Kevin Kelly describes an interesting view of the future of moving images -
that we will be able to search them the way we now search text, and
manipulate them the way we now use words to write an article, poem or list
post. We will create a video by pulling images (a roof, a chimney, a dog,
a face) from a library in the same way we select words to describe a
scene, and set them in motion using software.

He also mentions that one of the areas that has really developed moving
image literacy is porn sites, that you can see a "summary" of a video by
viewing a series of key frames that gives you the gist of a 2 hr movie in
less than a minute. (Unfortunately, can't research this for fear of
getting icky spam.) It would be great to have this for mainstream movies!

Will we be able to hyperlink, footnote, and annotate movies the way we now
do text? He predicts that this is only a few years in the future. Right
now you can annotate photos on Flickr by drawing a box on an image and
adding your comments as a rollover. And there are sites that allow you to
add captions, thought bubbles, and other commentary to video. [
http://www.otan.us/browse/index.cfm?fuseaction=browse&catid=10722 ]Here is
a description of how to do this using Bubbleply, with suggestions for the
classroom.

Several years ago I visited an adult ed program where a young man was
studying for his high school diploma. His knowledge of US History was not
so great, but as we talked with him we discovered that he created and ran
a gaming Web site with chat, discussion boards, and other features that
got over 3,000 visits per day. That's digital literacy! It's fun to
imagine that video will become equally accessible.

Marian Thacher
OTAN

The Technology and Literacy Discussion List <technology at nifl.gov> on
Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 5:13 AM -0800 wrote:

>Colleagues,

>

>Can you read fluently? Of course, you say. But maybe not. Although I  

>meant, can you read text, I also meant, can you read screens? Very  

>few of us can. Some of our younger students are more screen literate  

>than we are. Is screen literacy important? If getting to meaning, and  

>to the truth, is important, screen literacy is as important -- some  

>would argue more important -- than reading. However, "If text  

>literacy meant being able to parse and manipulate texts, then the new  

>screen fluency means being able to parse and manipulate moving images  

>with the same ease. But so far, these 'reader' tools of visuality  

>have not made their way to the masses."

>

>I hope I have tantalized you to read this short and fascinating  

>article on screen literacy by New York Times writer Kevin Kelley:

>

>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/23/magazine/23wwln-future-t.html?_r=1

>

>I would also like to invite you, when you read -- or see -- something  

>that we in technology and literacy might be interested in, to post  

>the URL to this discussion list. If we are a community of practice on  

>this discussion list,  then let's help each other to learn new  

>things, think in new ways.

>

>Your thoughts on the article?

>

>David J. Rosen

>DJRosen at theworld.com

>

>

>

>

>----------------------------------------------------

>National Institute for Literacy

>Technology and Literacy mailing list

>Technology at nifl.gov

>To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to

>http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/technology

>Email delivered to mthacher at otan.us



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.nifl.gov/pipermail/technology/attachments/20081126/a45b95e3/attachment.html