This third foray into "quiz" land -- and more and more, the use of that term is simply a nod to the language of the traditional classroom -- we will again be working collaboratively, both within and between groups; and while there are few if any "right" answers for the kinds of webs you are building in this exercise, there may be some wrong answers! Read on and we'll see where this is going.
Now, no matter what you all decide we should do with the collection of final projects, it occured to me last week while I was reading the "Links" Journal Nodes that, in fact, you are all already collaborating on something that will be useful to future classes. What issues are going to matter to students learning about writing to the WWW? Linking. Copyright. Graphics. "Hypertexting." Audience. Credibility. All those things which you have addressed and written about in Quiz #2, and in Journal #6.
You may recall from the first day of the semester that I explained that the Porush text would fill a couple of different roles in this class. First, it is a good "handbook" for writing, and as I have shared, in my opinion most handbooks in the field of writing just suck. (With the notable exception of any book written by someone who is reading this page. Ahem.) Second, in many important ways, writing for the WWW is very much like science writing
The effective science writer knows the importance of clearly communicating ideas to a specific and carefully-defined audience, incorporating graphics, text and concise labels to allow the reader to navigate the text comfortably. The effective science writer also recognizes the standards of the professional field to which the text is directed, and writes within those standards.
The effective and innovative science writer does all of the above -- and also finds ways to press, push and expand, even work outside the "standards of the professional field" in ways that the audience will find challenging but not disorienting.
I will not insult your intellegence by now pointing out how each and every one of the above statements relates to web publishing. You're smart -- you can see it. You can also probably see other ways that science writing and web publishing are related. I suspect -- expect! -- that you will also see inherent flaws in the analogy. I hope you will point them out and suggest alternatives as they occur to you.
Some ideas will "translate" better ... a mis-spelled "wurd" is a still a mis-spelled word, whether you are in papertext or hypertext (can you think of exceptions?). A bad introduction -- one which gives the reader either the wrong idea or no idea about the writing to come -- is a bad introduction whether it is a first paragraph or a front node. But ideas about transition ... about citation ... about conclusions ... are these changing?
The Porush book is, in my opinion, the best book I have ever seen for learning to express hard ideas clearly, accessibly, and, whatever this may mean, correctly ... in papertext. In hypertext, we still want to express ideas clearly, accessibly and correctly ... but ask yourself: how are the definitions of "clarity," of "accessibility" and of "correctness" changing?
There are lots of right answers. And there just may be varying levels of "rightness" -- for instance, asserting that all introductory nodes on the Web should contain the word "baffle" would be mighty hard to defend, but I wouldn't say it's wrong until I read the argument. Meanwhile, there may well be "wrong" answers -- "Spelling and Grammer Don't Matter No More On This Here Web Thingy" would be a bad approach to this writing task. Spelling and grammar -- that's an area where Porush's work may translate more clearly than some others.
Or does it?
I should make it clear that the assigned tasks are not necessarily meant to reflect the (future) responsibilities of each team; for instance, it would be quite difficult to build tasks into this kind of assignment appropriate to either "code editing" or "content response," as both would require waiting for something else to be produced. This quiz is simply a chance for you to learn to work together. With that in mind, in case you have forgotten who is assigned to what "team," here again is the list:
The very first thing every group should do is spend a little time looking at how other classes engaged in web writing are dealing with the issue(s) in your particular writing task. How can you learn from these forays onto the web? Look for material you can emulate, use, borrow, build upon, counteract, disagree with ... and consider carefully how you should approach the use of that material. Do you need to contact anyone? Beforehand? After the fact? Explain any decisions you may make in this regard in an e-mail message to Karen and me after you have completed (or at least, "turned in") your website.
What translates? What doesn't? What situations can you imagine where students in a class like this would want/need to refer to such a guide? How do you incorporate the fact that people are writing from different backgrounds and to different audiences? Can you imagine "Six Steps to Deep Web Editing" (or whatever you might call it -- see pp. 206ff.)? Can you imagine "A Hypertextual Approach to Style" (again, or whatever you might call it -- see chapter 18)?
Strongly recommended: look at other WWW Styleguides; many publications, including some we have looked at, have developed their own or incorporated print style manuals into their websites. Several of the other classes working in WWW space are also studying these ideas. What have they had to say?
Where 17 & 18 are chapters that tend toward discussing "correctness," this chapter is much shorter -- in papertext. In hypertext, there may be many more options regarding "right" answers about defining terms; there may be more (or fewer?) situations where terms need defining, or more options in how we can go about including those definitions. Be thorough.
Finally, there is another "element" to defining terms in textual environments of all sorts -- defining the source they come from. Porush's chapter 10 addresses "Citation." How can we best incorporate a useful "Four C's" (see p. 120) approach to citation on the WWW? Or do these "C's" change in hypertext? Note: many publications, including some we have looked at, have developed their own or incorporated print citation formats into their websites. You may consider looking at/borrowing from one or some of these.
Re-design and re-present the site at [http://www.rpi.edu/dept/llcs/webclass/web/abstracts] in such a way that anyone visiting the site can access information regarding the various projects going on in this class. How much information needs to be on the front node? You will need to make sure that everyone in class has contributed an abstract. You have write and edit access to everyone's files. How much of each node can you change or re-present without asking? At what point(s) do you have to contact the individual authors?
These abstracts are written very differently and at various levels of certainty. How do you deal with this? What should you do with the various individual abstracts written by members of a group working together? How "uniform" should these abstracts be visually? What links should be on the individual nodes? On the front node? If you wish, you can build an abstract "template" for the class -- an html file in which individuals need only "plug" in text. What are the advantages and disadvantages of such a resource?
Respond as well to the content of the abstracts. Can you label them as informative, indicative, descriptive? Do these adjectives have different meanings in hypertext as opposed to papertext?
Titling and organization includes subheads (titles for each node? within nodes? Both? Something else entirely?) and other "labels." What parts of hypertextual documents need to be labeled? Is this list different than in papertext?
Porush's checklists about introductions (p. 97) and conclusions (p. 172) highlight recommendations for organizing and presenting ideas in papertext. How much of these two lists transfer to hypertext? Do meanings change? Are any of these listed ideas more limiting to a hypertextual author? Or is "limiting" part of the point?
Build a web discussing the concepts of titling, introductions, and conclusions as they relate to various kinds of hypertextual documents; if at all possible use examples either from, or relavent to, the specific work we've done in class to date, and to the work the other groups are doing on this writing assignment.
Build a front-end node to all the work we've done in this class that would be useful to another class like this one. Material available to you includes journal entries, quiz material (from Quiz 2 and from this exercise), student homepages, the syllaweb, etc. You are not limited to material produced by this class; are there external links that would make the site that much more valuable?
How do you organize this site? What do you call it? How much information should be available on this front node? Keep in mind that you do not have write/edit access to ALL of the material you may be linking to -- does this change your approach? Suggestion: look at the ways other classes have presented and made available their work. Option: work with Group 6 as closely as you deem necessary.
Focus on clarity, accessibility, navigability, and design. Suggestion: look carefully at syllawebs for other classes -- don't limit yourself to those studying writing! There are at least 25 classes right here at RPI which also have webbed syllabi ... which isn't necessarily the same thing as a syllaweb. Option: work with Group 5 as closely as you deem necessary. There are certainly other projects in this quiz that may be incorporated to your work as well. Do not feel constrained or obligated to include ANY of the design elements of the original syllaweb!
After addressing this issue, design a logo/flag/whatever for Writing to the World-Wide Web (the class, the publication, the syllaweb -- you decide). Where and how often should this logo be included/incorporated into our site? Build a web which discusses the design you make and breaks down at the elemental level. Why did you choose each piece of the design? Discuss the decision-making process.
Strongly recommended: Work with Karen on ways to effectively describe what you're doing. What level of knowledge are you assuming about your audience? You may presume that there will be a link at the bottom of the W-WWW site called "About the Logo" which links to this discussion.
If it seems appropriate, this site may be incorporated into the Styleguide being developed by Groups 1 & 2 -- if you do take this approach, does it change your thinking about the project at all?
Can you imagine "Protocols for Web Visuals" (see p. 137)? "Comparisons of Different Types of Webbed Presentations" (see p. 141)? "Compising Web Tables" (see p. 142; ironically this also becomes a coding question on the WWW)? What kinds of lists might you need that Porush does not include?
Obviously, not all web visuals are scientific visuals meant to represent data, like Porush claims about visuals in science writing. However, his claim "all visuals provide testimony" to the author's presentation may be a useful phrase to consider. Recommended: work with Karen on developing this website, especially regarding your choice of descriptive vocabulary. If at all possible, use examples either from or relevant to the work we have already done in class.
|
Course Objectives |
Class Roster |
Class Policies |
|---|---|---|
|
Grading |
Calendar | Front of Syllaweb |