Final Cmap

Available on the fifth of January in the dropbox file, published 10 minutes past midnight on this blog...
The whole could better be arranged had we started by the last module on history. The instrumental aspects on quantitative considerations and very specific methodologies are important but could have been also left for last; I was tempted to leave them completely out of the big map, but decided to add as much as could fit organizedly in as long as it could be read. The result speaks by itself, and hopefully yields the information that it was intended to convey. The image was too large to be uploaded by blogger, so I add a link to the dropbox folder for a direct view.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/20miw2t7hucldcy/MariaCgroupmap1234567.cmap

Assignment 1. Book review.

“The Design of Everyday Things,” by Donald Norman is an introductory book on user centred design. It is predictive and primes on basic terminology and transferable concepts that are as valid today as they were when the book was written. The fact that it is more than two decades old does not reduce its value. Through a diversity of examples, Norman explains concepts and terminology on the field such as affordances, conventions, visibility, conceptual models, mapping, usability, user centred design, the seven stages of action, etc. Many are other substantial contributions of this book to the discipline. Instead of mentioning/repeating the most obvious it could be more useful to stress on the less noticed arguments and the underlying implications of his posture. It was salient the fact that he invites more reflection in the development of products in a way that resembles strategic planning for conflict prevention and management where needs and interest are fundamental components of any strategy. Norman urges to think about these as well from the preface when he urges designers to study people and take their “needs and interests” into account. In the design field, akin to any other if considering conflict a difficulty or a contradiction, the relevance of dialog is fundamental. A dialog is established through feedback and analysis with the participation of a diversity of approaches. Seen this way, it could be considered the interdisciplinariety and “project management of a design.” No process can be absent of elements different from the functional, psychology, multiculturalism, economics, public administration, engineering, and even the laws are connected to the way objects are conceived, manufactured and commercialized, just to mention a few areas. When thinking of the book in connection to the last assignment we had, it leaves the impression that design is all that matters, because everything is concerned with the creation, development and materialization of objects. Living in a world that requires the material for survival, designing these artefacts is a matter of life support. Paying attention to creations at the strategic level would also result in better design, also being responsive to people´s needs and interests can smooth the transition to a life predominantly mediated by artefacts that is the digital living, and the internet of things, phenomena that Norman could also predict on his work while mentioning the upcoming advent of intelligent home appliances. The connections to make are unavoidable and fundamental, not a matter of choice of luck, such as the doors, or the light switches at home. It is an imperative to focus on the linkage/relationship between subjects and objects. At the same time, making it all exceedingly “easy” for people, could also lead to the trivialization of human effort and its importance for human development. In short, we must remain the subjects that control objects instead of disempowering people from the capacity of analysing, learning, figuring processes out. I would never trade off my ability to find a way and understand my location for the comforts of using GPS technology. To give up such a basic human skill is beyond my comprehension, much more so that some teach their kids how to use devices for geolocation instead of how to read simple signs on the street level, the natural indications such as the position of the sun, or just a paper map. Hence, this book made me worry about the way objects also change people´s potential, capacity, and mind. In a very short section of the book, “Don’t take away control,” in page 197, the author suggests similarly, but not strongly enough, if to consider that the whole book inclines the other way.

It would be reductionist to state a central argument to the book other than the previous, because it would encompass all of the specific advice Normal suggest. The users’ needs are to be satisfied, and hence they should be consulted; aesthetics are important but they can be a consequence of conscious and effective design. This was a very fast read, simple and direct with conceptual value accessible to everyone. This is a positive feature as it also demystifies design, inducing the idea that designing and engineering is all about trade-offs, not fantastic and futuristic creativity as some might imagine. On the other hand, and despite the fact that the author is a cognitive scientists, the text lightens the content when discussing cognition, as I extended on during the module report on the matter, to conclude with the following: Why Norman states that memory is knowledge on the head when memory can be faulty and mistaken? Is it not simply information stored? Knowledge thus, is a term he could have avoided considering how much philosophy has dealt with it already. It seems that scholars have more or less done the same things in their confined territories, focusing on their own fields, instead of integrating entirely compatible observations to create a full view of the big picture on Human potential. Norman could have expanded this topic connecting it with Activity Theory, according to his proposal to work across disciplines, integrating expertise. It is likely that the author purposefully resorted to simplify the language and used a colloquial style, at the expense of academic precision, but it does not diminish the value of this work that popularized the notion of responsible design. This has turned into a reference text for everyone involved in the task of research and development of products, in the field of innovation and even on the impact of regulations on designing and engineering, with the economic policy of states revolving around or seriously affected by its innovation system rules and the way it supports research and development. It is a very clear book filled with real life examples that everyone can relate to. Innovation studies have widely discussed the impact of technology on institutions and society; it could be interesting to learn if the connections were made by academics in the field of design and engineering on other works, books and articles. Norman very briefly adds a section on design and society (p.209) that indicates his recognition on the institutional changes that follow the dissemination of a given technology.

User´s experiences can be simplified and favoured when the process of design concentrates in making tasks efficient and outcomes effective; The author summarizes his proposals into 7 principles that also wrap up the substance of the book and can serve as concluding remarks to his theory: Consider what he calls knowledge in the world and knowledge in the head, make task structure more efficient, bridge the gulfs of evaluation and execution so usability becomes more visible, map tasks correctly, affordances are not the only measures of potential, because constrains have the same power when utilized intelligently, consider mistakes, and resort to standardization when nothing else is possible.

HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION (HCI) Assignment 2, Seventh Module

This was a review of a review that I had just made last semester for the publication of my article on regulatory patterns of the internet. I specially consulted the works or early visionaries such as Licklider and Taylor, and this was exactly why I decided to take part of this course and approach the discipline with more dedication. My assessment included a section on historic developments that leapfrogged or at least urged changes in regulations or their patterns, so I had observed the evolution of technology in general as Utterback proposed, and compose a text on that context. If interested in the article, "google" my name with the same keywords, regulatory patterns internet, and it will be available. For the concept map I used the article suggested (It was very hard to complete the video because of numerous technical difficulties and restrictions, could have this been the experience to all?), but had read plenty of more accounts in the past, mostly written by lawyers that view the same process in three different (I added a fourth) phases: Restricted and specialized, the comercialization and googlization of the internet and the personal computing, mine is the digital living in full, when a device turns into an extension of our identity in every way possible and connects us with other people, devices and the environment in a diversity of ways. These technologies do not support life (we are not nourished or kept alive by them) but soon, the meaning of ur existence will depend of those...it is no longer science fiction.
A  fascinating subject, course that unfortunately ends too soon, after merely scratching the surface of amazing possibilities. I am eager to continue studying with you and integrating disciplines as the whole of the materials on the field keep suggesting.

 

HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION (HCI) Assignment 2, Sixth Module

This module concerns formal visualization languages applied to events. Alternative languages, and graphic visualization are some of the topics that concern me the most, and will influence my future research. State transition diagrams and Petri diagrams are similar in that they communicate complex proceses and the system these support, using symbols and schemes. The latter has a more strong foundation in mathematic languages which expands its functionality but also complicates its readability for the uninitiated. While they both can be analogous to concept maps, outlines and flow charts, or a combination of them, according to the materials revised, Petri also facilitates mathematical formulations and applications to the system it depicts. For this section, I had to consult a diversity of other articles, and eventhough it is easy to understand the merits of Petri´s proposal, I still feel unable to fluently read and understand complex diagrams. They are powerful tools to describe and evaluate systems but communicate to a restricted audience with certain level of expertise.

I would recommend to instruct this chapter in person, and practice, during a meeting, the translation of different real-life scenarios (systems) into these languages. Otherwise the topic would seem a bit neglected. Some good examples could be the service at a library, the security control processes in airports, closing a mobile application such as the hassle that Growtopia or Candy crush Saga impose, purchasing milk in a supermarket, etc.

 

 

HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION (HCI) Assgnment2, Fifth Module

From the begining of the course we have been implicitly assessing issues of efficiency towards effectiveness, or heading to their recognition in the context of modelling and design. In previous post some reflections already expressed concerns about these concepts. Efficiency has to do with speed and practicalities, more on the logistic side of a strategy (design), whereas effectiveness is a descriptive quality of an outcome that is well balanced and stable: a goal is acomplished as fast as possible, within the capacity of the device combined with the abilities of the users (quantifiable, as we have learned in past modules, and reminded to in this one). Not only there is a limit to efficiency, where increments are no longer possible, that is 100%; but also there are many factors that play important roles in proposing a good interactive/interface design. Kiera´s article empasizes again the importance of trade-offs and introduces the notion that even when a system does not "seem" to be too efficient, it must enable learning through experience, so the user who is not familiar with the methodology can gain competence with a continuous use. I believe tha is is the risk that every innovation has to run when demand for it does not match an excess of supply for newer or more sophisticated products, in general.Once again the supporting literature is illustrative onhow to quantifiy and calculate numeracally human behaviour. These indicators are what information science is all about, but require for their interpretation a very serious interdisciplinary qualitative expertise and approach. None of the existing models or tools is fail proof, or can succeed to be comprehensive. Sometimes it may seem a waste to invest so much time, considerations and effort designing systems and objects that might be obsolete in very short time. Duration has to be an element that nowadays should influence design, because never before have objects (including interfaces; virtual and analogous; interactive or not; on any field) been so short lasting. One could take any example, for instance on computer applications or software. They are constantly changing, and not necessarily because of efficiency (granted that efficiency is not everything, but assuming that usability is a multifaceted feature). Pinterest just introduced a "new" capacity to "help" people collect and access information about places, systematically. This mapping possibility could be more interactive, but this tweak is not a very welcome facility for frequent pinners. Pinterest is useful and efficient the exact way it is and needs not to begin complicating its use. It is hard not to feel that one spends too much time on it already, and these sudden offers are a wake up call for many of us who realize the more they offer they more one gets hooked, and as a resut would spend (unnecessarily) a nincreased amount of time on their site. Efficiency on what is not necesary is also innefficient, in other words.

HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION (HCI) Assignment2, Fourth Module

On the Human Processor Model (HPM) and Fitts' law. This module calls strongly for interdisciplinary cooperation and this is what I can highlight of the whole the most; Card, Moran and Newell in the article suggested for this session, that common mental tasks can be improved and analyzed with the support and assistance of collateral sciences, such as cognitive psychology. This is true in terms not only of prediction and understanding but also engineering and planning, designing  as we are concerned about as well. To the same extent the law on movement we studied and in general the chapter seemed very limited and contradictory so, since the background message I got was the expansion onto other fields, and integration. The limits I perceive are those regarding the very narrow aspects studied by Fitts while its context is so vast. The realization that time needed to complete a cycle between cognition, recognition, decision making and action is far too mechanical and equalizing. What about variables affecting that activity or rather behaviour? Emotions (one could be in a bad mood and disturbed, confused, annoyed, tired, etc. affecting also one's performance), free will (training, determination, etc.), special skills (being stronger, sharper, with longer fingers, etc.), and other facilitators/obstacles (the lights are dim, a neuralgia, improper settings, bad postures, lack of interest, distracting stimuli, etc.) could play a determining role on those. Moreover, some are factors a designer could not possibly control outside an experiment, so I wonder if sometimes we do not waste time when focusing on the not-so-important bits; or maybe a timing response and accuracy are priorities set for the design of interactive environments and interfaces, and I have not yet known it. Three variables, therefore, do not seem enough. I would consider the data of course, and it is always valuable, but contrasted with a multitude of other studies, In this one, I would suggest mentioning the error factor affecting the calculations, at least I did not find reasoning on that.

HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION (HCI) Assignment2, Third Module

This is a challenging and important topic that invites many more thoughts and research, than those explicit of the task below. Considering the type of interest I have in the sort of "relationships" we establish with technology, this chapter has been informative and intriguing. Some of the comments I have annotated on the texts will be included later on the book review at the end of the semester and concern the "knowledge" reflected on actions. The illustrative instances of slips that I could think about are some of the most common that people experience on everyday life, just as the examples that our readings have presented:
1. Capture based error: Starting the computer to check emails and getting into Facebook instead.
2. Description based error: Placing unwashed silverware on the drawer tray instead of into the dishwasher.
3. Data driven error: Calling my youngest son by every name on the family, male or female before using his own.
4. Associative activation error: Using the words on the top of my head to designate any object, because that is what I am thinking about. Say Coffee (which I love) to offer a beverage to my son (tea or juice, which he drinks).
5. Loss of activation error: Making a massive effort and going out to the shop because we need milk and returning with everything else but milk. Reading a link on the website of the course and straying from the main article by looking up words or new data that needs expansion further loosing focus and continuing with a different task such as collecting references for a paper I am writing.
6. Mode error: Trying to retrieve information from a site by using the back button and risking loosing information that has not been saved or will not be recorded. Now this is fixed by cookies and prompts that check on my desired action: "Do you want to save document 111"?

HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION (HCI) Assignment2, Second Module

This section of the book suggests the way in which design could become more strategical, following the pattern of actions that human behaviour does, in a way that could really be made in support of effectiveness over efficiency, without disregarding the last. This is to say that a goal and its accomplishment should be the north of a project whereas the efficiency or the ways to reach the goal (tasks, as important as they are), should not remain the only concern. I would imagine that more important that they separately considered (tasks vs. goals) is the consistency between the two, so they match. At least this this the application of the observations on how actions are performed with a purpose based on experience and information (I differ from Norman on the belief that this is about any sort of knowledge, but made the Cmap using his terminology anyway). 

Sometimes, however, a design is already a prototype of good function that allows only adjective improvements precisely in connection to tasks and efficiency. The innovation cycle (Utterback) explains it well. Breakthrough/dramatic innovation is not always possible or even desired. We should distinguish therefore whether to talk about processes that have to do with emerging artefacts and completely new products or derivative/corrective design. Then the task becomes a goal on its own.

Management theories have researched strategic planning for long and many models could have been used and applied to the design process. This is not to trivialize the contribution by Norman, and his check-list  but merely to say that we tend to develop too many models before using to the full extent those that exist already. Interdisciplinary outreach tries to correct this, and I approve this approach to sharing theoretical resources.

It is noteworthy that when discussing the cognitive process, the chapter departs substantially from the ontological theories that prevail and are of wide acceptance in regard of merging of the mind and an the objective reality. Psychology does not really explain this (what knowledge is) as well, so Norman´s book seems light on this respect. On the other hand it discusses the paradox of technology, a topic I would attribute much greater attention. After all one could say it shows the distance between technical and socio-economic development in any given society and also can measure, according to my own research levels of satisfaction in as differing areas as business management and politics. 

The post on the course blog poses a confusing statement also present on the book: " Despite less-than-perfect knowledge, precise behaviour is still possible as much knowledge is not in the head but in the world. This is so because behaviour is determined by combination of knowledge in the world and in the head." It is difficult to accept that knowledge and information (and/or the recount of it -memories-) are the same, or that it exists in the world per-se. At least it does not seem plausible or theoretically founded that knowledge is on itself and has any entity in disrespect of a human being. Further it continues with an implication on that we need not to actually know as long as we can decide on the right action of usability, or so it seems to be implicit by the following: " The implication is that high precision of knowledge in the head is unnecessary as we only need knowledge to be precise enough to distinguish the right  behaviour from the others possible." This would in logic lead to a conclusion most peculiar that the cognitive process, is actually less relevant than what Norman aimed to demonstrate, at least for users, not designers, placing the former in a very disfavouring light, like objects. Maybe what Norman was really analysing is about accuracy (people err, in addition make attribution mistakes often imagining causalities that do not hold true in reality) and what theory has described as tacit knowledge with the implication that we can induce the acquisition of similar content (knowledge) on users? In such case, these ideas would make more logical sense and once again we could be using developments that other academics have discussed for many years and of course develop them further, applying them to the usability and HCI contexts. Why Norman states that memory is knowledge on the head when memory can be faulty and mistaken? Is not it simply information stored? Knowledge thus, is a term I think he could have avoided considering how much philosophy has dealt with it already. In my opinion scholars have more or less done the same things in their confined territories, focusing on their own fields, instead of integrating entirely compatible observations to create a full view of the big picture on Human potential. I am also intrigued about the ways in which Norman would comment on activity theory. In p.60 he states that central to his book is what happens when someone does something. Its seems a lot connected. 

The question posed to prepare the conceptual map this week was: What is the relationship between the seven stages of action and knowledge? Although I tried to stick to this, I had to give relevance to other notions, some of which seemed to me even more important. It appeared to me that the gulf of action, for example should be coherent with the gulf of evaluation to be able to discuss factors such as efficiency and effectiveness. Efficiency could be said to look into procedure too (fast, clear, unambiguous, inexpensive), while effectiveness to outcomes (satisfaction of needs and interests). 

Is not the tacit knowledge some sort of conventional wisdom? a default though culturally determined set of understandings (rather than knowledge), what the designers need to take advantage for creating simpler solutions? I would not give to any of these the rank of "knowledge" indeed. Knowledge in ontology means so much more than that: the being, the truth.

HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION (HCI) Assignment2, First Module

As suggested, this conceptual map generates from a question on the general topic. The module was an introductory one on some of the fundamental concepts in HCI. It seemed to add coherence to this chapter, to make associations, thus the initial question was: How these fundamental concepts relate to one another? This way, the Cmap below would have a readable flow, without excess information, and rather than being a descriptive net of words connected awkwardly, it can really reflect processed thoughts. If necessary, with a more refined understanding of the subject it can also be amended and completed, so this version is short, I choose to aim for clarity, simplicity and consistency. I also added some keywords for my own references rather than to re-formulate any theory.
Hints on the the strategic planning of the design were left for last on the module, despite their importance in the design process. The result of a conscious development of ideas should be what is called a conceptual model. To better implement user friendly interfaces, and efficient, practical objects, the model must be conceived first, and here is where my concept map begins. A model could serve as a guideline for the implementation of a design that should convey the intent of its producer (a designer who has been observing and analizing potential users, so I am assuming the things that will be created respond to needs or interests instead of mere whimsical ideas) and communicate to those who implement the manufacturing stage, the capacity of an artefact, I would say also its extent to relate to users and the other way around. If a good conceptual model is successfully translated into a finished product, it may be that the mapping of possibilities is implicit on it, but also that it requires additional elements to inform users, depending on what the object is, to exploit efficiently its potential. Labelling, in this context should not be considered a negative feature, when appropriate. It seems specially necessary for an interconnected, culturally diverse world. We no longer create for our peers but everything that is being materialized nowadays has global reach, even if through an electronic image, to say the least. I find it very hard to go to an anthropological level where our minds all meet and react towards objects in only one way. Most of what we intuitively do is learned, for example the direction to push opening (to the left). Babies do not know this. Some conventions are very difficult to read even to adults. In my case, it has never been clear what toilets are for men or women by the visualization of a triangle. That is not enough data for me, and I fail to remember the many explanations people have given me on this respect. I wait outside until I can verify who enters or exits those rooms. Sometimes, I have to ask.
In times, mapping are the most meaningful part of the design, because in the absence of signs/clues for logical relationships between things and -what must/should not/can/can´t- people -do with them- the functional attributes of such objects get trivialized or ignored. If articles that are really needed, then they turn into a hassle, like the very common examples of graphic signs, doors and knobs that are more puzzling than anything else.

The properties of an object are visible when obvious; Affordances are functional allowances, no matter how objectively or subjectively they are judged to be (real or perceived), whereas constrains represent the opposite: limitations that the design imposes to the user. If these last rely on consensus or cultural conventions, logic indicates that affordances should too. Constrains should also be real and perceived following the same reasoning. Some activities are acceptable for specific groups and they should be able to relate to objects in their surroundings in manners that other people could not even imagine. All of this beyond culture, for example at the level of subcultures. A smoker in some countries might see on an empty cup of coffee the perfect ashtray while a gardener/artists a creative way to display plants, and a collector a beautiful piece of history. In Finland, it is common to find old shoes lined up on top of fences with live flowers growing inside. In contrast, in my country, old shoes are the ultimate horror, they would not easily be connected to gardening and ornamental arrangements. These are the two sides of the perceived concepts (Affordances and constrains) on the same objects.
It all must become much more practical if designers have the opportunity to solicit, receive and process feedback, test model objects, etc. A good practical object needs to pass the test of usability or else it would remain a theoretical, distant piece of science fiction, or junk. This, I guess would correspond to its market value, if to talk in economic terms.

NIE2012, last task, task 13. Looking back.

With task 5th, I tried to express a very pragmatic approach at the way I plan and perform any action (involves will) in life. Rather than simple activities. If so much reflection is needed I upgrade the term to that level (from activity to action), very likely in accordance with my mother´s tonge as we discussed with Sebastian some weeks ago. I reflected over externalities but marginally those that related to technology, because it was not required to emphasize on these. Of course the means one counts on, were part of the graphic and my fucntional processes I shared, but where not the main focus of my constrains, rather an adjective factor that led me to resolve my problems.
The main externalities were cultural, social, personal and emotional limitations:
I explained: " My approach is teleological. I think abot the possible outcomes first, so I can measure the degree of compatibility of what I want to do or have to do with what I should or am supposed to. Or if it is simply worthy of my attention.
An imperative is to think in advance in which way my activity and the methods I use can affect others..."
When I started reading the course´s main text, it seemed too obvious and almost unnecessary; trivial. However, as we progressed, I was able to assign to it a value, despite the fact that the obviousness is still there, and the excessive use of wordy explanations: it organizes in an intelligent way and produces a rational explanation of what we all experience and perceive at a very unconcious level if at all. I am a firm believer of the capacity of people to grasp all these concepts by themselves, if they just thought and analyzed in depth their own dynamics. I imagine it comes with time: the interest in doing this, the need and the skills to use it and apply it in different aspects of life. I know I can use these to improve my courses, electronic and otherwise. In addition it is important to be up to date with literature of relevance to our disciplines.
I was not so far from what the authors we got to know in this course propose, but I was not acquainted with their model. Each model is valid and trustable if consistently applied. In that sense, we count with yet another option to assess our conduct and produce better results more conciously. So far, I am sticking with my ways, because they are in their way, efficient, effective and reflective. That is all that matters.

Task12. NIE2012.

Especially relevant to our team´s subject was the theory we have been studying in this course. The concrete scenario that we need to resolve involves facilitating the learning experience of an hetereogeneous group.
The activity system (the project) was not controlled, directed, coordinated or facilitated by any party. It seemed more an experiment on how the groups would structure themselves spontaneously.
Actors were a mixture of students of different backgrounds, cultures, levels and ages; the main instrument of communication was technology based; a software that shared environments for common creation and editing of texts, comments, messages, and interaction of those who were registered. The object was the creation of a handbook, simplified by the assignation of chapters, that contained each the scenario each team was to assess.
In most organizational theories it is explained how when any group is formed the first step towards effective association is the creative construct of rules and institutions. In the absence of these, formal or informal (can be strict norms or just practices/uses, etc.), no common pursuit can be efficiently achieved. It was manifest and acute the need for structure, guidance and leadership in this project that otherwise was a constructive experience. Two of the participants took a lead and in a disconnected way some others filled out the blank spaces with as much as they could come up with. Meetings were organized in times when most could not attend, lasted short and were filled in the begining with senseless wonderings and socializing alone. Later, when time was pressing people was more commited and contributed more meaningfully to the work. It was very surprising to find out that the theories we are revising, and some others that seemed so standard and obvious to me (activity theory, andragogy, and cognitive distance mainly) were unherad of by the participants that were not from Estonia. None of them had even heard of, or at least in these terms. Our own group was extremely hetereogeneaous, we might not have anything at all in common other than this task.
The technology used was as much as necessary if conflict prevention techniches were applied, if an strategy could have been formulated or people were told in advance these goals. Also, guidance so people would not waste time allowing all these to form by themselves, out of dire need, in time, just few days before submission. I personally felt I wasted a horrible amount of time, only trying to communicate and express the need to make a working plan of reasonable complexity, so the result was not too simple minded. The whole proposal seems to rely too much on the magic of technology. No software or technique can supply for basic human skills on conflict management, group dynamics, communication and facilitation. Technology is supportive to unbelievable extents but it means nothing in the absence of human competence and control.
In this case, no matter how many possibilities existed and we started to use (facebook, google documents, doodle, and the project´s site, in addition to net meetings of Oulu university), people did not show up, or we could not conduct in the begining very fruitful conferencing. Later, the past week in particular it was much better and efficient. The Finish participant edited work that we all contributed with and every one proposed some texts, bibliography and view points. I feel I had to reduce my expectations a lot, not to be too pushy or upset people with excessive criticism.
The checklist of the text by Kapertini and Nardi is so far the most practical and interesting part of the readings in this course. I plan to simplify it and use it to re-evaluate and formulate my lectures next year so the use of technologies by my future students who are not computer literate. The courses and activities must improve with the mediatization, instead of getting too complicated (transparency? ubiquity?).

Theorizing III. Task 9 (some people numbered it 10). NIE2012.

I have made a great effort of turning computer technology, to the extent of my abilities, into more than a medium. My very limited experience has taught me to be very cautious about the expectations I place on it. It is difficult for anyone nowadays to dispute the impact of artificial intelligence, accessible everywhere to most (ubiquity?). Equally hard is to generalize in terms of how refined our maangement of these tools is. We might be at a point where everyone understands these technologies are a medium, but most do not know how to put them at their own service of manipulate them in a way that can influence transformations, tactically to reach ends or purposefully.
Every student is enabled to participate of the digital economy exchange, starting from the email addresses and their information systems at universities, facebook and other resorces available to connect and even associate, I guess the effort we are doing at the co-create project reflects just that. However, when I "force" upon mine to take full responsibility for the management of their tasks, trying alternative producs (mindmap software, net meetings, and even the very same Prezi), they refuse, and get irritated by the need to lean additional and seemingly unrelated skills. Generalizing is not my aim. Some are very engaged and learn fast, feeling confident and doing it very well, but for the most part they get lost and waste a lot of time, protesting openly. At the end, I re-focus onto traditional lectures and the typical readings combined with report like submissions. This is to say that eventhough the potential of these technologies is imense, it remains unexplored by many. Progress and "penetration" of these as tools will take place later, I see it like an evolving process where people first need to learn to the point of being competent enough to be creative. The confidence is still not there.
I´ve studied it from the legal and political perspective and in this context we talk about a new technology paradigm all together (On this a respected and prolific author is Carlota Perez. She talks about the large scale transcitions, and the role of public policy in these processes), one that turns every single known institution (rules, formal and informal of any level) around, reshaping and compromising social, political and economic patterns. Consequently, when I read the author´s reference to this : "No political revolution is comparable with computer based globalization. This urges us to reflect on digital information and telecommunication technologies as catalysts of a new social system emerging."  I can relate very well and understand its actual reach.
I was again surprised to find on the readings sections compatible to what discussed earlier and posted about on one of our previous assignments. I feel relieved at the realization that some ideas that arise when I ponder about these issues are not so alien and extraordinary. For example, in this lecture the author also questions the implicit biased that the political context could have imposed onto Leontive´s works: "Maybe Leontiev got into ideological pressure trying to adjust his theory to the logical constrains of historical Materialism?" (Page 4). He goes about exploring this statement much further exposing the possible contradictions of this theory and further considering leontiev´s context a possible factor to be taken into consideration:  "May be these theoretical restrictions are owed to the social historical situation of Leontiev´s and to the theoretical possibilities or limitations of Historical Materialism in its specific understanding of man and society at that time. It would be a very important and interesting program of historical research to show this." (Page 6).
I was very confused by the use of the word "systemic" in here. Earlier, I viewed it as a growing interdependence among subjects and objects, to a lesser degree that it seems to be explained or suggested in this text. In addition the reference to cognition was not, to my mind, what meant the most if we were to take this approach. To put it differently, I might be misplacing the applicability of systemic development because I clearly get its applications to organizational management and development control but hardly to a single relationship between a technology and individuals unless connected into networks, so again we could say this is organizational theory. I remain confused trying to associate these approaches.
Was the author trying to say in the last section of page 6, that Lompscher claims activity theory incapable of solving theoretical challenges of our times? Is this also a call for transcending the theory?
A bit off track but still interesting to me: Is the following paragraph refering so any sort of communication and hence justifying dialog and dialectical exchange, or even negotiation at every other level of human interaction (different from computer technologies)? Can this be applied to conflict management all together?

"To Luhmann social and psychic systems are forced to communicate their fundamental differences and inevitable contingencies in order to stay alive. To get rid of irritating differences with its environment by destroying environment is no real option to a social or psychic system because this finally destroys the system itself, for there is no system without environment and without difference to it."

Among the most compelling concluding remarks I found the 3 last to be the most applicable to my field of interest and research: 9th , 10th and 11th.

 

Theorizing II. Task 8. NIE2012.

Some salient thoughts that the reading gave rise to, this week:

-The following paragraph: "The last conclusion implies, in particular, that objects of activities are dynamically constructed on the basis of various types of constraints. These constraints include the needs that the given activity is striving to satisfy; available means; other potentially related activities; and other actors
involved, with their own motives and objects. When some of these
components change—for instance, the importance of a certain need
increases—or new means become available, the whole configuration of
constraints may require a redefinition of the object of activity to meet
the new constraints (see Hyysalo 2005)." is a very relevant one and serves as a feedback to one of the exercises we made with Terje, when we explained how to decide on what to do, when. It seems this reflects very closely what I actually do when acting. See the post on that below, and a graphic summary of compatible elaborations. I do not remember now but I guess I received no individual feedback on these earlier tasks.
-I was moved by the same intuitive need to simplify and regard all of those very interesting, articulated and surely important theories redundant as they put in many more or less words the same analysis that I have been exposed to in other disciplines. It is not unique to these authors to explain these processes, so (heuristic as I like) I kind of relate to them and know that I have already perceived these patters. For instance, what the authors expand on pages 205, 206, 207 seems far too similar to systemic analysis. There is no centralized control or one head thinking all of the data but a person delegating, distributing tasks, TRUSTING others, and therefore reducing redundancy to the minimum. Even if at the end Kaptelini and Nardi find that these are insufficient and should be combined with the rest and even transcended with activity theory. Probably that is a generic claim, that activity theory transcends earlier proposals. (This is about conserving resources and energy, as I see it. Why, if an artifact can be precise of certain tasks one needs to redo them, revise them, etc? Intentionality, though was also mentioned and I would say that the processes of surrendering to comfort and rational distribution o roles is natural but one could OPT for not getting into that course of events, for example, I have always have  a very good sense of orientation, seldom if ever get lost, and can go anywhere without even reading a map, literally. Our family traveled between my country and Peru more than 3000 kilometers without map and back home safely and educated about the geography of 3 countries! I never read instructions when I get new appliances but use common sense, I do not want to loose this resourcefulness and also impose to my children the effort of figuring out where they are, so they observe and pay attention and look around and find clues and signs (as I mentioned earlier I made it a rule not to be connected to any of their devices when in the car, walking with me or strolling around in the city). I will never buy anything to tell me in a silly voice what side to turn to and what street is next. I force my self to keep a notebook even if I have a tablet an android device and a laptop with me. Why to loose that human dimension or debilitate our commitment with the capacity we are naturally equipped with? Why to go to a web page like Luminosity to train the brain on elementary tasks if we could do it without any app teaching, just by training on everyday basis, making intellectual efforts and controlling the growing tendency to delegate it all on technology? Could not we think about balance and moderation?
-I think this is a disservice to his brilliant analysis: "Characteristic of Leontiev’s view of the individual was his opposition to understanding the individual as merely a component part of social systems and processes. When discussing the idea that an individual could be completely described through a set of roles defined by the social context, Leontiev (1978) called the notion ‘‘monstrous.’’But again, I am no expert on his work. I would rather use the same argument I pointed out earlier, that this probably what the person had to say so it fit to ideological constrains. It is refreshing to read that the authors give more credit to the individuality, and more or less can state this is what I try to suggest all of the time. That one plays an important role if one is empowered to do that and committed to control one´s life.
-Subjective refraction that Leontiev mentions (cottage cheese incident, page 210, I have also make some comments on this before)= sounds a lot to me as intuition or tacit knowledge...The reflections on learning are valuable and I would have liked to read much more on that or many more examples on the same field (p.211-214). Phenomenology?
-The sections I would be more likely exploring further start in page 220 (9.4.2).
"To give some structure to those places where we might seek creative
fissures at different levels of collaborative activity, we refer to Raeithel’s
(1996) three-part scheme based on earlier work by Fichtner (1984):
coordination
cooperation
co-construction"
Distributed cognition seems a valuable field to explore since my interest is networked teaching and learning. This happens, naturally, but can one somewhat modify the patterns of distribution? Would this be recommended? Should people be let to learn to the best of their abilities? I would think so, because the result can be genuine and effective development.
-The book reads: "In Spinuzzi’s analysis the workers were active subjects. Traffic safety was the collective motive in the activity. The workers ‘‘made decisions,’’
‘‘transformed data,’’ and otherwise acted as aware subjects. Spinuzzi’s
discourse was not of small adjustments or the application of simple rules.
He described how the workers faced a mountain of narrative data—
filing cabinets full of thousands of accident reports. It is a tribute to their
creativity that they figured out how to transform such voluminous data.
To do so, they employed specialized domain knowledge and conceptual
tools including mathematical and statistical analyses to create more
revealing representations of the data (Spinuzzi 2003)." I thought if it has to do also with phenomenology (page 235: "Phenomenology
responded to the overformalization of science and mathematics in which
the everyday world of practical experience had little place).
Could not we in  a cooperative effort get together and "draw" the theory, adding some data (experiential theorizing) to explore and test the result?
-By the end of chapter 9, in page 234 I found this statement worth commenting: "Such social activity involving complex negotiations and discussions among diverse groups of humans requires a theory that allows for intentional activity enacted by beings capable of imagining and planning the future." Yes, this theory exists and is developed by conflict studies, literature on this abounds as well as methodologies, tactics, models and a diversity of studies. The use of existing studies associatively to integrate knowledge can be useful. At least I see compatibility here. Of course the book cannot be comprehensive of all knowledge available on every aspect they mention.
-Will there be any theory explaining a total synergy between humans and artifacts? Does this activity theory apply to artificial intelligence or will there be a post-activity theory forming for that? I would like to know the reach of these explanations.
-The conclusions of the chapter are extremely clear.

Sebastian, I do talk about many aspects on every post instead of counting 5 or 3 and sectioning the flow of thoughts. I am not really thinking about the quota necessary to pass the task. I hope this works out well this way. In fact I could divide this alone into 6 parts. Let me know please if that is needed.

NIE2012, Task 6. Theorizing.

Instead of simply making a summary report of this reading, I very candidly tried to put thoughts as they arose, in writing. This below is the transcription as if I could engage in dialog with the authors. I thought, at the end, that the last section was enough and much less ambivalent that the rest of the text. If I could anticipate there was a logical outline and brief of the reading I would have started there and then back to the full text (effort of info. better be heuristic). On to my impressions:

-The reference to anthropology is valid and persuasive; it made me think another discipline could be observed in its developments and also substance: behavioural economics. This, in turn, may help analysing ways in which people assesses information and the way in which processes could be expedited and effectivized.

-Would not this be stated to justify its general applicability instead of as a mean to explain its validity? "Sacks et al. suggested that ethnomethodological work is ‘‘context free, yet context sensitive’’ (quoted in Button and Dourish 1996)."

-Ethnomethodologists themselves have suggested that ethnomethodology has had a limited practical impact on interaction design because of what Button and Dourish called the paradox of technomethodology. BUT OF COURSE! This paradox of Technomethodology affects every science now. There is no point where one could stop and begin theorizing without missing to continue, but this should be again a call to theorists to promote choice in the innovation process as I mentioned before. Options will not be available if we are all embarked in an unstoppable and fast growing pace of development; it is like trusting technology to dictate what is to happen and how we must live our lives, ultimately the main actors in the technology development processes: states as promoters and engineers as enablers, or managers or means themselves. If only Moodle is available to students, then everyone would use it, if it is updated every year it triplifyies teacher´s work and complicates the life of students having to learn a new system and still stay with some courses in the old one while operational. Then if additionally several other developments are imperative, then life will all be about getting technical and keeping up with technological advancements. We would stay in the methodological level forever unless we stop. And somewhat sacrifice being updated, just to handle some tools very well and devote time to their study.

-Theories are already made. The technology is a medium, that adds factors to the social sciences existing methodologies for analysis and theories but in general creating a new discipline seems an entitlement understandable but unnecessary. In addition, it is possible to have theoretical intuitive approaches and realizations (the power of human brain!) without even reading about experiment number one or data and statistical analysis. We are all equipped with reason, that, coupled with talent, devotion and experience (age included) would be quiet enough, I think the science in general the way it is developing has little to do with knowledge and defeats its own purpose. In my fields of interest, there is plenty of apparent ground breaking doctrine that when I read leaves me 100% unimpressed. Reasoning and explanations so banal and obvious. Issues, proposals, assumptions and solutions I have thought about for tens of years already...The theory is needed for theorists. Maturity and experience is needed for practitioners. Nobody is a better parent out of reading manuals. One is a better parent by being a conscious parent: involvement. Being a parent.

-We believe that theoretical frameworks will facilitate productive cooperation between social scientists and software designers. Not only can such approaches help formulate generalizations related to the social aspects of the use of technology and make them more accessible to designers, they can support reflection on how to bring social scientists and software designers closer together, much as cognitive science and computer science found common ground in a shared model.

-Every discipline needs to be sensible to culture, to audience and to sample groups or actors. Principles are always applicable to certain subjects. Nothing new on this! How this makes it any independent? Ethnic methodologies are available long ago, and all sharing the same challenging visions...I still believe that activity theory can borrow or adapt from other theories and use what has already been researched about. Also that a new one is welcome, but not fundamental, because this theory has to be verified, and time has to pass, and then, it could be discussed amongst theorists again, to be able to be simplified for popular application and use. Theory is not to grow in complete detachment from practice. With learning, practice seems more effective.  For me the question is, are these authors suggesting that theory is constitutive rather than declarative? Why only the doctrinal validation would be important for a discipline to flourish and develop?

-Focus of activity theory is on  purposeful, mediated, human social activities. A fundamental insight of the approach is that the understanding and design of technology should be based on analysis of its role and place in activity. The concerns of interaction design can include moral and ethical issues (Friedman 1997), cultural diversity, social implications. I though the same when I was completing the past task.

-Critical analysis (Muller 1999), emotions, feelings, and spirituality (Muller et al. 2001). With its developmental perspective on purposeful mediated actions in a social context, activity theory plausibly addresses the widening purview of interaction design.
More questions:
1. How activity being the object of this theory differs from Conduct (behavioural sciences and law)?  a. What activity? Conduct is a purposeful interaction in law, activity is merely a happening. Is there a need for this differentiation?
b. Maybe because the activity is considered in this context as a source of development for the subject? Well, one could say that experiences are always constructive, people inevitably learn this way.
2. Agency: activity and need to act? This resembles the definition of negotiation. Organic.

-Where to leave the unconscious, Freud and other theories about the way in which we act? Why detaching mind and activity should not be valid? Sometimes we act out of being disciplined enough, regardless of thoughts aims and purposes. Sometimes one can see that exactly in the works of students who merely comply with a task, even reluctantly, but purposefully.

-On the historical influence from the 20s. Well, yes, it affects but I would think the society of proletarians did not really make a claim for theories of this or any other type; this was probably supplied to replace an economic theory that could be associated with “unacceptable” ideologies. That seems plausible, and as much as many other elaborations could have appeared as creative minds can always stretch concepts and turn data into relevant, important object of study. Later we realize that it was after all worthy of revision. If for nothing else, one needs to validate any though. However, I still see no persuasive reason to believe this is needed when other theories can help well enough. Maybe I need to see the evidence and putting these many words into action, to be used to improve what, by the way: activity or networked activities, or development or the subject and its internal purpose selection mechanisms?

-On the social being: Marxist, and more. This is also inferred from sociology and widely discussed, reflecting on systemic approached to interaction like organizational theory. I wonder why this is studied in isolation, maybe for the reasons mentioned above? To make it ideologically correct and present it as unique in its own context? The social being approach is understood from times immemorial. Greeks already developed the notion (was later formulated in clear statement and legal doctrine by romans) that rules and patterns appear when society if formed and that there was no reason to develop regulatory systems for an individual alone. So it is not really a borrowed idea, It rather seems we all talk about the same phenomena, and arrive to similar conclusions but like to assign to processes distinct taxonomies and terminology to give relevance to the science of our choice. Strangely enough, despite the separatist underlying tone that I perceive in the text, the same says later that the most prominent figure relevant to Activity theory itself considered unification of theory a possibility: “Vygotsky’s ambition was no less than to lay the foundation for a new approach that would allow integration and generalization of psychological knowledge.” Pag. 39.

-Evidence and characteristics of psyche: response: biological (cold chills) and sensitivity, intuition. This is a deep way to tell we need awareness when we propose interactive mechanisms? Is there a psyche to an organization? Need triggered sophistication so adaptability could follow, so can we imply that whatever we do to interact will ultimately work out as people adapt? It could be so! Bu I am no psychologist, it simply seems logical.

-Objectless activities: Sometimes we propose when it is about beautifying or innovating with no purpose. Also what about a drive, an urge such as that of adolescents that act much faster than what they think? I mean if to accept this one would end up saying every activity makes sense because we are rational…

-PERSUASIVE THE MOST:…” The development of the human mind was a radically new phase in the evolution of the psyche. For animals, mind is an organ of survival; it increases the organism’s fitness regarding its natural environment, just as claws or fur do. Through assuring the survival of the fittest, evolution stimulates the development of mind in animals. But with the emergence of human culture and society, biological evolution ceased to be the main factor in the development of the mind. The survival of an individual living in society depends on economics, politics, and technologies, rather than fitness understood as the body’s ability to adapt to the natural environment. Accordingly, the nature of the human mind is determined not only by biological factors but also by culture and society…”

-Leontiev specifically analysed three aspects of culture that have a fundamental impact on the mind: tools, language, and the division of labour. Departing from here, and if to think about the way I conceptualized my activities, where in this explanation the section of wishes (whimsical most of the time) and a sophisticated ethical analysis on whether the realization of my wish would affect others and how positively, would fit? When it relates not to labour, that is, the disassociation between motives and goals as explained in the document (page 59).

-I was glad to identify some elements of my past assignment present on this text, given that my first approach is to determine whether my activity responds to a need or not. Stretching the concept of urges, one can state that everything can turn into a need, be it because one needs to sustain life with it or emotional balance, or else…According to activity theory, the ultimate cause behind human activities is needs (page 60). Also the explanation about activities, actions and operations seem familiar although operations do not necessarily seem to happen improvisedly all of the times, What if people try or train to strategize? I recalled my old lectures on theory of knowledge and logic from first year of law school, too many years ago to mention. They started by describing the relationship between subject and object and the process of appropriation.

-Activity theory holds that the constituents of activity are not fixed but dynamic (page 86). So clear, it could have been just stated as such, no need to wonder around.

So this was all. I wonder if any of my questions will be even discussed by some of you, read, or answered…

New Interactive Environments. Task 5. NIE2012.

Mediated activities like all others require certain level of organization to be efficiently performed, even if intuitive or unnoticeable. There is most of the times a pattern of behaviour that even if not too rational gives a lead onto how people do as they do and how.
My approach is teleological. I think abot the possible outcomes first, so I can measure the degree of compatibility of what I want to do or have to do with what I should or am supposed to. Or if it is simply worthy of my attention.
An imperative is to think in advance in which way my activity and the methods I use can affect others. First, those who depend on me (my children, my students and my colleagues primarily) and second those who could be affected by my actions (third parties, neighbours, relatives, etc). For instance, I do not commit to any responsibility that would prevent me from being at home when my youngest son returns from school. I also do not do Facebook while writting an article. I do not ever connect to social networks when having a face to face conversation or participating of face to face interactions (while driving is talking time with kids, nobody should be connected to anything at the time we pay attention to eachother, while working out the telephone is off, while sleeping all equipment is off, etc), and also made it a rule at home.
Then, whenever an outcome is needed, wished, convenient and compatible with the rest of my life, then I look for tactics, or ways to make it happen, including digital technology, and different other analogous tools. Finally I plan the sequences, schedules, places necessary and act or perform my duties.
In short it all starts with self interest: a need, own or imposed by duty, goes through some economic thinking (cost/benefit/resources/management) and considerations. That is self interests again, and ends up happening if available, possible and innexpensive (in many ways, not only monetary).

The most important resource at this point for me is time.

 

Unable to produce a sound theoretical model I decided to make yet another graphic outline.

New Interactive Environments. Task 4. A comparative review. NIE2012

Mhhh so this is getting more complicated (delivering opinions openly is quiet a commitment!), and also interesting. I just hope some also could read my post and comment on it.

After visiting most of the registered blogs of the rest, it was clear that mine was really different and probably sidetracked. It could also refelect the fact that my background is on laws, as well as how I manage the part of sharing and publishing about myself. I look forward to eventually integrate into the group, even if my interests are so specific, and the conceptual connections I look forward to establishing differ from those of the group. I was very tempted to post again to follow the pattern of the students at IMKE, but opted to leave it as it was. Next time I would wait and see how the group behaves, to avoid distractors.

In general, people focused more on showing what they do with their time (exactly what I tried to refrain from doing) instead of touching upon the issue of how thechnology has affected or impacted our lives and cultures. I was really interested in reflections of this kind and some discussions. In some ways I think that the electronic formats for learning and exchange facilitate some aspects of the process and inhibit others. It seems in here we try to explain more about ourselves to give indications that are otherwise obtained by direct interaction from the context, appearance, attitude. Can one have an attitude online? Can one be perceived as positive, letagic, lazy, constructive or smart with accuracy using these mediums? Should this be possible? My students do the very opposite, as they are so much younger and inexperienced. They want to hide and keep as uncommited as possible, and this course really makes me wonder. I made an experiment and posted on my courses´ blog a task for electronic submission and discussion. After 2 weeks only 4 out of 30 students have dared participating. I hope someone here can comment this.

On the study plans, I noticed most are familiar with the same tools, but I could learn about the way they organize and make ideas accessible to others in a grafic ways, and also tried some of the technical solutions they mentioned. This was a great exploration I am very glad about. Thank you for sharing!
These are the postings that I can briefly mention, because they called my attention on different levels.
Darja´s contribution was extremely clear for me, I almost did not need to read the legend. It was intuitive, readable and very appealing. I am curious about the graphic software she uses. An excellent example of organization skills and appeal. Beautiful.
Rando´s postings are worthy of discussion, in that they offer some arguments that I would be interested in commenting about. The mindmap was simple to understand.
Mattias`s graphic was also submitted very early in the week together with Darja´s and mine, and so I wanted to have a closer look at it. It was hard to visualize it all together, and the flow was not so clear as the others, eventhough it was more complete than the previous.
Carla also uses the same approach as the rest, and outlines her responsibilities in the simplest way possible. It seems unclear for me how can she work 8 hours and be registered for that many courses at the same time, as I barely have any left o sleep if to care for my 3 kids, and keep up with the responsibilities of a full time job and as a student with only 3 registered course this semester. Maybe we all should learn to budget the time with an hourly account as she proposes, so we could be more efficient. I would.
Last, on Tiina´s study and time management plan I learned about Graffle. Hers was a little more complicated to follow because it had direction and implications, but these are the most informative of all conceptual maps and outlining methodologies.

A question remains, Were we supposed to explain detailed aspects of our time management or how do we make it understandable to others using technology? I thought the second was the case and this is why I posted a mindmap about my study plan (research findings and connections) last year, of course I made no time management or private interests references.

New Interactive Environments. Task2 and 3 NIE2012

Mhm...
The transition we are living and its impact of the regulatory systems as we know them is what has motivated the writing of a doctoral thesis all together. My observations on that began long ago when the law on sustainable development was proposed in Spain back in 2005, reflecting legislative developments in the UK with its digital act, and in France that passed a law (and was the very first enforcing it) with very similar content. This is the background; not very well know movement that ended up in the widely publicized proposal of a whole new management of our digital rights and an imposition of an outdated ideology on property values. People learned about it much later, through ACTA, SOPA and PIPA and the debate these proposals generated. It has been a much longer process that has not reached an end yet.
I am tremendously affected by the digital reality in many ways. First, I am an instructor on legal issues, a legal scientist with a commitment to liberal principles, and the rule of law. This alone puts me in a position where I have to pay attention to what is going on and contribute as much as I can from the academic perspective. I have to teach legal standards and integrity to students much more vigorously now, as knowledge sources are restricted and dishonorable conduct is so openly facilitated by technology(plagiarism is not a crime; it does not have anything to do with copyrights). I must also contend the wave of "popular knowledge" that has crowded the world by communicating, at least to my students, what are the realistic and reasonable standards applicable to internet and technology governance, whether we really need laws or not and that in fact we cannot be all of the time using legal tools to solve the problems of uncertainty that arise from these thechnologies.
The moment we call the state to intervene we delay, we obstaculize, we create confusion and most importantly, we increase contentiousness in society. I especially feel worried about the notorious sense of ownership people display about their creations or inventions, mainly due to massive misinformation on the fundamental principles of intellectual property law, and to the detriment of the society in general. I think the digitalization of our lives is a reality that challenges most of what we consider important in society: freedoms and property. I have ethical worries in many levels.
On one hand we have author´s rights and those are not patrimonial, irrenuntiable and unlimited. This means that we all deserve credit for what we do (not money, but credit, that is attribution, so what I say remains my say, and not only to benefit me but because I have to be fully responsible for my expressions and the consequences they might bring about). On the other hand we have copyrights that are a FICTION. They are a temporary monopoly that might or not be in the hands of authors and that confers the right to restrict distribution, use and modification of their object. This is so damaging to the economy (liberal ideology promotes free markets) that it is conferred by the state only temporarily, and suppose a gain to the whole society: That more creators will create more creations. That more inventors will invent more inventions. These are not privileges to obtain money and they do not protect ideas.
In schools people are taught to be in love with whatever they do, without screening it on quality of marketability. People are encouraged to fight their copyrights on any piece of gibberish they compose and businesses reflect the same attitudes. This fractures societies, makes out of each one of us a potential infringer, distrusting and hostile to others. This also promotes social and legal conflict. We are put to believe that the only solution to the extensive availability of copyrighted materials is the restriction of our civil liberties: monitoring, surveillance, policing and criminalization.
Of course, this view is not very optimistic and certainly differs from that of the designers and media professionals by far. But we all are users, self regulation is more efficient and friendly than legal disputes, and not all creations are worthy of protection, because some of them are simply trash, just like it has always been. An object is worth anything if people like it, value it, or are willing to get it, not because the law says so. Or are we going to call the legislator to decide on beauty contests and pass laws on aesthetics? There has to be an acceptable standard of conduct reachable by wide consensus, but I have no idea will we live to see it being formulated or found? This is what I think about and write about. In the meantime I am fascinated by the possibilities. It is good to mix competence with caution. I still would like to claim I have the right to be anonymous, and opt for an analogous lifestyle in all respects. It is all about choices now, but one day it will no longer be so. When innovations become impositions then it is difficult not to be disturbed. For instance, why my 65 year old mother, who will not race against time to get updated on lifestyle, cannot maintain her Windows XP Operative system running efficiently for as long as she wants? Why innovation and development imposes her updates that imply expenditures and learning beyond her interests and possibilities? Why some services are fully electronic when not everyone can or want to access to them that way? How to match the demand of technology developments in Finland or Estonia with that of Bangladesh, Zambia or Bolivia? Still they are imposed the same global policies and agendas. Innovation should be made with purpose and on demand, at least when the audience can absorb it, or else it turns into a very expensive waste or cause social problems.
I have not read the articels you proposed but I will, and maybe get back to you with a  more pertinent post. Maybe they would allow me to focus on other aspects and guide me onto other topics. Anyway, the laws are cultural manifestations, so taking about them is always relevant.

The first part of the task is more difficult to complete because I prefer to keep my time planning and family activities private. Of course I would not mind sharing a bit, but could not produce a full reasoning chart to be made public. In general: post graduate student, master on laws from 1995, when I also married to an Estonian man. I am a widow now, with 3 minor kids, lecturer on what I wrote on my first post and a doctoral student. VERY BUSY! Wishing to finish with at least one of these chapters (preferably the PHD) asap so I can move onto the next and become more efficient. Have no free time now, but when I can get it then I would invest it in what I like most: hiking, digital technology, the sea, sewing, visual arts of all sorts, graphic design and illustrations, applied arts, some music, literature and films, Japan, anime, my family here and there, painting, and sleeping!
Please find below the concept maps I would use to explain an article I am busy writing at the moment and how I was developing my studies last academic year:
http://mind42.com/pub/mindmap?mid=bbe0352f-c99e-4b11-b6ba-f5b7ae3b36d1&rel=link
http://www.spiderscribe.net/app/?b37de428d432221c5f8b3a73a85316ee
Does this count?

MariaC.

New Interactive Environments

First Task
Hello! I am a lecturer on international legal studies (transactions, comparative legal systems, legislative development and international conflict management) with special interest in the new patterns of internet regulation, and internet governance. This is all related to the way in which technology should be managed. It is my interest to combine what I know, what I have to do, and what I like to learn and develop about, at the same time. This is how I reached here. Also, I am taking this course as an elective towards accumulating points for my doctoral studies in Tallinn University of Technology. I have used plenty of internet based tools from the year 2000 when I first created my course blogs using a program called Front Page. I purchased and learned how to use it by my self. It was an imperative, in my opinion, to effectivize the learning process, to move ahead with the times and specially to engage students in ways that would make them learn substance without almost noticing it. It was fun. On the side, I am an avid user of all kinds of social networks and online products ranging from Zoho, Slideshare, Scribd, Flickr, Prezi, all Google services, Vimeo, Coursera, different playlists and music services, to my latest obsesion: Pinterest. This last I like the most beacuse I can collect and classify information for later use in a simple and immediate way. This is what I also liked to do with my personal blogs (6 so far on different google addresses), to keep a roll of the sites that I like the most.
I shared these interests through my courses on legal negotiation in Colombia (where I am from). I was the first lecturer ever there using that medium and expecting from students to take control of their learning process. It was hard in the begining, because they were a bit too comfortable to be independent and to have to check on developments online. The most common excuses I heard were: "I have no internet connection at home" and, "for some reason I cannot access your webpage." In time they enjoyed the experience. Later, I also used the same methodologies in Estonia, and through hot.ee; some of the old pages are still up in the web, if you want to take a look at them: Comparativo and introduccion. The most recent are simplified, in a blog format, and mainly up for announcements. They all look more or less like this one. Moodle, in my opinion, is too standardized.
I am very glad I found this course, and afraid I am liking this program so much, I might end up enrolling as a full time student in it!

Last assignment/post

This was the most difficult exercise of all. Since the use of these methodologies is so intuitive for me as I explained in the beginning of the course, this rationalized and organized, compartmented assessment structure has not been necessary. So far, I have evaluated them instinctively: "you know when a concept map is good when you see one." For reporting is convenient, but it takes a disciplined approach that I probably lack. The creative content is impoverished by strict guidelines, or at least it has been my opinion so far. In any event, the activity was extremely informative, and also formative. I will impose to myself the organization of these grading criteria if at least to explain to the students the most elementary expectations that I would consider for a topic to be well covered (reviewed, outlined, reported) using these tools. It should at least help them.

I specially enjoyed the exchange, reading what others had to comment and say, although I regret that I could not attend the contact session, also that we did not engage more actively in discussions. I recommend, for other e-courses to arrange for electronic meetings. Not only it would create a sense of connection among participants, but it could also teach us how to do the same with our own. This is what I would like to learn next.
Since I had to anyway invest time and energy on this short course I am incorporating its message to the development of my lectures: Legal Environment of Business, and the response has been surprisingly positive. Grades are not calculated yet, but the engagement of the students has improved to an extent I can barely believe myself. The use of exciting, different and interesting methods invites them to try completing their assignments. By doing that I can be sure they at least have gone through the class materials. Only that is a plus. What will happen when they all handle these new methods well? How can I make legal topics interesting for non-lawyers? This will be again my biggest problem.
I very much enjoyed the course, and hope to be able to continue much further in the learning of technologies applied to education. I am even considering applying for the master program at Tallinn University...