Aiming for Better

Something interesting about communication technology that I found in the news was that AOL is redesigning the early version of AIM from 1997. I found this news item to be intriguing because AOL Instant Messaging was popular when I was growing up. It was the first technology that I used to chat with friends and create “away messages” that are similar to todays’ “tweets”. According to the news item, “The latest iteration of AIM expands tweets and lets users play movies and upload files into chats using drag and drop”(line 2, http://journals.ohiolink.edu.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/ejc/pdf.cgi/Weber Ren.pdf issn=10836101&issue=v14i0004&article=1016_wdwrkagaehca). I think AIM’s new direction to expand tweets and encourage microblogging is a good idea in order to compete with Twitter and Facebook. The new AIM also allows users to upload photos and videos even when instant messaging. This is also significant because photos and videos are a big part of what Facebook is and what makes Facebook so popular. This seems to be a good direction for AOL because of the digital world we live in. “AIM is available in versions for the Web, Windows PCs and Macs, as well as Android and iOS mobile devices”(line 14, http://journals.ohiolink.edu.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/ejc/pdf.cgi/Weber Ren.pdf?issn=10836101&issue=v14i0004&article=1016_wdwrkagaehca). This is also important because of the use of Facebook and Twitter on 3G cell phones today. This is another way that AOL can compete with the other mobile microblogging corporations. It will be interesting to see if the new version of AIM will catch on like Facebook and Twitter did. The new version of AIM will go through the 5 stages of adoption just like any other evolving technology. First, people will have to hear about it. Most likely, it will be advertised in the media and then people will be talking about it. Before doing this blog, I had no idea that AOL was coming out with a new version of instant messaging. Second, we will have to see if people like the new features of AIM like expanding tweets and allowing for the uploading of photos and videos. After that we will see if the population accepts or rejects the new version of AIM. If accepted, will people use it? This could be similar to Google+, in that some people joined but not many used it. According to the Critical Mass Theory, the value of technology goes up with the number of users. So if only a few people use the new version, then the value will not be great for each user. Lastly, will it live up to everybody’s expectations? It might take some time for AIM to catch on but it could be the next big thing next to Facebook and Twitter.

http://journals.ohiolink.edu.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/ejc/pdf.cgi/Weber_Ren.pdf?issn=10836101&issue=v14i0004&article=1016_wdwrkagaehca

.

Shoot 'em Up

A journal article that sparked my interest was an article from the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication that discussed the effects of first-person-shooter video games that are not usually examined. The article, What Do We Really Know About First-Person-Shooter Games? An Event-Related, High Resolution Content Analysis, focuses on experimenting with different players and looking more in depth at what kind of tactics and strategies each player uses while gaming. The article then looks at what kind of violence and how much of it is experienced with each player. A couple of interesting findings I picked out from the article were, “The sample of content generated by individual users can be expected to differ systematically based on characteristics of the gamers and the length of time they spent playing–two determinants often overlooked” (pg. 3, What Do We Really Know About First-Person-Shooter Games? An Event-Related, High Resolution Content Analysis). Another finding from the article that is similar to this one and that I believe is partly influenced by modern technology is, “With regard to FPSGs in particular, Smith, Lachlan, and Tamborini (2003) found substantial amounts of realistic violent portrayals in contemporary video games of that time, concluding the standard game narrative featured ‘‘a human perpetrator engaging in repeated acts of justified violence involving weapons that result in some blood shed to the victim’’ (2003, p. 71)” (pg. 2, What Do We Really Know About First-Person-Shooter Games? An Event-Related, High Resolution Analysis). As digital natives of our generation and our reliance on technology, some of us are encouraged to spend a significant amount of time playing these first-person-shooter video games, subjecting ourselves to this violence. Better picture quality like HDTV and better sound quality like Dolby Digital and DTS helps contribute to the video game experience and attracts gamers to become more involved in the war-like tactics. Becoming more involved can influence how we play the video games and what we take from them. Better weapon and character graphics with these first-person-shooter video games helps drive creators to keep improving the technology to even better the games in order to attract more gamers. First-person-shooter video games will continue to get better because of new technology and thus continue to increase interactivity among gamers. It is important for us to remember that these are just video games and that we should not get too involved in them. As with any technology, a limited amount of time should be spent playing first-person-shooter games so that we do not rely on them for total gratification.

Weber, René; Behr, Katharina-Maria; Tamborini, Ron; et al. (July, 2009). What Do We Really Know About First-Person-Shooter Games? An Event-Related, High Resolution Content Analysis. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. Retrieved from http://journals.ohiolink.edu.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/ejc/pdf.cgi/Weber_Ren.pdf?issn=10836101&issue=v14i0004&article=1016_wdwrkagaehca