Rajeev's Blog

I have decided to change the web pages that I want to revise for my final project. I will still work on the homepage of the Writing Studies website. However, instead of focusing on the "Graduate" pages, I will redesign the "Undergraduate" pages.

As I look at the structure of this website, I've realized that it is organized by category. The names of the links on the left-hand column navigation reveal the main sections of the website:

ABOUT
COURSES
GRADUATE
UNDERGRADUATE
NEWS & EVENTS
PEOPLE
MAKE A GIFT
INTRANET

There is a section for Graduate, and Undergraduate programs. These sections are then also divided into sub-categories:

ABOUT
COURSES
GRADUATE
UNDERGRADUATE
o Major
o Minor
o Admission
o Scholarships
o Internships
o Learning Abroad
o Handbook
o Careers
NEWS & EVENTS
PEOPLE
MAKE A GIFT
INTRANET

To get to specific information on the site, it takes about an average of 3 clicks. For instance, if students wanted to know the requirements for an undergraduate degree, they would click on the Undergraduate link on the homepage, then click on "Major", and then on the "Requirements Checklist".

Besides being organized categorically, I also think the site is structured as a more complex "tree" hierarchy than a simple hub-and-spoke/"star" structure (See Yale Web Style Guide). The site does not simply have menus and sub-menus. The sub menus also have menus within themselves.

In addition to the left-hand column navigation, the site also features a breadcrumb trail navigation. This navigation does not appear on the homepage and it is located above the page title, but below the header/banner.

Another option of structuring this site is to relocate the main links (ABOUT, COURSES, GRADUATE, etc. ) right where the breadcrumb trail navigation is currently located. This would serve as the global navigation for the website. On the left-hand column, the sub links (UNDERGRADUATE: Major, Minor, Admissions, etc.) would end up changing as users switch from one main link to another. Then, that navigation menu would end up being the local navigation for the site.

Comment on your web site of choice for the final project and on the use of headings, illustrations, and link names in your web site of choice. Refer to Redish where relevant.

The web site of my choice is the University of Minnesota's Writing Studies Department site. Right now, I will briefly talk about the headings, illustrations, and link names on this site.

Headings
The homepage has a page title, a level-1 heading, and a level-2 heading. The font of all the text, including heading and body text, is a sans serif font. The page title is 24pt. Both, level-1 and level-2 headings are 18pt.

The size of the body text is 11pt, although the body text under the level-2 heading appears to be somewhat smaller. Also the level-2 headings are bolded, boxed-in, and turn into links. The level-1 heading is a noun phrase heading, whereas the level-2 headings are both statement headings.

Regarding headings on the "Graduate" page, they differ in several ways from the homepage headings. For instance, level-2 headings on this page are 4.5pt smaller than on the homepage. In addition, the level-2 headings are noun phrase headings, instead of statement headings (as was the case on the homepage).

The headings on the M.S. (M.S. in Scientific and Technical Communication) page are even more different. This page only has level-1 headings, which resemble the level-2 headings of the homepage. The headings on this page do not turn into links, though.

Illustrations
There is one illustration on the homepage. It is a mood picture meant to evoke certain emotions. In this instance, I believe the photo on this page was meant to evoke a sense of community among students.

On the "Graduate" page, there is another photograph. Again, it is meant to be a mood picture. It gives the viewer a sense of either one-on-one study guidance or collaboration among students.

The "M.S." page does not contain any illustrations.

Link names
On all the pages there is a left navigation bar with mostly noun/noun phrase link names in capital letters. On most of the pages, there are also links embedded into the text. Most of these link names are also noun/noun phrases. In addition, on the homepage and on the "Graduation" page, level-2 headings turn into links.

One major flaw with the links is that they do not change in any way after a link has been visited.

For my final project, I will revise 3 pages from the University of Minnesota's Writing Studies web site. The 3 pages include the home page, the "Graduate" information page/pathway page, and the "M.S. in Scientific and Technical Communication" information page/pathway page.

For starters, I probably plan on making the "Graduate" Page a pure pathway page. On the "Graduate" page, the only thing that directly relates to the graduate program is the first paragraph. The rest of the written content deals with the staff and students of the Writing Studies Department. This information can be moved into a completely different section, such as an "About Us" page.

I believe that site visitors to the Writing Studies Department, who click on the "Graduate" page, are only interested in the graduate programs. Everything else will likely be ignored, or it will distract/confuse/annoy visitors. I think that making the "Graduate" page a pure pathway page will enable visitors "grab and go" what they need much quicker.

I also plan on reorganizing and changing the majority of the content on the "M.S. in Scientific and Technical Communication" information page/pathway page. The content has very little to do with the M.S. program specifically. It's mainly about the occupational outlook of technical communications (T.C.) and the U's history with T.C.

Currently, there is a link to the M.S. degree requirements on the "M.S. in Scientific and Technical Communication" page. However, I think site visitors who click on the "M.S. in Scientific and Technical Communication" page will expect to see the degree requirements right away.

I also plan on changing many of the design elements of the web site, such as:

• Background color
• Font of content text
• Size of content text
• Formatting of tables and text

How do YouTube and Podcasts change our understanding of "writing" on the web? How is writing different for video? Include a link in your blog entry.

The two-column script for Egleston Children Hospital shows one unique aspect of writing for video. The script is split into a video column and an audio column. In the video column you would write what's happening on the screen. You would only write what's happening visually. In the audio column you would write what's being said. This includes both the voices of characters talking in the video as well as the voice of the narrator. Also, music playing in the background would be noted in the audio column. The audio column describes what's happening aurally. Thus, I assume that scripts for video usually separate visual elements from auditory ones.

For podcasts, the writing appears to resemble just the "narration" writing from video. However, in the narration visual elements are described in words, since you can't really show those elements in audio podcasts.

In addition, in a lot of commercialized podcasts you have to factor in ads that are streamed into it. A popular ad that I always hear is the one for audible.com. These ads are often seamlessly integrated into the podcast. For instance, in the Grammar Girl podcasts, the narrator herself advertises the service, almost as if it were part of the podcast topic/subject. It's very similar to what some radio talk show hosts do.

Comment on the Case Study on page 46 of Redish regarding home pages and path pages. Share (link to) an example of a home page that suffers from similar problems

One of the most interesting things about the case study for me was the lack of a clear search feature on the HHS home page. According to Redish, a lot of people mistook the "Select Topic" drop down menu as a search form. Also, a lot of people apparently didn't see the "Search" button on the left-hand side menu.

I can think of several home pages that suffer from similar design problems, particularly the U of M home page and the Yahoo! home page. It's not that the design is terrible. It's just that it isn't as efficient and clear as I would like it to be, especially considering that I found a much better way to access the pathway pages on those sites. I don't even go to those homepages anymore. I simply google "umn" or "yahoo" and the search results will list the pathway links right underneath the respective results (please google "umn" or "yahoo" to see what I mean).

For instance, underneath the search result for "umn", it will first list the home page site as usual. However, the pathway page links, such as "E-mail", "myU", and "OneStop" are listed right underneath. It doesn't take me very long to get to those pathway pages through the homepage. But, again, through Google, it's a lot faster.

Google is even better when I try to access my Yahoo! e-mail account. I've used Google so often to access the Yahoo! e-mail pathway link, that now I really don't know where the link is on the actual homepage.

I guess it just goes to show that the K-I-S-S method is a good general rule as far as web usability is concerned.

When I read novels, I read them linearly. I read them word by word, and from cover to cover. It doesn't matter whether the novels are in print or electronic form; I use the same methods for the same genres.

When I read print magazines, like Time magazine, I always scan the table of contents and flip through the pages to see what interests me and I usually read those articles word by word, from beginning to end. However, I often prefer to read shorter, rather than longer articles. I use the exact, same method when I read the New York Times online: Scan. Choose. Then read (word by word).

However, I use a slightly different (but somewhat similar) method when reading an article on Wikipedia. I tend to scan on a section and paragraph level. Then, I read selected sections and paragraphs linearly.

Based on my own personal reading habits, I think that Nielson jumps to conclusions when offering suggestions for better online writing. In "How Users Read On the Web", Nielson displays a table that shows how writing styles correlate with "usability improvement". Looking at the table, I could incorrectly infer that bulleted lists are always the way to go.

Again, based on my own personal preference, I think that bulleted lists are sometimes useful, especially when doing research. I recently did research on the iPhone and I found a bulleted list of the iPhone's key features particularly helpful. However, I believe that bulleted lists are only useful depending on the purpose of writing and the purpose of the reader. Lists can get pretty boring, pretty fast.

Recently, I heard a professor mention that he prefers to read Op-Ed pieces for the factual information, and not necessarily for the argument. I used to do the same thing, because I found Op-Ed pieces quite easy to read. Since Op-Ed writers are trying to persuade an audience, they are forced to think about their audience. Thus, they will structure their argument and their writing in an "accessible" way for their audience and I don't think there are any easy rules to make something more "accessible".

Nielson recommends highlighting keywords, writing meaningful sub-headings and bulleted lists as a way to make text more "scannable". I think that those strategies can be useful, but they are not good enough. At the very least, those strategies aren't good enough on their own.

BLOG POST 4

(2) Why is the "visual" so important to digital writing? Reflect on your experience with visual elements and the internet. Refer to Bolter where relevant.

Bolter talks about visual elements as seperate from verbal text, at times. At other times, he suggests that the visual element can be text-based. For example, when poets use metaphors, they are incorporating a "visual" in their writing. In a similar way, "discoursive prose" also incorporates a text-based visual; Bolter talks about how discoursive prose has "abstract" parts and "concrete" parts and that the concrete parts are "subordinate" to the abstract parts (I'm thinking a general statement plus an example). Furthermore, Bolter really seems to want to emphasize that point; the concrete being subordinate to the abstract and how the visual element (whether text-based or an actual graphic) has always been used to "supplement" verbal text (Bolter 48).

I guess a simple way of figuring out what he is trying to say is by thinking in terms of words coming before pictures. You think of the word first and then the picture follows. That's what's happening in print. You read the word "tree" first, and then an image of a tree pops in your head. In contrast, when you walk around a park, you see a tree (you see the visual first) and then you think of the word "tree". I might be waaaay off here, though.

Anyways, I believe the visual has been taking on a much greater importance, and not just in digital writing. Bolter talks about the change of the ratio between visuals and verbal text in print. I don't know if he actually says it explicitly, but (at the very least) it's implied that we are seeing more images in print than ever before.

In addition, Bolter also talks about how older technologies remediate THEMSELVES in response to newer technologies. I thought that was a bit odd. From what I understand, newer technologies are a remediation of an older technology; that something new is fashioned after (or remediated from) something old. Yet, I think, Bolter may be also saying that remediation has a more complicated meaning than that, especially when he states that an older technology can "remake" itself. Again, I may be misreading Bolter, though. (Bolter 49)

But, if newer technologies are remediations of older technologies AND older technologies can remediate themselves in response to newer technologies THEN that suggests (as Bolter seems to say) that the increase of visual elements (both as graphics and text-based prose) is the way that the older technology of print is remediating itself in response to the newer technology of digital writing (Bolter 49).

Chandler (2002) said that the term "deterministic" had a negative connotation among social scientists. He said that forms of determinism, especially technological determinism, are being increasingly scrutinized by scholars. I think it's very easy to see why someone would be skeptical about deterministic theories, such as technological determinism. Determinism appears to oversimplify something very complex, it "seeks to explain social and historical phenomena in terms of ONE principal or determining factor"(as Chandler puts it). To put it bluntly, technological determinism proposes that technology is THE main factor in shaping society.

Chandler obviously does not dismiss the fact that technology is a factor, even an important factor, in shaping society. However, there are other important factors involved. Additionally, he makes a very interesting point, when he states that it's "difficult to isolate causes and effects". It's also quite hard to "even distinguish causes from effects."

He also quotes Leslie White as saying that "the technological factor...determines the form of social systems". Then, "technology and society together determine the content and orientation of philosophy." I can't help but speculate that technological determinism has it backward; in other words, the causes and effects have been switched around.

I always thought that philosophy/ideology shapes society. Then, the ideological-shaped society determines the kind of technology it will end up producing. Of course, once the technology is introduced to society, it may end up going back and re-shape society and it's philosophy.

Bolter (12, 13) says that the electronic writing space has "refashioned" the writing space of print. He states that the "continuous flow of words and pages in a book" has been replaced by "abrupt changes of direction and tempo" in electronic space. He also states that we have 'conceived electronic writing space as located in the space of a printed book'. That is to say, we use the printed page as a metaphor for interpreting electronic writing space.

With that in mind, what does hypertext refashion?

Wikipedia defines hypertext as "text displayed on...an electronic device with references (hyperlinks) to other texts, that the reader can immediately access..."(Wikipedia, 2010)

From an academic point of view, hypertext "refashions" in-text citations and references of sources cited by a particular written, scholarly work (Bolter 28). For instance, when one blogger quotes/paraphrases another blogger, and then links or "hypertexts" the citation.

Of course, hypertext has been used in several other ways. Another example includes websites that contain a table of contents (T.O.C) at the top of the page, or even a navigation bar (which functions as a sort of T.O.C.). Overall, hypertext appears to replace the physical/mental activity required for such things as turning the pages to get to a specific section in a printed work, or having to look up (or even googling) certain cited works. In addition, the convenience of "hypertexting" sources actually encourages the looking up of cited sources. All of this just goes to show that electronic space has been fashioned after the printed space, as Bolter seems to claim.

I'm probably a digital native. More or less. I got my first gaming system, when I was 12. And I probably spent five times as much time playing video games and watching TV than doing my homework or playing outside with my friends. In high-school, I took a lot of digital technology oriented classes. Like typing, basic computer programming, and information literacy. And I actually started to feel like a nerd. At the time, I knew a lot more about this stuff than my peers.

However, somewhere along the line (right after high-school), I lost my interest in digital technology. Most likely it had a lot to do with my financial situation. I couldn't afford a lot of the latest gadgets, and keeping up with digital technology means having the newest gizmos. Another reason for my loss of interest in digital technology probably had to do with my employment situation. I worked at a grocery store, then at Target, and I was enlisted in the National Guard. I had also taken a hiatus from college at the time. So having computer skills really wasn't that necessary for me to have. In a way, I began to adopt the ways of the Digital Immigrant.

Now, I'm at a point where some of my older friends (much older friends) know a lot more about digital technology than I do. At this point, I guess I'm somewhere between a Digital Native and a Digital Immigrant, depending on who you compare me to.

As someone who thinks he's been to both worlds, I don't agree with Marc Pensky's emphasis on catering to the needs of Digital Natives. It's like he's saying that people from Mexico who immigrate to the US have to learn English. And I totally agree with that. But he's also implying that it's not necessary, and maybe even impossible, for US Natives to learn the language and culture of Mexicans.

Of course, I recognize the difference between Marc's digital immigration metaphor and real immigration. Real immigration is moving from one geographic location to another. Marc's digital immigration is moving from one time frame to another. Maybe he is saying that digital nativity is "progress". Still, I wonder whether the values of a Digital Native are necessarily better than the values and ways of thinking of a Digital Immigrant. I can't help but feel that there are a lot of problems with the way that Digital Native's think. Maybe that's just me freaking out over something that has become somewhat strange to me.

Here is what Wikipedia has to say about Digital Natives:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_native