Videoécriture: interactive video vernaculars

videocriture: interactive video vernaculars

Adrian MilesInterMedia UiB (Norway)

RMIT (Australia)

[email protected]://vogmae.net.au2002

mailto:[email protected]

http://hypertext.rmit.edu.au/vog/vlog/


[email protected]

Most models of ‘interactive’ internet (networked) delivered video is not interactive.




• it appropriates web browsers or clients as a de facto tv

[email protected]




• it appropriates web browsers or clients as a de facto tv

• looks backwards for a networked model

[email protected]




• it appropriates web or clients as de facto tv


• treats the network as broad or narrowcast where the model is middlecasting

[email protected]




• it appropriates web or clients as de facto tv


• treats the network as broad or narrowcast where the model is middlecasting

• interactivity must be within the video stream

[email protected]



Available and appropriate technologies are available for networked interactive desktop video

[email protected]




• recognises users constraints of time, bandwidth, screen

[email protected]





• we are time poor - example of tv advertising

[email protected]






• we are bandwidth poor - instant broadband will not erase lack

[email protected]






• we are bandwidth poor - instant broadband will not erase lack

• we are screen poor and window rich - collage + montage

[email protected]



Existing digital video tools use a hard copy paradigm

[email protected]




• they assume temporally constrainedand delimited media (tape, film, broadcast)

[email protected]





• this media has a fixed duration, it occupies time

[email protected]





• 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

[email protected]



Soft copy video is a different paradigm

[email protected]




• softvideo gives desktop video all the propertiesof hypertext

[email protected]





• yes, linking.

[email protected]





• yes, linking.

• but wait . . .

[email protected]





• yes, linking.

• but wait . . .

. . . there’s more

[email protected]





• users own their desktops, including windows, applications and their qualities

[email protected]






• works are open

[email protected]






• works are open

• works are variable

[email protected]






• works are open


• works are performative (not constative)

[email protected]






• works are open



• and can be ergodic

[email protected]






• works are open



• and can be ergodic

• are about vectors, events, relations [email protected]



Softvideo poses new problems for cinematic contexts

[email protected]




• montage moves to a site between the author and thework

[email protected]





• montage moves to a site between the work and the user

[email protected]






• video has a variable duration (user controlled variable looping)

[email protected]







• video has a possible open duration

[email protected]







• video has a possible open duration

• we now have relations between video panes

[email protected]



So what?

[email protected]



So what?

• this technology is distributed

[email protected]



So what?


• is writerly

[email protected]



So what?


• is writerly

• offers viable models to explore broadbandentertainment, documentary, fiction, and education

[email protected]



So what?


• is writerly


• is a vernacular which needs a grammaror rhetoric

[email protected]



So what?


• is writerly


• is a vernacular which needs a grammaror rhetoric

• is a vernacular that provides a grammaror rhetoric

[email protected]



http://vogmae.net.au

[email protected]


Technology

Videoécriture: interactive video vernaculars