Monday, November 21, 2005

Reflection on telepresence

What is a technology of telepresence that you use or have used (email, IM, MMORPG, Facebook, telephone, cell phone, video, webcast, webcam, radio, recording of live music, etc.)? How and why specifically did you use it? What did you gain from the experience? What did you lose? Did the telepresent experience have any relation to a direct experience, by substituting for it, intermixing with it, or leading away from or up to it (like between the curator and the little boy in Me and You?) If so, how would you compare your telepresent experience to the direct experience?

Also, here is the final essay presentation schedule:

Mon, 11/28
David, Eric, Emmanuelle

Wed, 11/30
Stephanie, Alan, Erol

Fri, 12/2
Candice, Kristine, Victor

Mon, 12/5
Amy, Beatrice, Brett

Wed, 12/7
Wendy, Neilson, Benjamin

Fri, 12/9
Brenden, Robert, Justin

13 Comments:

At Tue Nov 22, 03:26:00 PM 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Although I use the majority of the technology listed, I’d have the say the one that I find the most beneficial is webcam. I use it to keep in contact with all my friends who have gone off to separate colleges all across the U.S. It seems like a more personal interaction than just typing a conversation with them or just hearing their voice on the phone. With webcam, I get the visual and the audio. I gain the feeling that I’m still near them and am having a real time conversation, where we can see each other and hear each other. I feel that webcam definitely gives me the most direct experience out of all the other forms of media, because it definitely portrays and makes you feel as if you are right there talking with them. However, although at times you may be fooled into believing you really are in this moment of true interaction, most of the time it is quite obvious that you are essentially communicating to and through a computer. It still doesn’t compare to the direct experience. You cannot see the entire person, and essentially you just miss the actual atmosphere of being with someone in reality. There is always that computer that is separating. Either way, technology cannot capture the feelings evoked through live interaction. But out of all the forms, I feel webcam-ing comes the closest, and that is the method I choose to use to stay in contact with friends and loved ones.

 
At Tue Nov 22, 06:56:00 PM 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I use AIM a lot, probably more than I should. I'm always signed on, even when I'm doing homework and not chatting with anyone. I'm actually on AIM right now, and my friend who lives two doors down the hall just asked me when I want to go to dinner. That's the main purpose why I use AIM as much as I do: convenience. I can talk to anyone of my friends and ask them a simple question about homework or chat about their day, and all I have to do is look down my buddy list to find them. But it also promotes laziness. My friend who lives 30 feet away is probably the person I chat with the most frequently on AIM. It's just easier than using our cell phones when we're in our rooms (especially because we get terrible reception.) But I also can keep in touch with my friends at different schools in different cities. It's no substitute for actually seeing them and spending time with them, but I'd much rather IM my friend across the country than e-mail him. It's better because we are actually conversing back and forth. And it's better than a phone in the sense that I know they aren't busy and are willing to chat with me because their away message isn't up. When you call someone, you aren't sure if they are free to talk. I have noticed that what I type on AIM is not how I talk though. I rarely say "I love you" when I'm face to face or talking on the phone with someone, especially my friends. But I don't think a day has gone by (of the days I'm on AIM, which is most days) where I haven't said "luv ya" to one or more of my friends. I don't really know why I can write it so freely, but I hardly ever speak it. It might partly be that it carries a different meaning when it's spelled wrong, but I'm not really sure. But either way, AIM lets me express myself differently than in reality. And I think I might actually be able to express myself better on AIM because I don’t have to follow the courtesies of society. I can swear in bold letters relieving my anger, and I won’t get strange looks from anyone. I’ve thought of uninstalling AIM because it can be a distraction and I do think to some extent it replaces actual human interaction, but I never seem to actually do it. The convenience of it outweighs the negatives.

 
At Tue Nov 22, 07:01:00 PM 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Technology helps to make my life easier. I must confess that I might be cut off from the world without my cell phone or AOL Instant Messenger. These devices keep me connected to those dear to me, and even though they are no substitute to talking to my family and friends face to face, they do the job while I’m at school. There’s nothing like talking to my best friend while we’re in the same room, but I don’t mind replacing that experience with communicating over a cell phone or through a computer screen. The experience of talking to someone over the phone is different than typing to someone through AIM. The distance between my brother and I seems shorter when we talk on the phone compared to talking online. This may be so due to the loss of real communication through AIM; online, I am unable to hear my brother’s voice and sometimes it takes a while for us to respond to each other. I guess that’s a big disadvantage to online communication; it feels impersonal. And, as shown in Me and You and Everyone We Know, it is impossible to be sure of whom you’re really talking to. However, I’ll take what I can get. When it comes to telepresence with cell phones and AIM what matters to me most is being able to connect to people who are not directly available.

 
At Sat Nov 26, 03:01:00 AM 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A perfect example of a clash between bodied- and tele-presence is my use of a webcam with my parents back home in Los Angeles. Before I came to college, my parents, grandparents, and myself all bought web cameras to use after I left. Not only did my family want to make sure I made it through each day in a new city… but we also all really missed one another and felt this camera would be the fastest and most efficient way to “see” each other.

Something I gained from the experience was that I don’t think I felt as homesick as I would’ve been without the cams. In the first few weeks I was here… I would suddenly become very lonely and out of place… but being able to call my mom and ask her to turn on the webcam to chat with her was very comforting. As far as what I lost from the experience… it’s pretty obvious. I lost out in actually hugging her or talking to her face to face. I instead typed words over the internet in an IM box and stared at several snapshots of her put together to stream like a video.

But those are all things I’m supposed to say when people ask me the cons about web cams. Honestly, when I look back on those specific experiences with the cams, I don’t feel like I lost out on anything… but moreover that I gained a great deal. There are basically only 2 options when it comes to seeing my family when I’m here in Berkeley… they can webcam with me or they can send photos of themselves through the mail. The latter takes much longer and doesn’t work for the moments when I want to see them instantly. It’s one thing to hear someone’s voice over the phone… but it’s another to actually see their faces when they smile, even if it is through a computer screen. I’d say seeing them that way is better than not at all.

I visited my family over the Thanksgiving break and of course being with them can’t compare to video. But when video is the only thing available… I don’t feel like I’m losing out on anything; I’m lucky to have it and be able to use it when I want to see them. It helps me keep going when I’m feeling lonely or homesick and that right there is the reason I continue to use it.

 
At Sun Nov 27, 07:57:00 PM 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

In an effort to connect with the civilized world, I enjoy talking to family via our all inclusive Cingular "whatever the hell it is" network. Of course, communication via the cellphone is a substitution for direct physical presence (although I end up seeing family and friends all too often anyways at home, thanks to the automotive and aviation industry, but that's a whole other matter), and the degree of quality of this substitution for physical presence actually depends to whom I'm talking to.

The cellphone experience is most real with my dad, mostly because he conveys his emotions through inflections in tone and strange noises, like grunts, yowels, a sneery sarcastic/sardonic voice, and an alarmingly high pitched laugh. I don't even have to look at my dad to communicate with him effectively.

My mom on the otherhand is nearly monotone, and is best communicated with in video/physical presence, because she makes all sorts of strange facial gestures (including her signature "pouty face") and hand gestures (like childishly giving the "boo" thumbs down sign to motor vehicles displaying support for a certain "Massachusetts bred" candidate in 2004, and laughing at them as she sped away). The cellphone is no substitute for the necessary component required for conversing with my mom - subtle or overt bodily gestures. I can never read her over the phone, and that's very irritating.

But really, this is a dumb question because it's blatantly obvious that direct communication supercedes telepresence - I don't go all the way to Salt Lake City for connections to LA or pay for that cattle drive called "Southwest" for nothing.

 
At Sun Nov 27, 08:42:00 PM 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Most of these technologies allow for long distance communications. It allows for me to talk to my friends that are everywhere now. My high school friends and I all went to different universities and we are able to keep in touch. Cell phones and AIM allow for us to communicate quickly and it is also easier to convey emotions second to only being there physically. I also communicate with one friend via letters and it takes about a week for the letter to be sent and a reply recieved. This rapid communication allows me to better understand the situation and react. It is also easier to ask someone for clarification if you could do it right away versus having to wait a couple weeks for an answer. The downside of technology is the seperation of the acutal people because we are not forced to stand right next to the person we are talking with. Eventually that person becomes just a phone number or just a screen name because we dont see their faces. All we see are either their phone number and/or their screen name.

 
At Sun Nov 27, 10:27:00 PM 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nowadays it's almost impossible to go without cellphones, email, facebook, or aim for even a day. These technologies help make our lives so much more convenient by making things and people available twenty four seven. I use all of the above out of necessity; for educational, personal, and other reasons. However, if I could, I would almost always choose to communicate with people directly. I find that even though talking to someone online is better than not talking to them at all, it lacks a sense of realness and sincerity. People can fake emotions and say things they really don't mean and the other person can be completely oblivious. On aim, you can't even hear the other person's voice, let alone see them. I find this type of communication very disconnected, and I would almost always rather talk to a person face to face. In person, it's so much easier to gauge a person's emotions and get feedback from them. Nevertheless, aim can be a better means of communicating with people that you dislike or are embarassed to talk to. The impersonality of it makes it much easier to say things that is normally difficult to say in person.
Overall, online communication is merely a substitute for the genuine conversation. It's good to have when talking to someone in person is impossible but it also takes away genuineness and intimacy.

 
At Sun Nov 27, 10:38:00 PM 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Everyone these days use technology to get around information and talk to people. This is a way to communicate with one another. People are always looking for new ways to communicate so that it becomes more personal. Webcams seem like a very good way to communicate with someone just because you can see them and it becomes that much more personal. I use a cellphone a lot to talk to friends back home and with my family and of course it is not the same as being able to talk with them. Not as personal. I feel you lose that connection but if that is the only to communicate with someone you care about than of course you will do it so you can know what is going on. The telepresent is so unpersonal and you really dont feel as connected as when talking face to face with someone. I am pretty sure everyone would rather have a direct experience with someone you care about than with a disembodied one. However if it is someone you dont know it is easier to talk to someone disembodied because that closeness is gone and you can get away with a lot of things like the curator in Me and You. It would be really hard to have a sex conversation they were having face to face because of the intimacy and closeness. shy people do well with disembodied because the closeness is gone and they can be themself without people being able to judge them.

 
At Sun Nov 27, 10:43:00 PM 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

All these telepresence technologies allow for us to communicate and interact with each other from a distance. They will never replace seeing and interacting with someone in person, but they are the next best thing when trying to keep in touch with people that can’t be present.
The teletechnology that I use most often will have to be the IM, because it allows for me to talk to my friends who went to different colleges all over the U.S. IM is free compared to a phone call, which is probably the main reason I use it. When I speak to my friends, we always seem type as though we were speaking to each other directly. But typing just can’t replace a person’s voice and the tone in it. As much as we try to make it seem like a real encounter, it will never come close. The physical interaction, laughter, and expressions will never appear on an instant messaging screen. It loses the intimacy and personal tone that comes along with directly communicating and interacting with a person.
In terms of Robby’s escapade, I don’t think I’ve had anything come close to that. The most direct experience I have as a result of telepresence is setting up plans with friends.

 
At Mon Nov 28, 12:47:00 AM 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Telepresence allow us to keep in contact with people, but this is never enough with people who are close to us, such as parents, girlfriends, or boyfriends. Telepresence allow us to communicate with each other but it cannot reproduce the encounter of close people. You cannot give a hug over IM, facebook, or a cell phone, nor can you give a kiss. All telepresence gives us is basic communication and nothing more. Even though I'm here in Berkeley, I still yearn to go home. Why is this? Its simple, I just have to go home to see the people I care about in person. Even though I can talk to them on the phone or chat with them on the computer, it is just simply not enough. This is the difference between telepresence experience and direct experience.

 
At Mon Nov 28, 01:02:00 AM 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

An example of telepresence I have used firsthand is webcast lectures. For my Astro 10 class last year I would go to class as often as I could since it was an enjoyable experience. The teacher would often field questions from the audience or have interactive displays, such as throwing out candy. Also, many of my friends were in the class, so we would all enjoy the lecture together, which made it more fun. However, I scheduled a class at the same time slot on Mondays, so every Monday my only option was to watch the webcast. The webcast was informative, but often times not as engaging. I often found myself wondering off to do other things or skipping ahead to be done quicker. Had I been in class I would not have had the chance to do that, but probably would not have had the desire either.

 
At Mon Nov 28, 01:59:00 AM 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Although I don't really play them that much, I've tried a few MMORPGs. This is something that can't really be compared to a direct experience. People aren't ever going to gather and decide to kill some monsters. It's not really substituting anything, except for maybe time spent on something productive. These really bring something that can only be enjoyed through telepresence. Sure, you may something by not being able to actually see the person you're killing, but that's okay. Their primary goal isn't for people to socialize, (although they do want that) but it's to let people enjoy the game. People could hang out and do something else, but that's not quite the same experience.

 
At Tue Nov 29, 08:05:00 PM 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The types of telepresence that I use are email, instant messaging, telephone, and cell phone. I rarely use the radio but since I have used it, I think I should include it. The type of telepresence I use the most are instant messaging and the cell phone. I used to use the telephone more but since I’ve moved to the dorms, I’ve begun to use the cell phone instead because my roomate and I haven’t installed a phone in our room.
I usually use these types of telepresence to communicate with my family and friends. It’s much easier to cope with the separation from my family and friends when there are ways of communicating with them, even if it isn’t face to face interaction. Although, it isn’t the same as being in the same room with someone I miss, these forms of telepresence make it easier to stay in touch and to not get as homesick as I would if these technologies didn’t exist.
By using email and instant messaging, I think what is mostly lost is the tone of voice that I or the person I’m talking to use. Since we are reading our conversations rather than speaking, sometimes the things we say are confused or misinterpreted. I, personally, sometimes worry that what I write sounds harsh or mean because it could be taken as mean if a certain tone of voice is imagined with the phrase that I’ve written. I’ve also had the experience where I think something that someone wrote is careless or mean because of the way I read it, but then after the other person explains or writes something else, I realize that I misinterpreted what was said.
With the telephone or cell phone, I miss looking at a person’s expressions or reactions to what I say or being able to show my reactions too. Usually I use a lot of hand gestures when I speak, so I feel like I don’t get all of my point across when I’m speaking over the telephone. The telephone or the cell phone is better than the instant messaging or email in my opinion because it’s easier to communicate or to say something. It’s also a lot faster. There have been many times when I’m instant messaging with my sister and we usually just give up and call each other instead because it just makes it so much easier to relate a story and it makes a story much more interesting when you can put emotion into the conversation as well.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home