He speaks in such a calm manner because he is trying to convince pople who don't already agree with him, and it makes sense to sounds like a reasonable human being when you're trying to convince people that your argument is valid.
However, I wish that he had actually sounded a little more confrontational, but that just might be cause I like controversy. And I would have liked a little more definition of "interactivity" as he used the term, because it took a while for me to fully figure out what he meant with the word.
3 comments:
Considering that his material is complex, and that he had to break through our common sense opinions of what "interactivity" is, was, and will be...in order to show what it in fact is and is turning into, I prefer his manner of reasoning.
If you have a solid argument, you don't need to be be excited. You let your points do the talking for you. I think his ideas were very confrontational. They questioned our comfort zone and our allegiance to the producers of our household objects.
Which is exactly what the Prof said. I guess I just need to get used to the style.
Hi
I think that the way he argued is good as well. I like that he is being calm. He got at least me out of my comfort zone and made me question things I did not think about before. If he would have been too confrontational than I would have gone in the defense-mode and he would not have confinced me.
However I think that his book had a lot of additional stuff that was more distracting than illustrating. I am still not completly sure what the main points are and what the additional stuff is.
By
Merel van Helden
Post a Comment