Claire Harrison’s article “Visual Social Semiotics: Understanding How Still Images Make Meaning” is highly informative, perhaps, at about 15 pages, too informative. She starts out by providing an overview on semiotics, social and visual. She then discusses different categories of images and representational metafunction. She finishes up with interpersonal metafunction and then finishes up with compositional metafunction. I appreciate Harrison’s commitment and willingness to educate the reader and present the information in organized form. I do, however, believe that Harrison could sum up the entire article in one sentence: Images affect the people looking at them.
Harrison talks about how angles are used to make something look a certain way, esteemed or lowly. She talks about symbols and icons and I understand it’s important to go beyond the pretty picture element and get into the science of using images properly. But the information needs to be slimmed down and simplified. There needed to be an overview in the beginning to let the reader know what to expect. The sections on semiotics needed to be condensed. There was good use of tables and examples though.
On the ideas in the article, as stated before, I think the material is common sense and intuitive but I understand the necessity of technicality. The most interesting part of the article was a reference to Rene Magritte’s “The Treachery of Images,” in which the artist tells the viewer that the image of a pipe is just an image. I appreciated the Baudrillardian overtones. Baudrillard, a French philosopher, was a major critic of modern society for its addiction to virtual reality and obsession with images and hyperreality. I thought using Magritte’s painting added a good deal of credibility.
Finally, I think all people should be aware of at least the basics of semiotics because all of us accept and perpetuate visual representations without really evaluating their origins, methods, and effects.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
A Response to “The Implications of Single Sourcing for Writers and Writing” by Locke Carter
Locke Carter is an expert in technical communication at Texas Tech University and in his article “The Implications of Single Sourcing for Writers and Writing” he details the effect single sourcing has on writers. He defines single sourcing as “producing documents designed to be recombined and reused across projects and various media.” Some examples include the memo format, or the 12 point font, Times New Roman, double-spaced format that characterizes academic writing.
Carter goes into how single sourcing occurs in a more professional setting like a corporation or a firm that has a manager and has multiple employees. In this regard, an example of single sourcing would be a new way of technical communication that all employee must follow (employees being technical writing for our purposes). So, it could be a new email format imposed by the boss or a new format for writing proposals or using a new technology. Also, single sourcing doesn’t have to be a new thing. Writers can be hired by companies that have already implemented single sourcing. But Carter’s article talks about single sourcing from the perspective of a writer reluctant to accept it.
The reaction of writers to single sourcing is presented as typical. Writers like any other comfortable employee don’t like change and perceive the change as a threat to their job because they may not be able to master the technology or the format or they feel the change is a disregard for what they do, the science and art of writing in its barest form.
Carter concludes his article by saying single sourcing is good for technological innovation and progressiveness; it’s good for writers to know more than just how to write, it’s good for writers to know how to maximize their abilities.
I agree with Carter for the most part. I do, however, feel that Carter doesn’t take into account the newer more tech savvy generation that for the most part would more than willingly embrace technology. Also, I think Carter doesn’t acknowledge the increasing number of education programs and writing programs that emphasize tech skills.
source: Technical Communication, Volume 50, Number 3, August 2003
Carter goes into how single sourcing occurs in a more professional setting like a corporation or a firm that has a manager and has multiple employees. In this regard, an example of single sourcing would be a new way of technical communication that all employee must follow (employees being technical writing for our purposes). So, it could be a new email format imposed by the boss or a new format for writing proposals or using a new technology. Also, single sourcing doesn’t have to be a new thing. Writers can be hired by companies that have already implemented single sourcing. But Carter’s article talks about single sourcing from the perspective of a writer reluctant to accept it.
The reaction of writers to single sourcing is presented as typical. Writers like any other comfortable employee don’t like change and perceive the change as a threat to their job because they may not be able to master the technology or the format or they feel the change is a disregard for what they do, the science and art of writing in its barest form.
Carter concludes his article by saying single sourcing is good for technological innovation and progressiveness; it’s good for writers to know more than just how to write, it’s good for writers to know how to maximize their abilities.
I agree with Carter for the most part. I do, however, feel that Carter doesn’t take into account the newer more tech savvy generation that for the most part would more than willingly embrace technology. Also, I think Carter doesn’t acknowledge the increasing number of education programs and writing programs that emphasize tech skills.
source: Technical Communication, Volume 50, Number 3, August 2003
A Response to “Writing for the Web Versus Writing for Print: Are They Really So Different?” by Judy Gregory
Judy Gregory, communication specialist at the Creative Industries Faculty at Queensland University of Technology in Australia, wrote an article in the journal “Technical Communication” called “Writing for the Web Versus Writing for Print: Are They Really So Different?”
Gregory explains seven major guidelines for writing for the Internet as opposed to writing:
“Structure and design are concerns for Web writers”
“Write no more than 50% of what you would write for print”
“Write for scannability”
“The Web encourages restless reading”
“Split information into coherent chunks”
“Web writers can’t predict where the reader will start”
“Readers ‘pull’ the information they need from the Web”
The author goes on to suggest that the best way to compare print and web writing is by evaluating what she calls “genre” or “the recognizable communicative purposes of documents. According to the author, genre “is primarily characterized by the communicative purposes that it intends to fulfill.”
The major flaw in Gregory’s theory (if there is one) is that there is no difference between writing for the web and writing for print.
Firstly, the seven differences, which may or may not be her original observations, that she details are not differences at all and she touches on that in the article. For every difference that she lays out, she goes back and says that there are similarities. After all, print recognizes all types of genres, all types of lengths, all types of purposes and all types of languages. Written language started with print and continues with print and therefore any document or purposeful writing that appears anywhere other than print is the result of something that was originally printed. In other words, the web writing is just print writing that’s not on paper.
Some have suggested that the web has changed language, that Facebook, instant messaging and email have shortened and altered written and verbal communication and therefore has uniqueness and prescience over print.
There are two issues with this:
1.) Such an idea disregards purpose. Not everyone uses shortened language all the time on the web, nor do we use it all the time off the web. Context matters. Professional emails should not and do not too often include “LOL” nor do all web sites have emoticons. To say the web has changed language and changed writing is to disregard all other communication that isn’t the shortened or representational web language.
2.) Such an idea disregards human nature. If language has changed, it is not due to any new medium. Human nature demands change and evolution. Consider that language, which is made up of innate, objective structures, had and has evolved for thousands of years without the Internet and without electricity. To say an invention has changed that which is human nature is similar to saying that nuclear weapons has led to more war. The opposite is true. Humans have an inner drive for competition that existed before and after the invention of nuclear weapons, but since WWII, the magnitude of war has diminished.
Writing is writing, print or web.
source: “Technical Communication, Volume 51, Number 2, May 2004
Gregory explains seven major guidelines for writing for the Internet as opposed to writing:
“Structure and design are concerns for Web writers”
“Write no more than 50% of what you would write for print”
“Write for scannability”
“The Web encourages restless reading”
“Split information into coherent chunks”
“Web writers can’t predict where the reader will start”
“Readers ‘pull’ the information they need from the Web”
The author goes on to suggest that the best way to compare print and web writing is by evaluating what she calls “genre” or “the recognizable communicative purposes of documents. According to the author, genre “is primarily characterized by the communicative purposes that it intends to fulfill.”
The major flaw in Gregory’s theory (if there is one) is that there is no difference between writing for the web and writing for print.
Firstly, the seven differences, which may or may not be her original observations, that she details are not differences at all and she touches on that in the article. For every difference that she lays out, she goes back and says that there are similarities. After all, print recognizes all types of genres, all types of lengths, all types of purposes and all types of languages. Written language started with print and continues with print and therefore any document or purposeful writing that appears anywhere other than print is the result of something that was originally printed. In other words, the web writing is just print writing that’s not on paper.
Some have suggested that the web has changed language, that Facebook, instant messaging and email have shortened and altered written and verbal communication and therefore has uniqueness and prescience over print.
There are two issues with this:
1.) Such an idea disregards purpose. Not everyone uses shortened language all the time on the web, nor do we use it all the time off the web. Context matters. Professional emails should not and do not too often include “LOL” nor do all web sites have emoticons. To say the web has changed language and changed writing is to disregard all other communication that isn’t the shortened or representational web language.
2.) Such an idea disregards human nature. If language has changed, it is not due to any new medium. Human nature demands change and evolution. Consider that language, which is made up of innate, objective structures, had and has evolved for thousands of years without the Internet and without electricity. To say an invention has changed that which is human nature is similar to saying that nuclear weapons has led to more war. The opposite is true. Humans have an inner drive for competition that existed before and after the invention of nuclear weapons, but since WWII, the magnitude of war has diminished.
Writing is writing, print or web.
source: “Technical Communication, Volume 51, Number 2, May 2004
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)