 |
| xkcd.com |
Rachel started off as a programmer when the internet was a fledgling network with something around 1,500 pages and few embellishments. Roughly 15 years after she started in the media field, Rachel (just like everyone else) is stuck in what I'll call technological quicksand. The rate of progress exceeds our abilities to output products with the new capabilities. By the time the next big thing comes out, there's already buzz about an improved generation on the horizon. This kind of slippery slope of expedited headway has been the trend in many forms of media, making it more difficult to close the gap. Photo editing, video editing, social networking sites, and others have all experienced this boom of progress.
When we combine that with the steady integration of all these technologies and you will find yourself in the very crux of what I mean by "technological quicksand". No matter what we purchase, download, or update, we are perpetually behind simply because there is no way to receive real-time versions of all the emerging technologies and their applications as they are combined with other programs.
Does that mean we should wallow in our eternal technological lag? Rachel says no, and I agree. You have to make due with the tools you have in the moment. You don't have to be loyal to Apple or Windows or Linux. An efficient individual takes what is at hand and makes it work for their purposes. I personally find that trying to keep up with the most current versions of software and hardware is expensive and can be confusing. Using what is familiar, as long as it gets the job done in the manner necessary, is what I find helpful in order to avoid feeling suffocated by the steady flow of new materials.
It is true. By the time we purchase what we thought was the most recent, updated version of electronics, there is always a newer version produced somewhere in the world. If you think about it, there's no way we can truly "catch up", and I think that's what Rachel was trying to imply when she gave us the analogy of downward curve train ride. But, I agree with you in that, knowing what you got and mastering its optimal functions seem more efficient than just going for the looks or sound of having the "most updated".
ReplyDeleteI agree that using the tools available at the moment to the best of one's ability is the best way to work. Of course new material will become available all of the time (and I'm sure not too far in the future we will be able to keep track of it all in real time) but for now the older version probably works just as well. In addition, having some restrictions with tools promotes creativity.
ReplyDeleteThose mac vs. pc commercials always made me chuckle, though I never did put much stock into the debate. The video you have posted points out that while there may be some minor differences among the platforms, those differences are not very substantial. One is not superior over the other, it simply depends on how one wants to work with technology.
I have to say I agree with everyone here - the technology does fly along at an alarming rate, and the best you can do is work with what you have. We can't all buy a new operating system, computer, or program every time it comes out, because it's simply too hard to keep up, like you said. Rachel seemed to indicate that it's more about how we use what we have that's more important than exactly what it is - many things can be achieved with older versions of programs, or free ones that are slightly different. Granted, you do sacrifice some compatibility in doing this sometimes, but the opposite side of the issue is becoming overly obsessed with having the newest and best item all the time (like those people who trampled each other to get new gaming systems or iPods). I believe there can be a healthy balance between those two extremes.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree, I always feel so behind. I didn't really know what a tweet was until a couple months ago. I'll enjoy the quicksand I guess, maybe it'll help me look a little less like a geek...maybe? This whole technology curve applies to so many things, but I think it's a strength to know older tools and to make them modern, and to show that we can do cool stuff with outdated material!
ReplyDeleteI like your term of "technological quicksand". I believe Rachel called the rate of development of the web a "logarithmic curve". I think that idea of the rate of development can tie into what Julie and Johnny asked us on the first day of class, "How do you view technology: fun, scary, or as a tool?" Your post made it seem that you view it as a tool, but do you think any harm can come of this logarithmic curve? That perhaps technology is developing at a rate that can be to our detriment as a society? I feel like there are a lot of implications to that rate of development.
ReplyDeleteWe are waiting for more digital nostalgia! Old computers are disdained. It seemed a simpler time when the computer screen was black with green text output by a dot matrix printing on green bar. Memories.
ReplyDelete