ASG 2: Essay Structure

Post no. 15

Point 1 is very very detailed. I realised that Wearble Technology is a very new tech, so the introduction to this topic needs to be detailed and precise before any arguments can be made.

Intro:  (1 paragraph)
- History of communication and how/when we started to be so be intrigued by technology. Inventions expand - Frankenstein Syndrome. We want tech to be more seamless, immersive. We wouldn't want to see the medium. We want it more mobile too. Hence, the idea of Wearable Technology.

Breakdown Ubi Computing
- Wearable Tech is a type of Ubiquitous Computing.
Define Nature of Ubi Computing. Mark Weiser(1988)

- Public/private & high/low culture & local/public. How does it transform the entertainment industry? How can it effect the sociotechnical system? (the people/technology/environment)

- How can it be used simultaneously, at a large scale? What are the factors that need to be taken care of?

1.  What is wearable tech? (1/2 paragraphs)

Further Breakdown
- Wearable : something, an article of clothing or device where you could put on  or wear and could take off. Why is it utopian for some but dystopian for some.

- Differences between wearable Media and Wearable Technology.

- Media is the main means of mass communication, a subcategory under Technology.

-Technology itself is the application of scientific knowledge for practical   purposes, especially in industry.

- Technology is classified into 5 classes. Technology as objects, technology as
knowledge, technology as activities, technology as a process, and technology as a socio technical
system (interactive media).

- Wearable Computers and Wearable Technology.

-Technology may not be correlated to computers. They are different entities. A computer is just an electronic device for storing and processing data, typically in binary form, according to instructions given to it in a variable program.
Examples of wearable computers: Google glass / Samsung Galaxy Gear

- Wearable tech is not new. History of wearable media will be stated. Radical and incremental innovations.
The first Wearable Tech: The Pocket Watch
First Wearable Computer by Claude Shannon and Edward O. Thorp was invented to predict where the ball would land on the Russian roulette wheel.

- Wearable Technology is classified into two: Utility & Entertainment

- Health, Military, Infotainment, Fashion, Fitness and Wellness

         
2. Large crowd usage: Wearable technology (4 paras)

- Older examples of crowd participation that runs simultaneously LIVE. (voting with remote controls etc.)

- Entertainment: Analyze Xyloband, Tomorrowland's Facebook Bracelet. (Repressive & Emancipitory Use)

-Factors to argue: Emancipitory and Repressive use of media

- Why is feedback and interactivity important.

- Law of conformity. People would want to be a part of a larger social context.

- Argue with Immediacy

- Address Cyborgism briefly.


3. Arguments section. (2 para)

Is it really necessary? What is its future in the entertainment industry?

Will it be practical, safe, healthy? Will it be compulsory for entertainment? Utopian?

Current standing of Wearable Technology in the Timeline of Technology.

Wearable media is in which part of the timeline of evolution of technology?
THE AGE OF CALM TECHNOLOGY.

Is it a necessary evolution which will bring us to a better understanding of inventing greater and more intelligent tech? Is it just a transitional stage to advanced implant technology?


4. Conclude: (1 para)

Extensions of man. Humans will be their own superheroes. Future looks bright for wearable technology in entertainment.

ASG 2: Refinement of Proposal

Post no.14

I did the best I could to refine it, made it simpler to understand and more direct. I fixed a couple of things like the title, the reference, the timeline, research question and the introduction. I changed wearable media to wearable technology in the title because if I said wearable media and social/entertainment in the same sentence, it would be repetitive and redundant.

I changed the word 'environment' to 'events' as well to give it a smaller scope. Environments would mean public, and public wearable tech is a whole other area which involves many other fields.

The future of wearable technology for large crowds in social entertainment events.

A research proposal by

TseYing ONG

for

Interactive Media Design Pathway

Level 6 Enquiry / Report / Essay (6FTC1075)

Assignment 1 of 3

The School of Creative Arts

Faculty of Science, Technology and Creative Arts

University of Hertfordshire, UK in partnership with
The One Academy, Malaysia.

Introduction:

The presence of mobile phones in crowd conditions like concerts or raves disrupt audiences' experiences and limits immersion. Several solutions have been discussed to solve this problem and one of them would be the use of wearable technology. This tech is a rising form of future ubiquitous computing technology which could give audiences a more rewarding experience from the invisibility it's medium, discussed by Bolter's theory of Immediacy (1999). This trait of invisible mediums found in wearable technology is highly demanded by audiences.

Research question:

Define and deconstruct wearable technology.

How can wearable technology bridge and enhance the social interactions between crowds and the artist in entertainment?

Research topic:

This essay will introduce wearable technology dating from analog watches toward its evolution to the first wearable tech, then to its more complex and digital forms. By tracing its history, we will be able to identify how it relates and differs from wearable computers and wearable media. The second part of the essay will examine the usage of wearable technology in large social settings. Majority of wearable tech are innovated for personal use. Therefore, this essay will analyse wearable technology and its purpose of drawing crowd participation in entertainment.  Theories on Hypermediacy (Bolter,1999) and Transhumanism (Huxley, 1957) may be used to discuss the possible ethical debates of wearable technology.

Research scope:

Wearable technology is used in many professional settings: medicine, military, education. This paper is more concerned with those which apply in more social settings like interpersonal communications and mass entertainment. The latter category will be given more focus due to its popularity of use in simultaneous crowd participation events. Therefore, the author would like to explore wearable technology  used in a grand scale and how audiences respond to it.

Relevance to personal practice:

Wearable technology is one of the growing mediums of communication media technology according to IHS (2013).

The author will be creating a new media installation with wearable media that is to be used in concerts for her final year project. Therefore, this essay will enable her to study wearable technology's relevance to current and future use of the medium for crowd entertainment use.

Feasibility:

The feasibility of this research inquiry is moderate. The author's previous experience with wearable technology would aid her research on consumer needs and user experience.

The inaccessibility to wearable technology experts for deeper insight might be a disadvantage. However, there are current market researches available online by reputable sources and experts related to the field from MIT labs, VINT labs and IHS.

The author will also limit to using a maximum of 2 theories to concoct her argument.

 Timeline:

JULY (2014)	WEEK 9 – 2nd Proposal Draft WEEK 10  - PROPOSAL SUBMISSION
AUGUST	WEEK 12 – Blog progress WEEK 13 – PROPOSAL FEEDBACK
SEPTEMBER	HOLIDAYS - Blog/Research
OCTOBER	HOLIDAYS - Blog/Research - Refine proposal questions - Do some reading and analysing on theories
NOVEMBER	WEEK 2 - BLOG & Refine essay structure and proposal
DECEMBER	WEEK 5 – Blog refinement WEEK 6 - BLOG SUBMISSION WEEK 9 – Submit 1st Essay Draft
JANUARY (2015)	WEEK 10 - Submit 2nd Essay Draft and feedback from previous draft.
FEBRUARY	WEEK 11 - Submit Essay Final Draft and feedback from previous draft. WEEK 12 - SHARING SESSION WEEK 13 - SUBMISSION OF ESSAY
MARCH	Essay Feedback

Bibliography:

Bolter, J. and Grusin, R. (1999). Remediation. 1st ed. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, pp.213, 217, 218, 219,.

Hypermediacy will be used to evaluate the 'visibility' of wearable technology.

Ferrando, F. (2013). Posthumanism, Transhumanism, Antihumanism, Metahumanism, and New Materialisms Differences and Relations. 8th ed. [ebook] Columbia. Available at: http://www.bu.edu/paideia/existenz/volumes/Vol.8-2Ferrando.pdf [Accessed 7 Oct. 2014].

This pdf contains a detailed comaparison of Huxley's theory of Transhumanism to other similar terms as well.

Lister, M. (2003). New media. 1st ed. London: Routledge, p.20, Glossary.

This book states how interactivity is a 'value added' to new media (Ubi computing)  as 'old' media are more of a passive way of consuming media.

Schneider, S. (2009). Science fiction and philosophy. 1st ed. Chichester, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell, p.Notes.

Through this theory of Transhumanism, wearable media becomes a medium in extending physical and mental limitations.

Srivatsav, N. (n.d.). Witnessed Presence and Wearable Electronics: the design of trust for sociotechnical systems. [online] Academia.edu. Available at: http://www.academia.edu/7092537/Witnessed_Presence_and_Wearable_Electronics_the_design_of_trust_for_sociotechnical_systems [Accessed 6 Jul. 2014].

This paper discusses the social technical presence in wearable technology and how it interacts with the lives of users.

Walsh, K. (2011). Beyond Student Response Systems – The Next Level Of Audience Participation. [online] Emergingedtech. Available at: http://www.emergingedtech.com/2011/09/beyond-student-response-systems-the-next-level-of-audience-participation/ [Accessed 16 Jul. 2014].

This author has shared his experience in audience participation and how technology aids this crowd simultaneous interactivity.

Wearable Technology - Market Assessment. (2013). 1st ed. [ebook] Available at: http://www.ihs.com/pdfs/Wearable-Technology-sep-2013.pdf [Accessed 3 Jul. 2014].

This market assessment by IHS provides detailed calculations of the future of wearable tech as well as the list of functions of the medium.

Huxley, J. (1957). New bottles for new wine. 1st ed. New York: Harper.

I referenced Huxley's Tranhumanism in the proposal.

ASG 2: Feedback on Proposal

Post no.13
Type: Feedback and Self-evaluation


Alright, the top might say 'Post 13', but in fact for Assignment 2, this was only the 8th post. A couple of days ago Daniel (our tutor) posted on our Facebook page, divulging his disappointment on my class's proposals. Along, he attached this photo with some helpful advise.  

I'm going to upload the image here in case the group get's flooded with posts, drowning this one.

Him posting about the proposals reminded me that I had not posted about the feedback that I had about my proposal. I'll be separating this post into 3 parts, where I have had a peer feedback session, a personal tutor feedback session and a self evaluation.

Personal tutor feedback session

• Narrow the title down, Refer to EVENTS in your title essay rather than ENVIRONMENTS. Environments might be too wide and would cover a lot of factors which would put my essay in the 'danger zone which could stray away from the original idea'.

• Make a clear chart on the branches and differences to aid the essay, since my essay contains many comparative issues. Images in the essay help to clarify many things. 

• Have more detailed outlines & structures. (my timeline was really brief)

• WORD CHOICES. Keep it simple. The target audience may not know anything about media or ubi computing. It could be simple, and sophisticated.

• THE FLOW! Take care of it.

• Get some recent ideas, theories. Sometimes old theories tend to contradict current trends and might not be relevant anymore. Make sure the sources are legit.

• Do more deep reading. Truly understand what you are writing about.

Peer feedback session

We all prepared little notes to prepare ourselves for a mini presentation that we thought we had to do that day in class. Taken by surprise, our proposals were given out randomly among our classmates and our friends had to present our proposal based on their understanding. They had to sell it. Shireen presented mine, and I presented hers. How lucky we were to get each other's proposal. She was going to write about games helping the community indirectly through charity drives or directly by playing the games itself. 

After all that, the class had to vote if they would fund the research or not. I had like 5 out of 10 hands.

• The proposal is confusing, too many big words. The flow as well.

• Not intriguing enough.

• Questions about Cyborgism and why didn't I put it in. I told them it was a whole other area to explore, but of course I'd put one or two sentences of it in there.

Self-Evaluation

• I tried too hard to make it sound professional with all those fancy media terms. When we did that peer feedback session, I truly realized that this was a paper for EVERYONE. Know the target audience before writing the paper, or anything for that matter.

• Map my idea down clearly. I might have made a structure, but it should be even clearer.

• Try not to use TOO MANY theories in the essay/proposal. Those are really big ideas and shouldn't be carelessly thrown around just to increase the word count or citing beef in the essay. Using one theory is enough to argue through the entire essay. Well, unless you are comparing contradicting media theories, then yeah. Maximum 2, or 3. Before that, I had like 5 which was too much.

• Images, Images, Images. Include images.