Classmate: Navid Panah
Task 11: Detain Release
Link: https://blogs.ubc.ca/metprogramnp/2025/03/17/weekly-task-11-detain-release/
When reflecting on Navid’s post, I see how his experience in the “detain and release” task highlights the fluidity of internal biases and the challenges posed by flawed algorithms. He shared how his perspective shifted throughout the activity—starting with a belief in fairness by releasing low-risk individuals, only to notice patterns that prompted him to prioritize detainment. For example, released drug offenders frequently failed to appear for court, while seemingly less dangerous offenses like fraud occasionally escalated into violent crimes. His post emphasizes the limitations of algorithms, which often neglect nuanced decision-making, and critiques how biases in AI systems can lead to unjust outcomes. Ultimately, he stresses the importance of human oversight in decision-making, arguing that AI and algorithms should only assist, not dictate, judgments.
When connecting Navid’s post to mine, I notice shared concerns about biases inherent in AI systems. We both recognize how these systems, built on historical data, risk perpetuating inequality. I especially resonate with his emphasis on keeping final judgment in human hands—a point I also made in my post when advocating for ethical oversight and the integration of compassion and critical thinking.
By linking my post to Navid’s, I aim to create a web of interconnected perspectives that deepen collective understanding. Together, our insights emphasize AI’s dual potential: its capacity to innovate while demanding vigilance against harm. This interplay underscores the importance of maintaining ethical awareness and human judgment in technology’s integration.
Classmate: Jamie
Task 3: Voice to Text
Link: https://blogs.ubc.ca/zhu540/2025/01/21/task-3-voice-to-text/
When comparing Jamie’s post to mine, I notice a striking similarity in how we both identify and critique the informal structure and language of oral storytelling. We agree that the conversational tone, while engaging in oral form, often translates poorly to written narratives due to run-on sentences and filler words. Both of us also acknowledge that these “mistakes” can add authenticity to the storytelling process, making it feel more personal and relatable.
However, I see a key difference in the way we approach the potential of transforming oral stories into written ones. My classmate suggests reorganizing their story into clear sections, such as family background or childhood experiences, and incorporating more colorful vocabulary for a richer reader experience. While I also advocate for more structured pacing and precise descriptions in a scripted version, my focus leans toward enhancing transitions and polishing dialogue to ensure a seamless reading experience.
Both of our posts highlight different literacies that oral and written storytelling privilege. My classmate’s insights underscore how oral stories rely on a speaker’s presence to convey meaning, suggesting a literacy rooted in auditory and performative skills. In contrast, my post leans toward the visual and structural demands of written storytelling, emphasizing how coherence and pacing shape the reader’s experience.
These differences also reveal how the constraints of the course design influence our work. For example, the assignment’s focus on analyzing oral-to-written transitions pushes us to think critically about the affordances and limitations of each medium. My classmate’s suggestion to organize their story into thematic sections reflects a response to the pedagogical emphasis on clarity and coherence in written work, while my focus on scene transitions and pacing aligns with the course’s prioritization of audience engagement and narrative structure.
By connecting my post to my Jamie’s, I see how our analyses complement one another, creating a web of perspectives that deepens our exploration of storytelling conventions. Their focus on emotional authenticity and performative elements balances my emphasis on structural refinement and narrative flow, showing how oral and written traditions can inform and enhance each other.
Classmate: Jasmine Chapman
Task 10: Attention Economy
Link: https://blogs.ubc.ca/jasminechapmanetec540/2025/03/16/attention-economy-the-most-annoying-thing/
In their post, Jazz shares their frustration with the deceptive design elements of the “game,” which employ “dark patterns” to confuse users and manipulate their choices. They highlight various usability challenges, such as misleading buttons, hidden instructions, and an irritating timer, all of which made the activity difficult and stressful. Despite these frustrations, they reflect on how the experience revealed how often people blindly interact with interfaces, like clicking on terms and conditions without reading them. They connect this to their teaching practice, emphasizing the importance of clarity in instructions and suggesting that the activity could help their students think critically about user-friendly design and the role of language in communication.
I completely agree with Jazz’s assessment of the game’s frustrating design and how it challenges users to reevaluate their interactions with technology. Like them, I struggled with the hidden buttons and misleading instructions, which seemed deliberately designed to confuse and frustrate. I also felt the pressure of the timer, which left little room for careful decision-making, making the experience all the more overwhelming.
What resonated most with me was Jazz’s connection to real-world usability and communication. As they pointed out, the clarity and precision of instructions are crucial in fields like hospitality or design. I agree that this exercise could be a valuable tool for teaching students to think critically about how people perceive and interact with information. Their suggestion to incorporate this activity into assignments, like creating posters or webpages, is an excellent idea that emphasizes the importance of user-centered design.
I found their connection between the exercise and the theoretical underpinnings of usability design particularly insightful. They emphasize how “dark patterns” exploit human psychology to manipulate user behavior, highlighting the ethical considerations inherent in design choices. This aligns with the course’s emphasis on critical analysis and thoughtful reflection about the technologies we interact with daily.
By engaging with Jazz’s post, I hope to extend the conversation and underline the valuable lessons this activity can teach us—both about the pitfalls of confusing design and the need for clarity in our own work. It’s a reminder that every design choice we make has the potential to impact someone else’s experience, for better or worse.
Classmate: Patrick Blois
Task 7: Mode Bending
Patrick explores the transmediation of his “What’s in My Bag” task by converting his written description into Braille using BrailleTranslator.org and pairing it with an audio recording of their voice posted to YouTube. This innovative approach provides accessibility for both tactile and auditory learners, showcasing a deliberate effort to engage diverse audiences. The content of his bag reflects both his professional and personal life, including books for professional development and leisure, work tools, and nostalgic items like a hacky sack from high school. He also ponders the blurred boundaries between personal and professional identities, adding a reflective dimension to their work.
I found Patrick’s post both thoughtful and creative, and I deeply appreciated his use of Braille and audio as tools for accessibility. This approach not only enriches content but also aligns with the values of inclusivity and universal design. In contrast, my own post presents the same task in a poetic style inspired by Mary Oliver. While my creative approach focuses on evoking imagery and emotion, his work emphasizes functionality and accessibility, highlighting how different choices can shape the reader or listener’s experience.
Our posts share a connection in how we both sought to reinterpret the task through unique lenses. However, his emphasis on accessibility introduces a perspective I hadn’t considered in my own work. By utilizing Braille and audio, he provides tactile and auditory literacies. This contrast to my own interpretation encourages me to think about how poetic styles might be adapted or complemented to reach a broader audience, making the work more inclusive.
Both of our posts respond to the course design in distinct but complementary ways. While his work critically addresses accessibility and expands the task’s reach, mine aligns with the pedagogical aim of encouraging diverse, creative interpretations. Together, our efforts exemplify how the same task can lead to vastly different yet equally meaningful outcomes.
By linking my post to Patrick’s, I’m reminded of the value of combining creativity with inclusivity. Their work inspires me to think about how I could integrate similar accessibility features into my own web space, ensuring that my creative expressions resonate with as many people as possible. Together, our posts create a web of interconnected perspectives that highlight the richness of diverse approaches to the same task.
Classmate: Natalie Keizer
Task 12: Speculative Fiction Task
Link: https://blogs.ubc.ca/keizern/speculative-futures-task-12/
When I read Natalie’s reflection, I noticed several areas where our thoughts on AI-generated speculative narratives connect as well as where they diverge.
I see that both of us explore AI’s role in reflecting human concerns and fostering imagination. My classmate emphasizes speculative design’s potential to create spaces for debate about societal concerns, while I appreciate how AI narratives push beyond traditional boundaries, enhancing creativity and educational engagement. We share a recognition of AI’s limitations, but where my colleague critiques its inability to truly open new perspectives, I focus on its ability to stretch imagination and provoke interdisciplinary learning. Additionally, we both touch upon the importance of human guidance in AI outputs, acknowledging the inherent biases and ethical considerations involved.
While Natalie’s reflection leans towards analyzing AI’s societal impacts—using examples like the Munk Debate and historical patterns of bias and power—I take a different route, focusing on how AI can act as a collaborator in education and creative exploration. My tone is more optimistic, seeing AI as a tool to foster critical thinking and debate, whereas my colleague’s perspective is more pragmatic, emphasizing its limitations in breaking new ground.
Overall, I feel our reflections complement each other well. Natalie’s societal critique and my focus on imagination and education create a rich dialogue that adds depth to the broader conversation about AI. Together, our perspectives contribute to the interconnected web of ideas envisioned by the course, showcasing how collaborative engagement can illuminate multifaceted topics.
Classmate: Isabella Veltri
Task 6: An Emoji Story
Link: https://blogs.ubc.ca/veltri540/2025/01/12/task-6-an-emoji-story/
Reflecting on Isabella’s post, I can see several fascinating connections and differences between her approach and mine for the emoji task.
Both of us chose to focus on the ideas and symbolic elements of our chosen narratives rather than aiming for a direct translation. I concentrated on capturing the whimsical and surreal nature of my story, while my classmate emphasized the key themes of the television show—like the main character’s dual life, the city setting, and iconic symbols. We both prioritized the overarching spirit of our works rather than becoming constrained by rigid interpretations.
Additionally, Isabella and I both reflect on the limitations and strengths of using emojis as a storytelling medium. While she discusses the challenges of ensuring accuracy and cultural fit, I explore the difficulty of encapsulating emotional and thematic depth in static visuals. Yet, we both appreciate the unique role emojis play in simplifying and communicating narratives in a playful, symbolic form.
Where my post was rooted in capturing the surreal and whimsical essence of a classic tale, my classmate’s task revolved around a television show with strong visual symbols. This difference in content influenced how we approached emoji selection. For me, balancing clarity with whimsy was essential to convey the dreamlike qualities of the story. For my classmate, the focus was on selecting culturally recognizable emojis to ensure comprehension among classmates.
Our posts reflect different theoretical influences. Isabella’s use of Kress & Van Leeuwen’s theories on multimodal communication underscores the importance of the interplay between visual elements and audience understanding. In contrast, my approach was more intuitive, driven by an emphasis on the interplay of language and imagination.
In the end, I think our posts complement each other by presenting unique perspectives on the task. Isabella’s analytical focus and my emphasis on imagination and storytelling create a balanced dialogue. Together, they contribute to the interconnected web of ideas envisioned by the course, illustrating the diverse ways emojis can be used to convey meaning.
