Similar to Between Page and Screen, there are games which make use of the same technology. One example is Nintendo’s line of AR cards. The link above takes you to a video that shows them off. Similar to what was seen in class, you view the card through a 3DS camera. However, instead of text popping up, objects such as boxes or characters show up. These games, along with the book, play with the user’s sense of reality and what he or she perceives. This can be used to add a whole new level of depth. Usually, we have the physical realm and the virtual realm. This technology creates a hybrid of the two. A virtual being which exists through a physical object. This can be used in different manners. Another example is the game Spirit Camera. This game uses this extra layer to instill fear into the player, using a book and the camera to make ghosts appear in the physical realm (at least through the camera). People fear the unknown. People fear what they cannot see. Using the camera to make those fears come to life can be an effective tool. These games and Between Page and Screen add a physical aspect to the digital and a digital aspect to the physical. It blurs the line between physical and digital and makes people wonder: “What is real?”

 

I wanted to discuss a game I was familiar with in reference to Braid, so I went to my handy dandy google search bar, and input “Games similar to Braid.” The link was not technically about Braid, but Braid was one of the similar games. Another one, the one that caught my eye, was World of Goo. I came across the game a couple of years ago on a Kindle Fire app. It definitely shared SOME characteristics with Braid, but it’s not as straightforward. More specifically, World of Goo does not forward scroll, it does not rush you, and its puzzles are quite different and more challenging in ways. It does follow a path, however, and there is a specific goal at the end of the game.

I think my interest in World of Goo was largely due to the highly involved physics programming, and stretched muscles that were developed in my Architecture and Physics classes. And the sounds that the game makes amuse me. All in all, its a game worth trying.

If it had not been so long since I’ve played it, I would provide more details without a doubt.

http://gameslikefinder.com/games-like-limbo/

When searching for more information about Amaranth Borsuk and her book Between Page and Screen, a lot of what came up was about page to screen adaptations. From what I could find, it does not appear that a between page and screen book has ever been done before. Her idea of between the page and screen is literal in that it seems that the text actually does appear between the reader and the computer, however it can only truly be seen on the screen. So why did she choose this title when it is sounds so similar to the idea of a page-to-screen adaptation?

Special Award for Overall Excellence Source: Harry Potter series by J.K. Rowling (1997-2007) Seven beloved books became eight blockbuster movies (the seventh book was split…

A page to screen adaptation occurs when a book is made into a movie, some of the most popular are listed in this article by Entertainment Weekly. Borsuk’s idea and the book to movie phenomenon have very similar names but have little in common. Borsuk’s “between page and screen” made me question what happens between what happens in the time between when a book is published and when it is made into a feature film. While it may not have been Borsuk’s intention to call into question the process of adapting a book into a movie, her book almost achieves the same goal. for Borsuk’s book can only be viewed on the screen. So if Between Page and Screen were to ever become a film (as it could since it does tell a story), would it be referred to as a screen-to-screen adaptation?

This article was successful in analyzing how successful a movie was in recreating a novel by focusing on both what was lost in the adaptation and what was gained. So what is gained and lost by Borsuk in her novel? It seems to me that some of the materiality of a book is lost when it can only be read on the screen, however since only words can be viewed is it really all that different from a text?

eBooks are slowly pushing paper books out of the market. Soon, the number of paper books printed will go below the sales of a book on a Kindle. While eBooks are convenient and buying a book is cheaper, studies show that readers using a Kindle were “significantly” worse than paperback readers. We’ve been looking at how technology has been moving through the years. These technologies are created to make our lives easier and increase our knowledge, but by attempting that, it has actually decreased our ability to recall information about readings. What does this say about other advancing technologies and the ability to remember? Personally, it now takes me a couple weeks to remember how to get to a new place without using Google Maps. While this product is super useful and I would never want to trade it for a paper map, I can rarely give accurate directions or remember them that well.

 

 

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/aug/19/readers-absorb-less-kindles-paper-study-plot-ereader-digitisation

http://www.forbes.com/sites/amitchowdhry/2014/10/22/photomath-is-a-free-app-that-can-solve-equations-through-smartphone-cameras/

In light of the text about losing the past when everything becomes digitalized, I found an interesting app that brought an interesting concept that also combined some of what we did with the digital archives. Essentially PhotoMath takes a picture and solves the math problem on paper using our favorite OCR software; the app also takes you through a step by step guide of how they came to their solution. I definitely foresee pros and cons for this app. At which point does this app deem itself more harmful than helpful? Studies have indeed shown that writing things down helps with retaining information, so will this app take away the very steps we used to learn math and solve things by hand?

28. October 2014 · 4 comments · Categories: 2.2

In New Old Things: Fabrication, Physical Computing, and Experiment in Historical Practice by Elliot, MacDougall, and Turkel, one of the main points that are emphasized is the idea “that old things can be new.” I’m not sure of how everyone else felt about the word “dematerialization,” but I can say I always felt a negative connotation coming from it. In the same way in which we strip the materiality from a book when reading a pdf, we remix many other forms of media every day. History cannot be altered and is only there to be “revisited, explored, interrogated, and remixed (Elliot 7).” If the only way to move forward is to analyze the past, I don’t see the harm in dematerializing things. I feel like ultimately, remixing media will have its effects and lose the materiality of one medium, but it will pave the way for new media as well. For example, the 3D printer goes to show how the technology revolution is taking huge steps today. I guess the question I want to ask is, is dematerialization truly bad if it comes full circle to help create a new medium? On the other hand, if dematerialization does not have a negative connotation to you, do you think it’s okay to strip away the materiality from many mediums we have today?

27. October 2014 · 1 comment · Categories: 2.2

The reading, New Old Things: Fabrication, Physical Computing, and Experiment in Historical Practice by Devon Elliott, Robert MacDougall, & William J. Turkel posits the idea reading records of the past and first person accounts of history has its limitations that can be partially overcome through re-creations and models of the past stemming from the accounts. The specific example the paper focuses on is the modeling of magicians’ illusions. The authors use 3D printers to set up small-scale re-creations of the magicians performing their shows using the blueprints, photographs, and written accounts of the show being performed. While transforming the info found in the primary sources to the model they came across ways in which the original media can be deceptive or framed to exhibit a bias. An example of this is the left out details in the illusion blueprints that would not have been identified as misleading had it not been recreated. I do see the merit in the re-creation of historical events, however I think this method would be better suited for historical battles. Even for modern wars, the atrocities and events witnessed by the soldiers cannot be accurately recounted, advanced though our technology may be. Re-creating historical battles through computer modeling and other technologies can help in visualizing the events as close to how they may have transpired. The fact that communities re-enact historical battles such as the civil war to better understand the circumstances also corroborates this point. The question I wish to pose is: What event, general or specific, would benefit most from re-creation from text and accounts using modern technology?

The authors in the paper “New Old Things: Fabrication, Physical Computing, and Experiment in Historical Practice,” believe that physical matter should be the medium used for historical research. It is unclear at first what the authors mean by “physical matter.” As the paper gets into experimenting with past technological artifacts, the interesting point is made that over time humans may actually see and perceive things differently. It is hard to know whether this could ever actually be tested and proven true.

I agree that reconstruction of the technology or experiences through simulations, dollhouse versions, or using different technology can be extremely beneficial in allowing for an insight into history. However, I think it is providing a different experience altogether. The authors state that complete reproduction of history isn’t the purpose of these simulations. This got me thinking of our class’s work with archives and what we hope to achieve for our final project. Many of the fanzines that were chosen couldn’t be found online and little research could be discovered about the specific fanzine. For our final project, I think most of us are hoping to be able to present the fanzine in a different manner that doesn’t just replicate the fanzine physically. We are unable to provide the same experience as physically reading the fanzine, so by using technology, we would like to allow for a different experience. Most of us are unable to know what the author’s life was like, the perception of the fanzines, or why the fanzine was even published. By piecing together evidence and research found about the time period or certain subjects mentioned, we will hopefully be able to remix and explore the fanzines through a digital presentation. I think this experience will allow for the same type of insight the authors of “New Old Things” hope to discover with their research. We are attempting “to seek out new ways of learning from and listening to the past” (Elliot 8).

27. October 2014 · 3 comments · Categories: 2.2

The exploration of using digital means to recreate history as discussed in “New Old Things” goes hand in hand with the way materiality is changing with technology. When we stop focusing so much on the materiality of the original item, and instead look at what we can make new, we can potentially access or become aware of information that wasn’t available to us with just the original. For instance, in reimagining the magic acts by analyzing and readapting historical artifacts, Elliott, MacDougall, and Turkel were able to visually capture concepts of lighting and perspective. The same concept can be applied to transforming presentation. When presentation is played with, the audience’s link to a work also becomes reimagined in a sense; suddenly, they are making connections to the material that wouldn’t have been capable with traditional formats. Between Page and Screen toys with this concept and provides a method for readers to virtually hold text in their palm. When I gave the preview a shot, I found myself interacting with the text that appeared by shifting the angle of the square or moving it around. This extension of physicality added a new form of tangibility to reading, and allowed me to really examine the appearance of the text, from its font to its arrangement. Simple text on a page wouldn’t have kept my attention for long, much less left me inclined to analyze a single page. If we utilized these technologies in presentation archives, wouldn’t others be more inclined to engage with the material and build further connections with our past?