The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: Rhetorical Analysis of a Website
(Printable Word Document version)
Timetable:
9/11-Topic Proposals and Peer Collaboration in Class (10 points)
9/18-Submission 1.1 (50 points) Due in Class—Peer Critique (20 points)
9/21-Instructor Comments Distributed
9/28-Submission 1.2 Due in Class (70 points)
Your job in this assignment is to evaluate an argumentative website in terms of its rhetorical function and overall design, in other words, you’ll be doing a rhetorical analysis of a website. What does that mean exactly? It means you will need to determine what kind of website you’re dealing with (is it commercial, educational, political, explicitly persuasive), what is its purpose, what is its argument, who is its audience, and then figure out how well it achieves its purpose for its intended audience using its current design, layout, and form. You will evaluate its overall useability in terms of how well it meets its users’ and designers’ needs. You will find either an exemplary website that successfully meets its rhetorical goals, or one that is woefully in need of a makeover, and explain why it needs one. [For the sake of your dear colleagues, please do not choose a site created by another Rensselaer student if you’re planning to talk about the “ugly.” Rather, choose another site, there is no shortage out there, I promise you.]
In other words, this assignment requires you to make an argument. Yup, you’re going to have to take a stand (is it good, bad, ugly?) and back up your claim with evidence from the site itself. It will help you increase your knowledge of good design principles and it will give you the opportunity to practice your writing.
How will you know if it’s good or bad (or ugly), you ask? Well, we’ll be discussing basic design criteria in class, the criteria change depending on the site’s purpose, audience, and the needs of the designers and users. So before you can even begin to work on the assignment you’ll have to figure out what is the site’s purpose, who is its audience, and what are the needs of the designers and users (are they the same, different?). You’ll also want to think about who made the site. For our intents and purposes, you’ll use the criteria we discuss in class and that you read about in The Non-Designer’s Web Book Chapter 6 “Basic Design Principles for Non-Designers” and Chapter 8 “How to Recognize Good and Bad Design,” The Brief Penguin Handbook Chapter 1 “Writing for Different Purposes in Different Media” (1-26), and Good Reasons Chapters 12 and 13 (“Effective Visual Design” p. 225-250 and “Effective Web Design” 255-265)—all will be available to you via electronic reserves (link to be included soon!).
Developing Your Paper
Describe the website you’ve chosen to examine
You should consider your audience for this paper to be someone who (a) has never visited the website that you choose to discuss and (b) is looking to know more about good web design from a useability perspective. Thus, you’ll have to spend some time explaining what type of website it is and describing the website’s features.
Make a Specific Evaluative Claim
Be sure that you are making an evaluative judgment about the website. Ask yourself: Is your argument about the quality of the website and its design?
State Criteria for your Evaluation
By what criteria will you be judging the website? We decided on these in class, but you should still lay them out for a reader who wasn’t present for our discussion of criteria.
Examine Your Claim using your Criteria
After you’ve put forth your claim and your criteria, give evidence from the website itself that supports your argument.
Consider Alternative Views
Remember that an argument is something with which others can disagree. You should consider those who might disagree with your claims or criteria and attempt to answer the questions of someone who would oppose your viewpoint.
Additional Requirements
Your final draft should be 3-5 pages long (750-1250 words), typed, double-spaced, and carefully proofread. Please refer to the policy statement for formatting requirements (double space, 12 in, Times New Roman, 1-inch margins, etc.). Make sure your paper is turned in electronically (using the proper naming conventions: yourfirstnamelastinitial_1_1; i.e., janf_1_1 for first submission, janf_1_2 for second submission). Remember that papers are due at the beginning of class.
Even though you are only going to cite one source, you must include a “Works Cited” which follows MLA format.
For websites the conventions are as follows:
Course home page:
Kirkpatrick, Judith. American Literature Online. Course home page. Jan.-May 2003. Dept. of
English. Kapi’olani CC. 21 Feb. 2003.< http://www2.hawaii.edu/~kirkpatr/s03>.
(From Faigley’s The Brief Penguin Handbook, Second Edition, p.279)
Publication by a Group or Organization:
“State of the Birds, USA 2004.” Audubon. 2004. National Audubon Society. 19 Nov. 2004
<http://www.audubon.org/bird/stateofthebirds/>.
(From Faigley’s The Brief Penguin Handbook, Second Edition, p.274)
In general you should always include the
Name of the author. “The Title of the article or part of the website you looked at.” The name of
The publication or the site on which the part you looked at is located. The date of the
Publication. The date you accessed the site.
< http: The URL for the site enclosed in brackets—copy it exactly--copy and paste>
Grading Criteria
Your essay will be evaluated (by you, your peers, and me) according to these criteria:
• Clear and concise statement of your evaluative claim.
• Clear statement and explanation of criteria.
• Detailed examination of the website using the criteria we determined as a class.
• Acknowledgement and consideration of alternative claims.
• Effective essay organization.
• Clear and precise sentence-level rhetoric (grammar and style).