While it's important to be aware of, and take into consideration, the different forms of interface and experience of the internet, it's a tricky thing. I've argued that we often play fast and loose with the term "internet" when we actually mean something else more specific (web, email, p2p, etc.) and that we should be more precise therefore. But what level of precision is required ought to be a consideration of those engaged in the work and ought to be made clear in explication of the work. That is, if one is studying email use, a consideration should be whether or not the type of email software used is something that may bring with it sufficiently important difference to make a difference in the study, and that consideration ought to be reflected in some fashion in discussion of the study. This is not specific to the internet, but is something that media studies generally have largely not taken up. Does it matter, for instance, whether one is viewing television in black and white or in color? On a big or a small screen? Or can we put together all "television viewing" into one large category? The same is the case in radio - the experience of radio varies greatly depending on, for instance, the type of loudspeaker, size of the radio, whether it may be in a car or not, etc. The answer to such questions, of course, is "it depends," and that is not an incorrect answer, I think. But it does point out on the one hand the need for specificity, and on the other hand the need to consider the level and degree to which specificity matters under particular circumstances. Sj At 9:55 PM -0800 11/27/02, Denise N. Rall wrote:
Re: Maren Hartmann's comment - "And yes, there therefore seems to be both - a) a change somewhere in the late 1990s (but not necessairly related to the dot.com crash only)"
I have to add that, unless we are simply discussing the Internet as accessed through the WWW then there are two distinct phases to the Internet based on the most logical component - how we see at the level of the user interface.
To compare my days on the Internet as a unix-driven text-based device of "vi" "rn" and "ftp" is hardly the same internet that I access and view today through http and html.
To me, (I've written one unpublished paper called "The Internet, the WWW and Cyberspace") these are not at all the same locations -- because how I experience it, subjectively, cognitively, aesthetically, it's not the same place at all.
(I won't address cyberspace, a really ugly thing as Phil Agre points out in his recent book, "the limits of cyberspace"). To me the Internet is before the WWW and what we have now is, really a bastardization of the Internet as viewed through the WWW, or the Web. Both the Internet and the Web appeared WAY before the dot.com crash, if that's significant, fine, but I can't see it as an epistemological moment, more like an obvious result of advanced capitalism that worked its way through to the obvious conclusion.
I'm sure someone here will put me straight on this ;-)
Denise
===== "it's easier to use your mouse than your brain" Denise Rall, Sustainable Forestry Mentoring Coordinator & PhD student, School of Education, Southern Cross University, PO Box 157, Lismore, NSW, 2480 Australia Phone +61-2-6624-8627 Fax +61-2-6624-8637 Office (Tuesdays) (02) 6620 3577 Mob 0438 233 344 http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/edu/research/deniserall/index.html
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ Air-l mailing list Air-l@aoir.org http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l