3 ms·

I found this the most interesting: > My 3-year-old nephew in Seattle offers a window into my boy's future. When I sent a video of Luka to my brother, he immedi

by user24 16y ago

I found this the most interesting: > My 3-year-old nephew in Seattle offers a window into my boy's future. When I sent a video of Luka to my brother, he immediately video-called us on the computer with his son on his lap. My nephew wanted to see us right away; he gets frustrated watching videos of family on the computer because they don't interact with him. Forget videos; Skype is his "normal." (emphasis mine) The next generation of internet users are not going to simply be used to an audiovisual experience, but a genuinely interactive one. I say 'genuine' because for years people have tried to sell 'clicking on links' as 'interactive web'; it's not, in the same way that 'switching channels' is not 'interactive TV'.

pyre 16y ago
It's more interactive than 'switching channels' because you can't submit forms with your TV. Also, you get to set the schedule, not the tv station. Compared to TV, the Internet (as it is now, or was in 1995) is interactive. Just because the 'future' is even more interactive is besides the point.
- jacobolus 16y ago
  I don’t quite understand why we’re comparing reading with watching. Books have always been substantially more interactive than radio or TV, because you can go at your own pace, you can skip forward or back at will, you can take notes in the margins and underline important parts. You can set the book down and pick up another, or look up references when they seem interesting. Reading books and letters never got less interactive with the development of telephones or IMs, which are the long-distance extension of the face-to-face conversation, and they won’t with the adoption of video chat either. The media (conversation vs. reading/writing) have completely different uses. Writing things down (or recording in general) is a way to crystalize knowledge. Talking in real time is inherently ephemeral and driven by instant reactions. In response to the grandparent post: sitting down around the dinner table has always been an “interactive audiovisual experience” (tactile too!) – the addition of widespread video-chat seems unlikely to transform society nearly as much as the internet already has.

by user24 16y ago

pyre 16y ago

It's more interactive than 'switching channels' because you can't submit forms with your TV. Also, you get to set the schedule, not the tv station. Compared to TV, the Internet (as it is now, or was in 1995) is interactive. Just because the 'future' is even more interactive is besides the point.

jacobolus 16y ago
I don’t quite understand why we’re comparing reading with watching. Books have always been substantially more interactive than radio or TV, because you can go at your own pace, you can skip forward or back at will, you can take notes in the margins and underline important parts. You can set the book down and pick up another, or look up references when they seem interesting. Reading books and letters never got less interactive with the development of telephones or IMs, which are the long-distance extension of the face-to-face conversation, and they won’t with the adoption of video chat either. The media (conversation vs. reading/writing) have completely different uses. Writing things down (or recording in general) is a way to crystalize knowledge. Talking in real time is inherently ephemeral and driven by instant reactions. In response to the grandparent post: sitting down around the dinner table has always been an “interactive audiovisual experience” (tactile too!) – the addition of widespread video-chat seems unlikely to transform society nearly as much as the internet already has.