Bridging the Gulfs: From Hypertext to Cyberspace[1]

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to focus on two main conceptions at the origin of hypertext technology, and contrast the associationist and the connectionist views. From the starting point provided by this conceptual opposition, it surveys the relationships between users and developers of new computerized communication technologies as inscriptions at the interface. Upgrading Brenda Laurel's models of the interface, it proposes a new conception of the personal interface that acknowledges the virtual presence of the designer, and locates the space of the screen as a dialogic space of mutual engagement.

The Cyborg's Dilemma: Progressive Embodiment in Virtual Environments [1]

“…The body's movement and activity is increasingly part of the interface [(Biocca & Delaney, 1995; Durlach & Mavor, 1995)]. It can be argued that historically the body enters cyberspace with the creation of the humble mouse [(Bardini, 1997)]. Why not use the keyboard someone might ask?…”

Why has a Korean telecommunications technology failed: A case study on WiBro

“…The key of this theory lies in the process of 'translation' (Callon, 1986;Latour, 1987) where actors attempt to create a forum, consortium, or a central network in which all the participants agree that the network is meaningful and worth building (Bardini, 1997). Translation consists of problematization, interessement, enrollment, and mobilization.…”

Protest Camps: An Emerging Field of Social Movement Research

“…Actors' identities and qualities are defined during negotiations between representatives of human and nonhuman actants … The most important of these negotiations is ‘translation’, a multifaceted interaction in which actors (1) construct common definitions and meanings, (2) define representatives, and (3) co‐opt each other in the pursuit of individual and collective objectives. (Bardini, : ft 3)Employing this notion of ‘translation’, the process of joining together to maintain and operate a protest camp can be read as a series of engagements in which human actors (campers, supports, locals, government officials) and non‐human objects (tents, tools, kitchen equipment, communication technologies, toilets) enter into particular relations with each other. Each human actor might have different orientations to camp life (experienced campaigner, first time camper, weekend visitor, looking for shelter) and varying motivations for taking part in it, but through their operation of the tasks needed to achieve a common goal they negotiate (or fail to negotiate) a way to function together, manifesting a ‘protest camp’.…”

“…Actors' identities and qualities are defined during negotiations between representatives of human and nonhuman actants … The most important of these negotiations is ‘translation’, a multifaceted interaction in which actors (1) construct common definitions and meanings, (2) define representatives, and (3) co‐opt each other in the pursuit of individual and collective objectives. (Bardini, : ft 3)…”