Media == Real

Comments:
Ben Carsten
JD


The Media Equation by Byron Reeves and Clifford Nass attempts to prove that people respond to "media" just as they do with real people. Reeves and Nass present their case through many experiments that involve people interacting with computers and television. These various experiments explore gender, personality, politeness, actions, and language.

The Bad
The problem with these experiments is that they are sometimes lacking in important detail and graphical demonstrations. More background on the participants in their studies would help the reader take a more analytical approach to their results instead of merely reading about their experiment and taking in their conclusions.
The concept of dominance and submissive behavior and "media"'s use of it to adapt to the user's personality is a topic that is discussed that I find very dangerous. The more personality that is given to a computer, the better chance it has to persuade, rather than inform, its users.
When placing a user and a computer on a "team" (apparently only by color coordination) the user's opinions were drastically changed in one of their studies. I find this very odd, especially for users who we are continually told are well versed in computers and could even write the test programs themselves. I think of my computer as a tool to accomplish my tasks and do not expect it to butt in and give it's "opinion" of my blog post as I type. On the other hand, if the computer also merely stated that we would be a team to give my psyche an boost and not reciprocate any information, I would feel cheated by my teammate. How would you feel if your computer posted a message about teamwork next time you started a project?

If it's a good idea to add "please" to "Wait for this file to be copied", then why shouldn't the computer also say, "This task can be best accomplished if we work as a team(160).

I would especially not want the book's version of an "Ideal Spell-checker". Not only would this spell-checker inform me of words that I have spelled incorrectly, it would also praise me for my correct spelling of other words. These pointless interruptions in my thought process would hinder by ability to work and only frustrate me.

The Good
The books discussions on Motion, Voices, Fidelity, and Synchrony are very interesting and broadly useful. The book discusses the ability of motion and voice to keep attention focused, and smoothly transition the user to new areas or options. These concepts are more widely accepted today than the bestowal of a computer program with a certain personality.

The Questionable
When discussing source orientation, Reeves and Nass easily dismiss the relationship of the creator of media and the media's perception by the user. This is the argument I find most difficult to accept. It seems obvious that when a person creates a media object, if the object shows any personality at all, it is through the creator and his/her influences that they drew from to create the object. While users may not perceive this relationship while interacting with media does not mean that this relationship does not exist.

I took many interesting ideas and practices from this book that I will incorporate in my future endeavors of media creations, but many other concepts presented shall stay in the pages of this book for now. Although this book was written several years ago, I feel it may become more applicable as computers become more powerful, AI more intelligent, and computer interaction become more immersive on an everyday scale. Even now I feel that if these experiments were performed today, the outcomes would be vastly different due to the amount of technological presence in today's society.