Newsgroups: workspace.we_want_bandwidth


previous    top    workgroup    thread    next


Subject: Why More?
From: Michael Eisenmenger <eisenmen@rci.rutgers.edu>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 19:35:06 +0000

* * * * *

Why More?

As I was waiting for Workspace's 'media to load' and then after waiting
to restart my Mac when the java script for scrolling media hung my
system, I pondered, do we need more bandwidth or do we need to
reconsider how we utilize existing bandwidth? At what point do we
sacrifice function for form, information for aesthetics? What would
another user, say in El Salvador, be thinking about this waste of
his/her precious access time to an internet terminal? Most importantly
at what point do we play into the hands of commercial entities who want
us to create more bandwidth demand so their markets can grow faster
while also feeding their monopolistic frenzy?

Five years ago, I was ecstatic about the possibilities of the internet.
Obsolete 286's and old Macs were very affordable, if not free on the
sidewalk, and for the price of a 14.4 modem and a dial-in account you
could have text based access to the internet on nearly equal par with
any corporate tool running a workstation. Then, the issues of the
internet were about information and access to the internet itself. Yes,
text based interfaces were clumsy and difficult at times, but compared
to the mess of plug-ins and hardware add-ons that one needs today, I
don't think the learning curve was much different. With the advent of
Mosaic, everything changed, now you need fairly expensive and
sophisticated hardware to run web based programs and you need faster
connections to adequately access much of what is being designed for the
web. I other words, I think the disparity of 'equivalent access' has
grown immensely between commercial and non-commercial users. And we
always have to remind ourselves that we're referring to 'developed'
countries in many of these discourses, most of Africa and much of
Southeast Asia still have either no internet connectivity or highly
limited and restrictive access (remember way back when Australia banned
MUD use because the two T-1 lines that served the entire continent were
clogged with this traffic). Also, many individuals in 'developing'
countries that are coming on-line are doing so with fairly old equipment
and are unable to access much of what is currently being designed for
the web. If we're serious about 'utopian' notions of democratizing
information and networks, then we should be trying to slow down the
rapid development of high bandwidth applications on the web until the
rest of the world can catch up. We have to remember that this rapid
growth primarily serves the corporate interests of Wall Street and other
international markets - stockholders may be thrilled, but I know of very
few users that share in this excitement.

Rather than demand more bandwidth, why don't we design for less or with
a more strategic purpose in mind. Let's reverse engineer the network. We
can write java scripts that exploit bugs and crash systems, so can't
someone write a java script that steps down the delivery of content to
28.8 to receiving sites with the .com domain. Let them meet us on our
terms! Conversely, we could create pages that load too fast on a T-1
line - gif animations that strobe and irritate the corporate retina.
They make us wait endlessly with their mundane advertising banners,
senseless animations and typically bad design. Let's attack back with
anti-corporate bandwidth zaps!

Michael Eisenmenger - eisenmen@rci.rutgers.edu
Paper Tiger Television

Incidentally - don't take my slight criticisms of the WorkSpace web site
to heart. It's an excellent example of a sound design practice that
offers text based alternatives for low bandwidth users (a practice that
we should all emulate).