“Reading with Your Ears: Readers’ Advisory and Audio Books.” Reference & User Services Quarterly. Vol. 37–50. American Library Association. 318–323. Web.

The author, Katie Mediatore, is library professional and has worked with a number of library associations. She specializes in reading trends and programming for adults. Mediatore explains the format preferences for listeners as well as what makes audio books so appealing to people who use them. She does this by proposing why people would need or want to use audio books as opposed to traditionally reading text. By using various examples and situations in which the user may prefer audio books, Mediatore is able to show that this medium is perhaps more relevant than previously thought. The casual nature of her writing suggests that her book is meant for the average reader and does not strive to be overly intellectual.

Due to her role as a library professional there may be a slight bias or over exaggeration on the popularity of audio books. She makes it sound as if audio books are more common place when in reality, it is probably more of a niche market. The strengths of this article is that it provides a number of reasons why someone would choose audio books in particular over reading. However, a weakness is that is does little to come up with theories about why audio books are still overshadowed by more popular mediums like books or kindles. In addition, her examples are highly theoretical, and there is no scientific support for her arguments. As a result, there is appears to be a lack of solid research and few quantifiable facts that can bolster her claims. The article still however definitely falls in line with our thesis because it shows how utilizing one of our other senses, hearing, has positively affected a number of people’s reading experience. With this, it is easy to claim that fully using synesthesia will garner the support from a number of readers. While the article focuses only on audio books and the sense of hearing instead of synesthesia as a whole, it still holds relevance by closely examining one particular form of medium that strays from the traditional reading experience.

Adam, Halley-Prinable. The Oculus Rift and Immersion through Fear. Bournemouth University, 2013. Web.

Halley-Prinable is an expert at using C++, Lua and Python. He primarily works as a game programmer but also works as a contract programmer to work on any project. In this book Halley-Prinable claims that the Oculus Rift may have a greater potential to be more immersive than a regular computer screen monitor. By attempting to quantify fear through heart rate monitors and using test subjects, he shows the extent of immersion from the Oculus Rift. The author’s intended audience is probably gamers although its research exceeds that of just gaming. It calls into question the idea of a true virtual reality and the effects that is has on people.

Being a game programmer, Halley-Prinable may be too quick to praise the Oculus Rift and want to promote the new gaming device. The strength is that the author uses a scientific approach to come up with an experiment that measures the effect of the Oculus Rift in a way that is more than pure speculation. Due to the nature in which he conducted his research, there are many arguments that are backed up with facts instead of unsubstantiated, bold claims. The weakness, however, is that it emphasizes the emotion of fear while ignoring any other effect the Oculus Rift could potentially have. Another weakness is that it mostly focuses on the difference between the Oculus Rift and a normal computer screen monitor. Comparisons to other mediums of engagement are largely ignored. It is also important to note that not all experiments are perfect. There will never be a perfect control and test group. Certain individuals may be more prone to fear than others resulting in swayed results. This book supports our theory that creating an experience that fully utilizes our sense can create a positive, immersive experience for all users. Despite the fact that the Oculus Rift only triggers the sense of sight and sound, the information provided still shows studies of levels of immersion that can help support our argument for a product rooted in the idea of synesthesia.

McAllister, Carole, and Richard Louth. “The Effect of Word Processing on the Quality of Basic Writers’ Revisions.” Jstor. Southeastern Louisiana University, Dec. 1988. Web. 22 Nov. 2014.

This article is based on a study across three college professor’s classes of a combined 102 students. The authors, Carole McAllister and Richard Louth, created and executed the study of the students and analyzed the results. The purpose of the study was to test out the hypothesis that a word processor improves a student’s ability to revise his/her paper. In the end the author claimed that the word processor improved a student’s ability to revise his/her work. The author’s intended audience is other researcher’s interested in word processor’s as well as student’s and teacher’s. The article is quite factual and includes many numbers and deviations that support the findings so there is no slant in the article.

The article has a lot of concrete evidence for its findings and supports its claim very well. At the end of the article, the authors qualify their findings in that the word processor might just create a change in mindset of the students rather than actually help with the writing. I viewed this as a strength of the article to know when to step back and explain to the reader the possible faults with your work. The weakness of the article was, as the author’s claimed, that they did not investigate why the word processor led to an increase in effectiveness for student’s revisions. The research in this article greatly helps our thesis because it shows the benefits of a word processor. Therefore, the article is extremely relevant to our paper and I can see us using the statistics and claims from this article in our final paper.

Kirschenbaum, Matthew. “This Was the First Word Processor Ever Used By a Novelist. It Weighed 200 Pounds and Had to Be Brought in Though the Window.” Slate Magazine. Slate Magazine, 1 Mar. 2013. Web. 21 Nov. 2014.

The author of this piece, Matthew Kirschenbaum, is the author of an upcoming work entitled Track Changes for the Harvard University Press, a book that chronicles much of the history of the word processor.  Kirschenbaum also teaches English at the University of Maryland and on occasion Skypes with first year writing seminars.  As an author and historian, Kirschenbaum has done extensive research on the word processor and has interviewed dozens of authors, programmers, and scholars of writing and the pedagogical nature of technology.  The article is primarily focused with revealing to the reader who the first individual was to use a word processor in writing a novel, citing Len Deighton as the author, with his assistant, Ms. Ellenor Handley as the one to do most of the actual typing.  Though the machine they used to create his WWII era novel Bomber (written in the late 60s and published in 1970) looked nothing like the word processors used today, IBM’s Magnetic Tape/Selectric Typewriter (MTST) was able to interpret keystrokes and store them on a magnetic tape and then print the document at 150 words per minute at the users request.  Bomber benefited significantly from this technology due to its complex nature and Deighton’s non-linear writing style.  Written for Slate Magazine’s website, Kirschenbaum’s audience is a relatively broad, but technologically literate community with readers similar to that of Wired or New York Magazine.

The slant present then, is one of someone who is well versed in these matters writing for an audience who is likewise aware of certain trends in that area.  Kirschenbaum himself has also stated that the title of first-author-to-publish-using-a-word-processor can vary dramatically depending on a wide array of criteria.  The critical weakness of the article is this grey area of categorization.  How do you define word processor?  Who actually wrote it, the author, or the typist? What if there was some unknown publisher in a less transparent nation that did it first?  However in coming down on one book, Deighton’s Bomber is as good as any.  As is apparent from his Kirschenbaum has done the best anyone ma do in this pursuit, including interviewing both Deighton and Handley for the piece.  The article supports our project in that it points to the importance of the word processor.  That someone would care enough to write a book researching the history of the technology shows its importance, in addition, though discovering Deighton’s use of MTST is not as relevant as George R.R. Martin revealing his use of WordStar, the article remains interesting, after all, everyone uses word processors now.  As for its use within the body of this paper, the article serves as a good starting point for the origin of the word processor gaining importance and momentum as big-name authors began to use it.

Pea, Roy D. “Cognitive Technologies for Writing.” Review of Research in Education 14 (1987): 277-326. JSTOR. Web. 21 Nov. 2014. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/1167314?ref=no-x-route:a1d99e99512963867a6ea141c96cfd64>.

Roy Pea is one of the foremost scholars in implementing technology in education, he received his D.Phil. (PhD) in developmental psychology form Oxford University in 1978, and is currently a professor of Learning Sciences at Stanford University’s Graduate School of Education.  Learning and teaching through technology is what he does, and he does it well.  In what begins with an excellent quote from Ludwig Wittgenstein, “It is only the attempt to write down your ideas that enables them to develop,” his piece (written in conjunction with New York University Laboratory for Advanced Research in Educational Technology) focuses on how new writing technologies, specifically the word processor, benefit teaching and learning alike.  Pea points out at the time of publication (1987) writing technologies did not necessarily change what people wrote, only how they wrote it.  He then proposes, after outlining historical precedents, that with the wild growth of computing could come an increase in “Cognitive writing technologies,” technologies that would help put computing to the best use.  Pea is clearly writing for a well read audience, but one that is still learning about this area, and due to its publication in the American Educational Research Association Review, it is safe to assume that he is also writing for his peers.  At the time, writing technologies were relatively new for everyone, and Pea keeps the diction from becoming too erudite.  As long as the reader knows what “cognitive” means, they will be able to get by. 

The slant here comes from the fact that Pea is himself an educator writing for educators.  He claims early on that “[word processors] neither offer qualitative advances over previous tools in helping mature writers express or refine their thoughts, nor help novices develop better writing skills,” a point that even then could be argued in a variety of ways.  That being said, the whole purpose of the essay is to excite those possibilities and prompt educators and programmers alike to begin changing that statement.  Acceptance of the current state of affairs coupled with the drive to change them is a great strength of this piece, the weakness being the fact that it was written over 25 years ago.  It’s age does not, however, discredit it it entirely.  This piece will be of great use in showcasing how word processing technology has changed, and how White Space will continue to refine it. In a sense, this source is useful as both a support and a counter to our current thesis and in that way solidifies our argument even more.

Kunde, Brian. “A Brief History of Word Processing (Through 1986) / by Brian Kunde.” A Brief History of Word Processing (Through 1986) / by Brian Kunde. Stanford University, Dec. 1986. Web. 22 Nov. 2014.

This article was written by a college student at Foothills college in California. Brian Kunde, the author, worked at the Stanford University library for 26 years and is currently a library specialist. The author wrote this article to take the reader through the history of word processing and demonstrate how the need for a word processor arose. From the first moveable type in the middle ages to the typewriter that arose in 1872 to the more advanced word processors of the 60’s and 70s, Kunde demonstrates the evolution of the word processor. In a non-biased article, Kunde demonstrates to the reader, whom I assume is an educated college student, how the word processor has evolved.

The article is well-written and details many different technologies/examples of the word processor. However, the article could include more detail about technologies such as the invention of moveable type. The information in this article helps our research paper in that it takes us through the development of moveable type. However, the material isn’t as pertinent as it could be since the article was written in 1986. The article is a good starting ground for our research, but we will definitely need to do more.