{"id":45,"date":"2020-06-06T12:46:11","date_gmt":"2020-06-06T19:46:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/lauraulrich\/?page_id=45"},"modified":"2020-08-12T14:36:36","modified_gmt":"2020-08-12T21:36:36","slug":"linking","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/lauraulrich\/linking\/","title":{"rendered":"Linking Assignment"},"content":{"rendered":"

Jump TO LINK:<\/h2>\n
    \n
  1. \n
      \n
    1. \n
        \n
      1. Voice to Text: Punctuation<\/em><\/a><\/li>\n
      2. Mechanical Transcription: Freedom to Write<\/em><\/a><\/li>\n
      3. Textual Architecture: Navigation<\/em><\/a><\/li>\n
      4. Multi-Modal = Multi-Literate<\/em><\/a><\/li>\n
      5. Twine: Engaging Constraints<\/em><\/a><\/li>\n
      6. Speculating on the Tools we Choose<\/em><\/a><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        <\/h1>\n<\/li>\n
      7. \n

        1) Voice to Text: Punctuation<\/h1>\n

        \"a
        \nSummary:<\/strong><\/span> I noticed that my colleagues took a different approach (and likely a different experience) from me with voice-to-text technology.<\/p>\n

        Reflection:<\/strong> <\/span>When I dictated my story to my phone using Google Keyboard\u2019s Voice-to-Text,\u00a0<\/em>my attention was focused on how I told my story. Occasionally, my monologue was rudely interrupted by the transcription lagging or stopping altogether, but overall I was able to live in the memory I was drawing up. When I started to read my collegues’ stories, however, I noticed a stark difference from mine: they had punctuation!\u00a0 At first I thought perhaps this was a feature of Speechnotes<\/a> but a little experimentation proved otherwise. Sasha<\/a>, Jamie<\/a>, and Robin<\/a> all “wrote” their stories with periods. Additionally, Sasha and Robin both used commas, and Jamie used question marks. Robin even has her story broken up into multiple paragraphs! In order for these symbols to appear in their stories, they would all have had to verbally command the algorithm to add them.<\/p>\n

        I find this method fascinating and foreign. When we write and type, punctuation flows out from our fingers because we have been taught<\/strong> to include it. The only time I give punctuation a second thought is when I brave unfamiliar territory, such as some of the remixing of quotes that I did in my Twine Task<\/a>. I have never had a similar learning experience with orature. It reminds me of a paper that found that students performed poorly on computer-based tests if they had been learned using pen-and-paper (Russell & Haney, 1997) in that it can be difficult to transfer skills between modes. It seems alien to me to obstruct your flow of speech in order to add the markers which symbolize the tone and pacing of speech. I am not sure I could have focused on trying to tell a good story if I needed to remember to say my punctuation out loud as well.<\/p>\n

        Back to Top<\/a><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

        2) Mechanical Transcription: Freedom to Write<\/h1>\n

        \"\"<\/p>\n

        Summary:<\/strong><\/span>\u00a0 Linda<\/a> and Andrew<\/a> both explored writing with pen and paper in their Manual Scripts task, and discussed the benefits of handwriting with pen compared to computers. Both agree that it is more freeing, though Linda states that this is because it is less permanent, while Andrew proposes that it is because word-processors inherently force you to think linearly (whereas handwriting can be dynamic).<\/p>\n

        Reflection:<\/strong> Comparing Linda’s, Andrew’s, and my own perspective feels a bit like looking at a three-sided coin. I agree with both that a pen is a tool that offers affordances which computers are (yet) ill-equipt to handle. Namely the breaking away from linearity.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

        To me, nothing characterizes dynamic writing as well as a mind-map. I became an avid mind-mapper near the end of my biology undergrad; I was taking a course on Animal Physiology<\/span>, which was heavy on all sorts of biochemical processes, and it was the semester I was committed to bringing up my grades. I remember preparing for the midterm, carefully rewriting out my notes linearly, like this:<\/p>\n

        I. There was a Big Idea<\/p>\n

        A. And it had its own Ideas<\/p>\n

        1. Which usually contained Details<\/p>\n

        i. and maybe those details had Specifics<\/p>\n

        My notes were BEAUTIFUL<\/strong>. They were neat, and structured, and highlighted with specific colours.<\/p>\n

        But then I wrote my midterm, and I barely passed…<\/p>\n

        That’s when I decided that I had to do something drastically different. How I was studying wasn’t syncing with how my brain processed ideas.<\/strong> That’s when I threw my fate in with mind-mapping, and have never gone back since. My maps the embodiement of organized-chaos. Rather than pages of lines of text barely spanning the width of the paper, my webs of ideas were as compact as possible. During my undergrad, I kept my notes confined to one page (barely), often using the opposite to hold post-it notes with additional information. This way I could review an entire lecture at a glance, and let my eyes wander its paths as I digested it. Below is a more recent example, from when I was preparing to teach Science 10. Creating mind maps on paper gives the writer freedom to bounce around and interconnect their ideas.<\/p>\n

        \"\"<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

        I often made a quick sketch of my main ideas before committing them to my notebook. Even though I used Yen-Store stationary rather than my own handbound journals, the act of writing in something bound felt sacred and ever-lasting. Any mistakes would be there to stay, so it was best to iron out my maps’ biggest wrinkles before committing them to paper. It has taken me years of practice to treat my journals as a place to experiment and play, rather than as a repository of perfect specimens.<\/p>\n

        In my comment to Andrew, I mentioned my desire to create a digital mind-mapping tool that blends the dynamic freedom of paper with the freedom-to-edit on a computer. In his reply, he said<\/p>\n

        “I don\u2019t necessarily think that the perfection inherent in digital expression is better for creativity!”<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

        I am curious about this standpoint, as it is so polar to my own. Digital expression is inherently perfect?<\/strong> Isn’t the digital space the perfect place to experiment? To make mistakes? To explore the unknown and if you don’t like it demolish it with the press of a button? The freedom to play and risk losing nothing but my time was one of the main reasons I was attracted to digital art. I could use a slider to experiment with hues before committing to a palette. I could experiment with a whole painting, and go back to what I had in a moment if I wished… If only I had the freedom to tinker so with real paint!<\/p>\n

        Back to the digital mind-map idea. I have experimented with many different programs, both on PC and Android. XMind<\/a> is my current go-to, mainly because it is not cloud- or subscription-based. The beauty of digital is that I can easily rearrange my ideas, grouping similar concepts that otherwise may have been written on opposite sides of the web. What it lacks (presently) however, is the ability to switch from verbal to visual. Sure, you could copy-paste a picture into it… but that is not the same feeling as creating your own Sketchnotes<\/strong><\/a> to explore your ideas!<\/p>\n

        \n
        \n

         <\/p>\n

        \n
        <\/div>\n
        \n
        <\/div>\n
        <\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
        <\/div>\n
        <\/div>\n
        \n
        View this post on Instagram<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
        <\/div>\n
        \n
        \n
        <\/div>\n
        <\/div>\n
        <\/div>\n<\/div>\n
        \n
        <\/div>\n
        <\/div>\n<\/div>\n
        \n
        <\/div>\n
        <\/div>\n
        <\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
        \n
        <\/div>\n
        <\/div>\n<\/div>\n

         <\/p>\n

        A post shared by Laura U (@sleepybirchtree)<\/a> on