Media interattivi - Audience
The surprising history of the active audience
Such evidence as can be discovered is proving intriguing, not only for our
understanding of the past, but also for our understanding of the present. Richard Butsch
(2000: 2) observes that:
‘While the underlying issues were always power and social order, at
different times the causes of the problems of audiences had different
sources. In the nineteenth century, the problem lay in the degenerate or
unruly people who came to the theater, and what they might do. In the
twentieth century, worries focused on the dangers of reception, how media
messages, might degenerate audiences. In the nineteenth century, critics
audiences; in the twentieth, their .’
This nineteenth century audience has a longer history. In Elizabethan England, theater
audiences were highly active, asserting their right to participate, vocally critical or
appreciative, or even ignoring the action by loudly engaging in conversation, walking about
or playing cards during the performance. Indeed, the more noisy they were, the more
privileged they were seen to be, actors having the status of servants. As Butsch comments,
‘aristocratic audience sovereignty affirmed the social order’ (2000: 5), a provocative reversal
of the present day argument that consumer sovereignty asserts the power of the people
against the control of the property-owning elite.
How did things come to change? Butsch shows how, as the plebeian audience
followed the example of their betters, incorporating elements of carnival into their own
performance as an audience, by the nineteenth century the privileged classes had came to
fear, and so to critique and attempt to control, this rowdy, ‘over-active’ lower-class
audience. The importance of manners – together with the introduction of such physical
constraints as bolting chairs to the floor and dimming the lights – came to dictate
attentiveness and deference to the performers on the part of a ‘respectable’ audience in the
theatre and the early days of cinema. Meanwhile, ‘active’ engagement with the performance
marked the lower classes, with the consequence that ‘audiences at these entertainments let
slip their sovereignty and were contained if not tamed’ (2000: 6).
Reception becomes interiorized
One may speculate that it was the contrast with the visible activities of the live
audience which preceded it that contributed to twentieth century worries about the
television audience. How much do these worries center on the fundamental ambiguity, to
the observer, of physically inactive audiences? Is the person sitting quietly on the sofa
watching television part of a respectable audience, paying careful attention and
concentrating on understanding and benefiting from the entertainment offered, or are they
passive couch potatoes, dependent on media for their pleasures, uncritical in their
acceptance of messages, vulnerable to influence? And, if they do not sit quietly, are the
active audiences participating in their social world or disruptive audiences, unable to
concentrate? Such uncertainties invite prejudiced interpretation inflected by class and
gender: a middle class man attentively watching the news is assumed to be alert and
thoughtful, a working class woman attentively watching a soap opera is assumed to be
mindless and uncritical. Other people’s children are mindless, your own can concentrate
properly (Davison, 1983).
Interestingly, in the days when audiences participated vociferously, marking their
pleasure and displeasure, their critical response or their incomprehension, there was,
arguably, less of a distinction between media use and media reception – how people acted
materially, in time and space, could be taken to reveal their symbolic or cognitive
engagement with performances. Undoubtedly, documented accounts of the ‘reception’ of
the first production of a Shakespeare play, for example, would feel free to assume what the
audience thought from how they acted. Butsch argues that the change came partly because
literary form , although the introduction of the cinema further
of a transformation in
sedimented these new conventions. Thus, he suggests that:
‘As realism replaced rhetorical styles of dramatic acting in the nineteenth
century, the separation of audience from performer became paramount.
Realism also required silencing audiences, making them passive. The “well-
behaved” audience became preferred among the middle and upper classes
to audiences exercising sovereignty, which became a mark of lower class’
(Butsch, 2000: 9).
Such passivity not only describes the social conventions which govern polite behavior
but also, as genre studies have argued, audience passivity is assumed by a narrative form
dedicated to the construction of an impermeable, closed text in which the audience is firmly
required to identify with the hero, no other position being available (McCabe, 1974). Yet, as
audience reception studies have shown, audiences increasingly will not have it thus, their
rapt and adoring gaze at the Hollywood film being ever less the norm for television (Ellis,
1992). Rather, audiences today read against the grain, finding the opportunities for
engaging more creatively, or resistantly, with whatever openness they find within the text
or, as television genres blur further one into the other, they delight in contesting the genre
itself, questioning the shifting conventions of realism, joining in noisily albeit in the privacy
of their living room (Livingstone and Lunt, 1994),
An oral history of the television audience?
Both media use and media reception have continued to change during the twentieth
a gradual transition from pride of place at the center of family life to a variable status
pitched somewhere between focal and casual, communal and individualized uses, where
these are spread spatially throughout the household and temporally round-the-clock (Flichy,
1995; Livingstone, 2002). Reception, however, remains more difficult. Since that century
falls within living memory, I have argued (Livingstone et al, 2001) that the method of oral
history could be used, although the difficulties in interpreting such data should not be
underestimated (Samuel and Thompson, 1990). Again, we find the familiar problem, for
conventional wisdom among oral historians suggests practices are more reliably recalled
than meanings (O'Brien and Eyles, 1993). We may therefore have more confidence in
asking people to recall going to the cinema in the 1940s than in asking them what they then
thought of a particular film and how they interpreted it.
Consider Jackie Stacey’s (1994) survey of women fans of Hollywood stars during the
1940s and 50s. Although she acknowledges the problems of oral history - 'these histories of
spectatorship are retrospective reconstructions of a past in the light of the present and will
have been shaped by the popular versions of the 1940s and 1950s which have become
cultural currency during the intervening years' (1994: 63) - what comes over clearly is the
fascination with glamour and escapism conveyed by her informants. As one comments, 'I
think in those eras, we were more inclined to put stars on a pedestal. They were so far
removed from everyday life, they were magical'. Must we conclude only that this viewer has
reconstructed the past from the vantage point of the present, now seeing herself as a more
knowing and critical viewer? Or can we agree with Stacey when she also argues that modes
of perception, or relations of looking and seeing, are not universal but are historically
contingent. As she puts it, the post-war period saw a shift from a spectator/star relationship
based upon distance to one based on proximity.
Relevance, realism, relativism
In some recent research, my colleagues and I attempted to extend the oral history of
leisure practices to the domain of media reception (Livingstone et al, 2001). The project
interviewed different generations, from people in their teens to those in their eighties, about
the crime-related media they had seen throughout the postwar period (or such of it as they
had lived through). Crime, and its representation in the media, proved a provocative
subject, stimulating lively discussion of the media, society and its morals. From listening to
what these different generations remembered or found interesting, the ways they talked
about the different periods, the different media and, indeed, their lives today, we tentatively
identified three changes.
First, and consistent with Stacey’s argument, above, it seemed that while in the early
post-war period, people found pleasure in crime media primarily for their escapist
relevance – for them, the point of
irrelevance, today’s audience is strongly concerned with
engaging with the media is that connections are made with one’s own life. This stress on
relevance motivates not only the gratifications sought from watching crime dramas but also
the process of reception, so that where before, the characters and action were interpreted
primarily in terms of the internal coherence of the – preferably glamorous – narrative, now
interpretation draws more strongly on frameworks or situations from daily life while the
narrative is, in turn, made to ‘speak to’ the audience’s everyday experiences. That the
importance of escapism was once greater is confirmed by Sally Alexander (1994) in her
account of becoming a woman in London in the 1920s and 1930s. She argues that the
cinema played a crucial role in making it possible for young women to conceive of other
ways of living, particularly ways different from those of their mothers - glamour, freedom
from drudgery and housework, romance, new conceptions of femininity. In other words, for
them at that time, escapism was vital, and as Alexander sees it, positive in value.
Second, and connected with the desire for connection to one's own life, is a change in
judgements of realism. The current, young audience preferred representations which they
considered realistic (including the appeal of 'just like us' soap opera characters dealing with
crimes) and able to offer them useful information about crime risks etc. Realism for them
means fuzzy moral boundaries, complex situations, seeing both sides of an issue,
unresolved endings, seeing for oneself the physical consequences of violence. For the older
audience, by contrast, realism was little talked about for past media, but has now been
adopted as an evaluative criterion for present-day media. However, for them it is more likely
to representations with recognizable characters, everyday settings, an absence of glamour
or melodrama, a concern with minor crimes, and a lack of gratuitous or gory violence. Using
these different criteria, then, we saw younger audiences criticize past media for their lack of
realism by comparison with the present, while older audiences make the opposite
Third, we identified a change in the moral framework for interpreting media crime,
from a frame of moral absolutism to one of contextualised relativism. A series of symbolic
reversals were enumerated by the older generations: ever since the 1960s, they argued, the
world is upside down - the police get sued by the criminals, the criminals get financial
compensation or a comfortable life in prison while their victims are shown to suffer, the
police are themselves corrupt, and so forth. Yet for younger people, these same
observations are interpreted as far from distressing, as a legitimate relativism, realistic in a
world where good and bad are a matter of contextualised judgements rather than abstract
principles. All this has interesting implications for the reception process for what makes a
'good story' has been redefined, with audiences shifting from an interest in working out
s/he will be caught to an interest in working out what it to be
is the baddie and
the baddie and they will be caught.
From the past to the future
Although we have still little historical knowledge of reception – of people’s
understandings, interpretations, and critical awareness of media contents – we can hardly
suppose these historically invariant. Nor, of course, are these likely to remain constant given
the continuing changes in both the media environment and the social contexts of media
use. Beyond arguing for the importance of taking a longer-term perspective on audiences’
engagement with the media than just the immediate lens of today’s concerns, I have also
suggested here that the very separation which is currently bedeviling audience research,
that between the analysis of the use of media-as-objects and the reception of media-as-
texts, is itself historically contingent. For the invisibility, or privatization, of what audience
members are thinking, or learning, or feeling is a new (i.e. twentieth/twenty-first century)
problem, and one which marks a new degree of separation – in theory, methodology, and
practice - between the use of media-as-goods and the reception of media-as-texts.
I will end this chapter by sketching how this look back at the past may illuminate the
future, drawing out implications of the above arguments for our understanding of how
people engage with new media as objects and as texts. But first, one must address the
semantic difficulty that one can hardly begin to analyze the new media without realizing
that, in both ordinary and academic language, we currently face an uncertainty over how to
audience was, and to
discuss people in terms of their relationship with media. The term
some extent still is, satisfactory for mass media research, but it clearly fits poorly within the
domain of new media for, arguably, audiences are becoming 'users.'
The end of ‘the audience’?
The term ‘audience’ only satisfactorily covers the activities of listening and watching
(though even this has been expanded to include the activities which contextualize listening
and viewing). The term ‘user’ seems to allow for a greater variety of modes of engagement,
although it tends to be overly individualistic and instrumental, losing the sense of a
collectivity which is central to ‘the audience’, and with no necessary relation to
communication at all, leading one to wonder whether users of media technologies differ
from users of washing machines or cars. Analytically, audiences are being relocated away
from the screen, their activities contextualized into the everyday lifeworld. They are also
users insofar as they are grappling with the meaning of new and unfamiliar technologies in
their homes, schools and workplaces. These media and information technologies open up
computer games, the
new, more active modes of engagement with media --
searching writing responding visiting shopping
databases, and to email, a chatroom,
online, and so on. We don’t even have a verb to capture that increasingly important way in
which people are engaging with media, namely fandom: one may be part of an audience for
soap opera, but one’s relation to Harry Potter, or Barbie, or even Manchester United 2
precisely intertextual, spanning multiple media and hence multiple modes of engagement.
Rather than offering a new term here, I suggest that no one term can continue to
cover the variety of ways in which technologies mediate relations among people. Hence,
instead of asking what audiences - conceived as an artificial reification of a particular
technological interface - are really like, we should rather conceptualize 'the audience' as a
relational or interactional construct, a shorthand way of focusing on the diverse
relationships among people – who are first and foremost workers, neighbors, parents,
teachers or friends – as mediated by historically and culturally specific social contexts as
well as by historically and culturally specific technological forms. For ‘audience’ researchers,
then, the interesting questions are less and less, when and why do people watch television
or read a newspaper, if this question means, implicitly, why do they do this instead of doing
something else? Rather, as social spaces, and social relations, which are untouched by
mediated forms of communication become fewer and fewer, we must instead ask questions
about how, and with what consequences, it has come about that all social situations
(whether at home or work, in public or in private, at school or out shopping) are now,
5 25 both
simultaneously, mediated spaces, thereby constituting their participants inevitably as
and as audiences, consumers or users?
family, workers, public or communities
Reception and use converge
It was argued above that, while in earlier centuries, use and reception were intimately
connected, so that reception could be ‘read off’ from the participatory activities of audiences
in particular social contexts of media engagement or use, in the age of mass television use
and reception became disconnected. In a curious reversal of this trend, I now wish to
suggest that in the new media environment, reception may be once again gleaned – at least
to some extent - from an analysis of use. For audiences are increasingly required to
participate audibly and physically, albeit that their activities require a subtle eye on the part
of the observer. Users are, necessarily, clicking on hypertext links in order to create a
sequential flow of images on the world wide web, typing in order to co-construct the
messages of the chat room, externalizing their conception of interface design and genre
when producing their website, and manipulating their game character in order to keep the
game going. They are also accumulating auditable references to their content preferences
though ‘favorites’ folders, inboxes, history files, software downloads, and so on. Although it
will remain a methodological challenge to discover what participants are thinking or feeling
when they engage with such media, it is intriguing that, increasingly, without physical and
hence visible participation in the process of reception, there will be neither text nor
reception in the first place. However, most of this remains to be researched, as thus far,
perhaps because new media technologies have arrived in our homes in advance of radical
new notions of content, more audience (or user) research on new media has focused on
media-as-objects rather than media-as-texts.
Undoubtedly, then, the new media pose some interesting challenges to audience
research in relation to both reception and use (Livingstone, 1999). First, they facilitate the
multiplication of personally-owned media (from mobile phones to the television set), thereby
encouraging the privatization of media use, including the media-rich bedroom culture of
young people (Livingstone, 2002) and the sound bubble of the Walkman commuter.
Further, the diversification of media and media contents, is facilitating wider trends towards
individualization, in which media goods and contents are used to construct lifestyles no
longer grounded in sociodemographically-defined traditions. More recently, the convergence
of traditionally distinct media, is resulting in a blurring of traditionally distinct social
boundaries (‘edutainment’, ‘infotainment’, tele-working, e-learning), potentially undermining
traditional hierarchies of expertise and authority.
Most significantly, however, new media technologies hold the possibility of expansion
of interactive forms of media, and the resulting potential for transforming a once-mass
audience into engaged and participatory users of information and communication
technologies. From the literature now emerging, it seems that these first three challenges
are already being researched, particularly insofar as these concern changing discourses and
practices of media use. But as for the fourth, we have barely begun to investigate the
intellectual, symbolic and social contexts for and consequences of engaging with the
particular forms and contents of the new media. Some preliminary observations may be
From mass to interactive audiences
While the argument for the active audience of traditional media has probably been
taken as far as it can go, interactive technologies now coming onto the market increasingly
put such interpretative activities at the very center of media design and use. Thus, the new
media environment extends arguments in ‘active audience’ theory by transforming hitherto
marginal or marginalized tendencies into the mainstream of media use. Audiences - as users
- are increasingly active (i.e. selective, self-directed, producers as well as consumers of
texts) and therefore plural (i.e. multiple, diverse, fragmented), although Neuman (1991:
166) is among many who question ‘whether or not the proliferation of new communications
channels will lead to fragmentation of the mass audience’. At the same time, the once-
accessible and supposedly powerful media text is becoming as elusive as were audiences
before: because hypertext, characteristic of Internet content, is ‘a structure composed of
blocks of text connected by electronic links, it offers different pathways to users… the
extent of hypertext is unknowable because it lacks clear boundaries and is often multi-
authored' (Snyder, 1998: 126–7). To use Eco’s (1979) terms, the distinction between
‘virtual’ and ‘realized’ text is greater for interactive media, particularly for the flexible,
impermanent, non-linear, hypertextual data structures of the Internet.
Potentially, the text-reader metaphor of reception studies may prove particularly apt
. Whether for the Internet, or digital television, or mobile
for the new focus on the
technologies, analyzing the interface is proving demanding, for both designers and users
(Star and Bowker, 2002), bringing questions of literacy increasingly to the fore (Tyner,
1998). Literacy has, of course, underpinned all previous phases of ‘audiencing’, from the
conventions of participating in public performances, to the emergence of print literacy, the
more recent conceptions of audiovisual or media literacy required to decode the genres and
conventions of cinema and television, to the new questions posed especially by interactive
media, especially the internet. And, as Luke (1989) points out, literacy – in encapsulating
the cognitive and cultural competencies that underpin effective communication, and hence
effective social functioning - has always been intimately related to questions of power and
inequality. Here we return to a familiar debate within audience studies, now apparently to
be replayed in the new media environment. For optimists celebrate the liberating potential
of such an escape from the confines of the dominant text:
8 28 add
'In general, then, hypertext seems to dimensions of writing, and to
that extent may encourage new practices of reading as well: ones that
might prove more hospitable to alternative, non-traditional points of view
and more inclusive of cultural difference’ (Burbules, 1998: 107).
And others are more pessimistic, identifying ways in which the world wide web
remains more hierarchical than hypertextual, more commercial than public, more closed
than open (e.g. Joyce, 1998).
But all this is to anticipate the future. What should now be clear is that, throughout
the latter half of the last century, in most industrialized countries, television has been a
medium which has dominated and still does, for the moment at least, dominate our leisure
hours, our national cultures, our domestic living rooms, and our modes of family life, all with
a consistency and durability of reach and scale with which the media both preceding and
following have not been able, and are unlikely, to compete (though interestingly, in non-
industrialized countries, it remains radio which has the greatest reach). I have argued in this
chapter that if research adopts a longer historical lens, we may begin to position our
present theories of audiences in relation to actual audiences past and future.
We may then appreciate that to review contemporary audience research is to review a
phenomenon unique to twentieth century industrialized nations, namely the dominance of
mass broadcast television and, hence, the heyday of the mass television audience. Such an
appreciation makes the case for comparative research, both historical and cultural, ever
more compelling. As I have begun to indicate, the history of audiences is now beginning to
be told, and it already shows clearly that audiences were not the same before and will not
be the same again. Interestingly, both in looking back and in looking forward, it is already
proving easier to investigate the contexts within which people use media-as-objects than it
is to identify the interpretive ‘work’ with which audiences engage with media-as-texts. In
this sense, then, it is in understanding audience reception past and future that the greater
challenge remains if we are to keep in focus both audiences as consumers of media goods
and audiences as interpreters of symbolic mediations.
Further reading Audiences: A Sociological Theory of Per f
Abercrombie, N., & Longhurst, B. (1998).
Imagination . London: Sage.
The Making of American Audiences: From stage to television, 1750-1990
Butsch, R. (2000). .
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Consuming Audiences? Production and recep t
ion in media
Hagen, I., & Wasko, J. (Eds.). (2000).
research . Cresskill, N.J.: Hampton Press.
Making Sense of Television: The Psychology of Audience Interpretation .
Livingstone, S. (1998c).
(2 ed.). London: Routledge.
Star gazing: Hollywood cinema and female spectatorship
. London: Routledge.
Stacey, J. (1994). The media and moderni t
y: a social t heory of the media
Thompson, J. B. (1995). . Cambridge:
Bibliography (additional references cited in the text)
Rethinking the media audience . London: Sage.
Alasuutari, P. (Ed.). (1999). th th
Becoming a woman: and o
her essays in 19 and 20 century feminism .
Alexander, S. (1994).
Virago: London. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 5
Allor, M. (1988). Relocating the Site of the Audience. ,
217-233. Channels of discourse
. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Allen, R. C. (Ed.). (1987).
Watching DALLAS: Soap Opera and the Melodramatic Imagination
Ang, I. (1985). . New York:
Methuen. Desperately seeking the audience . London: Routledge.
Ang, I. (1990).
Ang, I. (1996). Ethnography and radical contextualism in audience studies. In J. Hay, L.
The Audience and its Landscape . Boulder, Colorado:
Grossberg, & E. Wartella (Eds.),
Westview. Audience Responses to Media Diversification:
Becker, L. B., & Schoenbach, K. (Eds.). (1989).
Coping with Plenty . Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Blumler, J. G., Gurevitch, M., & Katz, E. (1985). REACHING OUT: A future for gratifications
research. In K. E. Rosengren, L. A. Wenner, & P. Palmgreen (Eds.),
research: Current perspectives . Beverly Hills, Cal.: Sage.
Communication as culture: essays on media and society
Carey, J. W. (1989). . New York:
Routledge. Popular Television in Bri t ain: Studies in Cultural History
. London: British
Corner, J. (Ed.). (1991).
Film Institute. European Journal of
Curran, J. (1990). The new revisionism in mass communication research.
(2-3), 135-164. Public Opinion Quarterly,
Davison, W. P. (1983). The Third-Person Effect in Communication.
47 (1), 1-15.
Drotner, K. (1992). Modernity and media panics. In M. Skovmand & K. C. Schroeder (Eds.),
Media cul t
ures: reappraising transna t
ional media . London: Routledge.
The role of the reader: Explorations in the semiotics of texts.
Eco, U. (1979). Bloomington:
Indiana University Press.
Visible fictions . (Revised ed.). London: Routledge.
Ellis, J. (1992). Journal of Communication Enquiry, 13
Erni, J. (1989). Where is the audience.
1 31 Journal of Social History, Spring
Fischer, C. S. (1994). Changes in leisure activities, 1890-1940. ,
453-475. Technology Review, 2001
Fischetti, M. (2001). The future of TV.
. London: Methuen.
Fiske, J. (1987). Poetics, 21 ,
Fiske, J. (1992). Audiencing: a cultural studies approach to watching television.
345-359. Dynamics of modern communication: the shaping and impact of new
Flichy, P. (1995).
communication technologies . London: Sage.
Talking politics . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gamson, W. A. (1992). Culture,
Hall, S. (1980). Encoding/Decoding. In S. Hall, D. Hobson, A. Lowe, & P. Willis (Eds.),
Media , Language . London: Hutchinson.
Babel and Babylon: Spectatorship in American Silent Film
Hansen, M. (1991). . Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Children and Television: A Semiotic Approach . Cambridge: Polity.
Hodge, R., & Tripp, D. (1986). Cultu
r al Cogni t
: New perspec
ives in audience t
Hoijer, B., & Werner, A. (Eds.). (1998). .
Iser, W. (1980). Interaction between text and reader. In S. R. Suleiman & I. Crosman (Eds.),
The reader in the text: essays on audience and interpre
t ation . Princeton: Princeton
Is anyone responsible? How t elevision frames political issues . Chicago:
Iyengar, S. (1991).
University of Chicago Press.
Jensen, K. (1993). The Past in the Future: Problems and Potentials of Historical Reception
Jou r nal of Communication, 43
Studies. Communication Research, 6
Katz, E. (1979). The uses of Becker, Blumler and Swanson. (1), 74-
The Export of Meaning: Cross - Cultural Readings of DALLAS
Liebes, T., & Katz, E. (1995). .
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Livingstone, S. (1998a). Audience research at the crossroads: the 'implied audience' in media
European Journal of Cultural Studies , 1
Livingstone, S. (1998b). Relationships between media and audiences: prospects for future
Media, culture, identity: Essays in honour of
research. In T. Liebes & J. Curran (Eds.),
Elihu Katz . London: Routledge. New Media and Society, 1 (1), 59-66.
Livingstone, S. (1999). New media, new audiences.
Young people and new media: childhood and the changing media
Livingstone, S. (2002).
environment . London: Sage.
Livingstone, S., Allen, J., and Reiner, R. (2001). The audience for crime media 1946-91: A
Communication Review, 4 (2): 165-192.
historical approach to reception studies.
Talk on Television: Audience Discussion and Public
Livingstone, S. M., & Lunt, P. K. (1994).
Debate . London: Routledge.
Pedagogy, printing and protestantism: The discourse on childhood
Luke, C. (1989). . Albany, NY:
State University of New York Press.
Consumption and everyday life . London: Sage.
Mackay, H. (Ed.). (1997).
When Old Technologies We
r e New: Thinking About Electric Communication in
Marvin, C. (1988).
the Late Nineteenth Cen t
ury . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Screen, 15 (2), 7-27.
MacCabe, C. (1974). Realism and the cinema.
McMillan, S. (2002) Exploring models of interactivity from multiple research traditions: Users,
Handbook of New
documents and systems. In L. Lievrouw and S. Livingstone (Eds).
Media: Social Shaping and Consequences of ICTs . London: Sage.
McQuail, D. (1997). . London: Sage.
+1 anno fa
Questa dispensa fa riferimento al corso di Interfacce, contenuti e servizi per le tecnologie interattive, tenuto dalla Prof.ssa Poggiani. Si tratta di un documento frutto di una ricerca sull'audience da parte di Sonia Livingstone in cui evidenzia come nel tempo sia cambiata la natura di un pubblico prevalentemente di massa, che ha ceduto il posto ad un pubblico fatto di utenti interattivi, diversi e frammentati.
I contenuti di questa pagina costituiscono rielaborazioni personali del Publisher Atreyu di informazioni apprese con la frequenza delle lezioni di INTERFACCE, CONTENUTI E SERVIZI PER LE TECNOLOGIE INTERATTIVE e studio autonomo di eventuali libri di riferimento in preparazione dell'esame finale o della tesi. Non devono intendersi come materiale ufficiale dell'università La Sapienza - Uniroma1 o del prof Poggiani Alessandra.
Acquista con carta o conto PayPal
Scarica il file tutte le volte che vuoi
Paga con un conto PayPal per usufruire della garanzia Soddisfatto o rimborsato