These are the slides from a conference paper I delivered in Maastricht in 2002, well before YouTube, Vimeo et al. We're getting there, but most of what I was thinking about then is only just happening now.

1. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars
Adrian Miles
InterMedia UiB (Norway)
RMIT (Australia)
2002
vogmae@gmail.com
http://vogmae.net.au

2. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars
Most models of ‘interactive’ internet (networked)
delivered video is not interactive.
vogmae@gmail.com
2002

3. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars
Most models of ‘interactive’ internet (networked)
delivered video is not interactive.
• it appropriates web browsers or clients as
a de facto tv
vogmae@gmail.com
2002

4. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars
Most models of ‘interactive’ internet (networked)
delivered video is not interactive.
• it appropriates web browsers or clients as
a de facto tv
• looks backwards for a networked model
vogmae@gmail.com
2002

5. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars
Most models of ‘interactive’ internet (networked)
delivered video is not interactive.
• it appropriates web or clients as de facto tv
• looks backwards for a networked model
• treats the network as broad or narrowcast where
the model is middlecasting
vogmae@gmail.com
2002

6. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars
Most models of ‘interactive’ internet (networked)
delivered video is not interactive.
• it appropriates web or clients as de facto tv
• looks backwards for a networked model
• treats the network as broad or narrowcast where
the model is middlecasting
• interactivity must be within the video stream
vogmae@gmail.com
2002

7. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars
Available and appropriate technologies are
available for networked interactive desktop video
vogmae@gmail.com
2002

8. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars
Available and appropriate technologies are
available for networked interactive desktop video
• recognises users constraints of
time, bandwidth, screen
vogmae@gmail.com
2002

9. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars
Available and appropriate technologies are
available for networked interactive desktop video
• recognises users constraints of
time, bandwidth, screen
• we are time poor - example of tv advertising
vogmae@gmail.com
2002

10. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars
Available and appropriate technologies are
available for networked interactive desktop video
• recognises users constraints of
time, bandwidth, screen
• we are time poor - example of tv advertising
• we are bandwidth poor - instant broadband will
not erase lack
vogmae@gmail.com
2002

11. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars
Available and appropriate technologies are
available for networked interactive desktop video
• recognises users constraints of
time, bandwidth, screen
• we are time poor - example of tv advertising
• we are bandwidth poor - instant broadband will
not erase lack
• we are screen poor and window rich -
collage + montage
vogmae@gmail.com
2002

12. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars
Existing digital video tools use a hard copy
paradigm
vogmae@gmail.com
2002

13. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars
Existing digital video tools use a hard copy
paradigm
• they assume temporally constrained
and delimited media (tape, film, broadcast)
vogmae@gmail.com
2002

14. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars
Existing digital video tools use a hard copy
paradigm
• they assume temporally constrained
and delimited media (tape, film, broadcast)
• this media has a fixed duration, it occupies time
vogmae@gmail.com
2002

15. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars
Existing digital video tools use a hard copy
paradigm
• they assume temporally constrained
and delimited media (tape, film, broadcast)
• this media has a fixed duration, it occupies time
• if the computer screen is the medium of publication
(and interaction/consumption) this is
no longer the case
vogmae@gmail.com
2002

16. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars
Soft copy video is a different paradigm
vogmae@gmail.com
2002

17. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars
Soft copy video is a different paradigm
• softvideo gives desktop video all the properties
of hypertext
vogmae@gmail.com
2002

18. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars
Soft copy video is a different paradigm
• softvideo gives desktop video all the properties
of hypertext
• yes, linking.
vogmae@gmail.com
2002

19. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars
Soft copy video is a different paradigm
• softvideo gives desktop video all the properties
of hypertext
• yes, linking.
• but wait . . .
vogmae@gmail.com
2002

20. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars
Soft copy video is a different paradigm
• softvideo gives desktop video all the properties
of hypertext
• yes, linking.
• but wait . . .
. . . there’s more
vogmae@gmail.com
2002

21. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars
Soft copy video is a different paradigm
• softvideo gives desktop video all the properties
of hypertext
• users own their desktops, including windows,
applications and their qualities
vogmae@gmail.com
2002

22. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars
Soft copy video is a different paradigm
• softvideo gives desktop video all the properties
of hypertext
• users own their desktops, including windows,
applications and their qualities
• works are open
vogmae@gmail.com
2002

23. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars
Soft copy video is a different paradigm
• softvideo gives desktop video all the properties
of hypertext
• users own their desktops, including windows,
applications and their qualities
• works are open
• works are variable
vogmae@gmail.com
2002

24. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars
Soft copy video is a different paradigm
• softvideo gives desktop video all the properties
of hypertext
• users own their desktops, including windows,
applications and their qualities
• works are open
• works are variable
• works are performative (not constative)
vogmae@gmail.com
2002

25. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars
Soft copy video is a different paradigm
• softvideo gives desktop video all the properties
of hypertext
• users own their desktops, including windows,
applications and their qualities
• works are open
• works are variable
• works are performative (not constative)
• and can be ergodic
vogmae@gmail.com
2002

26. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars
Soft copy video is a different paradigm
• softvideo gives desktop video all the properties
of hypertext
• users own their desktops, including windows,
applications and their qualities
• works are open
• works are variable
• works are performative (not constative)
• and can be ergodic
• are about vectors, events, relations
vogmae@gmail.com
2002

27. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars
Softvideo poses new problems for cinematic
contexts
vogmae@gmail.com
2002

28. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars
Softvideo poses new problems for cinematic
contexts
• montage moves to a site between the author and the
work
vogmae@gmail.com
2002

29. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars
Softvideo poses new problems for cinematic
contexts
• montage moves to a site between the author and the
work
• montage moves to a site between the work and the
user
vogmae@gmail.com
2002

30. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars
Softvideo poses new problems for cinematic
contexts
• montage moves to a site between the author and the
work
• montage moves to a site between the work and the
user
• video has a variable duration (user controlled
variable looping)
vogmae@gmail.com
2002

31. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars
Softvideo poses new problems for cinematic
contexts
• montage moves to a site between the author and the
work
• montage moves to a site between the work and the
user
• video has a variable duration (user controlled
variable looping)
• video has a possible open duration
vogmae@gmail.com
2002

32. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars
Softvideo poses new problems for cinematic
contexts
• montage moves to a site between the author and the
work
• montage moves to a site between the work and the
user
• video has a variable duration (user controlled
variable looping)
• video has a possible open duration
• we now have relations between video panes
vogmae@gmail.com
2002

33. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars
So what?
vogmae@gmail.com
2002

34. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars
So what?
• this technology is distributed
vogmae@gmail.com
2002

35. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars
So what?
• this technology is distributed
• is writerly
vogmae@gmail.com
2002

36. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars
So what?
• this technology is distributed
• is writerly
• offers viable models to explore broadband
entertainment, documentary, fiction, and education
vogmae@gmail.com
2002

37. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars
So what?
• this technology is distributed
• is writerly
• offers viable models to explore broadband
entertainment, documentary, fiction, and education
• is a vernacular which needs a grammar
or rhetoric
vogmae@gmail.com
2002

38. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars
So what?
• this technology is distributed
• is writerly
• offers viable models to explore broadband
entertainment, documentary, fiction, and education
• is a vernacular which needs a grammar
or rhetoric
• is a vernacular that provides a grammar
or rhetoric
vogmae@gmail.com
2002

39. videocriture: interactive video vernaculars
http://vogmae.net.au
vogmae@gmail.com