Jess Goes Interactive

Good points Jessica. I'm glad you see some use, and I'm sorry for those distracting moments as well. The speaker this week seemed especially engaged by our comments; and there were some less becoming transcripts projected a few times he stopped to read.

So yeah, we have some social learning to do; how to perform backchannel to best suit learning. Chat, the software, the forum, brings out the playful in some people. Sometimes that's not pretty.

Agreed, I think backchannel smartasses and immature jokes, not to mention people staring at their screen throughout lectures is ridiculously rude. You look and sound like damn children who can't take their eyes off glowing screens (not to mention pick up their messes). Act your age and show some basic frickin' respect. And don't argue that "I'm listening intently and respectfully as I'm joking about sex and surfing Amazon", because it's a lie and you know it.

I would like to think that (for the most part anyway) I was participating in the useful discussion on Wednesday. Rick and I had a great convo on how to map video to a 3D space.

That said, I hope some of my comments about the aesthetics weren't misconstrued (Groucho Marx, poor acting, Abe Lincoln, etc)--those examples were first-impression thoughts invoked by the visuals. I do firmly believe that the aesthetics (look & feel) of an interactive piece are as important as the technology behind it.

All that said, projecting the backchannel on the screens, whether you're participating or not, is distracting. It's distracting to those participating because it somehow subconsciously validates that backchannel chatter is as much the focus of the presentation as the speaker. And for those not participating, I really don't think it enhances their experience. Let's take the backchannel off the screens and keep it going as an on-your-PC-only component of the presentation.

I agree with Mike. What's the point of projecting the backchannel? And if there IS a point, then let's focus the conversation to serve that purpose.

I think one of the main advantages of projecting the backchannel is to turn the presenation event into a collaboration. Blair was very intrigued with the idea of following and sometimes reasponding to what was happening on the backchannel as have many other speakers. I don't think that would work at all if it's just on the small screens.

But I thought the point of having a speaker is that "he's got the mic"--I didn't think speeches were supposed to be "collaborative."

Personally, when I'm speaking on a topic I hate it when people assume it's okay to interrupt me without my having said they could. But if the speaker desires audience participation, then why is a text chat preferred over the old fashioned way of verbal comments or questions?

Hmm. There are a number of things to reply to:
1. yes, I think that we could live without sexual misconduct commentary
2. having a censor is a bit much - where do you draw the line? justin sent me off the blog for discussing off topic hardware stuff but you could say that 70% of the chat is slightly off topic and once you send everyone out there is no chat. Perhaps google jockeying is what we want to keep things focused and then someone doing a summary transcript as we used to do and was great.
3. i don't think the chat is that collaborative and even when we start discussing interesting things like how to solve something the speaker is presenting, it feels like Mystery Science Theatre 3000. It works when a lecture is boring as all hell but then it is very hard not to seek comic relief.
4. It is hard to gage whether the backchannel adapts to each speaker i.e. we were a little more rowdy because Blair was laid back and sipping a beer and a good sport. During Celia's talk for example, there was no projected back channel and the giggling behind the scenes was endless. We do look stupid staring at screens and giggling but some is inevitable. I prefer discussions to talks but so rarely do we get someone who isn't willing to give a canned talk.

there's like a "back-backchannel" that also goes on in the seminars and isn't projected. i think that its existence helps the backchannel stay focussed and more serious. the other backchannel(s) like a not ready for prime time. if someone feel the need to say something controversial in any backchannel, it's not like this is an anonymous telematic forum? it's probably not a good idea to post uproductive chatter to the projected backchannel, though, right?

scott - I agree, I think the backchannel is an opportunity for collaborative seminars, and it is all the more reason for the conversation to stay focused. no one is talk about censors, but our blog has been focused to dicussions of interactive media without censorship; some focus to the backchannel could do the same.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: