1 / 39

Exploring Interactive Video Vernaculars: Beyond Traditional Models

This work by Adrian Miles examines the limitations of current interactive video models delivered over the internet. It argues that many such models merely replicate a television-like experience, failing to embrace true interactivity. The analysis highlights the importance of considering user constraints such as time, bandwidth, and screen dimensions. By proposing a "middlecasting" model, the study advocates for a new framework that recognizes the properties of desktop environments and digital technologies, paving the way for more genuine interactions with video content.

aspen
Télécharger la présentation

Exploring Interactive Video Vernaculars: Beyond Traditional Models

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars Adrian MilesInterMedia UiB (Norway) RMIT (Australia) adrian.miles@uib.no 2002 http://hypertext.rmit.edu.au/vog/vlog/

  2. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars Most models of ‘interactive’ internet (networked) delivered video is not interactive. adrian.miles@uib.no2002

  3. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars Most models of ‘interactive’ internet (networked) delivered video is not interactive. • it appropriates web browsers or clients as a de facto tv adrian.miles@uib.no2002

  4. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars Most models of ‘interactive’ internet (networked) delivered video is not interactive. • it appropriates web browsers or clients as a de facto tv • looks backwards for a networked model adrian.miles@uib.no2002

  5. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars Most models of ‘interactive’ internet (networked) delivered video is not interactive. • it appropriates web or clients as de facto tv • looks backwards for a networked model • treats the network as broad or narrowcast where the model is middlecasting adrian.miles@uib.no2002

  6. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars Most models of ‘interactive’ internet (networked) delivered video is not interactive. • it appropriates web or clients as de facto tv • looks backwards for a networked model • treats the network as broad or narrowcast where the model is middlecasting • interactivity must be within the video stream adrian.miles@uib.no2002

  7. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars Available and appropriate technologies are available for networked interactive desktop video adrian.miles@uib.no2002

  8. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars Available and appropriate technologies are available for networked interactive desktop video • recognises users constraints of time, bandwidth, screen adrian.miles@uib.no2002

  9. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars Available and appropriate technologies are available for networked interactive desktop video • recognises users constraints of time, bandwidth, screen • we are time poor - example of tv advertising adrian.miles@uib.no2002

  10. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars Available and appropriate technologies are available for networked interactive desktop video • recognises users constraints of time, bandwidth, screen • we are time poor - example of tv advertising • we are bandwidth poor - instant broadband willnot erase lack adrian.miles@uib.no2002

  11. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars Available and appropriate technologies are available for networked interactive desktop video • recognises users constraints of time, bandwidth, screen • we are time poor - example of tv advertising • we are bandwidth poor - instant broadband willnot erase lack • we are screen poor and window rich - collage + montage adrian.miles@uib.no2002

  12. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars Existing digital video tools use a hard copy paradigm adrian.miles@uib.no2002

  13. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars Existing digital video tools use a hard copy paradigm • they assume temporally constrainedand delimited media (tape, film, broadcast) adrian.miles@uib.no2002

  14. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars Existing digital video tools use a hard copy paradigm • they assume temporally constrainedand delimited media (tape, film, broadcast) • this media has a fixed duration, it occupies time adrian.miles@uib.no2002

  15. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars Existing digital video tools use a hard copy paradigm • they assume temporally constrainedand delimited media (tape, film, broadcast) • this media has a fixed duration, it occupies time • if the computer screen is the medium of publication(and interaction/consumption) this is no longer the case adrian.miles@uib.no2002

  16. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars Soft copy video is a different paradigm adrian.miles@uib.no2002

  17. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars Soft copy video is a different paradigm • softvideo gives desktop video all the propertiesof hypertext adrian.miles@uib.no2002

  18. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars Soft copy video is a different paradigm • softvideo gives desktop video all the propertiesof hypertext • yes, linking. adrian.miles@uib.no2002

  19. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars Soft copy video is a different paradigm • softvideo gives desktop video all the propertiesof hypertext • yes, linking. • but wait . . . adrian.miles@uib.no2002

  20. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars Soft copy video is a different paradigm • softvideo gives desktop video all the propertiesof hypertext • yes, linking. • but wait . . . . . . there’s more adrian.miles@uib.no2002

  21. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars Soft copy video is a different paradigm • softvideo gives desktop video all the propertiesof hypertext • users own their desktops, including windows,applications and their qualities adrian.miles@uib.no2002

  22. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars Soft copy video is a different paradigm • softvideo gives desktop video all the propertiesof hypertext • users own their desktops, including windows,applications and their qualities • works are open adrian.miles@uib.no2002

  23. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars Soft copy video is a different paradigm • softvideo gives desktop video all the propertiesof hypertext • users own their desktops, including windows,applications and their qualities • works are open • works are variable adrian.miles@uib.no2002

  24. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars Soft copy video is a different paradigm • softvideo gives desktop video all the propertiesof hypertext • users own their desktops, including windows,applications and their qualities • works are open • works are variable • works are performative (not constative) adrian.miles@uib.no2002

  25. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars Soft copy video is a different paradigm • softvideo gives desktop video all the propertiesof hypertext • users own their desktops, including windows,applications and their qualities • works are open • works are variable • works are performative (not constative) • and can be ergodic adrian.miles@uib.no2002

  26. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars Soft copy video is a different paradigm • softvideo gives desktop video all the propertiesof hypertext • users own their desktops, including windows,applications and their qualities • works are open • works are variable • works are performative (not constative) • and can be ergodic • are about vectors, events, relations adrian.miles@uib.no2002

  27. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars Softvideo poses new problems for cinematic contexts adrian.miles@uib.no2002

  28. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars Softvideo poses new problems for cinematic contexts • montage moves to a site between the author and thework adrian.miles@uib.no2002

  29. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars Softvideo poses new problems for cinematic contexts • montage moves to a site between the author and thework • montage moves to a site between the work and theuser adrian.miles@uib.no2002

  30. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars Softvideo poses new problems for cinematic contexts • montage moves to a site between the author and thework • montage moves to a site between the work and theuser • video has a variable duration (user controlled variable looping) adrian.miles@uib.no2002

  31. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars Softvideo poses new problems for cinematic contexts • montage moves to a site between the author and thework • montage moves to a site between the work and theuser • video has a variable duration (user controlled variable looping) • video has a possible open duration adrian.miles@uib.no2002

  32. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars Softvideo poses new problems for cinematic contexts • montage moves to a site between the author and thework • montage moves to a site between the work and theuser • video has a variable duration (user controlled variable looping) • video has a possible open duration • we now have relations between video panes adrian.miles@uib.no2002

  33. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars So what? adrian.miles@uib.no2002

  34. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars So what? • this technology is distributed adrian.miles@uib.no2002

  35. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars So what? • this technology is distributed • is writerly adrian.miles@uib.no2002

  36. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars So what? • this technology is distributed • is writerly • offers viable models to explore broadbandentertainment, documentary, fiction, and education adrian.miles@uib.no2002

  37. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars So what? • this technology is distributed • is writerly • offers viable models to explore broadbandentertainment, documentary, fiction, and education • is a vernacular which needs a grammaror rhetoric adrian.miles@uib.no2002

  38. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars So what? • this technology is distributed • is writerly • offers viable models to explore broadbandentertainment, documentary, fiction, and education • is a vernacular which needs a grammaror rhetoric • is a vernacular that provides a grammaror rhetoric adrian.miles@uib.no2002

  39. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars vogshttp://hypertext.rmit.edu.au/vog/ nordic interactive cinema networkhttp://www.intermedia.uib.no/nicn/ adrian.miles@uib.no2002

More Related