Linking Post #1
Jason LeHuquet – Task 2: Does Language shape the way we think?
I chose Jason’s post on language and how it impacts the way we interact with and view the world. I was really impressed and intrigued with the way he interpreted the first quote he shared:
[1:32] “You haven’t had that thought before. That’s a new thought, and I just implanted it in your head using language.”
Similarly to Jason, I was also struck by the basic way that this statement breaks down what communication is at its core. Jason further explored the idea of speech simply implanting thoughts into our heads as “non-consensual”. This was an interpretation that I had not thought of but after reading his post and reflecting, I’m convinced that speaking, in the general sense, is absolutely a non-consensual event. Jason explored the idea that as listeners we have no control over the ideas that are being implanted into our minds and that is a very different and slightly unsettling way to look at communication. What impact emotionally does this have on listeners every day? How does this subconsciously impact the way we listen? Do we retreat from conversation or seek it out? Certainly, as Jason explores here, the type of power speakers have, implies a certain ethical or moral obligation to their audience. The famous Spiderman quote “with great power comes great responsibility” seems appropriate!
While in Canada we have a strong culture around freedom of speech, we also have a strong culture around protecting people from hate speech. Jason points out that while the general understanding of conversations is an exchange of ideas and information, being able to filter out the messages you are receiving is not an option. Once you have heard a statement, it is now implanted into your brain. This makes me think about how scrolling on social media or reading the news is essentially a nonconsensual implant of ideas. Like it or not, each headline or video we view can implant a thought and so in some ways we are constantly participating in non-consensual conversations. Sure, we can somewhat control what comes across our feed, but ultimately, much of what we are exposed to is out of our control.
Jason used the example of holding out an apple to someone and asking them if they would like to have it. The person’s ability to accept or refuse that apple is a fully consensual act. He pointed out that communication doesn’t work that way and listening is kind of like an unavoidable consumption. It’s like swallowing the apple. Even if you chew it slowly, you still have to digest it and you can’t take it back. Reflecting on this has made me think critically about the ideas that I share but more so about the ones that I receive.
The other quote that I resonated with in Jason’s post was:
[24:40] “There’s some evidence suggesting that hurricanes that happen to get female names…are more deadly because people don’t evacuate when they’re told to because they underestimate the potential strength of these hurricanes.”
I was truly dumbfounded when I first heard this quote and I also chose to write about it in my post, but Jason and I understood it in different ways. Jason wasn’t surprised by the quote. He interpreted it through the lens of statistical and societal observations, pointing out that men have historically inflicted more severe violence and damage on the world than women. From his perspective, it made sense that people might subconsciously assume “male” hurricanes would be violent. I, on the other hand, focused on how societal stereotypes view women as weaker and more submissive which could lead people to underestimate the danger of a “female” hurricane as nothing to worry about.
The difference between how we internalized this example is a great illustration of how the language and labels we use, not only shape how we speak, but also how we act. Once a label is assigned, consciously or subconsciously, it can influence what we think, leading us to make decisions or judgements, like underestimating the severity of a hurricane, even if we aren’t aware of it. Similarly to how the first quote exposed the non-consensual aspect of communication, listeners can’t opt out of being affected by these types of associations that are embedded into our culture.
Linking Post #2
Sooyoung Yang – Task4: Manual Scripts and Potato Printing
I chose Sooyoung’s post because it closely connected to the ideas I explored in my own post on this task. Even though she chose the handwriting task and I chose the potato printing task, we both had the same core ideas linking our posts together.
An important connection we both made to this task was the way in which manual text production forces people to slow down, creating a different cognitive process. With my potato printing, every aspect of carving the letters required patience and focus. I wasn’t just spelling “Music,” I was physically constructing each letter. In Sooyoung’s handwritten post, she discussed how she had to plan the entire flow of her paragraph before starting because editing wasn’t an easy task. Both of our examples slowed down the writing process, making each decision more deliberate and intentional. In both of our examples, the challenges around revisions completely shifted our mindset from “write then edit” to “think and plan” before creating. Sooyoung highlighted how she couldn’t easily delete sentences and needed extra tools like white-out to make corrections. She also had to cross out mistakes, which created a messier and more unpolished product. In my example, I really needed to think before I started carving and couldn’t really fix mistakes. I either had to restart completely or live with the mistake, also creating a messier and unpolished product.
The most significant connection between our posts was how we reflected on the way digital writing can feel more disposable when it can be so easily created, changed, or deleted. Sooyoung pointed out that the ease and speed at which we can create text digitally creates a send first, think later mentality. Both experiments in handwriting and potato printing highlighted that when writing feels easily changeable or erasable, it can also feel less meaningful and carry less emotional impact. Our posts also showed two different dimensions of manual writing, the physical art form and the cognitive process. Whether we are focusing on shaping letters to ensure correct placement or focusing on shaping ideas and structural details to ensure a correct statement, the craft of designing text can become less visible when it is being completed by using digital tools.
Linking Post #3
Eric Wilson – Task 5: Twine Game
Eric’s Twine story, The Eyes of the Sun, was very well done and engaging to work through. I liked that he hosted the game on his Wix Portfolio so it could be viewed directly from his site. Eric was inspired by an old hypertext game he played as a child when creating this fun adventure story of the lost treasure of Ecuador. The music he added was a great touch, helping users feel more immersed in the story. His storyline included many “traps” that would end the game, but there was always the opportunity to start over and try again.
Eric commented on the challenge of having so many links present in this simple story and the large amount of storage that would be necessary to allow the program to run properly if every version he saved had a permanent Xanadu link (Nelson, 1999). That resonated with me because, while building my own Twine story, I became hyper-aware of how quickly the number of links can grow as a story develops, eventually becoming a big web of connections. He also discussed how the use of AI-generated content like Gemini and ImageFX could include traceable links back to the original content. If every link remained when we were building a Twine story, regardless of whether it was adjusted or changed, the web would get very dense and complicated!
The nonlinear path of a Twine story was also something both Eric and I commented on. As a user, it is engaging and satisfying to be able to navigate backwards and forwards and from section to section, rather than in one linear direction. As Bolter points out, digital texts create this nonlinear pathway, and this multidimensional structure can create more depth (Bolter, 2001). How the content is displayed on the screen impacts how we interact with the material, creating multiple layers of content at the same time and elements such as images, effects, and videos, further deepen the engagement of users.
To end his reflection, Eric commented that he would have loved to add much more interactive elements if he had more time and I definitely felt that way as well! It took me such a long time to finish my story and get it successfully embedded into a website, that I simply didn’t have time to add more elements. I hope that a future project using this tool will give me the opportunity to experiment further and incorporate more interactive elements!
References:
Bolter, J.D. (2001). Chapter 5: The electronic book. In Writing space: Computers, hypertext, and the remediation of print. (pp. 77-98). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Nelson, T. (1999). Xanalogical structure, needed now more than ever: Parallel documents, deep links to content, deep versioning and deep re-use. ACM Computing Surveys, 31(4).
Linking Post #4
Emily Douglass – Task 6: An Emoji Story
https://blogs.ubc.ca/etec540edouglass/author/emdoug98/
I chose Emily’s post as there were many similar connections in our reflections focused on the way visual communication can convey meaning quickly and engagingly, but its effectiveness depends heavily on context, prior knowledge, and careful design. To begin with, I believe that the title of Emily’s emoji story is the hit TV show, Game of Thrones. While I couldn’t translate all the plot from her story, I was able to see characters and symbolic references to specific action points in the show. She used a wolf for House Stark, a snowflake for “Winter is coming”, a zombie for the White Walkers, a lion for House Lannister, a stag for House Baratheon, a rose for House Tyrell, and an octopus for House Greyjoy. It would be very interesting if her story was not the Game of Thrones and I can’t wait to see her reply to the comment I left on her post!
Both of our experiences explored the possibilities and limitations of communicating meaning through images. Our experiences revealed similar challenges, particularly the importance of context, prior knowledge, and the constraints of visual representation. One of the strongest connections between our experiences was the difficulty of translating complex ideas into a limited set of available emojis. In my post, I expressed the challenge of representing character traits and plot elements when no direct visual equivalent existed. Similarly, Emily noted frustration when an emoji she was searching for did not exist or failed to communicate the intended meaning. Emily commented “For such a short show description, I spent a bit too long on it, just searching for the correct items I needed” (Douglass, 2026). In both cases, the available visual tools shaped what we could express, highlighting how different modes of communication offer specific affordances and limitations. Both of our experiences demonstrated that while emojis can efficiently represent simple or concrete ideas, they are far less effective when communicating more abstract concepts or narrative complexity.
Another significant connection between our posts was the role of prior knowledge in interpretation. Emily tested her emoji story with both viewers who had seen the show and those that had not. She found that those familiar with the content were able to interpret the abstract references more accurately, while those without prior knowledge often misunderstood or were unable to interpret the meaning. This aligns with my own reflection as I noted that many of my emoji choices would be difficult to decipher without the context of the movie title. Both of our reflections highlight that images do not carry fixed meaning on their own. Instead, they are dependent on interpretation based on shared cultural knowledge and contextual clues. If viewers bring different experiences or assumptions to the interpretation, the meaning created by the images may diverge significantly from the creator’s intent. This connects to Snyder’s (2005) argument that visual communication carries both power and risk. Conversely, Emily reflects on Kress’s (2005) idea that images create an experience for the viewer, allowing audiences to engage more intuitively and emotionally than text alone. This strength is tempered by the limitation of miscommunication. While images can communicate quickly and effectively, they are also open to misinterpretation or manipulation if context and ethical responsibility are not carefully considered.
Both of our posts illustrate the promise and the complexity of multimodal communication. Emojis and images can enhance engagement and convey meaning efficiently, but they rely heavily on shared understanding and contextual support. This experience has highlighted that visual communication requires thoughtful design, awareness of audience knowledge, and careful consideration of how meaning may be interpreted. As communication increasingly shifts toward visual and multimodal forms, developing critical awareness of both the possibilities and limitations of images is essential for clarity, accuracy, and ethical use.
References
Douglass, E. (February 14, 2026). Task 6: An Emoji Story. UBC Blogs. https://blogs.ubc.ca/etec540edouglass/author/emdoug98/
Kress, G. (2005). Gains and losses: New forms of texts, knowledge, and learning. Computers and Composition, 22(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2004.12.004
Snyder, I. (2005). Attuned to the truth. Computers and Composition, 22(1), 39–47.