My Twine story is the beginnings of a formative safety quiz for a junior high chemistry unit.
Reflection:
InterTwined:
The readings this week focused (focussed? Both spellings are acceptable) on the evolution (or not) of written language (especially English) due to the advances of the computer, from word-processor to smart phone. I am old enough to have lived through these technological changes, and I am glad for the changes. During my practicum year, my cohort pioneered the use of email (or e-mail) for us to keep in contact during our practice teaching, using PINE over a 2400 baud modem. I can recall reading the email as it was being downloaded and filling the screen line by line.
And now we come to Twine, and my attempt to write an interactive story. For this story, I chose to write story which will review some of the safety rules for high school chemistry labs. The process began slowly, as I figured out the interface, progressed more quickly through the basic layout of the essential passages, and then bogged down again as I then figured out how to use variables to change the choices presented to the reader depending on the previous choices made. Eventually, I figured out how to add video to a passage (images would be the same process). As I was working through the story, I was struck by just how much I was slowed down by this new form of writing. Much of that slowdown was learning the new technology and workflow, however, perhaps akin to learning to type. The pace of creation did increase as I became more accustomed to the interface.
In some ways, the creative process I used in my conception of ideas was significantly modified by the structure of the technology: I found that there needed to be a more concrete outline established early in the story, that the plot needed to be fairly-well thought through prior to adding the textual details. There was less benefit to a free-association flow of ideas into the work, as that would become more complicated to establish the links between passages.
Reflecting on this week’s readings, I’m less impressed by how much our forms of communication have changed with our changing technology, but by how much they haven’t. Yes, our grammar and punctuation have changed, but that is true of language regardless of the technology. For instance, is the adoption of emojis to communicate our ideas symbolically rather than alphabetically really that different than Cockney rhyming slang (Taub, 2015)? Perhaps this speech form is not unlike correcting the autocorrect when typing fast on a smartphone screen? When using Twine, I was struck by how similar it was (although much more easier to use) to writing a text-based adventure written in BASIC.
The readings this week referred to many prognostications by some in the 1980s and earlier about how our communication would be transformed by the new technology. We were also promised flying cars. Where are the flying cars?
Reference:
Taub, A. (2015, February 16). How to speak in cockney rhyming slang. Vox. https://www.vox.com/2015/2/16/8045999/cockney-rhyming-slang-explained