Course Documents
     Main Page
     Contact Information
     Course Announcement
     Schedule and Syllabus
     Course Participants
     Discussion Forum
     Swiki Chat
     Lecture Material
     Independent Research
     Previous Course
Swiki Features:
  View this Page
  Edit this Page
  Printer Friendly View
  Lock this Page
  References to this Page
  Uploads to this Page
  History of this Page
  Top of the Swiki
  Recent Changes
  Search the Swiki
  Help Guide
Related Links:
     Atlas Program
     Center for LifeLong Learning and Design
     Computer Science Department
     Institute of Cognitive Science
     College of Architecture and Planning
     University of Colorado at Boulder

Adam Torgerson
Homework 11 - Analysis

1. what did you find (articulate the answers in your own words)

1.1. interesting about the article?

Several people did not find the article interesting
at all. Several people like the idea of users having a more
contributory role in the design of web pages. I found Kathryn's
comment about not viewing the Internet as synergestic particularly
interesting because it is totally opposed how I view it. I see the
Internet as very synergestic and this potential for synergy only grows
as new applications enable new kinds of collaboration.

1.2. not interesting about the article?

Many people (myself included) found the author's
writing overly complex. He used overcomplicated words, many in
not quite the right context. Ryan had an interesting point in that the
collaboration that the author describes will not be very reciprocal
because each contributor will focus on their own goals, paying no
attention to the contributions of others.

2. what does the author mean by curatorial algorithms?

The consensus was that curatorial algorithms provide
a way to judge good art.

3. what does the author mean by malleable aesthetics?

Everyone agreed he meant art which can change by
people interacting with it in some fashion.

4. what do you consider the main message of the article?

Most people found the main message in the
description of maleable aesthetics, that the Internet needs to provide
more means for people to work collaboratively. Several people also
thought the description of the proliferation of advertising creating a
strong corporate presence on the Internet was a main idea.

5. Please comment on the following claim: “As an artist using the
Internet, the question of how to involve people in meaningful
events is paramount. Inspiring participation in something useful or
fun, or enlightening is okay. But better still is orchestrating
contributions to something good that lasts longer the event

5.1. agree / disagree?

Most people agreed with this. Several people were in
the middle, noting that what one person considers useful or
enlightening is probably not the same as another person, so it would
be hard to define. One person disagreed completely, wondering why just
because something is fun or enlightening it won't become a
long-lasting contribution.

5.2. which are the personal consequences which you draw from this

The educators in the group saw this as a meaningful
goal in education. Several people thought it would be great to make a
long-lasting conribution, but they question their ability to do so.

5.3. are the educational programs you are involved addressing this

Many people said they have not been involved in
programs which address this. Several people mentioned this was
addressed in their Senior projects. And a couple people mentioned this
class and the swiki.

6. Please comment on the following claim: “Due to the manipulative
capacity of interactive systems, designs should be open to revision
and debate… The term “malleable aesthetics” as I mean it refers to
the ability to accumulate not only statements, or data, but also
the structural changes brought by users of the system. Incompatible
with forced enclosure, the purest forms of this category of
production are licensed to assure that programming code remains in
the public domain”.

6.1. agree / disagree?

Most people agreed. Several people disagreed,
claiming that such systems would be incredibly hard to use if every
user was changing its interface. I found it especially interesting
that Jodi thinks that a good way to prevent malicious use is to keep a
system closed. I strongly disagree. If a system is open, more people
are able to properly evaluate its design, possibly from a perspective
the original designers had not seen. Security is typically a
peer-review type of process.

6.2. which are the personal consequences which you draw from this

Several people mentioned their use of open source

6.3. are the educational programs you are involved addressing this

Many people said no to this. Several people said
yes, through open source systems, or ideas presented through this
class, such as meta design.

7. Do you feel that the “Design, Learning, and Collaboration” course
addresses these two claims?

Everyone thought so, especially through the use of
the swiki.

View this PageEdit this PagePrinter Friendly ViewLock this PageReferences to this PageUploads to this PageHistory of this PageTop of the SwikiRecent ChangesSearch the SwikiHelp Guide