Essentially I think the digital in “digital storytelling” simply provides a certain flexibility of structure. The nature of stories remains the same. It requires characters, a plot structure, themes, events, etc. But it is the way in which these stories can be presented that has changed. Writers can encourage their audience to not only comment on, but directly interact and participate in the story itself. Content can be limited to 140 characters to encourage creativity. First person narratives can be encouraged by blogs with their diary-like format, encouraging the formation of more character-centric stories. It is these approaches that are new, not necessarily the art of storytelling (which is as old as history itself). However, this is not to downplay the importance of the digital in “digital storytelling”. The flexibility associated with these advancements allows for newfound avenues of creativity. Perhaps those who otherwise might not have participated in the storytelling process are now being drawn to it. New platforms with their unique limitations helps push authors to adapt creatively. This ultimately adds another layer of richness to the type of content that is available to us.
I was very lucky in that I already had my domain set-up, which made preparing a site for ds106 much easier. I will say I wasn’t entirely sure whether to consider my digital studies blog a fully devoted ds106 blog or not, but was able to successfully link to the ds106 course feed (which is what matters!). I enjoyed setting up some new social media accounts, and was particularly impressed by how smart Twitter was. As I was choosing accounts to follow, Twitter immediately began suggesting sites related to interests I’m particularly passionate about. While I found this exceedingly cool, perhaps I should be a bit more perturbed that Twitter seems to have access to my Internet searches…
I really enjoyed the introductions! It was a quick way to experiment some with all of these different platforms. I also thought Austin Kleon’s post was pretty thought-provoking. I believe the Internet has evolved to a point where creator-fan interactions are increasingly being facilitated, and this ultimately should be embraced and leveraged by the creator. On a technical note, my usage of hypothesis went well. I’m a little undecided as to whether I should just annotate or also highlight (I ultimately decided the more the merrier). All of the tagging also took a little bit of getting used to, but was ultimately successful. In regards to our Internet post, I appreciated its philosophical nature. The Internet has profound implications, but we often overlook these due to its omnipresence in our everyday lives. I also welcomed the opportunity to pick and choose an article that particularly interested us. Generally I feel that more options makes assignments more easily embraced as opposed to being viewed as a chore.
Overall it seems pretty clear that working on these assignments in small doses over the course of the week is key! ds106 seems like it will require a lot of effort, but luckily many of the topics seem to be ones I’m passionate about (so hopefully I won’t really view those assignments as work).
Below are my media creations for the week!
— Anna Rinko (@rinko_anna) August 29, 2016
The idea of the Internet being a way to harness our collective IQ is incredible, and has been discussed in varying ways for a long period of time. I’ve often heard a similar principle described as the ability to harness the collective knowledge of humanity on an iphone. But the author argues that ultimately that quantity of information lacks meaning without quality interactions. It doesn’t really matter if information exists unless you are able to successfully find and access it. She takes this argument further by positing that we should be able to preview and skim this information more effectively. Essentially by improving Internet navigation and document interaction, information can be absorbed more efficiently. This can ultimately open up the Internet in order to bring more quality interaction to the masses, which can help successfully realize the goal of leveraging our collective IQ. This sort of democratization immediately made me think of Wikipedia, which allows users to contribute their knowledge and expertise to a larger whole, while easily allowing readers to jump to related articles. The author specifically mentioned Hypothesis as a successful tool for tagging documents for better efficiency and allowing for group annotations (which is certainly another reason to encourage us to take advantage of Hypothesis). Read More
The post really seemed to focus an an intriguing premise, namely that documenting the creative process has a certain innate value that is often overlooked. This makes a great deal of sense, as sharing this information is beneficial for everyone (as long as you adhere to certain courtesy guidelines). It can serve as a motivator and fan-base builder for the creator, and can satisfy the curiosity of fans while facilitating their own learning. It essentially makes your work more accessible. Within my own realm of video-editing, you often see YouTube channels posting tutorials or how-to posts that can help guide fans into becoming creators themselves. So the act of sharing the process also serves to disseminate knowledge, an awesome act in and of itself. Honestly documenting one’s process can almost serve as a sort of creative democratization. The creative process becomes more of a dialogue between the creator and fans, potentially allowing for more fan interaction and input that can also positively influence the development of a project. Ultimately I felt that it was this emphasis on the process as opposed to the product that was the most important take-away from this post.
Using Hypothesis was a positive experience. I’ve had the opportunity to experiment with it some last semester, and it seems like a good way to essentially digest a text online as a group. Everyone can add their input without fear of being talked over or overlooked, and the annotations can be completed whenever your schedule permits (within the designated timeline of course). That sort of flexibility should hopefully allow more people to participate than they otherwise would have if the format was simply a verbal discussion of the text.