App interaction

In the article “Expanding the ‘Mobility’ Concept,” Kakihara and Sorensen show concern that the term mobility is too broad. To oppose this they break mobility down into specific categories, spatial, temporal, and contextual. My application will be spatially convenient because the phone (which the app will be primarily used on) as an object is small and easily mobile. The app will be linked to the open global media spheres as a way for the information to freely flow. The app will be temporally mobile in that it will deal with structural time because parents will be getting real time updated information. It will also incorporate interpretive time because the information can be viewed whenever most convenient for the user. The app can also be used either monochronicity, with full attention on the app, and polychronicity, while multitasking (p.34). This is an important aspect because the apps target demographics are busy parents, so it needs to be conveniently accessed while multitasking as well as during interpretive time.

My application will be part of using cell phones in a new useful way. Today people depend on phones in a new way. Cell phones are now not only for interpersonal communication, they are converged with technology that gives access to the Internet, access to GPS, and text messaging. Now specified applications are designed to make it easy to check bank accounts, look up information, or buy necessities with the tap of a button. Societal wants and technology have an interesting relationship. Simmel describes it as “Fashion is a form of imitation and so of social equalization, but, paradoxically, in changing incessantly it differentiates one time from another and one social stratum from another”(1957). This meaning that what society sees as fashionable effects peoples use and wants of technology on a two way level. The use of this app can be easily described in terms of Katzs and Aakhus’ apparatgesit theory. The theory says “norms regarding technology use are continuously being modified, often quite creatively, by users within social environments to serve expressive interests (Katz and Aakhus, 2002)” (Katz et al., 2008, p. 369). With new technologies, come new uses for them and vice versa. These technologies help us navigate everyday life and have now become the societal norm.

My app will connect people by giving access to information that relates to them, drawing a social relationship. The app will coordinate physical meeting places for activities and educational resources. There will not be much cataloging within the app to keep people from feeling monitored. Humphreys “Connecting, Coordinating, and Cataloguing” describes these different degrees of social interaction as it relates to technology (p.500). Telling that technologies affect our relationships dealing differently with personal closeness, physical space, and information catalogued.

One reason why the app will not catalogue is to dispute surveillance concerns. I want the information to spread to many that can use it. I do not want information about these people collected, which could give malware or viruses as well as government data mining.

The application will go with Foucaults idea of power. He tells “Power is a network of relations, constantly in tension, in activity, rather than a privilege that one might possess; the one should take as its model a perpetual battle, rather than a contract regulating a transaction or the conquest of territory. In short, this power is exercised rather than possessed; it is not the privilege, acquired or preserved, of the dominant class, but the overall effect of its strategic positions– an effect that is manifested and sometimes extended by the position of those who are dominated” (Discipline and Punish, p. 174). The application will establish this by making information available to many. It will distribute power in the hands of the people that are most likely disadvantaged financially and educationally.

The app will also not have a personal profile; it will be focused on the information and programs rather than self-presentation. This is to keep from “social surveillance clouding the use of the app. Marwick describes this concept in his book Social Surveillance. He tells “Social surveillance is the ongoing eavesdropping, investigation, gossip and inquiry that constitutes information gathering by people about their peers, made salient by the social digitization normalized by social media. It encompasses using social media sites to broadcast information, survey content created by others, and regulating one’s own content based on perceptions of the audience” (p. 382). Many current social media accounts cause people to carefully pick and choose what information about themselves they would like to display. I do not want people to fear or attempt to use “Social surveillance” while taking advantage of the app that I am creating; this is why there will be no association with a profile to the account. This is to encourage the app to be used to simply gain helpful information.

The application will be presented with easily identified graphics, as well as large print, in an attempt to keep less able-bodied individuals. Goggin explains the importance of this way of thinking while designing an app on page 92 of his book saying “certain sorts of imagined users and use, with particular sorts of ‘normal’ (or rather ‘normalized’) bodies and abilities. Typically people with disabilities do not fit into these categories of normal…and are often not seen either as fitting the ideas of public markets that such normal bodies support” (p. 92). Therefore I will try to make my application easily accessed by people with bad eyesight or colorblind individuals.

Foucaults, Micheal. “Discipline and Punish”

Gazzard, Alison. (2011). “Location, location, location: collecting space and place in mobile media.” Convergence. 17(4): p. 405-417

Goggin, Gerard. (2006). Cell Phone Culture: Mobile technology in everydaylife. London: Routledge. Chapter 5, p. 89-103.

Goggin, Gerard and Hamilton, Caroline. (2012). “Reading After the Phone: E-reader and mobile media,” in N. Arceneaux & A. Kavoori (Eds), The Mobile Media Reader. New York: Peter Lang. p. 102-119

Humphreys, Lee. (2012). “Connecting, Coordinating, Cataloguing: Communicative Practices on Mobile Social Networks,” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 56:4, 494-510

Kakihara, Masao & Sorensen, Carsten. (2001). Expanding the ‘Mobility’ Concept. SIGGROUP Bulletin, 22(3), 33-37.

Marwick, Alice. (2012). “Public Domain: Surveillance in everyday life.” Surveillance & Society. 9(4): 378-393.

Snyder, Sharon L. and David T. Mitchel. (2001). “Re-engaging the Body: Disability studies and the resistance to embodiment.” Public Culture 13(3): 367-389.

Simmel, Georg. (1957). Fashion as a Social Relationship.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s