´óÏó´«Ã½

Could the 4 [blue] shapes that make up the packets be different colours? This way you illustrate that they [re]form in the same sequence at the end as the one they were in when they set out. It's important to convey that information isn't presented to the recipient in a random order.

Otherwise I think it clearly shows that the packets travel via different routes.

Hi Dan,
I remember the 'check our tech' post. I do like the overall look & feel of the graphics; I like the music too.
Just thought I'd give you my response as a viewer; I do appreciate they'll also have a commentary over them as well that'll provide explanation. I am trying to be constructive, not negative.
I realise that all design jobs go through iterations, it is a process after all, and this is a work in progress.
As I'm sure you will do, show to many people, get many opinions :-)
Tim

Hi Dan
It must be quite an 'experience' for the production team; putting clips of your work up for comment, before the episodes are completed or broadcast; comments from complete strangers too. I hope you are finding the process useful.

+1 for SheffTim's suggestion about coloring the blue shapes in more rainbow colors. Doing that would also be consistent with Vint Cerf's analogy of postcards and time-date stamping at the top of his video rush:

* /blogs/digitalrevolution/2009/11/rushes-sequences-vint-cerf-int.shtml


Aesthetically, it might also be interesting in the graphics to show that Web data transmittance is not only between a PC in one household to another (and via satellite). It can also be between:

* company office to household (this shows tele-working phenomenon afforded by Web connectivity).

* Western-style house to remote village hut or even the beach.

* PC to handheld mobile device.

* increasingly wi-fi (with no wires near the UI terminal)


I have to say that the network pylons in the main 'Visualizing the Web' were a bit difficult to distinguish at first. Maybe there should be some sort of electric yellow radial transmittance from them to indicate that they are broadcasting and receiving information? Sort of like the RKO transmitter (please see start of black+white films like 'Citizen Kane').

If the color of the packets in the packets switching changes, so should the main Visualizing the Web graphic.

Also in terms of subliminal references (quite apart from the importance of consistency with Vint Cerf's comments on precedence and priority marking), rainbow colors will remind us that there is a diversity of data and data senders/recipients on the Web. It's not all "blue" which has negative connotations to.......porn and sadness, as color psychologists would tell us.


@Everyone --- I believe we're all learning from each other in this experiment and process. Certainly, there are comments which have been made that prompt me to re-think the Web, people who are contributing to it and where it might be heading. There's a whole wealth of links which are exposing us to content and context we may not have been aware of previously.

Historically and by nature, production (whether it's a TV documentary, a film, a theater staging, a website or even something as dry as creating a financial product for mass consumers) is ORGANIC. There's a certain amount of structure / hierarchy and also the potential for miscommunications, but if the production is entered into by parties on an open, collaborative, democratic and iterative learning basis.......The end product tends to benefit and be better than if there was no reciprocal inputs and sanity-checking.

That's from the pre-Web 2.0 days of broadcast. We're now well into the Age of Collaborative Reciprocity with social media.

'Collaborative Reciprocity' - that's a good meme.

Ha ha, xlnt, SheffTim. So on a Sunday after 6 solid hours of coding I coined "Collaborative Reciprocity" on the fly.

Meanwhile, I spent several weeks thinking up the 'Web is GUNK (Great Universal Neural Kinesis)' concept and tried to rationalize its connectivity to gunk in mereology, Bertrand Russell and the junk that can be in our heads and then........you sent that Urban Dictionary link which means I have to go back to the think plane on that one. I don't like 'think tank', by the way. Who wants their thinking to tank? We want our thinking to soar!

Anyway, "Collaborative Reciprocity" has its genealogy in two concepts I started using a while ago: reciprocity of respect and collaborative Double Dutch. The first clearly has its roots in the Christian tenet of "Do unto others as you would want to be done", Buddhist principles of karma and Judaic traditions. The second because as a child I used to skip Double Dutch and you quickly learn that if both sides contribute their fair share to turning the rope ONLY then does the rope move, there's energy (bi-directional transmittance) and EVERYONE HAS FUN!!!

It's not like tug-of-war where the objective is to apply brute force to pull your competition in your direction.

So then, as an adult, I analogize the chains of communications between the company and the consumer. In marketing there are concepts of information "push" (or as the Twitter founders call it "broadcast") and concepts of incentive "pulls" such as % reduction in price if you purchase online. However, that still operates in a tug-of-war mechanism!

I believe there needs to be a change of mindset there too. Double Dutch is a much more productive analogy to aim for than tug-of-war.

The aim of Collaborative Reciprocity is, of course, Multilateral Symbiosis between company, consumers, planet, production and economy.

ALL FACILITATED AND FOSTERED BY THE WEB as a tool as well as a toy.

I appreciate this is just to get the feel for packets, but it doesn’t look right to me. There are a couple of – relatively minor – changes that would make it closer to reality:

- wherever the ‘pipes’ split or combine, there should be a box. There has to be a computer that inspects the packets to determine where to route them

- the packets appear to catch up with each other, even recombining – at the first couple of corners. There’s no logic to that. Keep them apart.

PNAB. Whilst trying to think of a good example of Collaborative Reciprocity the recent YouTube Chartjackers charity song/video came to mind.

"The lyrics of the [Chartjackers] song are made up of YouTube comments, compiled into a song by another YouTuber. The lyrics were released and then YouTubers wrote a melody for the lyrics, and we picked our favourite. We held YouTube auditions via video response to pick the band, found the producer of the song through YouTube, and the music video is made up of literal interpretations of the lyrics, clapping and singing along, by YouTubers! It's a bit YouTubey".


Most cultures (but not all e.g. Aztecs) have come up with an ethic of reciprocity, otherwise known as the Golden Rule, including Taoist and Confucian.


I like the idea of combining the words 'reciprocity' with 'collaborative', it gives it a sense of energy, focus, mutual endeavour and goals. Your Double Dutch example is a good one; for it to work all three people have to collaborate together; by changing positions all get to participate in the game and also learn from one another.

Thanks for the links, SheffTim.

Collective reciprocity will probably produce a smarter future than collusive irresponsibility. Examples of the latter are where different self-interest groups end up creating:

• global financial crisis;

• educational erosion;

• media sensationalism; and

• climate change acceleration, etc.


Also, elsewhere here on ´óÏó´«Ã½DigRev site, we discussed the principles of online altruism in relation to potential reasons why Wikipedia and other social media attract and generate so much free information and user content. The current Achilles’ heel with online altruism is that it’s usually unilateral. Party A provides Party B with something of value, out of their goodwill and the hope that this goodness will propagate. Yet there’s no social contract on the second party to return in kind (or reciprocate with an equivalent) to Party A or transmit the altruism onwards. Unfortunately, sometimes Party B only takes or exploits Party A's goodwill.

Collective reciprocity acts as a multilateral social contract to synergize each party’s contribution and to recognize (or credit) that participation.

In certain ways, there’s collective reciprocity here @ ´óÏó´«Ã½DigRev.

´óÏó´«Ã½DigRev team provide us with this brainstorming space, humor us our tangential and related explorations and, at the same time, we’re collectively progressing towards a production that:

(1.) meets corporate targets, ´óÏó´«Ã½â€™s.

(2.) meets viewing audience curiosity and enjoyment, ours;

(3.) is more accountable and has improved perspective than if it hadn’t been pre-filtered and contributed to by both sides.


´óÏó´«Ã½ respects and trusts its audience with the pre-production topics, ongoing rushes, naming game etc in the hope we (the audience) provide relevant, timely and intelligent input. We reciprocate that respect and trust by collaborating appropriately. Ergo, this hybrid production is our own version of Double Dutch in action.

Of course, there is a double entendre for the term "double Dutch". The term can also refer to when two parties are communicating at cross-purposes. Naturally, the skipping example I gave before is a lot more fun and conducive in any project involving multiple parties.

Interestingly, for me, I’ve practiced Collective Reciprocity long before I coined it as such --- LOL, :*).

Hi there,

Really nice series - use it for teaching at school. Could you guys do a RSS feed for the video interviews ?

:)