One contributer says physical space is different from the internet becuase we can map it. As of now, there is not way to map two-dimensional space online. The best way, continues the contributer, is to orientate ourselves by ways of traffic and hits, the most visited sites become more defined as more paths lead to them... google, facebook, etc. The contributer uses the word gravity to characterize the force of their attraction. At first gravity, to me, still implies problematic directions. On earth it is "down." But after some thought, (and remembering reading Enders Game back when) I've re-remembered/realized that in outerspace we can rid ourselves with up/down/left/right: cyberspace follows these same rules, a thought that this contributer shares.
And yet does't routine have something to do with internet orientation? I have a log of sites I must cycle through whenever I get online. This sort of ritual is not unlike an obsessive/compulsivist's desire for order and comfort. This habit-building online throws into stark light my habit-building offline: routines I enact every day in my physical body for the sake of normalcy.
I used to think of these websites as rooms, after all chat "rooms" and other forums want us to be familar with these spacial distinctions... Facebook is a house with many rooms, and I feel good when I go there because it affirms what I'm doing as what others are doing. But if one extends the analogy of rooms and houses, what is the space where we are traveling to and from? Cyberspace does not give us the time for journeys in between destinations. The closest we get is the loading symbol on multi-media heavy pages, and those, like some aspects of long car-rides, provide only aggravation.
And as I am writing this, I am becoming increasingly aware of euphamisms, or are they demarcators, that we use for these online spaces. Are they rooms? Sites? Pages? All? None? Why?
Will future nostalgics opt for digital simulation of travel? Maybe they will want scenery of paths that lead them from site to site, or bits of graphic breadcrumb 'bites' like Hansel and Gretal.
Or maybe, future nostalgics will wish for a loading bar (45%....76%.....90%....) just like the "good ole days."
I like the last question about simulation of travel most. It's interesting because I think the internet already has a range of levels with different types and amounts of information.
ReplyDeleteAt the highest level you have sites like Facebook, Google, YouTube, etc. where there's a lot of rather trivial information. I say "higher level" because it's more accessible.
Then in another lower level of the internet there's very information dense places--like university and library servers that carry tons of journals, articles, databases, books, reference manuals, primary documents and what not. Rather user-unfriendly but that's really where the nutritious stuff is.
So would you say that "nutritrious" material is less easy to navigate and less traversed, while empty calorie stuff is easy to find and well visited?
ReplyDeleteAre you assigning value only in quanity of information stored? What if someone finds cultural and intellectual value in dissecting a social networking site? Besides, if nutritious matter is intensley easy to access, does it lose any of its previous value? Maybe information isnt intrinsically good, only valuable if percieved as rare...