, the relation of this linear system to our understanding of communication today deems us to view it as inappropriate for social communication and all that “social” entails (context, purpose, relationships, influences, etc).  So,  like many things, we need to view them in light of the context in which they were based.

Don Norman made many points that struck me.  I say kudos to him for the following points:

·        “Each generation grows upon the heritage left behind by previous generations.” (hmmm…this sounds like smatterings from our last class discussion)

·        “The amount to be learned about the history, culture and the techniques of modern life increases with time…it takes several decades to become a truly well-educated citizen.”  (Shouldn’t we then really take a GOOD look at our school systems?  It’s impossible to teach all that is required today!)

·        “Each generation benefits from the one before, and the accumulated knowledge leads to more rapid change.”  (so then, everyone is a pioneer in their own right—this is social acceptance)

·        “People excel in qualitative considerations, machines at quantitative ones.”  (all I can say is BINGO—we cannot replace people with machines.