Meet “Xpertise”

INTROWAPRESENT

Hodges, J- Our app is called Xpertise, geared toward college students. It is a research based site where people who need resources can collaborate. The home page consists of our logo, a drop down menu and settings link. The users are able to browse through top research of the day and top “Xperts.” Each section has a search bar which allows you to search within topics or “Xpert” profiles.

Our site has combined certain ideas from Pinterest, Google Image search, and Zite. Each application allows research to take place, but not to the full extent that we would like it to. Xpertise allows the user to navigate research in an easy way which makes it a less tedious task for college students.

Xpertise allows the user to research in ways that not only show articles, images and videos, but also link them to people who are “Xperts” in that specific topic. Our app combines all the greatest aspects of social media research and meets the standards of Web 2.0 explained by Tim O’Rielly in “What is Web 2.0?”

As stated by Vannevar Bush, “Science has provided the swiftest communication between individuals; it has provided a record of ideas and has enabled man to manipulate and to make extracts from that record so that knowledge evolves and endures throughout the life of a race rather than that of an individual.” This site brings together all of these aspects while providing an individual with further knowledge about a topic.

We learned from Bolter that technology is constantly remediated. We hope that “Xpertise” remediates research skills by providing “top” researched topics which not only provides written text, but images and videos as well. The “Xpert” profiles are a new collaborative source of research where they can gain information through conversation and questioning.

_______________________________________________________________

Hardwick, B.-Because the purpose of Xpertise is to let college students share information and converse about research, the menu is important for making the collaborative features easily-accessible. These include favorite Xperts, “bins”, notes and their profile page.

When I was researching apps, I noticed that users like to save work from other resources and create their own. They also prefer a main menu and hub to access all information. The menu on Xpertise centralizes the main features of the app that instigate collaboration.

Web 2.0 is characterized by collaboration, where users can actively engage with each other as if they were in the same room. The menu option organizes and stores users’ information so that they can access and add to it at their convenience. This furthers the communication.

One of Xpertise main purposes is to open students up to a platform for technological literacy. As described by Cynthia Selfe, technological literacy is using computer skills to increase learning and efficiency. In the past, readers navigated through resources by reading a content page. Through remediation (Bolter), a menu has emerged that readers can click and instantly be redirected to the page that they desire. Xpertise creates a new form of network-based, collaborative file sharing (Bolter, Devoss)

Xpertise paves the way for new forms of research. Now, teachers and students can contribute and collaborate on projects. Researching is no longer an independent process. It is social.

Sherry, T.- The four features you’ll find when you search for topics are scholarly diagrams, published

articles, videos and links to Xpert profiles who have written on that topic. All results are compiled directly on top of each other-picture how when you search for images on Google to get an idea of how it’s laid out. The rationale behind this is that when I was researching writing apps, I noticed the best ones were often the most user friendly and simple, so I tried to stay true to this. I just reviewed notepad for Android which is a writing app. I liked its simple layout, so I tried to stay as true to that as possible. With Xpertise, you are no longer looking a stagnant document, but a living piece of writing whose author you can communicate with. In the article Why Nabster Matters to Writing, Devos and Porter say “in the era of digital writing we can no longer afford to take delivery for granted.” Since with the internet anyone delivery is instant and all people are linked, I took advantage of this and made it possible for anyone with expertise to share their knowledge with others.

In his article What is web 2.0? O’Riley describes blogging as “One of the most highly touted features of web 2.0,” and is why Xpertise gives each user the opportunity to maintain a profile, which you see a sneak preview of on the results page.

The future will need a program like this. While there are already scholarly search engines, I think everyone in the room can agree these aren’t very fun or easy to use. Just as Bolter talks about remediating in his article Writing as technology, the creators of Xpertise think that this search engine can remediate Google scholar the same way parchment remediated papyrus, or word process did the typewriter.

Strenkowski, L.-One of the most fundamental features of Xpertise is the Xpert Profile. Here, you can search different users for their specialties, credibility, as well as their favorite links and boards. Each Xpert will also have their own blog where users can make comments and ask the Xperts questions on their expertise topics. The profiles make the app more personal and give life to creators behind the knowledge available for use. Those who also want an Xpert profile are invited to sign up and create an account.

We used a lot of practical app research and personal experience to create our designs. While the topics are categorized into “bins” like Pinterest, we used a very common app design by inputting a header bar at the top of the app. We wanted our Xperts to have profiles similar to those from Facebook; the profiles have custom information inputted by users.

Web 2.0 is based upon the platform of social sharing. The Xpertise app greatly demonstrates the combination of social media connection and the sharing of scholarly sources and knowledge. The collegiate world is better connected under Xpertise’s Web 2.0’s met requirements.

DeVoss and Porter discuss the delivery of writing. The Xpertise app effortlessly delivers information from many different sources while still retaining the original credit. Written knowledge is sent, delivered, and received all through a mobile app. Bolter discusses remediation and the Xpertise app remediates library source databases for research. Research can now be completed in the palm of your hands.

This app will make the future of writing and the research of writing more seamless for students and colleagues alike. Information on common topics will be much easier spread and will reach larger audiences. Research papers will be easier to write, and questions will be more easily answered. The future of writing is mobile and it starts with the Xpertise app.

Weisser, S.- The comments section is a vital part of this app. It provides users with the opportunity to comment back to an Xpert’s work. Xperts are able to post their “Xpert work” to their page. Outside users, when viewing, are able to make comments or ask questions directly to the Xpert. Comments can then also become a conversation back and fourth between other viewers of the “Xpert page.” With the ability to share comments to the “information bin,” the collaboration really takes flight. If a commenter thinks the information given in a comment was helpful, they can opt to send it to the Xpert’s main page. You can see if others find the comment to be helpful, by looking at the number of “thumbs up” and “thumbs down” it gets. Also, the idea of the live chat makes it even easier for conversation to occur quickly and easily.

We wanted to make the app simple to use. All the actions are easy to do, and straight to the point. So many apps we researched were about the collaborative aspect, so we also wanted to incorporate this.

Web 2.0 allows for the online collaboration and interaction. The app allows for Xperts to share their work with users. The comments and live chats provide that outlet for collaboration and discussion.

Michael Wesch’s video, “The Machine is Us/ing Us,” states at the end, “Web 2.0 is linking people.” This app provides the opportunity to do just this by information sharing and collaboration. Bolter’s idea of remediation shows through with Xpertise, as it remediates the way that research is done. Research now becomes a lot more easily accessible. In the palm of your hand you can have tons of information on a specific topic, in seconds. In relation to DeVoss and Porter’s idea of a new ethic of delivery, this certainly provides one. Our app makes it easy to deliver Xpert information to any user with the click of a button. The publishing and accessing is so simple, and the app is cost free to all users, making the delivery of the information that much better.

Our app will certainly benefit the future of writing. Research will be so much easier to conduct with all the information on a topic now in one convenient location. Writings that require research will become simpler. The collaboration between users will help them to gain more insight on a specific idea utilizing the opinions of themselves and others.

“The Fire Challenge”

We have all heard stories about people doing stupid stunts for the sake of getting “liked” on social media. Remember the cinnamon challenge, anyone? What appeared as an innocent stunt has sent dozens to the emergency room with collapsed lungs, bleeding noses, and poisoned airways. The popularity of these challenges proves that people utilize social media as a mechanism for popularity. However, the thousands of dollars, television appearances and world-wide recognition is a veneer for the danger simmering just below the surface.

A Twitter user commented that “Rituals (YouTube challenges) of the digital culture are becoming life threatening.” His comment was followed by an article outlining the newest trend, the “fire challenge”. As described by Caitlin Dewey, it “consists of pouring rubbing alcohol on oneself, lighting it on fire, and putting the resulting blaze out before you sustain third-degree burns and/or burn your house down.”

Sounds lovely, right? Wrong.

A fifteen-year old from Kentucky, who received second-degree burns after attempting the stunt, warns others against it. He says, “You can get caught on fire and die. Your house can get caught on fire. Wherever you’re at could get caught on fire.” This does not sound fun at all, yet teenagers everywhere are rising to the challenge. The dangerous thing about these stunts being advertised via Youtube and Facebook, are that the risks are not being associated with them. Teenaged participants, often struggling with fitting in, feel that accomplishing these challenges skyrocket their popularity. They forget that they are not as invincible as they assume.

While social media is a great tool for sharing material, users need to be more careful to screen information. Risks need to be clarified. The danger involved in these stunts cannot be felt online; the challenged cannot feel the heat of the fire until it consumes them.

“Like” this hanger

Fashion has morphed over the years, once being made specifically for comfort and practicality. Now, calico dresses are gone, replaced with cotton tights, high heels, and sequined blouses. Clothes aren’t just a means to stay warm; they define our desired personality. Author Jay Bolter would characterize this shift as “remediation“, the process of a new invention replacing an older one.

Staying on top of the ever-evolving clothing industry is burdensome. We watch movies. We observe friends. We spend hours at the mall. But what if we could keep track of the upcoming trends by marrying social media with real life? Brazil has developed such a creation. They introduced a clothing hanger with a digital screen displaying the amount of likes that the garment receives on Facebook in real time.

Stores hoped that the innovative hangers would attract more sales; however, experts still remain skeptical. Krista Garcia, an analyst for eMarketer, reports: “There hasn’t really been research yet measuring the value of a ‘like’ in-store, since this is such a new area for marketing”. This viewpoint was further backed by a poll of 15,000 shoppers, all who were asked whether a high “like” count would influence their shopping. Of those people, 52% said that it wouldn’t. Another 23% declared that it would discourage them.

The Facebook hanger may not have caught on yet, but it does prove that social media has an enormous impact on buying. Pinterest, Facebook, blogs and Twitter are just some of the many websites that lure Fashionistas to buy the latest products. A recent search has proven that businesses are rewarded with an average of $8 per ‘like’, and $14 for every share on Facebook.  Peer influence over social media may just revolutionize the clothing industry. With this invention, we may start to see a remediation in advertisement once again, this time focusing on blending social media with daily life.

How one writing app plans to modernize publication

In the current state of ever-evolving technology, the modern writer needs to constantly be aware of the new modes of publishing. While some may mourn the loss of typewriters and pencils, the benefits surely outweigh the loss of more romantic ways of writing. One of them is easier access to publishing. As a timid writer, who’s perfection levels are bordering on OCD, I would never have the confidence to approach a publishing company about my work. Thanks to the internet and apps, now I don’t have to. I simply just publish my writing via revolutionary apps, such as Werdsmith, and watch as readers respond.

Werdsmith’s founder, Nathan Tesler, dreamed of an app that would enable any amateur writers to collaborate, write, and publish their work. A twenty-year-old Linguistics major, Tesler had no former knowledge about programing. However, that did not stop him in learning code and writing the app in three months. What began as a humble idea to allow him to jot ideas down and write on the go, has now transformed the writing industry. With about 100,000 users, it is modernizing the writer’s process to be more social and mobile. Tesler is hoping to link publishers with budding writers, in similar ways that Instagram has done for photographers.

In Werdsmith, a writer can play with several features. To begin, writers can jot down ideas on their home page. This is just to brainstorm; however, when they establish a goal, which is the amount of words they would like to accomplish in their piece, it becomes a projects. Just like the more well-known writing programs, Werdsmith has options to customize the font size and style.My personal favorite feature is the reminders. Writers can pick a time of day that they wish to write and, when that time comes, a bubble will appear on your phone to remind you. This presents the perfect remedy to the age-old problem of procrastination. If a writer is prompted to simply write one page a day for a year, they will accomplish three hundred and sixty-five pages per year.

After creating an account with your email address, the writer is able to create a profile in which other writers can subscribe to their account and read their published work. In addition, a free account stores and backups the writing in the app.

Just by envisioning an app that allowed writers to connect in a new way, Tesler has created a fantastic tool for tearing down the limitations that writers face. Writing can now be mobile and collaborative, one more step in modernizing technology.

We R Dun

A twitter user commented today: “that guy hid behind his phone to stand up to his girlfriend. Technology is effecting the way relationships work”.

This is not the only reminder of how electronics are altering relationships. When observing most couples these days interact at a restaurant, you will be shocked to see that most do not talk anymore. Instead, they spend their time hidden behind their phone screen, playing Candy Crush or checking their Facebook. One couple that I observed recently texted a conversation to each other over dinner, their only words spoken aloud were an occasional “That’s interesting” or “I didn’t know that”. Texting appears to mark relationship milestones these days. A boy and girl begin talking using text. They use it continually over the course of their relationship to communicate. It ends their relationship.

But is it really that appalling that relationships flounder when they’re built on the foundation of texting? Author Dave Singleton explains that “texts […]are devoid of irony, tone, humor or any of the key essential ingredients of communication.” It is no wonder that couples rely on text messaging as an easy means of breaking up their relationships. Without any emotional strings, they can painlessly cut ties without seeing how much they hurt the other person.

The initial concept behind texting was to allow users instant access to sending and receiving brief messages. It was not designed to replace interpersonal communication. One study reports that about 82% of young adults text their significant other multiple times each day, but still struggle with their relationship. It goes on to report that men especially increase their amount of text messaging when they are attempting to put space between themselves and their partner. In most cases, this usually occurs right before a breakup.

Of course, texting is not a bad thing, especially in a relationship. In the same study, women increased their text messaging when they were trying to improve the quality of their relationship. Like anything else, the key is balance. While texting is not bad, it still cannot replace valuable face-to-face interaction.

Never Quenched

Social media is sweeping across the nation transforming the way we communicate and paving the way for new communities. Thanks to social media, people can tweet, share and blog their way into success. No matter the distance, strangers are capable of socializing with each other and connecting over mutual interests. On Facebook, popularity is measured by the amount of friends and likes a user receives. My brother, with “friends” reaching over three hundred, has only met a hundred of them. Of those, he only keeps in touch with a handful.

Statistics and common sense prove that these are not real friends. These “bonds” are merely a means to feel popular and create an alternate personality. However, are these digital forms of communication deteriorating the worth of face-to-face relationships?

The conclusion to this popular debate is very alarming. Studies have found that people who spend more time online exhibit decreased levels of empathy, self-esteem and desires for communication. In fact, when faced with a decision to socialize in-person or online, a study concluded that about 11% of adults prefer communicating on their phone. This is a petrifying statistic when realizing that humans rely on interpersonal communication in order to meet their fundamental needs. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs reminds us that, in order to achieve full potential, we must develop deep friendships and feel love. Studies reveal that 93% of our connections are forged through nonverbal body language. Staring at a computer screen, devoid of any emotion, does not create these essential bonds.

Author Joe Robinson sheds a rather grim light on the future of socialization; ” We are less likely to join groups,  […]more likely to live alone. We get so used to dealing with people via e-mail or online that we forget how to function around live humans.” Sure, our generation is often stereotyped as one who cannot make eye contact, cannot hold meaningful conversations, and struggle against laziness. However, these troubles pale in comparison to our future problems with friendships. If we cannot begin to value interpersonal communication as a catalyst to relationships, we will never gain satisfaction. Our lives will begin to shrivel without the satisfaction of daily interactions with other humans.

Technologically Advanced, Socially Inept?

Brynn Hardwick

Throughout history, people have marveled at the innovations made in technology to improve the way of life. Increases in mental health, better quality food, higher intellects and more job opportunities are just a few of the many benefits to these implementations. Above all, the way that it morphs knowledge and makes it last forever is an important part to human intellect. Without this way of preserving documents, we would constantly have to re-imagine the past inventions. There would be nothing to learn from.

The inventions that we see today are accredited to those visionaries of the past, such as Vannevar Bush. He predicted that, based off of technology that writes what we speak, we will have to adjust our language. With the widespread infatuation of cell phones, his prediction soon became reality. Abbreviated words such as ‘LOL’, ‘BRB’ and ‘BTW’, has not just become the common language for phone users, but has crept into face-to-face conversation and academic papers. While this appears like an innocent change, this short-hand version of conversation is leeching valuable discussions with human beings. Previous generations are quick to point out the lack of eye contact, decreased intellectual exchanges and hurried methods of socializing. The question becomes, like Bush’s prediction became true, will our constant social networking and texting overtake our desire for face-to-face interaction, causing a socially inept future?

Among his other ideas, Bush gave a detailed description of another machine that, after punching in data, could perform functions faster than a human being. It also will be easily accessible to the masses. Does this sound like the modern day calculator? However, does this also deteriorate social interaction? Without the calculator, mathematicians will be forced to undergo training to learn how to do equations by hand. They will consult with other mathematicians, and perhaps pass this information to other students along the way.

Perhaps the invention that deteriorated human interaction the most, however, is what Bush referred to as the “Memex”. While he wrote “As We May Think” in 1945,  long before the computer was officially coined, its description is almost identical to our modern version. Everyone is probably in agreement on the vast benefits attributed to the computer, including the ability to have an endless amount of resources at your fingertips. In a world of stressed people, forced to multi-task and absorb an excessive amount of useless information, this is an imperative quality. However, its aid in the deterioration of socialization is mind-numbing. Chat rooms, blogs, and social media websites all appear to promote discussions. A deeper look will reveal the truth: the hours we spend watching media and tailoring our websites, we are sacrificing vital time forging relationships with flesh and blood beings. Of the hundreds of friends a user has on Facebook, only about a quarter of them are people that they have actual met in person. Yet, at the end of the day, the socialization that occurs online is just staring at a computer screen. The quality of interaction between us and a keyboard is equivalent to having a relationship with a book or having a conversation with a cereal bowl. We can make the interaction as personal as we would like; however, it still does not compare with our daily conversations with other humans.