PIN Messages are Red, Emails are Blue

While technology hasn't altered what things we deem necessary to communicate on a daily basis, it has altered our approach to preservation. We frequently go through our inboxes and delete emails, keeping only that which is really important or "worth saving." And very often, even all "important" email has an expiration date on its importance. When it comes to paper however, we seem to have a much harder time letting go. The human as pack rat urge seems to sneak in wherever paper is concerned. While we easily delete that "happy birthday" email, God forbid we throw out that birthday card. It seems that we feel things written on paper have more meaning, and associate more emotionally with them. I think this is because we can have a physical connection with paper, which makes for a more intimate experience. I also think that particularly now, when the bulk of communication is digital, we find greater meaning in paper communication because of the effort and care someone must have taken to actually bother to buy a card, pick up a pen, write something down, go to the trouble to mail it, buy stamps, etc. In the digital age, there is somehow something extra special and evocative about paper communication. It's exciting when someone goes to all that effort to communicate with you - the fact that they were willing to forgo convenience for you, means they must really care.

It leads to a particularly amusing perspective on modern romance and affection. Gone are the days of chivalry - love letters have been replaced by emails, and courtship is most easily done via text message, which allows us to avoid all those pesky obligations like showering, getting dressed up, and making eye contact. As a result, we react very strongly to getting an actual letter, card, or even a phone call - anything that requires more time and effort than typing a few characters while Lost is on commercial. In the digital age, it seems we have come to define romance and ultimate sacrifice as convenience.

Same old, yet new thing

A couple of weeks ago, our class went through 57 boxes of archives from the former London Asylum for the Insane to gather more research material for our project. Going through numerous boxes full of letters and communications, it made me think how little human behaviour has changed, even as we muddle through the digital age. There were lots of really interesting documents, but there were also many that reflected the ordinary, and even mundane activities of everyday life. Going through some of these physical boxes was pretty much the paper equivalent of going through someone's email inbox. Sure, there's the occasional juicy and interesting bit, but there's also a whole lot of stuff, that while relevant at the time, is not at all worth saving, and is of no interest or use to anyone in the future (ie. "Hey, Did you get my email about the meeting today?" or "Do you want to meet for lunch tomorrow?"). I was struck by how little the communication itself has changed, and that the only real difference is that technology has provided us with more accessible, fast, and convenient methods with which to communicate.

An apple a day.....

Does not keep the doctor away in the case of Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple Computers. After announcing last week that he was suffering from a hormone deficiency, for which he had begun a simple treatment, Steve Jobs elaborated today to say that his health issues were more complex than he originally thought, and as a result, he would be taking a leave of absence. As a result, Apple's stock took a nose-dive and all kinds of panicked questions are being raised about Apple products. Steve Jobs has been an integral part of everything Apple; from the creative process, to marketing initiatives, Jobs has allowed brilliant and innovative ideas to shape Apple into one of the most recognizable and successful companies around. To steal a term from the always clever Apple, Steve Jobs' concept has been "genius" at creating really cool stuff, and then presenting it in the coolest way. I truly believe that Bill Gates lies awake at night - using million dollar bills to wipe his tears away - so frustrated that no matter what he does, Microsoft is never as cool as Apple. They may offer comparable products, but Apple always seems to do it better. Where Microsoft is all about business, function, and aggressive and pervasive marketing campaigns in pursuit of world domination, Apple just chills out, looking cool, working really well, drawing people in because everyone wants to hang out with cool kid.

Based on the reaction of the media and stock market to Steve Jobs' illness, it seems they're not so sure they want to go to the party anymore if Apple's not there. Steve Jobs is so synonymous with his company, that apparently, his illness automatically spreasd to all Apple products and decreases their value. I find it interesting that despite the quality, success, and popularity of Apple technology, faith in the company seems to rest so heavily on a single human being. I wonder if there'd be the same reaction to Microsoft if Bill Gates fell ill? The market response to Steve Jobs' illness implies that without him at the helm, Apple isn't worth as much, and that there's a legitimate fear that the product and brand will decrease in quality in his absence. Does this mean macbook's will be cheaper? Will iPods now only come in black and gray? I think it's interesting because it just goes to show that for all the buzz about technology and our faith in the various technologies we use each day, people still place the bulk of their trust in people. At least, that's what iThink.

Hypertext - "Follow your nose!"

Rarely is the human thought process completely linear. Let's take class discussion as an example; when a question or topic is proposed, someone will respond to the question and in their response, will raise something that evokes a response from someone else, and so on. Oftentimes, the "links" to further discussion have nothing to do with the initial question or the specific answer to it, and we end up talking about something that has nothing to do with the question or topic that got it all started. It's the nature of discussion and the result of putting a bunch of individuals together, who by nature, will have different thought processes. In many ways, it is this type of real world human interaction that hypertext mimics in the virtual world. For this reason, I think it's an incredible feature to include in the design and creation of websites, because it allows any visitor to follow their own train of thought through the world wide web. We may all share a common interest, and thus begin in the same place. However, as interests and thoughts diverge from person to person, hypertext allows us to take up the wisdom of Toucan Sam and "follow your nose" to whatever it is your individual interest is looking for.

Hypertext imitates the way people learn, and is therefore very effective, as well as convenient. Traditionally, people would go grab a book from the library, read it, and what interested them most would lead to further reading and learning. Two people might read the same book, but the thing from that book that inspires further reading may be entirely different. If the book was about Africa, one person might want to learn more about lions, while another may wish to study the Apartheide. Hypertext in a website about Africa would permit each of these people to learn more about their respective areas of interest, through a simple click. The other advantage to hypertext is that it might get people to read and learn about things they otherwise would have ignored or been unaware of. Who knows, the lion enthusiast could end up clicking their way into human rights advocacy.