Thought Paper: September 20

I have heard that the definition of “insanity” is the act to repeating the same action, but expecting different results. Well, this thought kept going through my head as I read this week's chapters from Media Access. Early predictions of Internet adoption were overly optimistic, and the early research suggested that physical access was the primary barrier to adoption. If you get the wires strung and the terminals—television-based or computer—into the homes, schools, and work place everyone will begin traveling on the digital information super highway, it was the “Field of Dreams” "build it and they will come" approach to Internet accessibility.

So government agencies have funded Internet in library access programs, foundations have funded schools and community centers, and local governments, such LaGrange, GA, have created there own initiatives (p. 131)—Austin and San Marcos, TX are both exploring citywide free WiFi access—but the results are still the same. There is still a significant portion of the American population (Pew, 2000) not connected to the Internet and a percentage of them have no interest in connecting. Most of this week’s chapters try to explore with the whys behind non-adoption. Moreover, to be honest, most of these studies just left me at the door. I mean, is it significant to the literature on New Media studies to know that a user’s personality will indicate their level of willingness to adopt new technologies (p.73), or that peer pressure, parental influence and conflicting messages from authority figures and the media can hinder adoption (p. 107). These conditions have been restricting and influencing media adoption from the beginning of mass media. Yes, it's more complex in its structure and interactivity, but why would New Media technologies fundamentally cause unique reactions?

Now, the article that deals with Internet user frustration and its impact on usage and continued adoption seems more appropriate (p. 47). Studying what leads to user frustration and their adaptive or non-adaptive reactions to these stimuli seems like a worthy area of inquiry. The finding that interactivity can actually create disorientation for the user and this in turn can lead to the user choosing to not access the technology is fascinating. Interactivity is a fundamental characteristic of the Internet and maybe a significant component in user non-adoption. By adding more links, video, or audio to a web site and actually causing disorientation to a percentage of site user is an interesting research topic and a practical bit of information to know when designing a web experience.

Much of this rant comes from my opinion that expecting the Internet will act significantly different from other media is flawed. Even television—over 50 years from its introduction—does not have 100% penetration and adoption, so why would you be surprised that the internet does not have a greater adoption rate after only 10 years? Additionally, Agenda Setting theory suggests that peer and parental pressure (opinion leaders) can influence the actions or opinions of a medium user. Again, why would Internet users or potential users and their usage be immune?