HOFFMANIZATION

Thoughts on the First Round of In-Class Games

2006-02-18T14:59:00.000-05:00

I want to start off by saying that I thoroughly enjoyed hearing about the games the three groups presented. I was impressed on all levels, especially considering how difficult it can be to come up with an original idea, let alone actually having that idea take-shape enough to be fun enough to play. Kudos to all involved.

Having said that, I really think we need to have more time to play the games in class. The 15 minutes or so simply isn’t enough for a group to present, sample play and take questions. I’d prefer taking a whole class period to explore the games. Even if the games are a little clunky (which wasn’t the case) we can still have a fruitful discussion at the end of the class about the games at more substantive level. What does the rest of the class think?

Here are some thoughts and reactions to the specific games:

2 Degrees:
Luckily, I was one of play testers (in class) for this game. At first, I was skeptical of the “mental leap” concept because it just seemed too big of a category and too hard to verify on the fly. I asked myself, How are they going to make sure a mental leap is valid? However, by sequencing the leaps with the letters of the alphabet, I think the game really came together. When I played, I was definitely flustered quickly. I spent more time thinking of a connection from Hippo to Iguana (my answer) that I forgot to think about the leap made before me, which also happened to be zoo. This is a good sign because it means there’s a lot of thinking to do in a short amount of time—this is fun! With a little practice, I think this game could be really fun. Nice work you guys. I’d be interested how broader categories such as “Science” or “Transportation” might affect game play. Would it be too constricting or would it provide just enough limitation to keep the game interesting?

Criminal:
I could tell when the game-makers demonstrated their game, that there was more than meets the eye. The pace they were playing indicated that they clearly knew what they were doing. Also, the looks on their faces indicated that the players were calculating and scheming, trying to make the best decisions possible with the cards they had been given. In fact, a few times the players actually looked torn between several different moves. These are all good things! These are signs of that the game has depth and variability. From my perspective, even though I didn’t fully understand all the rules and subtleties of the game, there was a lot going on in this “simple” card game. I wanted to play, in order to appreciate all that was going on, especially the silent communication between players. Very intriguing.

Color, Sound, & Gesture:
What a fun game. You definitely have to get your creative juices flowing to win in this game. I did think that the game was a little too cut-throat. By not being able to guess multiple times, the players are likely to try to “wait-out” the other teams so they automatically win. I think this is a weakness in a great game. I think the teams should get multiple guesses. This will help compensate for the limited communication allowed. As more teams guess incorrectly, the more focused the answer becomes and the more tension will build. Who will get it first? With this change, I think game play will improve. Also, is there any consistency to the length of the answers? For example, it might be nice is all the answers were single-words as opposed to random phrases. That way it will be immediately clear when a team guesses the answer, rather than dealing with the “is that close enough” problem. Nice work!

Out of the Garden

2006-02-13T11:16:00.000-05:00

Darwinia is a unique game. So far, I've been more intrigued by the feel, look and attitude of the game, than the game play itself. The retro-feel of the game draws me in.

For example, every time you load up the game, it presents a different loading screen. They are always engaging and I actually found myself exiting the game and reloading it just to see how many different load-up screens there actually are. Sometimes the load-up sequence is peaceful and memzermizing, other times it is flashy and jolting. After watching these load-up screens, I think the game makers are intentionally varying the sequences to hide/reveal relevant game information. For example, in one load-up screen you learn about the background of the Darwinias, and watch a video of the Darwinia colony dwindle over time as they are attacked by viruses. You don't actually see this during real game play, but it is part of the plot before you arrive on the seen. This is a neat way to make the history of the game richer.

In most FPS games I've played, you usually want to skip through the story sequences becasue they are always the same. But in Darwinia, you don't really want to do that on the off chance you will learn something new. I find myself wanting to know more about this Matrix-like place.

I've conquered the Garden, the first location you arrive in Darwinia. It wasn't particularly difficult. I seen the Garden as more of a training map becasue it's the first location within the world of Darwinia that you are allowed to play. In the Garden, I successfully ran "Engineer" and "Squad" programs to eliminate the viruses and reactivate some mechanical equipment. I was congratulated for this action and then asked to enter another location.

This new location, is similar to the Garden in landscape, but is a bit larger and has some rather intimidating looking monsters. So far the gameplay has been the same. You inititae a program and then oversee the action of that program. I actually got a little tired of this, because you have to dictate every move. They are in no way independent (especially the Squads) and need constant supervision or they become useless or even will die. Overall, gameplay seems rather limited although I get the sense that my gameplay options will expand soon. I can tell just by looking at the controls of the game.

Entering Darwinia

2006-02-07T22:57:00.000-05:00

This is how Darwinia is described:

"The world of Darwinia is a virtual themepark, running inside a computer network built by a computer genius named Dr Sepulveda. Darwinia is populated by a sentient evolving life form called the Darwinians. They are the product of a decades worth of research into genetic algorithms..."

The game has a real retro feel to it. I like it. It takes both hands to opertae the game, one on the keyboard and one on the mouse. This isn't all that unusual, however, the key strokes are different than any other game I've played. Interestingly the keystrokes are quite intuitive.

There is a training part, but it is seemlessly integrated into the plot. When you enter the first area, labeled the "Garden" you rudely greated by a talking head in the lower left-hand corner of your screen. He asks what you are doing in the ocmputer and eventually asks you to get to work. He then guides you through a couple of basic moves to get you going. There are really only two things you can do, create a Squad and create a Engineer.

The game has a mangerial feel to it. It's not about action although you have to be quick. You have to manage your "programs" to complete the objectives. I'm anxious to see how the gameplay will expand now that I've completed the first (introctory) level.

Final Thoughts

2005-12-18T21:23:00.000-05:00

What is 'social' about social software?
return to blogger,
type and click the night away
an address unknown

How is the notion of community being redefined by social software?
from the blogosphere
a digital neighbor stops
to smell the bandwidth

What aspects of our humanity stand to gain or suffer as a result of our use of and reliance on social software?
ergonomically
I sit, warm and hunched over
monitor glowing

How is social agency shared between humans and (computer) code in social software?
either ones or twos
we loop and do while, our minds
calculate the cost

What are the social repercussions of unequal access to social software?
access isn’t enough,
'cause the curve is steep and linked
Mister Long-Tail Man.

What are the pedagogical implications of social software for education?
sent through some CAT-5,
your pixilated dream reaches
a student’s in-box

Can social software be an effective tool for individual and social change?
a mouse click away,
lifeless and still until you
turn the power on

Individual Analysis v3.0

2005-12-14T14:23:00.000-05:00

I don’t know why, but I’ve been surprised by the number of people toting portable gadgets on the subway these days. Recently, on a Manhattan bound J train, I noticed four people playing Play Station Portables. There were only about 20 people on the train so it was hard to ignore the coincidence of four individuals all playing PSPs. I know they are popular, but 4 on one subway car!?

On another train, after noticing 5 iPods all in a row, I decided to do an impromptu study. How many people were using portable devices? My entirely unscientific study found, in addition to the 5 iPod people, 6 head-phoned individuals (non-iPod users), 1 Game Boy Advanced player, 2 T-Mobile Sidekick users, and 1 cell-phone checker. In other words, nearly everyone, from a 5-year-old boy to a man over 40, was using some sort of portable device on my half of the train.

When these devices gain access to the internet (some already have that feature) the future, in my opinion, will be here; unfettered access to information and content will be available regardless of where you are. This will be a transformative time and it is quite near.

It is this vision that made Prof. Moretti’s observations about technology ring so true the other night. I couldn’t argue with his claim that technology cries for our attention: watch me, play me, listen to me, check me, and answer me. Innovation is fueling an industry of attention sucking gadgetry. As of now, this trend shows no sign of slowing, so what does the future mean for our finite levels of attention?

In chapter 7, Paul Dourish attempts to offer some fresh perspective on this question and others concerning the future of personal computing. He points out that “the question is not whether this or that technological facility will be available to us; the question is how will we be able to understand it, control it, interact with it, and incorporate it, into our lives.”

I’m particularly interested in the word “control.” There seems to be two levels to control. One of the major selling points of many modern devices is the “control” the customer gets. They get to choose the color, the ringtone, the music, the screenname etc. The user can customize the look and the content and make their purchase personal. But underlying this sense of control is the assumption that more connectivity is better. However, there is no control over connectivity. You are either connected or not. Power on, power off. There are no degrees of connectivity. Think of the slogans we’re bombarded with: “more bars in more places” (Cingular), “be there without going there” (HP), and “there’s more to see” (Sharp). Free Wi-fi that’s coming to many major metropolitan areas promises that the net will be available to use whenever, wherever.

Where is the threshold? Can you be too connected? Will we some day crave internet-free zones much like the smoke-free zones of today?

Issue Entrepreneurship Proposal

2005-10-19T14:18:00.000-04:00

For my project, I’ve decided to support the spread of open-air internet access to major metropolitan areas. I believe the move to ubiquitous Wi-Fi in large population centers is inevitable and it will partially define the next chapter of the information age. Ideally, citywide Wi-Fi will bring a host of benefits to cities and the people living in them. These benefits include economic growth, social development as well as alleviating the digital divide. For these reasons, I stand in favor of cities proposing a public wireless initiative.

However, none of these benefits will actually materialize unless the Wi-Fi service is planned, implemented and maintained carefully. Unfortunately, the excitement over the possibility of the service has generated an uncritical atmosphere. This just-build-it-so-we-can-use-it attitude does nothing for the public interest. Not all networks are created equal. And wireless proposals are by no means immune to political and economic trickery. The details and decisions involved in brining Wi-Fi to a city are complex. If the public wants the purported benefits of citywide wireless, then they must keep a watchful eye on the plans that are being proposed.

The goal of this project is to educate the public about the myriad issues surrounding a wireless initiative. By exploring these issues and gathering perspectives on them, this project will create a resource for individuals and organizations interested in bringing Wi-Fi to their own communities. This will ensure that the interests of the common city dweller are not overlooked.

Some of the questions that will be explored include:

Who will really benefit from these initiatives?
How will these initiatives be funded?
How will the networks be maintained?
What are the benefits for the end-user?
What are the costs for the end-user?
What is the speed of the connection?
Why are companies interested in “helping” cities to implement these networks?
Why should cities consider open-air internet access?
How is the US comparing to other nations in providing wireless internet access?
How will Telecom companies react to public Wi-Fi?
What are the major criticisms of these proposals/

Fortunately, the cities that are beginning to implement Wi-Fi on a large scale (Philadelphia and San Francisco) will give this project a main focus. The project will explore the relevant issues in each city and critique the effectiveness of their partnerships (Philly/ Earthlink, San Fran/Google). By contrasting the issues, methods and results of these two cities, a knowledge base of the strengths and weaknesses of both initiatives can be developed.

Some organizations I hope to link with include:

Wireless Philadelphia Executive Committee
Wireless Weblog
NYC Wireless

Textbook Economics

2005-10-14T10:47:00.000-04:00

The Brain Lehrer Show (WNYC, public radio) is covering "Textbook Economics" today. If the dicussion is any good I'll update with some transcripts. Usually the show's podcast can be downloaded for gratis at iTunes (that is NOT an endorsement).

Here's how the show is billed:

"Students complain about the price of college textbooks, but now there’s a growing movement to make and distribute them for free. Find out how the people behind Wikipedia are applying an open source model to education publishing with Wikibooks."

Individual Analysis v2.0:

2005-10-12T11:45:00.000-04:00

Confession: a few years ago I wanted to buy the Nokia N-Gage. Stop laughing, I really did. It was a gadget-geek’s dream and I had to have one. The notion of an all-in-one portable made me weak in the knees. As I surfed the web for a place to buy one, I decided it would be wise to read a review or two of the product first. To my dismay the N-Gage was viewed as a major flop. Every article chided it as a clever idea that was woefully executed. What to do? I couldn’t bring myself to ignore popular opinion, but I really wanted one. In the end, logic prevailed. Nokia never got my money and I never got my N-Gage.

This story illustrates the not-so-new idea that information, especially opinion, can influence how we behave. Call me fickle, but I changed my mind about the N-Gage in a matter of minutes. The online reviews coalesced into a powerful intervention. They squashed my impulse to buy and, to a lesser degree, influenced my long-term opinion of the N-Gage.

I believe social software facilitates digital word-of-mouth, encouraging people to look to one another for valuable information. As access and familiarity with online commentary increases, more and more people will be exposed to opinions and reviews. Will this increase the speed to which popular opinion forms? Will it create a market of must-have products (think iPod) and laughable flops (think WebTV)?

Let’s look at a typical review process. The cycle begins when a company announces a new product. Interested parties, already tuned-in to the market, begin speculating about what the product will be and what they want it to be. This “chatter” builds anticipation and draws in some otherwise uninterested people. When the product is released there’s a stampede to review it. Full-scale reviews are written, posted, and disseminated through the internet hubs, sometimes seeping into the mainstream media. Potential buyers then sift through these reviews, intentionally or not, and subsequently decide if the given product is worthy of a closer look. It is out of this process that popular opinion is born.

It used to take weeks (maybe even months) for this to unfold, but with social software, it can happen literally overnight. Sites like del.icio.us and Google increase the likely hood that a handful of reviewers will influence the opinion, and ultimately, the behavior, of a large segment of the population. If digital word-of-mouth is making popular opinion congeal faster, what are the consequences for our consumer-driven society?

In the past, faster access to more information has been deemed a good thing because it creates a win-win situation for buyers and for sellers. However, I believe social software is changing this balance, giving the advantage to the consumer. My story about the N-Gage demonstrates this point. Alone, I was an easy sell for Nokia, but armed with the reviews of my fellow-consumers, I became a much more elusive shopper.

How will companies respond to this phenomenon? The fact that a few reviews can make or break a product creates a high-level of risk. Will companies be more careful and thoughtful about the products they design? Or, will companies release more products with less-investment in hopes of scoring a winner?

One response companies will make is to alter marketing. In fact, evidence of this has begun to emerge. Advertisers are fighting back with techniques like viral marketing and astroturfing. These are attempts to regain control of consumer opinion by exploiting the wildfire nature of digital word-of-mouth.

Ultimately, this discussion seems to boil down to how social software affects the flow of ideas. Does it actually dump more ideas into the pool or does it simply allow more people to say the same thing in their own words? The upcoming holiday season promises a blitz of new products and reviews. Will an answer emerge? Let’s blog and see.

Sign of the Times

2005-10-08T10:32:00.001-04:00

Added the words blog and metacognition to the ol' Word dictionary. Mixed feelings.

Individual Analysis v1.0

2005-09-28T11:42:00.000-04:00

For my first Individual Analysis, I’ve decided to take a round-about stab at some of the ideas that keep pestering me as I read Barabási’s Linked. The book is basically a crash course in the phenomena behind large networks. Many of the concepts are intriguing and they will undoubtedly influence how many disciplines think about the exchange of ideas and information.

As a teacher, the exchange of ideas and information is paramount. Barabási’s ideas are forcing me to rethink the role of society and the mind/brain in education. His book raises questions about how society and education shape what and how we think. In this analysis, I hope to begin exploring some of these questions and their implications.

Question 1: Are there hubs in the neural network?
It is nothing new to compare the mind/brain to a network. Cognitive science has been doing this for years. However, many of the ideas put forth in Linked are new enough to alter how we think about cognition. For example, one of the central ideas in the fifth link (chapter) is the notion that most large networks have hubs. A hub is a “very highly connected node” (p.58). An example of a hub on the web (an obvious example of a large network) is Yahoo or Google. These are sites to which everyone connects.

If hubs are showing up in most large networks, it seems likely that our neural network should have hubs too. Does the mind have a Yahoo or a Google? If so, what are these hubs? How did they get there? And are we using them to their fullest potential?

The importance of these questions is obvious. Imagine an internet user who didn’t know about Google. The disadvantage would be insurmountable. What are the hubs of the human mind? Is there a hub in the neural network analogous to Google? As a human, and as an educator, I want to know.

Perhaps language processing is a hub. The ability to communicate is fundamental to so much of what means to be a human. Does this create an argument for even more emphasis to be placed on early literacy and other forms of communication?

Question 2: Can we control the formation of hubs?

By the seventh link, Barabási reveals network hubs are not accidents. They are governed by two mathematical laws called growth and preferential attachment.

The growth concept is pretty straightforward, simply stating that networks are assembled one node at a time. This notion fits nicely with popular ideas about education. When you learn something new, you add it to what you already know. Humans are equipped to do this efficiently. Touch a hot stove when you are little and your neural network won’t let you forget it. You’ve learned something. Your network has grown.

Preferential attachment is a bit more problematic. It describes how new nodes attach, or link, to the network. For a long time, it was assumed that new nodes randomly attached themselves. Barabási says this isn’t the case. When a new node appears, there is a bias towards hubs. This creates a paradox around the formation of hubs. Barabási uses a Hollywood analogy to illustrate the contradiction: If you’re an actor, you need to be known to get good roles, but you need good roles in order to be known (p.85). How does a hub get stared?

This paradox can be found in education as well. If you have to be smart to understand things, don’t you have to understand things to be smart? This question is a fundamental question involving learning.

Is this question being discussed in education? How is it shaping our practices?

Question 3: What does this have to do with social software?

I’m not sure. I’ve clearly asked more questions than I’ve answered, but I can’t help but think that all of these ideas are related. If I take a step back and look at society as a whole, it seems humans are naturally perpetuating the need for hubs.

Hubs are intriguing because they a mixed blessing. They seem powerful and useful, but they have a darker side. Barabási goes as far as saying hubs are the “strongest argument against the utopian vision of an egalitarian cyberspace….we all have the right to put anything we wish on the Web. But will anyone notice?” (p.58).

This a disturbing question. Hubs mean that only certain things will be noticed. Only certain knowledge/thoughts will be recognized. Who (or what) controls this?

Blogs, hailed as a way to bring a voice to the individual, may be feeding into something less democratic. How many blogs can we really read? How many blogs link to the same place? This puts a dent in a lot of wishful thinking when it comes to the Web. Are services like del.icio.us allowing us to have more control of hubs or simply feeding into the dominance of existing hubs? Is society subconsciously reinforcing hubs on multiple-levels? Are we getting trapped inside the “box” under an illusion of individualism and control? (am I inside the Matrix?)

My Techno-Biography

2005-09-20T12:40:00.000-04:00

I grew up in Ira, Vermont (population ≈ 455). Not exactly Silicon Valley, but a nice, quiet spot for a young boy to bond with his first computer. It was around ’83 when a Commodore 64 first descended upon the Hoffman household, and in an era of arcade games, this gray box captured my undivided attention.

Like many kids, I played games. Simple games like Save New York and Jupiter Lander had my CPU processing. They came in plastic cartridges that had to be jammed into the back of the keyboard. In a word: satisfying. I also had an impossibly rugged joystick that added a level of physicality to my gaming that I’ve never been able to match. Booting-up, joystick at the ready, was like going to heaven.

In those days, I was exposed to BASIC programming. Every once in a while an issue of RUN magazine would kick around the house. I would look through it to find the perfect program: not too long and not too short. The long ones inevitably turned into a headache of syntax errors. The short ones always disappointed. But every once in a while, a program just the right size would stare back at me from the page, begging to be executed. The anticipation was wonderful. What would it make? What would it do? With a furrowed brow, I would sit down to type. The mixture of determination and uncertainty provided an intoxicating pastime.

As an only child, a computer was a source of reliable entertainment. As the games grew more complex, I grew more attached. Games like Echelon and Gunship were mature, multi-level games that couldn’t be mastered in a sitting. I could save my missions, collecting points and rising in rank along the way. An ongoing saga is worth a lot to an 11 year old, not to mention the bragging rights of knowing how to fly a helicopter.

In 7th grade I came face to face with the red, blinking lights of a dial-up modem. My parents introduced me to the Internet and helped me do some research for a science project. The new resource made me feel pretty savvy. Unfortunately, all that squelch was costing money. The access number was a long-distance call. When a $300 phone bill arrived, the plug was pulled.
In high school, I took a programming class. I thoroughly enjoyed using LOGIC, even though the class itself was an unholy bore. My friends and I passed the time trying to out-do each other with passwords and fancy outputs. The purpose of the class was never clear and I never bothered to ask. The experience was engaging nonetheless.

In college (94’-98’), I used a computer regularly. All of my papers were written on a word processor. The thought of doing it any other way gives me nightmares. Word processing has helped me become a better writer. The on-the-fly editing allows me to think about what I want to say and how I want to say it. This is invaluable for good writing. By ’97 I was emailing on a daily basis. Strangely, it’s hard to remember not using electronic communication. I guess that says something about its impact on my life.

Looking back, computers have allowed me to accomplish a lot. The majority of my higher-education depended on them. I’ve also kept in touch with friends around the world and used the Internet to uncover opportunities I probably wouldn’t have known about otherwise. A prime example is my current enrollment in this doctoral program.

Overall, I find computers engaging and useful. Being exposed to computing at a young age was a gift. Today I understand how computers work and why they behave the way they do. This has given me a sense of comfort and control. I trust that computers won’t break when I use them or start doing something I don’t want them to do. This comfort and control has given me an optimistic outlook on technology which I plan to share with others throughout my life.

2nd Coming

2005-09-15T09:09:00.000-04:00

This is my second post. Still feeling my way through the mechanics of running a blog. The learning curve is a little steeper than I anticipated. Must spend more time with my hands-on on the dashboard. Found some interesting info on the blogging phenomenon at the PBS webiste. It's called "Welcome to the Blogosphere" (link).

Recently, I've been contemplating my approach to education. What's the mindset I need to get the most out my time here in school? Should I be aggressive and "make" things happen? Or, is it wiser (better?) to absorb what's around me and not be so uptight? I can argue either way.

Trial Posting

2005-09-13T22:21:00.000-04:00

Hello everyone!