I think, though, that this is exactly where Banks might say that *meaningful* access comes in. For example, in your original post, you discussed population stratification and then concluded that “What this means is a dominant portion of the African American population does not have access to public funding, especially in schools, that can provide access to digital technologies, specifically computers and internet connectivity.” Based on the experiences of the many teachers I know who work in state designated high-poverty districts, this simply isn’t the case. (At least not in Illinois; I can’t speak for other places.) My mother works in a high-poverty school in Logan County that has multiple SMARTboards–a quite expensive technology–that were purchased through a grant. My husband works in a high-poverty, high-minority (read: Black) school in Springfield, and every single teacher was given a brand new MacBook at the beginning of the year because, as I understand it, the school had to spend the money allotted to it by the state for technology. Access to the hardware is not a problem in most Illinois schools. (Notice the “most.” I don’t claim to have knowledge of all Illinois schools, but I suspect my experience has been relived throughout the state.)

But *meaningful* access is a huge problem. These students do not understand why these technologies are relevant to their lives, and the teachers who are “given” these technologies don’t get any training on how to use them, let alone how to use them as pedagogical tools. When teachers have to spend more and more time trying to learn technology in order to teach it, other areas of education–which can also provide access for students–suffer. Our high-poverty classroom teachers are in a Catch-22. If they try to teach technology, they risk dropping ISAT scores under NCLB. But if they teach reading and math, they are accused of widening the digital divide.

OK, let me get down off my the-school-system-is-a-mess soapbox now.

I was also really intrigued by your admission that you’re not sure the use of “advanced” technology will better the lives of underserved populations. This is a question I’ve come to ask as well. And I also used to think technology is always good and wanted, as you say. I agree that it could give people “a leg up but that is only if they find personal value in such technologies.” And you’ve hit the nail on the head with that last bit, I think. This reminds me of how the European settlers came in and devalued the technologies of the Indians. Who are we to tell people who don’t want computers that they have to own/understand/use them?

“Access to technology means so much more than the presence of a particular tool, and definition of access that do not acknowledge how complex a problem it is are, in fact fraudulent, and will not serve to do anything meaningful for people who have consistently been denied anything close to real participation in our society.”

In my research of the digital immigrant and native I ran into the numbers he criticizes in that section and scrutinized them. I came to the exact same conclusions he does. They create an illusion of a closing gap, an illusion that is accepted as fact. The reality is the gap is not closing. however, another reality I came to realize in that research is the number of people in general that have access is actually much lower than many realize. even in talking to students at ISU I have seen evidence that not everyone has the access we are led to believe.

It is true that some have more ready access than others which is largely determined by family income. Still, the number of young people who use a computer for much more than homework (typing papers and doing a bit of research) is not as high as we are led to believe. Hand written papers in high schools was still the norm in 2005 (when I last taught).

So, this further convolutes the question of equal access because the numbers that constitute “access” in the first place are not commensurate with reality. this is really the issue I was attempting to get at with my mention of demographic data and the need to “close the divide”. Really, I see the divide most present in the ability to go to college or lack-there-of. This issue has more to do with the economic divide of the impoverished which is why I mentioned that particular segment of the population. The divider is the culture of poverty and the value of a job-right-now over the value of a job after you have been in school for four more years racking up inevitable debt that, given the cultural grounding active here, you will never ever be able to pay off.

Those who live in a state of poverty are forced by the culture of the impoverished to take up the mantel of “adult” and “provider” at a much younger age, often before even graduating from high school. The importance of a college degree, which also has digital literacies wrapped up with it, is not as high as being able to feed your family therefore investment in learning “digital citizenship” is not a of a premium.

The notion of equal access is post hand-to-mouth survival. The effort should be made to circumvent the culture of poverty, to get in at the root of the problem, to foster the desire for equal access. With out the desire there is no need, from the perspective of the subject that we deem should have the desire, for equal access.

I think the real issue is not a lack of access as much as it is a question of solving the poverty problem, a problem that, as of yet, society had determined cannot be solved.

How can we measure when the digital divide has been closed (or narrowed)? Do we measure it in acceptance or access? I do not deem either as a wrong answer. But it is tough to tell. How do we measure progress in this instance?

Matrix Online

Autoassault

Tablu Rasa

RFonline

Ryzome (though it has been resurrected several times now and is actually in operation yet again)

Sims Online

Earth and Beyond (probably one of the most tragic closures in MMORPG history)

Jump Gate (the original version. hopefully JG2 will survive)

Shadowbane

Fury

Heall Gate London (In the strictest sense not a MMORPG but it did have “massively” appeal. This one is actually in operation again but limited to the Far Eastern market.)

Google Lively (though not a MMORPG its demise is a result of the above illustrated interchange)

As for:

“…here have been a handful of cases, no more than ten and no less than six instances, where the strategy of the developers has faltered and then fallen to the tactics of users which universally results in the ending of the product service, the MMORPG is shut down and considered a loss.”

…I’d love to get a list.

Digital GUI white space can be far more dynamic than the white space on a printed document or a web page. only in a digital GUI can white space be mobile, fluid, and adjustable through direct action of a user. The idea of GUI elements being coded so they are not always on screen when not in use is a clear indication of this. Largely I look at this very idea when contemplating the GUI for Providence. I want to design a GUI that is very small, if not absent, while users are “doing” non intensive actions. When the intensive action is undertaken then user needed elements of the GUI should then manifest automatically. This would allow for maximizing of occupied space and white space.

I would also argue the “action” aspect of CO. Those items that could be termed action are token at best. You don’t even really have to use those elements of ludic interaction.

There is no reversal of any kind. What I am talking about here is the fact that this MMORPG is more narrative dependent at launch than any of the 30 or so I have investigated/played/read. sure, narration is part of most modern interactive electronic entertainment but the presentation of the narrative in CO is different. The most notable is that in order to level you MUST do the quests. Grinding is not productive enough for users to ignore the story. To further this thought, solo play is a totaly viable mode of interaction. There is no forced grouping, either by increased rewards for being in a group or the fact that the unholy trinity is an artifact that can be employed but is by no means necessary.

The second most notable aspect is CO comes the closest to offering a mode of narration dispersal that is not wholly dependent on reading words. This is not perfect but the way it is handled is at least a shuffle forward where its predecessors weren’t even moving their feet.

Not only that, given the upcoming content update and how it is framed, it seems Cryptic will be emulating a comic book publishing format, possibly right down to the way such content updates will be deployed.

I’m not in any way saying this endeavor is exactly what I envision but it is definitely a forward movement. In the end they may drop this ball. All I am saying in this post is that I am willing to spend 2.5 Cs to find out. Regardless, CO is impressive enough for me to have decided to send them a blind resume next semester to see if they will take me on so I can do the 5 year climb with them with the objective of Cryptic being the funding source for providence.

Part of that reason, and this is something that Angel and I work on in the games I do stay in longer than a week, is that on screen I have claustrophobia and motion sickness. In order to play I either need a slender UI that makes visual sense, or one where elements can be hidden until needed.

There are many, many parts to a UI beyond the on screen buttons and the map in the corner. The ability to reassign keys on the keyboard or buttons on any of the ‘hand’ devices, screen resolution changes, color adjustments, all part of the UI. The average gamer does not even think of these when you say how is the User interface, they will tell you that the journal is hard to read, the map is cool, or they need more hotbars and bag space.

I also have arthritis, most notably in my cervical spine, this often affects my hands which have had prior nerve damage. A UI for me must not entail sending the courser wildly across the screen, or have me snapping my head about to check statistics. Other quirks aside (I use a trackball and cant use a joystick or game controller) part of the UI that most players do not realize is not game mechanics is the camera. I do consider camera angle to be part of the UI, how I see and interact with the game is the definition of User Interface.

Having the camera tied too low to a character and I find what would have been enjoyable quickly becomes intolerable. So not only should a UI allow for how the camera looks around, or the distance from the character, but how high, or low, on the character’s body the angle should be set.

When we get around to designing our own UI, just as much care should be spent on this aspect of the game as is spent on character creation. A player can only create so many characters, but they will be in the game for years.

I take it these mysterious other features you mention overcome whatever aversion you may have to its supposedly more action-oriented combat system?