Skip to content

Errr

“Theorists of visual rhetoric remind us that writeen words are visual marks on a page or screen as well as intelligible verbal signs; because writing is always visually apprehended it is also always to some exent visually informative, conveying meaning based on how it is displayed” (Sorapore). (well, not braille, really, right?)

Writing is a hybrid of verbal, spatial, visual

Acknowledging hybridity “means relationships among words and images, verbal texts and visual texts, ‘visual culture’ and ‘print culture’ are all dialgoic relationships rather than binary opposites” (Hocks 631)

Still thinking about notions of design and the visual.

These quotes stood out.

Design, Redesign, Get to know.

Okay. The readings for this week have basically reinforced for me that ya don’t just use technology in the classroom to tinker with some tools, but to encourage literacy–of all kinds. It seems from the first text to the last of our readings for this week, the idea of first understanding, next being critical, and then being producers of new media in the classroom is key. I think the idea of being a producer and not just a consumer of new media is important, but I am at a loss here. It is difficult enough, as the first author mentions, for some students to be critical without feeling as though they are being cynical. (But don’t we value cynicism in the academy? Har Har) Should we work with a familiar media (to most students, not all) like a social networking site or should we begin doing “more advanced” work with new media as Turnley and her students do?

I appreciated, especially, Turnley’s piece and her thinking about the rhetorical methods we ought to use in the approach to technological literacy. I also appreciated the idea of redesign and a thoughful, considered, and rhetorical approach to web design. I think this idea or redesign has interesting pedagogical implications for on and off the web. Errr.. I had never thought of navigability as a rhetorical concern, but it makes perfect sense and I am wondering what sort of project I might pursue next semester that deals with this principle.

Bad Blog Writing.

Danah Boyd says/quotes Arendt: Public spaces or mediated publics “allow people to make sense of the social norms that regulate society, they let people learn to express themselves and learn from the reactions of others, and they let people make certain acts or expressions ‘real’ by having witnesses acknowledge them.”  I really get a kick out of this idea that having an audience makes actions/expressions ‘real.’  While this makes sense to me on a number of level (don’t ask me to unpack this just yet), it makes me and Danah Boyd wonder about the mediated publics that we (as users of the web and creators of online texts) do not welcome.  In what way is, for instance, Laura Sullivan’s picture made “real” as it becomes imbedded in someone else’s anticipated audience?  And how, as Moxley suggests, am I to know what will be made “real” in different and uncontrollable contexts in 20 years?  How am I t0 know what will embarrass me in 20 years? 20 years ago I was five years old and shaking my butt at the audience of a ballet recital was not embarrassing.  How can I enlighten myself–and my students–on what longevity online texts have?  I mean, this isn’t a terribly fascinating or articulate blog posting that many others can (potentially) read and that could (potentially) outlive me in some way (I’m sure Brian has a better understand of how)… Should I be concerned that it will appear linked into a site called: Bad Blog Writing? (This self-effacing is really unnattractive, I realize, but thankfully  this blog isn’t intended to make me atttractive. I don’t have any pictures of myself with long, or short, hair. I am successfully averting the male gaze.)

a visit to umass blogs

Rather than boring my fellow tech fellows with musings of how dark and rich my 9AM Monday cup of coffee is, I will simply say I am writing this here to see how it will appear on my blog. The End.