[-empyre-] An "other" view of writing

Thu Oct 15 20:55:11 EST 2009

Hi Yvonne, Jo and all,

I also think that WordPress is a very suitable and flexible piece of
software for networked books. It has a major community that offers
support, a wide range of designs (that you can often adjust) and
plugins. Especially the plugins offer an excellent way to adjust the
blog to your purposes. In this case the Institute for the Future of
the Book has built its own theme/plugin set that reconfigures
WordPress to make it suitable for publishing long pieces of text that
allow for modular commenting. Especially the idea that a text can be
commented on per paragraph is unique in blogs.

Concerning the design I agree that the text could be slightly bigger.
I personally don't mind serif fonts such as Georgia on the web but
currently the text is quite dense. Maybe adjusting the
line-height/spacing to 1.4 and +1 pixel for the font would help? Also
maybe the left sidebar could be slightly smaller so that the text can
have more room? Currently the layout is divided into three equal
blocks but maybe the text could deserve more attention also to
increase readability?

Best,
Anne

On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 4:27 PM, Green Jo-Anne <jo at turbulence.org> wrote:
> Hi Yvonne,
> Thanks for your response.
> The reason we chose WordPress is because it's open source; and we have seen
> great diversity in its design capabilities (we have four of our own and
> countless others on Turbulence).
> Readability is a concern, so I do wonder whether the font is an issue for
> others? If enough people want it changes, we'll change it.
> << (and what academic would risk their reputation by writing a hasty
> comment?)>>
> This is, indeed, a factor for others. We often hear, I'll write when I have
> more time to get it right, etc. So there's something about the formality of
> the project that seems to be an obstacle.
> We've asked people to register (so that they can be properly credited if
> their comments are incorporated into the book); would anonymity help?
> Warm Regards,
> Jo
>
>
> On Oct 12, 2009, at 2:09 AM, Yvonne Martinsson wrote:
>
> Hi Jo,
> I think I should answer your questions here, even though the discussion as
> such has moved on.
> 1) I would be the last to say that the Ndbele women are a mindless mass. In
> fact, they ensure cultural diversity as they keep the voices of the other
> heard. What I fear is that the plurality of the world will be lost with, for
> instance, streamlined blogging tools, when in fact the internet can be the
> place for the preservation and development of difference(s).
> 2) I appreciate Networked and your experimentalism, and I don't think it's
> failure. It invokes many thoughts on networking and collaboration. My
> experience though is that user contribution depends on volumes. Look at
> YouTube, for instance, a video needs maybe 20,000 to 30,000 hits to generate
> 10 comments, and academia and others working in new media is a small target
> group.
> 3) As a reader of Networked, you might wonder why I haven't commented on
> Networked. So, let me give you one reader's response. I actually read Anna's
> chapter before Networked was officially announced. I reacted to her
> discussion on the pros and cons of a wiki and a blog and wanted to write a
> comment on the spur, but refrained as the site had not really gone public
> yet. But, this is why, comments are written on the spur of a moment (and
> what academic would risk their reputation by writing a hasty commment?).
> When Networked went public so much else had come in between, but then empyre
> came along and I could post thoughts that had been brewing for some time on
> the spur of a moment but in a new context. If I should be honest with
> myself, I think I also refrained from commenting because I felt like an
> appendix to the body (of an other, of the author, of the text), and not as a
> co-writer, co-producer.
> I have gone back to Networked since, tried to read but, and this is one
> little, fussy detail, the font uses serif. This makes it very difficult to
> read the texts, and I gave up NOT because some texts are dense (I'm a
> trained reader) but because of typography! Instead, I lost myself in the
> source code, the 12 (!) stylesheets, the comment plugin... :)
> Best
> Yvonne
>
> 10 okt 2009 kl. 02.45 skrev Green Jo-Anne:
>
> Hi Yvonne,
> Thanks for your thought provoking posts.
> I just want to interject that for us, the most important juxtaposition is
> not wiki/blog, but print book/net book. Yes, there are many problems
> regarding web 2.0 hype, but the possibilities offered by these technologies
> present alternative modes of writing, reading and publishing. Regardless of
> whether people choose to contribute their ideas to Networked, the fact that
> they have the option is a first step.
> Furthermore, I don't think "encyclopaedic and factual" and "ongoing thought,
> theory in progress" are that clear cut. In my introductory post, I tried to
> make the point that what was encyclopaedic and factual for some was not so
> for the majority. Most people believe what they read in "nonfiction" books,
> so what passes as fact matters a lot. There's nothing scientific about
> selecting which artists should have a place in history, yet what passes into
> history is often given the same weight.
> <<Are we moving towards  heterogenous cultures of different voices or are we
> shaped into becoming one global homogenous mass? And, where is our
> responsibility?>>
> Compared to what? How much creative freedom do painters have with their
> materials: oil/acrylic/watercolor? linen/cotton canvas? Given all of the
> materials available in today's market, Ndbele women still use beads and
> thread in their crafts; it is tied to their tribal identity. Are they a
> mindless mass or are they simply insuring that their customs survive. Do
> they feel confined by the limits of their medium? I don't think so. In my
> opinion, WP blogs offer as much or  more potential as paint/canvas,
> beads/thread.
> Finally, one of the motivations for this discussion on -empyre- was to get
> the word out about Networked; I was becoming concerned that so few people
> were leaving their comments. What can we do to encourage people to get
> involved? How will we evaluate the project's success? How long should we
> wait before we decide that it's a failure?
> Warm Regards,
> Jo
>
> On Oct 8, 2009, at 6:56 PM, Yvonne Martinsson wrote:
>
> Hi Anna,
> The reason I responded to the discussion was mainly that I thought it
> was sidetracked by whether to choose a wiki or a blog for the
> networked book. I find it more interesting to read the contributors
> response to what a networked book is and how they relate to
> collaborating on writing a text that is not encyclopaedic and factual
> but rather an ongoing thought, a theory in progress and so on.
> Networked  collaboration is, I'd say, another Web 2.0 hype which is
> why it's interesting to read real responses. The question is if it,
> in the final analysis, turns culture into a concensual homogeneity
> where the voices of the other cannot be heard.
> Same goes for templating and customization of web pages and, as you
> say, software shapes culture which is precisely why we have to have
> take a critical stance and not accept uncritical assumptions that
> turn into concensus that turns into truths. Who determines the shapes
> culture takes? We, that is the users, or the software engineers?
> Isn't it one of the great illusions of the internet that a bit of
> customization of templates contributes to cultural diversity and
> heterogeneity while we actually all learn to speak in one voice. As
> form is content, one could even claim that Mr Themes is our most
> prolific author.
> I have today implemented my first Wordpress install and it's a
> strange feeling being so at the mercy of a templating system. I apply
> a ready-made form that steeps us all into the same mould. There is
> not much room for creativity and hence for development, but it's we
> who should develop the internet and the shape writing and other
> cultural expressions take. Hence the software we choose matters,
> unless we want to reinvent the wheel and start from scratch by
> developing our own blog for instance.
> These two issues, how people respond to networked collaboration and
> how software not only shapes culture but also our thinking and modes
> of expression, are somehow interrelated. Are we moving towards
> heterogenous cultures of different voices or are we shaped into
> becoming one global homogenous mass? And, where is our responsibility?
> Best
> Yvonne
>
> 8 okt 2009 kl. 22.25 skrev Anna Munster:
>
> Hi Yvonne,
> thanks for your post. You are right to point out that the initial
> attraction of wiki's was the 'real time' collaborative edit
> function and you also stated that:
> <Both formats rely on the same technology.>
> That's possibly true as well but that's also like saying everything
> on the web used to rely on HTML. That doesn't mean we had a
> homogeneous web in terms of its architecture or 'technics'. I use
> the word technics here as opposed to 'technology' because I am not
> so much interested in the wiki or blog software per se. Rather I am
> interested in the ways in which that software 'shapes' forms of
> culture because the culture deploys it 'prosthetically'. Please
> note I am scare-quoting these words because in the history of media
> studies they  take on a deterministic flavour, which isn't what I
> want to invoke. Instead I see technics as the ongoing
> interrelations between cultures and technologies (shaping and
> prostheses are processual rather than pre-formed actions and
> things), out of which modes of doing media arise. So, the
> interrelation between the architecture of wiki's (which is
> sprawling at the back end of things), their uptake by, initially
> small collaborative project-based groups
>   and collectives, their 'capture' by an encyclopaedic urge
> (Wikipedia), their sharing of a resource by a mass heterogenous
> user base consisting of a meshwork of open and closed systems and
> practices (again Wikipedia/media)....this constitutes the (ongoing)
> technics of wikis.
> Blogs, on the other hand, have a very different technics and,
> especially, their uptake due to the 'templatization' of the web
> under web 2.0, would have to be one of their most salient aspects.
> Olia Lialina's work on this is very good (http://www.contemporary-
> home-computing.org/vernacular-web-2/), as is Geert Lovink's book
> Zero Comments.
> Insofar as your comment goes:
> < It's an industry.>
> I couldn't agree more!!
> best Anna
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>
> Jo-Anne Green
> Co-Director
> New Radio and Performing Arts, Inc.
> 917.548.7780 or 617.522.3856
> Turbulence: http://turbulence.org
> Networked_Performance: http://turbulence.org/blog
> Networked_Music_Review: http://turbulence.org/networked_music_review
> Networked: http://networkedbook.org
> New American Radio: http://somewhere.org
> Upgrade! Boston: http://turbulence.org/upgrade_boston
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>
> Jo-Anne Green
> Co-Director
> New Radio and Performing Arts, Inc.
> 917.548.7780 or 617.522.3856
> Turbulence: http://turbulence.org
> Networked_Performance: http://turbulence.org/blog
> Networked_Music_Review: http://turbulence.org/networked_music_review
> Networked: http://networkedbook.org
> New American Radio: http://somewhere.org
> Upgrade! Boston: http://turbulence.org/upgrade_boston
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>