While searching the internet for articles, I came across this one: “Is the social web an asteroid for the Google dinosaur?” (now that’s an effective microstyle title). Intriguged, I continued to read. Essentially, this opinion article addresses Google’s attempts to keep up in a Web 3.0 world, i.e. one dominated by social media.

A few years ago, Google dominated Web 2.0, which was based on “searches” and “links.” With the advent of social media, however, the search engine has had difficultly finding it’s footing. In this new browsing experience, people are referred to webpages via Facebook, rather than Google searches. For that reason, Google+ was born: an unimpressive attempt to compete with pressures from Facebook.

One thing to take away from this article is the transient nature of the internet. Remember when Myspace was the social media site? Also, remember when search engines (Ask.com, Yahoo) reined supreme? Now it seems like I get my news via statuses and shared links; for example, I found out about the death of Osama Bin Laden through Facebook. Another example: Twitter crashed on January 1st from an influx of “Happy New Years” tweets. Does this mean that the Google empire will eventually fall?

In all, we spent a good bit of time talking about Web 2.0 in class, but I think Web 3.0 and the advent of social media deserves equal attention. Facebook, and site like it, are drastically altering the way we share and receive information.

I think Prezi is awesome. I’ve never actually made one (maybe this will be my chance!), but I’ve always been impressed with how they can play around with words and media. I stumbled upon this one about the new Prezi app for the iPad. I love how at the end the entire presentation becomes part of a bigger picture (literally). It’s very similar to the Stephen Fry video we watched at the beginning of the semester, except the Prezi format is more interactive.

In “Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants,” Marc Prensky suggests our educational system is failing because of the disparity between digital natives (students who grew up with technology) and digital immigrants (teachers who were not born into the digital world).

As I started to think about his definitions, I wondered: what am I? I wasn’t born into modern technology, per say. I was born into a world of dial up internet, floppy discs, and CD player. Even in my own family, I notice differences across the generations. Take the iPad for example. While my four-year-old cousin maneuvers between applications expertly, my grandfather has difficulty remembering basic functions. I was able to pick up the device after a few days; however, my parents took longer, and they still come to me for troubleshooting.

Prensky cites some examples of these digital immigrant accents, which include calling people to ask “did you get my e-mail?” and needing to print out documents written on the computer in order to edit them. Personally, I am guilty of both of these “antiquated” behaviors, as well as many others. But is it fair for Prensky to equate these actions with an older generation of students/teachers? I like to scribble my edits everywhere and annotate in the margins. In fact, I have great difficultly reading an article if it’s sitting lifeless on my computer monitor; I need to interact with it in person.

In that sense, did my immigration status help me learn “legacy” content in school? Pensky defines this content as reading, writing, arithmetic, logical thinking, and understanding the writing and ideas of the past. Although I am currently absorbed into the world of technology, my brain is not “fundamentally different” than those students who need their information fast, randomly, and in short bursts. While Pensky suggests we adjust the educational curriculum to incorporate this “future” content (digital/technological), is this practical? Or should students just have to think and behave differently in an educational environment?

I commented on a Slate.com article: What to Expect When You Weren’t Expecting, which asks if women can sue birth control manufacturers for intended pregnancies.

I tried to keep in simple, using short, familiar words, as well as creating a microvoice (correct spelling and grammar is a must). Hopefully, I also established a relationship with other readers of the article (I tried to sound colloquial as opposed to standoffish or argumentative, which, unsurprisingly, is the tone of most comments on the internet).

As I mentioned last class, Hyperbole and a Half is my favorite blog. I think there are several posts in which Allie (the author) effectively violates the writing strategies Christopher Johnson describes in Microstyle.

Let’s take this post for example: “How a fish almost destroyed my childhood.”

With the title, Allie violates Johnson’s advice to “be clear” and “choose the right word,” saying a fish almost destroyed her childhood. Sometimes headlines present confusing messages to pique interest in a story: this is certainly true of Allie’s post. By using her favorite literary device (the hyperbole), she entices her readers to click and see what real damage this aquatic creature could have done.

On the other hand, Allie also applies pieces of Johnson’s advice to her posts. For example, she literally “paints a picture” while “evoking specific situations,” especially in the form of stories that make her readers laugh. At the end of this particular post, Allie presents a drawing of her childhood-self cheering over a dinner of fish tacos. In context, this ending is unexpected (“say the wrong thing”), which casts another layer of humor over the blog.

In my own blog, my most recent post is titled “There’s a Whole New Way to Get Naked.” This title “uses ambiguity for good, not evil.” While the word naked refers to the absence of clothes, it also refers to the new eye shadow palette by Urban Decay, the company on which my post is centered. By being purposefully ambiguous, the title catches the readers’ eye and invites them to continue reading.