Nothing from this week's readings jumped out as controversial, nor did I feel my normal "technology is the enemy" attitude welling up inside. Yet somehow, I have managed a few thoughts on both readings.
I was a bit disappointed with the Gregory article. I was hoping that more attention would be given to e-literature (short stories, novellas, etc.). Instead I felt the "guidelines" applied only to those "traditional" texts that naturally lent themselves to publishing on the web (i.e. pamphlets, brochures, marketing materials, etc.). I'm confident that if I read these guidelines to my 8th graders, at least half of them would give me a resounding "Duh" or "No kidding."
The Nielsen article made me wonder about the chicken or the egg. Do "Web pages have to employ scannable text" because people scan web sites, or do people scan web texts because they (for the most part) have always been scannable? The Internet thrives in no small part because it provides quick access to a world of information, and I would imagine that the first creators of websites considered this strongly as they developed site structure. Getting to a site in one second and then needing one hour to get your information doesn't make much sense. Did we need a study to prove this?
See you tomorrow,
Jake
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment