RhetorClick - User contributions [en]

Contribution to Wiki, Spring 2012

2012-04-13T23:35:25Z

Bailey Bounds:

Please list your name and tentative ideas for wiki contributions:

'''Ryan'''- style guide, graduate resources 
'''Jennifer'''- style guide, content 
'''Nicole'''- alphabetized [[Theories and Movements]] page, Feminist Criticism authors Condit and Japp, article summaries for Sidler and Hea, 4 added [[Glossary]] definitions. 
'''Noah'''- created [[Authors]] page for [[Cheryl E. Ball]], created an [[Article Summaries]] page: ([[Ball, Cheryl et al., "Integrating Multimodality in Composition Curricula: Survey Methodology and Results from a CCCC Research Grant"]]), made copy edits throughout, made layout adjustments for continuity throughout. 
'''Amber'''- created [[Authors]] pages for [[Walter Fisher]] and [[Patricia Bizzell]], added a commentary to the article summary section of [[Jim W. Corder]], added terms to [[Glossary]], and made copy edits and tried to maintain continuity where it was off. 
'''Gretchen'''- added biography, article summary, additional reading, and footnote references for [[Stuart Blythe]]; added 14 terms (comprehensive sampling, convenience sampling, criterion sampling, data coding, evidentials, latent content, manifest content, method, methodology, nonverbal units, random sampling, rhetorical units, t-units, and verbal units) to [[Glossary]] 
'''Bailey'''- created Authors pages for [http://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Susan_Delagrange Susan Delagrange] and [http://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Henry_Jenkins Henry Jenkins], created Article Summaries pages for Delagrange, Susan [http://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Delagrange,_Susan_%22When_Reflection_is_Re-Design:_Key_Questions_for_Digital_Scholarship%22 "When Reflection is Re-Design: Key Questions for Digital Scholarship"]and Jenkins, Henry [http://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Jenkins,_Henry_%22Eight_Traits_of_the_New_Media_Landscape%22 "Eight Traits of the New Media Landscape"]

Jenkins, Henry "Eight Traits of the New Media Landscape"

2012-04-13T23:26:25Z

Bailey Bounds:

'''Summary'''

Henry Jenkins wrote a blog post called “[http://http://henryjenkins.org/2006/11/eight_traits_of_the_new_media.html Eight Traits of the New Media Landscape]” in 2006. Before describing his eight traits, Jenkins highlights that when considering the media landscape, it is important to list more than just tools and technologies. Jenkins feels that the focus of the new media landscape should not be on emerging technologies but on emerging cultural practices. It is important to “to understand the underlying logic shaping our current moment of media in transition”(Jenkins).

Here are Jenkins' eight traits of the new media landscape:
1) Innovative
2) Convergent
3) Everyday
4) Appropriative
5) Networked
6) Global
7) Generational
8) Unequal

'''Innovative:'''
New media is always being created and is quickly absorbed in culture.

'''Convergent:'''
All kinds of media are broadcasted across a broad range of channels, and media is shaped top-down and bottom-up at the same time with conglomerates controlling messages and consumers expressing how they want their media.

'''Everyday:'''
Media technology is fully integrated into everyday interactions.

'''Appropriative:'''
New technology makes it easy to re-purpose media images, and cultures are communicating through borrowed media content.

'''Networked:'''
Messages flow easily from one place to another, and communication is not a one-many receiver model but a many-many model.

'''Global:'''
New technologies allow people to communicate with other people around the world.

'''Generational:'''
Young people have different cultural styles and values in the new media landscape than their parents, and both adults and young people know less about each other’s media values and assumptions than they think.

'''Unequal:'''
Media allows for different levels of participation, and “participating may be elective for those who have the resources needed to belong in the first place but no such option can be exercised by those who are being left behind.” Unequal is the only trait that Jenkins feels describes current educational institutes.

Delagrange, Susan "When Reflection is Re-Design: Key Questions for Digital Scholarship"

2012-04-13T23:03:43Z

Bailey Bounds:

Susan Delagrange posed several key questions in her web article “[http://www.technorhetoric.net/14.1/inventio/delagrange/reflection.htm When Reflection is Re-Design: Key Questions for Digital Scholarship].” The article is sectioned with website navigation. In the article, Delagrange discusses her attempt to create a digital Wunderkammer. The project focused on arrangement as a visual practice, separate from invention, that could produce knowledge “in the same way that 16th-century Wunderkammer did—through the process of serial juxtaposition and reflection”(Introduction section) Delagrange argued that arrangement was a tool for invention and discovery. For her argument to work, Delagrange’s digital version could not contain text that drove images, but rather images that drove text. The physical space would hold the design experience (Delagrange) and the exploration experience (viewers). Her digital Wunderkammer “would function as a thought engine in which the manipulation and arrangement of its contents by both collector/designer and visitor/viewer animates the process of inquiry and insight”(Introduction section).

Delagrange’s 2006 version of the digital Wunderkammer did not quite fit her argument in several key areas. Delagrange reflects on the project and its design and answers key questions in the areas of design, interface, motion, navigation, disambiguation, production, and code. 

'''Design''' 
''Question:'' “How can digital space be redesigned so that the experience of the user more closely corresponds to the meaning-making tropes of the argument” (Design section)? 
''Response:'' Visual meaning should be primary, images should be active and mobile, and action should be controlled by the viewer. Delagrange claims that “Designing scholarship in new media requires continuous oscillation among the text, the images, and the visual and conceptual framework. An idea suggests an image, an image a sentence, a sentence a motion, a motion a placement, a placement another sentence, that sentence a link, and so on” (Design section). 

'''Interface''' 
''Question:'' “How can the physical and conceptual properties of the interface be balanced to support exploratory manipulation of the digital environment while still meeting scholarly publishing requirements” (Interface section)? 
''Response:'' When designing the interface of a scholarly article, one can “reinforce or enact the argument through the design, an opportunity not usually available with print media”(Interface section). The design is connected to the images and words and plays a part in making meaning. Each design choice, even something as small as size, influences the rhetoric of the final outcome. 

'''Motion''' 
''Question:'' “How can the sequencing and mobility of the images and the text be redesigned to foreground the primacy of heuristic vision in a digital landscape” (Motion section). 
''Response:'' Arrangement has always been about moving things. Even in argument, humans move things around: evidence, images, text, etc. Movement creates new associations. Movement does not occur after a conclusion has been drawn; it is an active component of invention. Delagrange claims that “new ideas are merely several old thoughts that occur at the same time” (Motion section) Delagrange uses this idea to support her claim “that new knowledge can be generated by the discovery of meaning in unexpected juxtapositions, and that those juxtapositions will be stimulated by wandering and wondering through a richly furnished imaginative space” (Motion section). She had problems with the way her first version of “Wunderkammer” moved because did not embody a multisensory experience, and the movement of the piece “worked against” her “primary argument that objects/images themselves, through manipulation and arrangement, are productive of wonder and insight” (Motion section). 

'''Navigation''' 
''Question:'' “How can navigation be designed to provide a thoughtful, exploratory viewer experience while still offering enough signposting to prevent viewer frustration” (Navigation section)? 
''Response:'' Design books on interactive media show that people like to know where they are going before they click on a link; links should be clearly marked and unambiguous. These navigation preferences go against the argument Delagrange was posing. The purpose of her navigation was not just to be convenient or functional; Delagrange wanted people to get lost, not know where they were going, to spend time exploring. Her first version of “Wunderkammer” included minimally signposted links, and viewers thought the navigation could be more specific. Delagrange had to determine how to give enough direction to hold viewers without cutting the tension ambiguity of images and text created. She revises the navigation of her project to fit her purpose and the expectations of viewers. Her navigation is nonlinear, and she asks “why, after all, should we object to the option of nonlinear navigation in a digital environment when nonlinearity (think "walking in the city") is so much a part of the structure of our lives” (Motion section)? Interactivity, flexibilty, and viewer choice are important aspects to Delagrange’s navigation. She thought “viewers should be able to follow multiple paths through the project, and avail themselves of a range of interactions at any point”(Motion section). 

'''Disambiguation''' 
''Question:'' “In multimodal, multilinear media, how can the often competing scholarly obligations to be clear and unambiguous and to promote inquiry and discovery be balanced”(Disambiguation section)? 
''Response:'' It was hard for viewers to understand Delagrange’s meaning in earlier versions of her project; the relationship between text and images was unclear, which in part, fit with her purpose, but like with navigation, viewers were wanting a little more clarity. For her argument to work, Delagrange’s viewers had to “see meaning first through the visual components” and they had to “engage with the interpretation of those visual elements without an intervening verbal explanation”(Disambiguation section). She learned it was important for designers to preserve ambiguity for as long as possible because they wouldn’t want to exclude any ways of thinking that might be productive in the end. Ambiguity is important to learners, as well, because “premature certainty shuts down the process of inquiry and exploration that often leads to more sophisticated, more interesting, more generative knowledge”(Disambiguation section). Delagrange thinks her revised project successfully allows viewers to be on the edge of understanding and then to have an “aha” moment in which they understand. 

'''Production''' 
''Question:'' “Does composing new media scholarship necessitate learning and designing with HTML, CSS, Flash, or other multimedia software” (Production section)? 
''Response:'' It takes time to learn software, keep up with change, learn design principles, and write in a digital format. Finding or allotting that time is challenging for digital media scholars. Delagrange’s definition of new media includes “includes projects that are interactive, media-rich, and, most importantly, cannot be (as) meaningfully composed or published in nondigital form”(Production section). Digital production is its own powerful thinking tool. Delagrange thinks it’s important to have the “knowledge to both design and deploy smart, aesthetically pleasing, rhetorically effective, digital media,” although she does not oppose writers working with designers who help them visualize and realize their arguments (Production section). It should be a collaborative effort because “design is intrinsic to argument, not decoration for it”(Production section). 

'''Code''' 
''Question:'' “What are the affordances and constraints of learning and writing underlying code when designing the visual and conceptual interface of a multimedia project"(Code section)? 
''Response:'' Delagrange argues for code. Code allows designers to more specifically customize their interface, enhancing user experience and better fitting design to rhetorical argument. She points out that “reading and writing interactive media is an important new literacy practice, one that requires procedural as well as interpretive skills, and if we think that media literacy is a skill that our students should have, then we need to learn it ourselves too” (Code section). True media cannot be fill-in-the-blank. She says it might not be necessary for digital scholars to practice what they write, but it definitely helps.

Jenkins, Henry "Eight Traits of the New Media Landscape"

2012-04-13T19:50:36Z

Bailey Bounds:

'''Summary'''

Henry Jenkins wrote a blog post called “[http://http://henryjenkins.org/2006/11/eight_traits_of_the_new_media.html Eight Traits of the New Media Landscape]” in 2006. Before describing his eight traits, Jenkins highlights that when considering the media landscape, it is important to list more than just tools and technologies. Jenkins feels that the focus of the new media landscape should not be on emerging technologies but on emerging cultural practices. It is important to “to understand the underlying logic shaping our current moment of media in transition.”

Here are Jenkins' eight traits of the new media landscape:
1) Innovative
2) Convergent
3) Everyday
4) Appropriative
5) Networked
6) Global
7) Generational
8) Unequal

'''Innovative:'''
New media is always being created and is quickly absorbed in culture.

'''Convergent:'''
All kinds of media are broadcasted across a broad range of channels, and media is shaped top-down and bottom-up at the same time with conglomerates controlling messages and consumers expressing how they want their media.

'''Everyday:'''
Media technology is fully integrated into everyday interactions.

'''Appropriative:'''
New technology makes it easy to re-purpose media images, and cultures are communicating through borrowed media content.

'''Networked:'''
Messages flow easily from one place to another, and communication is not a one-many receiver model but a many-many model.

'''Global:'''
New technologies allow people to communicate with other people around the world.

'''Generational:'''
Young people have different cultural styles and values in the new media landscape than their parents, and both adults and young people know less about each other’s media values and assumptions than they think.

'''Unequal:'''
Media allows for different levels of participation, and “participating may be elective for those who have the resources needed to belong in the first place but no such option can be exercised by those who are being left behind.” Unequal is the only trait that Jenkins feels describes current educational institutes.

Delagrange, Susan "When Reflection is Re-Design: Key Questions for Digital Scholarship"

2012-04-13T19:49:13Z

Bailey Bounds:

Susan Delagrange posed several key questions in her web article “[http://www.technorhetoric.net/14.1/inventio/delagrange/reflection.htm When Reflection is Re-Design: Key Questions for Digital Scholarship].” The article is sectioned with website navigation. In the article, Delagrange discusses her attempt to create a digital Wunderkammer. The project focused on arrangement as a visual practice, separate from invention, that could produce knowledge “in the same way that 16th-century Wunderkammer did—through the process of serial juxtaposition and reflection.” Delagrange argued that arrangement was a tool for invention and discovery. For her argument to work, Delagrange’s digital version could not contain text that drove images, but rather images that drove text. The physical space would hold the design experience (Delagrange) and the exploration experience (viewers). Her digital Wunderkammer “would function as a thought engine in which the manipulation and arrangement of its contents by both collector/designer and visitor/viewer animates the process of inquiry and insight.”

Delagrange’s 2006 version of the digital Wunderkammer did not quite fit her argument in several key areas. Delagrange reflects on the project and its design and answers key questions in the areas of design, interface, motion, navigation, disambiguation, production, and code. 

'''Design''' 
''Question:'' “How can digital space be redesigned so that the experience of the user more closely corresponds to the meaning-making tropes of the argument?” 
''Response:'' Visual meaning should be primary, images should be active and mobile, and action should be controlled by the viewer. Delagrange claims that “Designing scholarship in new media requires continuous oscillation among the text, the images, and the visual and conceptual framework. An idea suggests an image, an image a sentence, a sentence a motion, a motion a placement, a placement another sentence, that sentence a link, and so on.” 

'''Interface''' 
''Question:'' “How can the physical and conceptual properties of the interface be balanced to support exploratory manipulation of the digital environment while still meeting scholarly publishing requirements?” 
''Response:'' When designing the interface of a scholarly article, one can “reinforce or enact the argument through the design, an opportunity not usually available with print media.” The design is connected to the images and words and plays a part in making meaning. Each design choice, even something as small as size, influences the rhetoric of the final outcome. 

'''Motion''' 
''Question:'' “How can the sequencing and mobility of the images and the text be redesigned to foreground the primacy of heuristic vision in a digital landscape?” 
''Response:'' Arrangement has always been about moving things. Even in argument, humans move things around: evidence, images, text, etc. Movement creates new associations. Movement does not occur after a conclusion has been drawn; it is an active component of invention. Delagrange claims that “new ideas are merely several old thoughts that occur at the same time.” Delagrange uses this idea to support her claim “that new knowledge can be generated by the discovery of meaning in unexpected juxtapositions, and that those juxtapositions will be stimulated by wandering and wondering through a richly furnished imaginative space.” She had problems with the way her first version of “Wunderkammer” moved because did not embody a multisensory experience, and the movement of the piece “worked against” her “primary argument that objects/images themselves, through manipulation and arrangement, are productive of wonder and insight.” 

'''Navigation''' 
''Question:'' “How can navigation be designed to provide a thoughtful, exploratory viewer experience while still offering enough signposting to prevent viewer frustration?” 
''Response:'' Design books on interactive media show that people like to know where they are going before they click on a link; links should be clearly marked and unambiguous. These navigation preferences go against the argument Delagrange was posing. The purpose of her navigation was not just to be convenient or functional; Delagrange wanted people to get lost, not know where they were going, to spend time exploring. Her first version of “Wunderkammer” included minimally signposted links, and viewers thought the navigation could be more specific. Delagrange had to determine how to give enough direction to hold viewers without cutting the tension ambiguity of images and text created. She revises the navigation of her project to fit her purpose and the expectations of viewers. Her navigation is nonlinear, and she asks “why, after all, should we object to the option of nonlinear navigation in a digital environment when nonlinearity (think "walking in the city") is so much a part of the structure of our lives?” Interactivity, flexibilty, and viewer choice are important aspects to Delagrange’s navigation. She thought “viewers should be able to follow multiple paths through the project, and avail themselves of a range of interactions at any point.” 

'''Disambiguation''' 
''Question:'' “In multimodal, multilinear media, how can the often competing scholarly obligations to be clear and unambiguous and to promote inquiry and discovery be balanced?” 
''Response:'' It was hard for viewers to understand Delagrange’s meaning in earlier versions of her project; the relationship between text and images was unclear, which in part, fit with her purpose, but like with navigation, viewers were wanting a little more clarity. For her argument to work, Delagrange’s viewers had to “see meaning first through the visual components,” and they had to “engage with the interpretation of those visual elements without an intervening verbal explanation.” She learned it was important for designers to preserve ambiguity for as long as possible because they wouldn’t want to exclude any ways of thinking that might be productive in the end. Ambiguity is important to learners, as well, because “premature certainty shuts down the process of inquiry and exploration that often leads to more sophisticated, more interesting, more generative knowledge.” Delagrange thinks her revised project successfully allows viewers to be on the edge of understanding and then to have an “aha” moment in which they understand. 

'''Production''' 
''Question:'' “Does composing new media scholarship necessitate learning and designing with HTML, CSS, Flash, or other multimedia software?” 
''Response:'' It takes time to learn software, keep up with change, learn design principles, and write in a digital format. Finding or allotting that time is challenging for digital media scholars. Delagrange’s definition of new media includes “includes projects that are interactive, media-rich, and, most importantly, cannot be (as) meaningfully composed or published in nondigital form.” Digital production is its own powerful thinking tool. Delagrange thinks it’s important to have the “knowledge to both design and deploy smart, aesthetically pleasing, rhetorically effective, digital media,” although she does not oppose writers working with designers who help them visualize and realize their arguments. It should be a collaborative effort because “design is intrinsic to argument, not decoration for it.” 

'''Code''' 
''Question:'' “What are the affordances and constraints of learning and writing underlying code when designing the visual and conceptual interface of a multimedia project?” 
''Response:'' Delagrange argues for code. Code allows designers to more specifically customize their interface, enhancing user experience and better fitting design to rhetorical argument. She points out that “reading and writing interactive media is an important new literacy practice, one that requires procedural as well as interpretive skills, and if we think that media literacy is a skill that our students should have, then we need to learn it ourselves too.” True media cannot be fill-in-the-blank. She says it might not be necessary for digital scholars to practice what they write, but it definitely helps.

Henry Jenkins

2012-04-13T19:37:38Z

Bailey Bounds: /* References */

== Biography ==
Henry Jenkins is a professor of Communication, Journalism, and Cinematic Arts at the University of Southern California (USC). Before arriving at USC, Jenkins spent ten years at MIT as the Director of Comparative Media Studies Program. He takes particular interest in aspects of media and popular culture and is the head researcher for Project New Media Literacies, a group formed for digital media learning initiatives. He is currently focusing on young people, participatory culture, and public engagement at USC.

== Additional Works/Publications ==

==== Books ====

: "Textual Poachers: Television Fans and Participatory Culture" --([http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0415905729/sr=8-2/qid=1150807520/ref=pd_bbs_2/002-6841949-9788838?_encoding=UTF8 View on Amazon])
: "Hop on Pop: The Politics and Pleasures of Popular Culture"--([http://www.amazon.com/Hop-Pop-Politics-Pleasures-Popular/dp/0822327279/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260240869&sr=1-1 View on Amazon])
: "From Barbie to Mortal Kombat: Gender and Computer Games"--([http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0262531682/sr=8-6/qid=1150807520/ref=pd_bbs_6/002-6841949-9788838?_encoding=UTF8 View on Amazon])
: "Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide"--([http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0814742815/sr=8-1/qid=1150807520/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-6841949-9788838?_encoding=UTF8 View on Amazon])
: "Fans, Bloggers and Gamers: Exploring Participatory Culture"--([http://www.amazon.com/Fans-Bloggers-Gamers-Consumers-Digital/dp/0814742858/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260240910&sr=1-1 View on Amazon])

=== Blog Posts ===
: "8 Traits of the New Media Landscape"--([http://henryjenkins.org/2006/11/eight_traits_of_the_new_media.html full text]) 
: "Confessions of an Aca-Fan- The Official Weblog of Henry Jenkins"--([http://henryjenkins.org/index.html Entire blog])

== References ==
* ([http://henryjenkins.org/aboutme.html Who the &%&# Is Henry Jenkins?])

Henry Jenkins

2012-04-13T19:36:40Z

Bailey Bounds: /* Biography */

== Biography ==
Henry Jenkins is a professor of Communication, Journalism, and Cinematic Arts at the University of Southern California (USC). Before arriving at USC, Jenkins spent ten years at MIT as the Director of Comparative Media Studies Program. He takes particular interest in aspects of media and popular culture and is the head researcher for Project New Media Literacies, a group formed for digital media learning initiatives. He is currently focusing on young people, participatory culture, and public engagement at USC.

== Additional Works/Publications ==

==== Books ====

: "Textual Poachers: Television Fans and Participatory Culture" --([http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0415905729/sr=8-2/qid=1150807520/ref=pd_bbs_2/002-6841949-9788838?_encoding=UTF8 View on Amazon])
: "Hop on Pop: The Politics and Pleasures of Popular Culture"--([http://www.amazon.com/Hop-Pop-Politics-Pleasures-Popular/dp/0822327279/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260240869&sr=1-1 View on Amazon])
: "From Barbie to Mortal Kombat: Gender and Computer Games"--([http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0262531682/sr=8-6/qid=1150807520/ref=pd_bbs_6/002-6841949-9788838?_encoding=UTF8 View on Amazon])
: "Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide"--([http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0814742815/sr=8-1/qid=1150807520/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-6841949-9788838?_encoding=UTF8 View on Amazon])
: "Fans, Bloggers and Gamers: Exploring Participatory Culture"--([http://www.amazon.com/Fans-Bloggers-Gamers-Consumers-Digital/dp/0814742858/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260240910&sr=1-1 View on Amazon])

=== Blog Posts ===
: "8 Traits of the New Media Landscape"--([http://henryjenkins.org/2006/11/eight_traits_of_the_new_media.html full text]) 
: "Confessions of an Aca-Fan- The Official Weblog of Henry Jenkins"--([http://henryjenkins.org/index.html Entire blog])

== References ==
* (http://henryjenkins.org/aboutme.html Who the &%&# Is Henry Jenkins?)

Henry Jenkins

2012-04-13T19:36:13Z

Bailey Bounds: Created page with "== Biography == Henry Jenkins is a professor of Communication, Journalism, and Cinematic Arts at the University of Southern California (USC). Before arriving at USC, Jenkins spen..."

== Biography ==
Henry Jenkins is a professor of Communication, Journalism, and Cinematic Arts at the University of Southern California (USC). Before arriving at USC, Jenkins spent ten years at MIT as the Director of Comparative Media Studies Program. He takes particular interest in aspects of media and popular culture and is the head researcher for Project New Media Literacies, which is a group formed for digital media learning initiatives. He is currently focusing on young people, participatory culture, and public engagement at USC.

== Additional Works/Publications ==

==== Books ====

: "Textual Poachers: Television Fans and Participatory Culture" --([http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0415905729/sr=8-2/qid=1150807520/ref=pd_bbs_2/002-6841949-9788838?_encoding=UTF8 View on Amazon])
: "Hop on Pop: The Politics and Pleasures of Popular Culture"--([http://www.amazon.com/Hop-Pop-Politics-Pleasures-Popular/dp/0822327279/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260240869&sr=1-1 View on Amazon])
: "From Barbie to Mortal Kombat: Gender and Computer Games"--([http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0262531682/sr=8-6/qid=1150807520/ref=pd_bbs_6/002-6841949-9788838?_encoding=UTF8 View on Amazon])
: "Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide"--([http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0814742815/sr=8-1/qid=1150807520/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-6841949-9788838?_encoding=UTF8 View on Amazon])
: "Fans, Bloggers and Gamers: Exploring Participatory Culture"--([http://www.amazon.com/Fans-Bloggers-Gamers-Consumers-Digital/dp/0814742858/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260240910&sr=1-1 View on Amazon])

=== Blog Posts ===
: "8 Traits of the New Media Landscape"--([http://henryjenkins.org/2006/11/eight_traits_of_the_new_media.html full text]) 
: "Confessions of an Aca-Fan- The Official Weblog of Henry Jenkins"--([http://henryjenkins.org/index.html Entire blog])

== References ==
* (http://henryjenkins.org/aboutme.html Who the &%&# Is Henry Jenkins?)

Authors

2012-04-13T17:50:11Z

Bailey Bounds: /* I-L */

All authors are organized by their last names. Just click on the corresponding letter.

== A-D ==

*[[Aristotle]]
*[[Mikhail_Bakhtin|Bakhtin, Mikhail]]
*[[Cheryl E. Ball]]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Baron Baron, Dennis]
*[[Roland_Barthes|Barthes, Roland]]
*[[Lloyd_Bitzer|Bitzer, Lloyd]]
*[[Patricia_Bizzell|Bizzell, Patricia]]
*[[Stuart_Blythe|Blythe, Stuart]]
*[[Susan_Delagrange|Delagrange, Susan]]
*[[Brent_Douglas|Brent, Douglas]]
*[[Donald_C._Bryant|Bryant, Donald C.]]
*[[Bormann_Ernest_G.|Bormann, Ernest G.]]
*[[Kenneth_Burke|Burke, Kenneth]]
*[[Jim_W._Corder|Corder, Jim W.]]
*[[Kevin_Eric_DePew|DePew, Kevin Eric]]
*[[Douglas_Downs|Downs, Douglas]]

== E-H ==

*[[Lisa_S._Ede|Ede, Lisa S.]]
*[[Douglas_Ehninger|Ehninger, Douglas]]
*[[Walter_Fisher|Fisher, Walter]]
*[[Michel_Foucault|Foucault, Michel]]
*[[Michael_S._Halloran|Halloran, Michael S.]]
*[[Bill_Hart-Davidson|Hart-Davidson, Bill]]

== I-L ==

*[[Henry_Jenkins|Jenkins, Henry]]
*[[Johndan_Johnson-Eilola|Johnson-Eilola, Johndan]]
*[[Steven_D._Krause|Krause, Steven D.]]
*[[John_Logie|Logie, John]]
*[[Andrea_A._Lunsford|Lunsford, Andrea A.]]

== M-P ==

*[[Janice_McIntire-Strasburg|McIntire-Strasburg, Janice]]
*[[Richard_McKeon|McKeon, Richard]]
*[[Richard_Ohmann|Ohmann, Richard]]
*[[Mike_Palmquist|Palmquist, Mike]]
*[[Chaim_Perelman|Perelman, Chaim]]
*[[Plato]]

== Q-T ==

*[[I._A._Richards|Richards, I. A.]]
*[[Rebecca_Rickly|Rickly, Rebecca]]
*[[Ferdinand_de_Saussure|Saussure, Ferdinand de]]
*[[Robert_L._Scott|Scott, Robert L.]]
*[[Cynthia_L._Selfe|Selfe, Cynthia L.]]
*[[Richard_J._Selfe_Jr.|Selfe, Richard L.]]
*[[Michelle_Sidler|Sidler, Michelle]]
*[[John_M._Slatin|Slatin, John M.]]
*[[Madeleine_Sorapure|Sorapure, Madeleine]]
*[[Stephen_Toulmin|Toulmin, Stephen]]

== U-Z ==

*[[Richard_Vatz|Vatz, Richard]]
*[[Elizabeth_Wardle|Wardle, Elizabeth]]
*[[Quinn_Warnick|Warnick, Quinn]]
*[[Richard_Weaver|Weaver, Richard]]
*[[Sean_D._Williams|Williams, Sean D.]]
*[[Kathleen_Blake_Yancey|Yancey, Kathleen Blake]]

Susan Delagrange

2012-04-13T17:47:56Z

Bailey Bounds:

== Biography ==
Susan Delagrange received her B.A. and M.A in English at the University of Akron and went on to obtain a Ph.D. in English Rhetoric and Composition from Ohio State University in 2005. She is currently an Assistant Professor of Rhetoric and Digital Media at Ohio State Univeristy.

== Additional Works/Publications ==

==== Books ====

: "Technologies of Wonder: Rhetorical Practice in a Digital World." --([http://ccdigitalpress.org/wonder/ full text])

=== Articles ===
: "When Revision Is Redesign: Key Questions for Digital Scholarship"--([http://kairos.technorhetoric.net/14.1/inventio/delagrange/ full text]) 
: "Wunderkammer, Cornell, and the Visual Canon of Arrangement"--([http://kairos.technorhetoric.net/13.2/topoi/delagrange/ full text])

=== Book Chapter ===
: “Teaching Visual Rhetoric with Maps: A Feminist Perspective.” Instructors’ Resources for Teaching Rhetorical Visions. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2008. Print.

== References ==
* [http://susandelagrange.com/vita.htm#publications Vita] 
* [http://susandelagrange.com/ Personal Website]
* [http://english.mansfield.ohio-state.edu/delagrange/ Profile at Ohio State University]

Susan Delagrange

2012-04-13T17:47:09Z

Bailey Bounds:

== Biography ==
Susan Delagrange received her B.A. and M.A in English at the University of Akron and went on to obtain a Ph.D. in English Rhetoric and Composition from Ohio State University in 2005. She is currently an Assistant Professor of Rhetoric and Digital Media at Ohio State Univeristy.

== Additional Works/Publications ==

==== Books ====

: "Technologies of Wonder: Rhetorical Practice in a Digital World." --([http://ccdigitalpress.org/wonder/ full text])

=== Articles ===
: "When Revision Is Redesign: Key Questions for Digital Scholarship"--([http://kairos.technorhetoric.net/14.1/inventio/delagrange/ full text]) 
: "Wunderkammer, Cornell, and the Visual Canon of Arrangement"--([http://kairos.technorhetoric.net/13.2/topoi/delagrange/ full text])

=== Book Chapter ===
: “Teaching Visual Rhetoric with Maps: A Feminist Perspective.” Instructors’ Resources for Teaching Rhetorical Visions. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2008. Print.

== References ==
* [http://susandelagrange.com/vita.htm#publications Susandelagrange.com/vita] 
* [http://susandelagrange.com/ Susandelagrange.com]
* [http://english.mansfield.ohio-state.edu/delagrange/Profile at Ohio State University]

Susan Delagrange

2012-04-13T17:44:56Z

Bailey Bounds: Created page with "== Biography == Susan Delagrange received her B.A. and M.A in English at the University of Akron and went on to obtain a Ph.D. in English Rhetoric and Composition from Ohio State..."

== Biography ==
Susan Delagrange received her B.A. and M.A in English at the University of Akron and went on to obtain a Ph.D. in English Rhetoric and Composition from Ohio State University in 2005. She is currently an Assistant Professor of Rhetoric and Digital Media at Ohio State Univeristy.

== Additional Works/Publications ==

==== Books ====

: "Technologies of Wonder: Rhetorical Practice in a Digital World." --([http://ccdigitalpress.org/wonder/ full text])

=== Articles ===
: "When Revision Is Redesign: Key Questions for Digital Scholarship"--([http://kairos.technorhetoric.net/14.1/inventio/delagrange/ full text]) 
: "Wunderkammer, Cornell, and the Visual Canon of Arrangement"--([http://kairos.technorhetoric.net/13.2/topoi/delagrange/ full text])

== Book Chapter ==
: “Teaching Visual Rhetoric with Maps: A Feminist Perspective.” Instructors’ Resources for Teaching Rhetorical Visions. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2008. Print.

== References ==
* [http://susandelagrange.com/vita.htm#publications] 
* [http://susandelagrange.com/]
* [http://english.mansfield.ohio-state.edu/delagrange/]

Authors

2012-04-13T17:29:45Z

Bailey Bounds: /* A-D */

All authors are organized by their last names. Just click on the corresponding letter.

== A-D ==

*[[Aristotle]]
*[[Mikhail_Bakhtin|Bakhtin, Mikhail]]
*[[Cheryl E. Ball]]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Baron Baron, Dennis]
*[[Roland_Barthes|Barthes, Roland]]
*[[Lloyd_Bitzer|Bitzer, Lloyd]]
*[[Patricia_Bizzell|Bizzell, Patricia]]
*[[Stuart_Blythe|Blythe, Stuart]]
*[[Susan_Delagrange|Delagrange, Susan]]
*[[Brent_Douglas|Brent, Douglas]]
*[[Donald_C._Bryant|Bryant, Donald C.]]
*[[Bormann_Ernest_G.|Bormann, Ernest G.]]
*[[Kenneth_Burke|Burke, Kenneth]]
*[[Jim_W._Corder|Corder, Jim W.]]
*[[Kevin_Eric_DePew|DePew, Kevin Eric]]
*[[Douglas_Downs|Downs, Douglas]]

== E-H ==

*[[Lisa_S._Ede|Ede, Lisa S.]]
*[[Douglas_Ehninger|Ehninger, Douglas]]
*[[Walter_Fisher|Fisher, Walter]]
*[[Michel_Foucault|Foucault, Michel]]
*[[Michael_S._Halloran|Halloran, Michael S.]]
*[[Bill_Hart-Davidson|Hart-Davidson, Bill]]

== I-L ==

*[[Johndan_Johnson-Eilola|Johnson-Eilola, Johndan]]
*[[Steven_D._Krause|Krause, Steven D.]]
*[[John_Logie|Logie, John]]
*[[Andrea_A._Lunsford|Lunsford, Andrea A.]]

== M-P ==

*[[Janice_McIntire-Strasburg|McIntire-Strasburg, Janice]]
*[[Richard_McKeon|McKeon, Richard]]
*[[Richard_Ohmann|Ohmann, Richard]]
*[[Mike_Palmquist|Palmquist, Mike]]
*[[Chaim_Perelman|Perelman, Chaim]]
*[[Plato]]

== Q-T ==

*[[I._A._Richards|Richards, I. A.]]
*[[Rebecca_Rickly|Rickly, Rebecca]]
*[[Ferdinand_de_Saussure|Saussure, Ferdinand de]]
*[[Robert_L._Scott|Scott, Robert L.]]
*[[Cynthia_L._Selfe|Selfe, Cynthia L.]]
*[[Richard_J._Selfe_Jr.|Selfe, Richard L.]]
*[[Michelle_Sidler|Sidler, Michelle]]
*[[John_M._Slatin|Slatin, John M.]]
*[[Madeleine_Sorapure|Sorapure, Madeleine]]
*[[Stephen_Toulmin|Toulmin, Stephen]]

== U-Z ==

*[[Richard_Vatz|Vatz, Richard]]
*[[Elizabeth_Wardle|Wardle, Elizabeth]]
*[[Quinn_Warnick|Warnick, Quinn]]
*[[Richard_Weaver|Weaver, Richard]]
*[[Sean_D._Williams|Williams, Sean D.]]
*[[Kathleen_Blake_Yancey|Yancey, Kathleen Blake]]

Delagrange, Susan "When Reflection is Re-Design: Key Questions for Digital Scholarship"

2012-04-13T17:27:12Z

Bailey Bounds:

Susan Delagrange posed several key questions in her web article “[http://www.technorhetoric.net/14.1/inventio/delagrange/reflection.htm When Reflection is Re-Design: Key Questions for Digital Scholarship].” The article is sectioned with website navigation. In the article, Delagrange discusses her attempt to create a digital Wunderkammer. The project focused on arrangement as a visual practice, separate from invention, that could produce knowledge “in the same way that 16th-century Wunderkammer did—through the process of serial juxtaposition and reflection.” Delagrange argued that arrangement was a tool for invention and discovery. For her argument to work, Delagrange’s digital version could not contain text that drove images, but rather images that drove text. The physical space would hold the design experience (Delagrange) and the exploration experience (viewers). Her digital Wunderkammer “would function as a thought engine in which the manipulation and arrangement of its contents by both collector/designer and visitor/viewer animates the process of inquiry and insight.”

Delagrange’s 2006 version of the digital Wunderkammer did not quite fit her argument in several key areas. Delagrange reflects on the project and its design and answers key questions in the areas of design, interface, motion, navigation, disambiguation, production, and code. 

'''Design''' 
''Question:'' “How can digital space be redesigned so that the experience of the user more closely corresponds to the meaning-making tropes of the argument?” 
''Response:'' Visual meaning should be primary, images should be active and mobile, and action should be controlled by the viewer. Delagrange claims that “Designing scholarship in new media requires continuous oscillation among the text, the images, and the visual and conceptual framework. An idea suggests an image, an image a sentence, a sentence a motion, a motion a placement, a placement another sentence, that sentence a link, and so on.” 

'''Interface''' 
''Question:'' “How can the physical and conceptual properties of the interface be balanced to support exploratory manipulation of the digital environment while still meeting scholarly publishing requirements?” 
''Response:'' When designing the interface of a scholarly article, one can “reinforce or enact the argument through the design, an opportunity not usually available with print media.” The design is connected to the images and words and plays a part in making meaning. Each design choice, even something as small as size, influences the rhetoric of the final outcome. 

'''Motion''' 
''Question:'' “How can the sequencing and mobility of the images and the text be redesigned to foreground the primacy of heuristic vision in a digital landscape?” 
''Response:'' Arrangement has always been about moving things. Even in argument, humans move things around: evidence, images, text, etc. Movement creates new associations. Movement does not occur after a conclusion has been drawn; it is an active component of invention. Delagrange claims that “new ideas are merely several old thoughts that occur at the same time.” Delagrange uses this idea to support her claim “that new knowledge can be generated by the discovery of meaning in unexpected juxtapositions, and that those juxtapositions will be stimulated by wandering and wondering through a richly furnished imaginative space.” She had problems with the way her first version of “Wunderkammer” moved because did not embody a multisensory experience, and the movement of the piece “worked against” her “primary argument that objects/images themselves, through manipulation and arrangement, are productive of wonder and insight.” 

'''Navigation''' 
''Question:'' “How can navigation be designed to provide a thoughtful, exploratory viewer experience while still offering enough signposting to prevent viewer frustration?” 
''Response:'' Design book on interactive media show that people like to know where they are going before they click on a link; links should be clearly marked and unambiguous. These navigation preferences go against the argument Delagrange was posing. The purpose of her navigation was not just to be convenient or functional; Delagrange wanted people to get lost, not know where they were going, to spend time exploring. Her first version of “Wunderkammer” included minimally signposted links, and viewers thought the navigation could be more specific. Delagrange had to determine how to give enough direction to hold viewers without cutting the tension ambiguity of images and text created. She revises the navigation of her project to fit her purpose and the expectations of viewers. Her navigation is nonlinear, and she asks “why, after all, should we object to the option of nonlinear navigation in a digital environment when nonlinearity (think "walking in the city") is so much a part of the structure of our lives?” Interactivity, flexibilty, and viewer choice are important aspects to Delagrange’s navigation. She thought “viewers should be able to follow multiple paths through the project, and avail themselves of a range of interactions at any point.” 

'''Disambiguation''' 
''Question:'' “In multimodal, multilinear media, how can the often competing scholarly obligations to be clear and unambiguous and to promote inquiry and discovery be balanced?” 
''Response:'' It was hard for viewer’s to understand Delagrange’s meaning in earlier versions of her project; the relationship between text and images was unclear, which in part, fit with her purpose, but like with navigation, viewers were wanting a little more clarity. For her argument to work, Delagrange’s viewers had to “see meaning first through the visual components,” and they had to “engage with the interpretation of those visual elements without an intervening verbal explanation.” She learned it was important for designers to preserve ambiguity for as long as possible because they wouldn’t want to exclude any ways of thinking that might be productive in the end. Ambiguity is important to learners, as well, because “premature certainty shuts down the process of inquiry and exploration that often leads to more sophisticated, more interesting, more generative knowledge.” Delagrange thinks her revised project successfully allows viewers to be on the edge of understanding and then to have an “aha” moment in which they understand. 

'''Production''' 
''Question:'' “Does composing new media scholarship necessitate learning and designing with HTML, CSS, Flash, or other multimedia software?” 
''Response:'' It takes time to learn software, keep up with change, learn design principles, and write in a digital format. Finding or allotting that time is challenging for digital media scholars. Delagrange’s definition of new media includes “includes projects that are interactive, media-rich, and, most importantly, cannot be (as) meaningfully composed or published in nondigital form.” Digital production is its own powerful thinking tool. Delagrange thinks it’s important to have the “knowledge to both design and deploy smart, aesthetically pleasing, rhetorically effective, digital media,” although she does not oppose writers working with designers who help them visualize and realize their arguments. It should be a collaborative effort because “design is intrinsic to argument, not decoration for it.” 

'''Code''' 
''Question:'' “What are the affordances and constraints of learning and writing underlying code when designing the visual and conceptual interface of a multimedia project?” 
''Response:'' Delagrange argues for code. Code allows designers to more specifically customize their interface, enhancing user experience and better fitting design to rhetorical argument. She points out that “reading and writing interactive media is an important new literacy practice, one that requires procedural as well as interpretive skills, and if we think that media literacy is a skill that our students should have, then we need to learn it ourselves too.” True media cannot be fill-in-the-blank. She says it might not be necessary for digital scholars to practice what they write, but it definitely helps.

Delagrange, Susan "When Reflection is Re-Design: Key Questions for Digital Scholarship"

2012-04-13T17:26:33Z

Bailey Bounds:

Susan Delagrange posed several key questions in her web article “[http://www.technorhetoric.net/14.1/inventio/delagrange/reflection.htm When Reflection is Re-Design: Key Questions for Digital Scholarship].” The article is sectioned with website navigation. In the article, Delagrange discusses her attempt to create a digital Wunderkammer. The project focused on arrangement as a visual practice, separate from invention, that could produce knowledge “in the same way that 16th-century Wunderkammer did—through the process of serial juxtaposition and reflection.” Delagrange argued that arrangement was a tool for invention and discovery. For her argument to work, Delagrange’s digital version could not contain text that drove images, but rather images that drove text. The physical space would hold the design experience (Delagrange) and the exploration experience (viewers). Her digital Wunderkammer “would function as a thought engine in which the manipulation and arrangement of its contents by both collector/designer and visitor/viewer animates the process of inquiry and insight.”

Delagrange’s 2006 version of the digital Wunderkammer did not quite fit her argument in several key areas. Delagrange reflects on the project and its design and answers key questions in the areas of design, interface, motion, navigation, disambiguation, production, and code. 

'''Design''' 
''Question:'' “How can digital space be redesigned so that the experience of the user more closely corresponds to the meaning-making tropes of the argument?” 
''Response:'' Visual meaning should be primary, images should be active and mobile, and action should be controlled by the viewer. Delagrange claims that “Designing scholarship in new media requires continuous oscillation among the text, the images, and the visual and conceptual framework. An idea suggests an image, an image a sentence, a sentence a motion, a motion a placement, a placement another sentence, that sentence a link, and so on.” 

'''Interface''' 
''Question:'' “How can the physical and conceptual properties of the interface be balanced to support exploratory manipulation of the digital environment while still meeting scholarly publishing requirements?” 
''Response:'' When designing the interface of a scholarly article, one can “reinforce or enact the argument through the design, an opportunity not usually available with print media.” The design is connected to the images and words and plays a part in making meaning. Each design choice, even something as small as size, influences the rhetoric of the final outcome. 

'''Motion''' 
''Question:'' “How can the sequencing and mobility of the images and the text be redesigned to foreground the primacy of heuristic vision in a digital landscape?” 
''Response:'' Arrangement has always been about moving things. Even in argument, humans move things around: evidence, images, text, etc. Movement creates new associations. Movement does not occur after a conclusion has been drawn; it is an active component of invention. Delagrange claims that “new ideas are merely several old thoughts that occur at the same time.” Delagrange uses this idea to support her claim “that new knowledge can be generated by the discovery of meaning in unexpected juxtapositions, and that those juxtapositions will be stimulated by wandering and wondering through a richly furnished imaginative space.” She had problems with the way her first version of “Wunderkammer” moved because did not embody a multisensory experience, and the movement of the piece “worked against” her “primary argument that objects/images themselves, through manipulation and arrangement, are productive of wonder and insight.” 

'''Navigation''' 
''Question:'' “How can navigation be designed to provide a thoughtful, exploratory viewer experience while still offering enough signposting to prevent viewer frustration?” 
''Response:'' Design book on interactive media show that people like to know where they are going before they click on a link; links should be clearly marked and unambiguous. These navigation preferences go against the argument Delagrange was posing. The purpose of her navigation was not just to be convenient or functional; Delagrange wanted people to get lost, not know where they were going, to spend time exploring. Her first version of “Wunderkammer” included minimally signposted links, and viewers thought the navigation could be more specific. Delagrange had to determine how to give enough direction to hold viewers without cutting the tension ambiguity of images and text created. She revises the navigation of her project to fit her purpose and the expectations of viewers. Her navigation is nonlinear, and she asks “why, after all, should we object to the option of nonlinear navigation in a digital environment when nonlinearity (think "walking in the city") is so much a part of the structure of our lives?” Interactivity, flexibilty, and viewer choice are important aspects to Delagrange’s navigation. She thought “viewers should be able to follow multiple paths through the project, and avail themselves of a range of interactions at any point.” 
'''
Disambiguation''' 
''Question:'' “In multimodal, multilinear media, how can the often competing scholarly obligations to be clear and unambiguous and to promote inquiry and discovery be balanced?” 
''Response:'' It was hard for viewer’s to understand Delagrange’s meaning in earlier versions of her project; the relationship between text and images was unclear, which in part, fit with her purpose, but like with navigation, viewers were wanting a little more clarity. For her argument to work, Delagrange’s viewers had to “see meaning first through the visual components,” and they had to “engage with the interpretation of those visual elements without an intervening verbal explanation.” She learned it was important for designers to preserve ambiguity for as long as possible because they wouldn’t want to exclude any ways of thinking that might be productive in the end. Ambiguity is important to learners, as well, because “premature certainty shuts down the process of inquiry and exploration that often leads to more sophisticated, more interesting, more generative knowledge.” Delagrange thinks her revised project successfully allows viewers to be on the edge of understanding and then to have an “aha” moment in which they understand. 

'''Production''' 
''Question:'' “Does composing new media scholarship necessitate learning and designing with HTML, CSS, Flash, or other multimedia software?” 
''Response:'' It takes time to learn software, keep up with change, learn design principles, and write in a digital format. Finding or allotting that time is challenging for digital media scholars. Delagrange’s definition of new media includes “includes projects that are interactive, media-rich, and, most importantly, cannot be (as) meaningfully composed or published in nondigital form.” Digital production is its own powerful thinking tool. Delagrange thinks it’s important to have the “knowledge to both design and deploy smart, aesthetically pleasing, rhetorically effective, digital media,” although she does not oppose writers working with designers who help them visualize and realize their arguments. It should be a collaborative effort because “design is intrinsic to argument, not decoration for it.” 

'''Code''' 
''Question:'' “What are the affordances and constraints of learning and writing underlying code when designing the visual and conceptual interface of a multimedia project?” 
''Response:'' Delagrange argues for code. Code allows designers to more specifically customize their interface, enhancing user experience and better fitting design to rhetorical argument. She points out that “reading and writing interactive media is an important new literacy practice, one that requires procedural as well as interpretive skills, and if we think that media literacy is a skill that our students should have, then we need to learn it ourselves too.” True media cannot be fill-in-the-blank. She says it might not be necessary for digital scholars to practice what they write, but it definitely helps.

Delagrange, Susan "When Reflection is Re-Design: Key Questions for Digital Scholarship"

2012-04-13T17:24:54Z

Bailey Bounds: Created page with "Susan Delagrange posed several key questions in her web article “[http://www.technorhetoric.net/14.1/inventio/delagrange/reflection.htm When Reflection is Re-Design: Key Questi..."

Susan Delagrange posed several key questions in her web article “[http://www.technorhetoric.net/14.1/inventio/delagrange/reflection.htm When Reflection is Re-Design: Key Questions for Digital Scholarship].” The article is sectioned with website navigation. In the article, Delagrange discusses her attempt to create a digital Wunderkammer. The project focused on arrangement as a visual practice, separate from invention, that could produce knowledge “in the same way that 16th-century Wunderkammer did—through the process of serial juxtaposition and reflection.” Delagrange argued that arrangement was a tool for invention and discovery. For her argument to work, Delagrange’s digital version could not contain text that drove images, but rather images that drove text. The physical space would hold the design experience (Delagrange) and the exploration experience (viewers). Her digital Wunderkammer “would function as a thought engine in which the manipulation and arrangement of its contents by both collector/designer and visitor/viewer animates the process of inquiry and insight.”

Delagrange’s 2006 version of the digital Wunderkammer did not quite fit her argument in several key areas. Delagrange reflects on the project and its design and answers key questions in the areas of design, interface, motion, navigation, disambiguation, production, and code.

Design
Question: “How can digital space be redesigned so that the experience of the user more closely corresponds to the meaning-making tropes of the argument?” Response: Visual meaning should be primary, images should be active and mobile, and action should be controlled by the viewer. Delagrange claims that “Designing scholarship in new media requires continuous oscillation among the text, the images, and the visual and conceptual framework. An idea suggests an image, an image a sentence, a sentence a motion, a motion a placement, a placement another sentence, that sentence a link, and so on.”

Interface
Question: “How can the physical and conceptual properties of the interface be balanced to support exploratory manipulation of the digital environment while still meeting scholarly publishing requirements?” Response: When designing the interface of a scholarly article, one can “reinforce or enact the argument through the design, an opportunity not usually available with print media.” The design is connected to the images and words and plays a part in making meaning. Each design choice, even something as small as size, influences the rhetoric of the final outcome.

'''Motion''' 
''Question:'' “How can the sequencing and mobility of the images and the text be redesigned to foreground the primacy of heuristic vision in a digital landscape?” 
''Response:'' Arrangement has always been about moving things. Even in argument, humans move things around: evidence, images, text, etc. Movement creates new associations. Movement does not occur after a conclusion has been drawn; it is an active component of invention. Delagrange claims that “new ideas are merely several old thoughts that occur at the same time.” Delagrange uses this idea to support her claim “that new knowledge can be generated by the discovery of meaning in unexpected juxtapositions, and that those juxtapositions will be stimulated by wandering and wondering through a richly furnished imaginative space.” She had problems with the way her first version of “Wunderkammer” moved because did not embody a multisensory experience, and the movement of the piece “worked against” her “primary argument that objects/images themselves, through manipulation and arrangement, are productive of wonder and insight.” 

'''Navigation''' 
''Question:'' “How can navigation be designed to provide a thoughtful, exploratory viewer experience while still offering enough signposting to prevent viewer frustration?” 
''Response:'' Design book on interactive media show that people like to know where they are going before they click on a link; links should be clearly marked and unambiguous. These navigation preferences go against the argument Delagrange was posing. The purpose of her navigation was not just to be convenient or functional; Delagrange wanted people to get lost, not know where they were going, to spend time exploring. Her first version of “Wunderkammer” included minimally signposted links, and viewers thought the navigation could be more specific. Delagrange had to determine how to give enough direction to hold viewers without cutting the tension ambiguity of images and text created. She revises the navigation of her project to fit her purpose and the expectations of viewers. Her navigation is nonlinear, and she asks “why, after all, should we object to the option of nonlinear navigation in a digital environment when nonlinearity (think "walking in the city") is so much a part of the structure of our lives?” Interactivity, flexibilty, and viewer choice are important aspects to Delagrange’s navigation. She thought “viewers should be able to follow multiple paths through the project, and avail themselves of a range of interactions at any point.” 
'''
Disambiguation''' 
''Question:'' “In multimodal, multilinear media, how can the often competing scholarly obligations to be clear and unambiguous and to promote inquiry and discovery be balanced?” 
''Response:'' It was hard for viewer’s to understand Delagrange’s meaning in earlier versions of her project; the relationship between text and images was unclear, which in part, fit with her purpose, but like with navigation, viewers were wanting a little more clarity. For her argument to work, Delagrange’s viewers had to “see meaning first through the visual components,” and they had to “engage with the interpretation of those visual elements without an intervening verbal explanation.” She learned it was important for designers to preserve ambiguity for as long as possible because they wouldn’t want to exclude any ways of thinking that might be productive in the end. Ambiguity is important to learners, as well, because “premature certainty shuts down the process of inquiry and exploration that often leads to more sophisticated, more interesting, more generative knowledge.” Delagrange thinks her revised project successfully allows viewers to be on the edge of understanding and then to have an “aha” moment in which they understand. 

'''Production''' 
''Question:'' “Does composing new media scholarship necessitate learning and designing with HTML, CSS, Flash, or other multimedia software?” 
''Response:'' It takes time to learn software, keep up with change, learn design principles, and write in a digital format. Finding or allotting that time is challenging for digital media scholars. Delagrange’s definition of new media includes “includes projects that are interactive, media-rich, and, most importantly, cannot be (as) meaningfully composed or published in nondigital form.” Digital production is its own powerful thinking tool. Delagrange thinks it’s important to have the “knowledge to both design and deploy smart, aesthetically pleasing, rhetorically effective, digital media,” although she does not oppose writers working with designers who help them visualize and realize their arguments. It should be a collaborative effort because “design is intrinsic to argument, not decoration for it.” 

'''Code''' 
''Question:'' “What are the affordances and constraints of learning and writing underlying code when designing the visual and conceptual interface of a multimedia project?” 
''Response:'' Delagrange argues for code. Code allows designers to more specifically customize their interface, enhancing user experience and better fitting design to rhetorical argument. She points out that “reading and writing interactive media is an important new literacy practice, one that requires procedural as well as interpretive skills, and if we think that media literacy is a skill that our students should have, then we need to learn it ourselves too.” True media cannot be fill-in-the-blank. She says it might not be necessary for digital scholars to practice what they write, but it definitely helps.

Article Summaries

2012-04-13T17:16:54Z

Bailey Bounds: /* A-D */

This page links to in-depth article summaries from prominent authors in this field. Links are organized by author's last name.

== A-D ==
* [[Aristotle, Poetics]]
* [[Aristotle, Rhetoric]]
:
:
* [[Bakhtin, Mikhail "Toward a Methodology for the Human Sciences"]]
* [[Baron, Dennis "From Pencils to Pixels: The Stages of Literacy Technology"]]
* [[Barthes, Roland "Death of the Author"]]
* [[Blythe, Stuart "Coding Digital Texts and Multimedia"]]
*[[Bitzer, Lloyd "The Rhetorical Situation"]]
* [[Brent, Douglas "Rogerian Rhetoric: An Alternative to Traditional Rhetoric"]]
* [[Bryant, Donald C. "Rhetoric: Its Functions and Its Scope"]]
* [[Burke, Kenneth "Definition of Man"]]
:
:
* [[Corder, Jim W. "Argument as Emergence, Rhetoric as Love"]]
* [["CCCC Position Statement"]]
:
:
* [[Delagrange, Susan "When Reflection is Re-Design: Key Questions for Digital Scholarship"]]
* [[DePew, Kevin Eric “Through the Eyes of Researchers, Rhetors, and Audiences”]]
* [[Downs, Douglas and Elizabeth Wardle “Teaching About Writing, Righting Misconceptions: (Re)Envisioning 'First Year Composition' as 'Introduction to Writing Studies'”]]

== E-H ==
* [[Ede, Lisa S. and Andrea A. Lunsford "On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric"]]
* [[Ehninger, Douglas "On Systems of Rhetoric"]]
:
:
* [[Fisher, Walter "Narration as a Human Communication Paradigm"]]
* [[Foucault, Michel "What Is an Author?"]]
:
* [[Hea, Amy C. Kimme "Riding The Wave"]]
* [[Halloran, Michael S. "On the End of Rhetoric: Classical and Modern"]]
* [[Hart-Davidson, Bill and Steven D. Krause “Re: The Future of Computers and Writing: A Multivocal Textumentary”]]

== I-L ==
* [[Jenkins, Henry "Eight Traits of the New Media Landscape"]]
* [[Johnson-Eilola, Johndan “Negative Spaces: From Production to Connection in Composition”]]
:
:
* [[Logie, John “Champing at the Bits: Computers, Copyright, ad the Composition Classroom”]]
* [[Lunsford, Andrea and Lisa Ede "On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric"]]

== M-P ==
* [[McIntire-Strasburg, Janice "Multimedia Research"]]
* [[McKeon, Richard “The Uses of Rhetoric in a Technological Age: Architectonic Productive Arts”]]
* [[Moeller, Ryan and David Christensen "System Mapping: A Genre Field Analysis of the National Science Foundation's Grant Proposal and Funding Process"]]
:
:
* [[Ohmann, Richard “In Lieu of a New Rhetoric”]]
:
:
* [[Palmquist, Mike, Kate Kiefer, James Hartvigsen, and Barbara Goodlew "Contrasts: Teaching and Learning about Writing in Traditional and Computer Classrooms"]]
* [[Perelman, Chaïm "The New Rhetoric: A Theory of Practical Reasoning"]]
== Q-T ==
* [[Richards, I.A. "How to Read a Page"]]
* [[Rickly, Rebecca "Messy Contexts: Research as a Rhetorical Situation"]]
:
:
* [[Saussure, Ferdinand de "Nature of the Linguistic Sign"]]
* [[Scott, Robert L. "On Viewing Rhetoric as Epistemic"]]
* [[Sidler, Michelle "Playing Scavenger and Gazer with Scientific Discourse: Opportunities and Ethics for Online Research"]]
* [[Selfe, Cynthia L. & Richard J. Selfe Jr. "The Politics of the Interface: Power and Its Exercise in Electronic Contact Zones"]]
* [[Slatin, John M. "Reading Hypertext: Order and Coherence in a New Medium"]]
* [[Sorapure, Madeleine, Pamela Inglesby, and George Yatchisin "Web Literacy: Challenges and Opportunities for Research in a New Medium"]]
:
:
* [[Toulmin, Stephen "The Layout of Arguments"]]
== U-X ==
* [[Vatz, Richard "The Myth of the Rhetorical Situation]]
:
:
* [[Wardle, Elizabeth and Douglas Downs “Teaching About Writing, Righting Misconceptions: (Re)Envisioning 'First Year Composition' as 'Introduction to Writing Studies'”]]
* [[Weaver, Richard "The Cultural Role of Rhetoric]]
* [[Williams, Sean D. "Part 2: Toward an Integrated Composition Pedagogy in Hypertext"]]
== Y & Z ==
* [[Yancey, Kathleen Blake "Looking for Sources of Coherence in a Fragmented World: Notes toward a New Assessment Design"]]
* [[Yancey, Kathleen Blake "Made Not Only in Words: Composition in a New Key"]]

Delagrange, Susan "When Reflection is Design"

2012-04-13T17:16:07Z

Bailey Bounds:

Susan Delagrange posed several key questions in her web article “[http://www.technorhetoric.net/14.1/inventio/delagrange/reflection.htm When Reflection is Re-Design:Key Questions for Digital Scholarship].” The article is sectioned through website navigation. In the article, Delagrange discusses her attempt to create a digital Wunderkammer. The project focused on arrangement as a visual practice, separate from invention, that could produce knowledge “in the same way that 16th-century Wunderkammer did—through the process of serial juxtaposition and reflection.” Delagrange argued that arrangement was a tool for invention and discovery. For her argument to work, Delagrange’s digital version could not contain text that drove images, but rather images that drove text. The physical space would hold the design experience (Delagrange) and the exploration experience (viewers). Her digital Wunderkammer “would function as a thought engine in which the manipulation and arrangement of its contents by both collector/designer and visitor/viewer animates the process of inquiry and insight.”

Delagrange’s 2006 version of the digital Wunderkammer did not quite fit her argument in several key areas. Delagrange reflects on the project and its design and answers key questions in the areas of design, interface, motion, navigation, disambiguation, production, and code.

''' Design''' 
''Question:'' “How can digital space be redesigned so that the experience of the user more closely corresponds to the meaning-making tropes of the argument?” 
''Response:'' Visual meaning should be primary, images should be active and mobile, and action should be controlled by the viewer. Delagrange claims that “Designing scholarship in new media requires continuous oscillation among the text, the images, and the visual and conceptual framework. An idea suggests an image, an image a sentence, a sentence a motion, a motion a placement, a placement another sentence, that sentence a link, and so on.” 

'''Interface''' 
''Question:'' “How can the physical and conceptual properties of the interface be balanced to support exploratory manipulation of the digital environment while still meeting scholarly publishing requirements?” 
''Response:'' When designing the interface of a scholarly article, one can “reinforce or enact the argument through the design, an opportunity not usually available with print media.” The design is connected to the images and words and plays a part in making meaning. Each design choice, even something as small as size, influences the rhetoric of the final outcome. 

'''Motion''' 
''Question:'' “How can the sequencing and mobility of the images and the text be redesigned to foreground the primacy of heuristic vision in a digital landscape?” 
''Response:'' Arrangement has always been about moving things. Even in argument, humans move things around: evidence, images, text, etc. Movement creates new associations. Movement does not occur after a conclusion has been drawn; it is an active component of invention. Delagrange claims that “new ideas are merely several old thoughts that occur at the same time.” She uses this idea to support her claim “that new knowledge can be generated by the discovery of meaning in unexpected juxtapositions, and that those juxtapositions will be stimulated by wandering and wondering through a richly furnished imaginative space.” She had problems with the way her first version of “Wunderkammer” moved because did not embody a multisensory experience, and the movement of the piece “worked against” her “primary argument that objects/images themselves, through manipulation and arrangement, are productive of wonder and insight.” 

'''Navigation''' 
''Question:'' “How can navigation be designed to provide a thoughtful, exploratory viewer experience while still offering enough signposting to prevent viewer frustration?” 
''Response:'' Design book on interactive media show that people like to know where they are going before they click on a link; links should be clearly marked and unambiguous. These navigation preferences go against the argument Delagrange was posing. The purpose of her navigation was not just to be convenient or functional; Delagrange wanted people to get lost, not know where they were going, to spend time exploring. Her first version of “Wunderkammer” included minimally signposted links, and viewers thought the navigation could be more specific. Delagrange had to determine how to give enough direction to hold viewers without cutting the tension ambiguity of images and text created. She revises the navigation of her project to fit her purpose and the expectations of viewers. Her navigation is nonlinear, and she asks “why, after all, should we object to the option of nonlinear navigation in a digital environment when nonlinearity (think "walking in the city") is so much a part of the structure of our lives?” Interactivity, flexibilty, and viewer choice are important aspects to Delagrange’s navigation. She thought “viewers should be able to follow multiple paths through the project, and avail themselves of a range of interactions at any point.” 

'''Disambiguation''' 
''Question:'' “In multimodal, multilinear media, how can the often competing scholarly obligations to be clear and unambiguous and to promote inquiry and discovery be balanced?” 
''Response:'' It was hard for viewer’s to understand Delagrange’s meaning in earlier versions of her project; the relationship between text and images was unclear, which in part, fit with her purpose, but like with navigation, viewers were wanting a little more clarity. For her argument to work, Delagrange’s viewers had to “see meaning first through the visual components,” and they had to “engage with the interpretation of those visual elements without an intervening verbal explanation.” She learned it was important for designers to preserve ambiguity for as long as possible because they wouldn’t want to exclude any ways of thinking that might be productive in the end. Ambiguity is important to learners, as well, because “premature certainty shuts down the process of inquiry and exploration that often leads to more sophisticated, more interesting, more generative knowledge.” Delagrange thinks her revised project successfully allows viewers to be on the edge of understanding and then to have an “aha” moment in which they understand. 

'''Production''' 
''Question:'' “Does composing new media scholarship necessitate learning and designing with HTML, CSS, Flash, or other multimedia software?” 
''Response:'' It takes time to learn software, keep up with change, learn design principles, and write in a digital format. Finding or allotting that time is challenging for digital media scholars. Delagrange’s definition of new media includes “includes projects that are interactive, media-rich, and, most importantly, cannot be (as) meaningfully composed or published in nondigital form.” Digital production is its own powerful thinking tool. Delagrange thinks it’s important to have the “knowledge to both design and deploy smart, aesthetically pleasing, rhetorically effective, digital media,” although she does not oppose writers working with designers who help them visualize and realize their arguments. It should be a collaborative effort because “design is intrinsic to argument, not decoration for it.” 

'''Code''' 
''Question:'' “What are the affordances and constraints of learning and writing underlying code when designing the visual and conceptual interface of a multimedia project?” 
''Response:'' Delagrange argues for code. Code allows designers to more specifically customize their interface, enhancing user experience and better fitting design to rhetorical argument. She points out that “reading and writing interactive media is an important new literacy practice, one that requires procedural as well as interpretive skills, and if we think that media literacy is a skill that our students should have, then we need to learn it ourselves too.” True media cannot be fill-in-the-blank. She says it might not be necessary for digital scholars to practice what they write, but it definitely helps.

Delagrange, Susan "When Reflection is Design"

2012-04-13T17:15:32Z

Bailey Bounds:

Susan Delagrange posed several key questions in her web article “[http://www.technorhetoric.net/14.1/inventio/delagrange/reflection.htm When Reflection is Re-Design:Key Questions for Digital Scholarship].” The article is sectioned through website navigation. In the article, Delagrange discusses her attempt to create a digital Wunderkammer. The project focused on arrangement as a visual practice, separate from invention, that could produce knowledge “in the same way that 16th-century Wunderkammer did—through the process of serial juxtaposition and reflection.” Delagrange argued that arrangement was a tool for invention and discovery. For her argument to work, Delagrange’s digital version could not contain text that drove images, but rather images that drove text. The physical space would hold the design experience (Delagrange) and the exploration experience (viewers). Her digital Wunderkammer “would function as a thought engine in which the manipulation and arrangement of its contents by both collector/designer and visitor/viewer animates the process of inquiry and insight.”

Delagrange’s 2006 version of the digital Wunderkammer did not quite fit her argument in several key areas. Delagrange reflects on the project and its design and answers key questions in the areas of design, interface, motion, navigation, disambiguation, production, and code.

''' Design''' 
''Question:'' “How can digital space be redesigned so that the experience of the user more closely corresponds to the meaning-making tropes of the argument?” 
''Response:'' Visual meaning should be primary, images should be active and mobile, and action should be controlled by the viewer. Delagrange claims that “Designing scholarship in new media requires continuous oscillation among the text, the images, and the visual and conceptual framework. An idea suggests an image, an image a sentence, a sentence a motion, a motion a placement, a placement another sentence, that sentence a link, and so on.” 

'''Interface''' 
''Question:'' “How can the physical and conceptual properties of the interface be balanced to support exploratory manipulation of the digital environment while still meeting scholarly publishing requirements?” 
''Response:'' When designing the interface of a scholarly article, one can “reinforce or enact the argument through the design, an opportunity not usually available with print media.” The design is connected to the images and words and plays a part in making meaning. Each design choice, even something as small as size, influences the rhetoric of the final outcome. 

'''Motion''' 
''Question:'' “How can the sequencing and mobility of the images and the text be redesigned to foreground the primacy of heuristic vision in a digital landscape?” 
''Response:'' Arrangement has always been about moving things. Even in argument, humans move things around: evidence, images, text, etc. Movement creates new associations. Movement does not occur after a conclusion has been drawn; it is an active component of invention. Delagrange claims that “new ideas are merely several old thoughts that occur at the same time.” She uses this idea to support her claim “that new knowledge can be generated by the discovery of meaning in unexpected juxtapositions, and that those juxtapositions will be stimulated by wandering and wondering through a richly furnished imaginative space.” She had problems with the way her first version of “Wunderkammer” moved because did not embody a multisensory experience, and the movement of the piece “worked against” her “primary argument that objects/images themselves, through manipulation and arrangement, are productive of wonder and insight.” 

'''Navigation''' 
''Question:'' “How can navigation be designed to provide a thoughtful, exploratory viewer experience while still offering enough signposting to prevent viewer frustration?” 
''Response:'' Design book on interactive media show that people like to know where they are going before they click on a link; links should be clearly marked and unambiguous. These navigation preferences go against the argument Delagrange was posing. The purpose of her navigation was not just to be convenient or functional; Delagrange wanted people to get lost, not know where they were going, to spend time exploring. Her first version of “Wunderkammer” included minimally signposted links, and viewers thought the navigation could be more specific. Delagrange had to determine how to give enough direction to hold viewers without cutting the tension ambiguity of images and text created. She revises the navigation of her project to fit her purpose and the expectations of viewers. Her navigation is nonlinear, and she asks “why, after all, should we object to the option of nonlinear navigation in a digital environment when nonlinearity (think "walking in the city") is so much a part of the structure of our lives?” Interactivity, flexibilty, and viewer choice are important aspects to Delagrange’s navigation. She thought “viewers should be able to follow multiple paths through the project, and avail themselves of a range of interactions at any point.” 

'''Disambiguation''' 
''Question:'' “In multimodal, multilinear media, how can the often competing scholarly obligations to be clear and unambiguous and to promote inquiry and discovery be balanced?” 
''Response:'' It was hard for viewer’s to understand Delagrange’s meaning in earlier versions of her project; the relationship between text and images was unclear, which in part, fit with her purpose, but like with navigation, viewers were wanting a little more clarity. For her argument to work, Delagrange’s viewers had to “see meaning first through the visual components,” and they had to “engage with the interpretation of those visual elements without an intervening verbal explanation.” She learned it was important for designers to preserve ambiguity for as long as possible because they wouldn’t want to exclude any ways of thinking that might be productive in the end. Ambiguity is important to learners, as well, because “premature certainty shuts down the process of inquiry and exploration that often leads to more sophisticated, more interesting, more generative knowledge.” Delagrange thinks her revised project successfully allows viewers to be on the edge of understanding and then to have an “aha” moment in which they understand. 

'''Production''' 
'''Question:''' “Does composing new media scholarship necessitate learning and designing with HTML, CSS, Flash, or other multimedia software?” 
''Response:'' It takes time to learn software, keep up with change, learn design principles, and write in a digital format. Finding or allotting that time is challenging for digital media scholars. Delagrange’s definition of new media includes “includes projects that are interactive, media-rich, and, most importantly, cannot be (as) meaningfully composed or published in nondigital form.” Digital production is its own powerful thinking tool. Delagrange thinks it’s important to have the “knowledge to both design and deploy smart, aesthetically pleasing, rhetorically effective, digital media,” although she does not oppose writers working with designers who help them visualize and realize their arguments. It should be a collaborative effort because “design is intrinsic to argument, not decoration for it.” 

'''Code''' 
''Question:'' “What are the affordances and constraints of learning and writing underlying code when designing the visual and conceptual interface of a multimedia project?” 
''Response:'' Delagrange argues for code. Code allows designers to more specifically customize their interface, enhancing user experience and better fitting design to rhetorical argument. She points out that “reading and writing interactive media is an important new literacy practice, one that requires procedural as well as interpretive skills, and if we think that media literacy is a skill that our students should have, then we need to learn it ourselves too.” True media cannot be fill-in-the-blank. She says it might not be necessary for digital scholars to practice what they write, but it definitely helps.

Delagrange, Susan "When Reflection is Design"

2012-04-13T17:08:57Z

Bailey Bounds: Created page with "Susan Delagrange posed several key questions in her web article “When Reflection is Design.” The article is sectioned through website navigation. In the article, Delagrange d..."

Susan Delagrange posed several key questions in her web article “When Reflection is Design.” The article is sectioned through website navigation. In the article, Delagrange discusses her attempt to create a digital Wunderkammer. The project focused on arrangement as a visual practice, separate from invention, that could produce knowledge “in the same way that 16th-century Wunderkammer did—through the process of serial juxtaposition and reflection.” Delagrange argued that arrangement was a tool for invention and discovery. For her argument to work, Delagrange’s digital version could not contain text that drove images, but rather images that drove text. The physical space would hold the design experience (Delagrange) and the exploration experience (viewers). Her digital Wunderkammer “would function as a thought engine in which the manipulation and arrangement of its contents by both collector/designer and visitor/viewer animates the process of inquiry and insight.”

Delagrange’s 2006 version of the digital Wunderkammer did not quite fit her argument in several key areas. Delagrange reflects on the project and its design and answers key questions in the areas of design, interface, motion, navigation, disambiguation, production, and code.

''' Design''' 
Question: “How can digital space be redesigned so that the experience of the user more closely corresponds to the meaning-making tropes of the argument?” 
Response: Visual meaning should be primary, images should be active and mobile, and action should be controlled by the viewer. Delagrange claims that “Designing scholarship in new media requires continuous oscillation among the text, the images, and the visual and conceptual framework. An idea suggests an image, an image a sentence, a sentence a motion, a motion a placement, a placement another sentence, that sentence a link, and so on.” 

'''Interface''' 
Question: “How can the physical and conceptual properties of the interface be balanced to support exploratory manipulation of the digital environment while still meeting scholarly publishing requirements?” 
Response: When designing the interface of a scholarly article, one can “reinforce or enact the argument through the design, an opportunity not usually available with print media.” The design is connected to the images and words and plays a part in making meaning. Each design choice, even something as small as size, influences the rhetoric of the final outcome. 

'''Motion''' 
Question: “How can the sequencing and mobility of the images and the text be redesigned to foreground the primacy of heuristic vision in a digital landscape?” 
Response: Arrangement has always been about moving things. Even in argument, humans move things around: evidence, images, text, etc. Movement creates new associations. Movement does not occur after a conclusion has been drawn; it is an active component of invention. Delagrange claims that “new ideas are merely several old thoughts that occur at the same time.” She uses this idea to support her claim “that new knowledge can be generated by the discovery of meaning in unexpected juxtapositions, and that those juxtapositions will be stimulated by wandering and wondering through a richly furnished imaginative space.” She had problems with the way her first version of “Wunderkammer” moved because did not embody a multisensory experience, and the movement of the piece “worked against” her “primary argument that objects/images themselves, through manipulation and arrangement, are productive of wonder and insight.” 

'''Navigation''' 
Question: “How can navigation be designed to provide a thoughtful, exploratory viewer experience while still offering enough signposting to prevent viewer frustration?” 
Response: Design book on interactive media show that people like to know where they are going before they click on a link; links should be clearly marked and unambiguous. These navigation preferences go against the argument Delagrange was posing. The purpose of her navigation was not just to be convenient or functional; Delagrange wanted people to get lost, not know where they were going, to spend time exploring. Her first version of “Wunderkammer” included minimally signposted links, and viewers thought the navigation could be more specific. Delagrange had to determine how to give enough direction to hold viewers without cutting the tension ambiguity of images and text created. She revises the navigation of her project to fit her purpose and the expectations of viewers. Her navigation is nonlinear, and she asks “why, after all, should we object to the option of nonlinear navigation in a digital environment when nonlinearity (think "walking in the city") is so much a part of the structure of our lives?” Interactivity, flexibilty, and viewer choice are important aspects to Delagrange’s navigation. She thought “viewers should be able to follow multiple paths through the project, and avail themselves of a range of interactions at any point.” 

'''Disambiguation''' 
Question: “In multimodal, multilinear media, how can the often competing scholarly obligations to be clear and unambiguous and to promote inquiry and discovery be balanced?” 
Response: It was hard for viewer’s to understand Delagrange’s meaning in earlier versions of her project; the relationship between text and images was unclear, which in part, fit with her purpose, but like with navigation, viewers were wanting a little more clarity. For her argument to work, Delagrange’s viewers had to “see meaning first through the visual components,” and they had to “engage with the interpretation of those visual elements without an intervening verbal explanation.” She learned it was important for designers to preserve ambiguity for as long as possible because they wouldn’t want to exclude any ways of thinking that might be productive in the end. Ambiguity is important to learners, as well, because “premature certainty shuts down the process of inquiry and exploration that often leads to more sophisticated, more interesting, more generative knowledge.” Delagrange thinks her revised project successfully allows viewers to be on the edge of understanding and then to have an “aha” moment in which they understand. 

'''Production''' 
Question: “Does composing new media scholarship necessitate learning and designing with HTML, CSS, Flash, or other multimedia software?” 
Response: It takes time to learn software, keep up with change, learn design principles, and write in a digital format. Finding or allotting that time is challenging for digital media scholars. Delagrange’s definition of new media includes “includes projects that are interactive, media-rich, and, most importantly, cannot be (as) meaningfully composed or published in nondigital form.” Digital production is its own powerful thinking tool. Delagrange thinks it’s important to have the “knowledge to both design and deploy smart, aesthetically pleasing, rhetorically effective, digital media,” although she does not oppose writers working with designers who help them visualize and realize their arguments. It should be a collaborative effort because “design is intrinsic to argument, not decoration for it.” 

'''Code''' 
Question: “What are the affordances and constraints of learning and writing underlying code when designing the visual and conceptual interface of a multimedia project?” 
Response: Delagrange argues for code. Code allows designers to more specifically customize their interface, enhancing user experience and better fitting design to rhetorical argument. She points out that “reading and writing interactive media is an important new literacy practice, one that requires procedural as well as interpretive skills, and if we think that media literacy is a skill that our students should have, then we need to learn it ourselves too.” True media cannot be fill-in-the-blank. She says it might not be necessary for digital scholars to practice what they write, but it definitely helps.

Article Summaries

2012-04-13T16:56:26Z

Bailey Bounds: /* A-D */

This page links to in-depth article summaries from prominent authors in this field. Links are organized by author's last name.

== A-D ==
* [[Aristotle, Poetics]]
* [[Aristotle, Rhetoric]]
:
:
* [[Bakhtin, Mikhail "Toward a Methodology for the Human Sciences"]]
* [[Baron, Dennis "From Pencils to Pixels: The Stages of Literacy Technology"]]
* [[Barthes, Roland "Death of the Author"]]
* [[Blythe, Stuart "Coding Digital Texts and Multimedia"]]
*[[Bitzer, Lloyd "The Rhetorical Situation"]]
* [[Brent, Douglas "Rogerian Rhetoric: An Alternative to Traditional Rhetoric"]]
* [[Bryant, Donald C. "Rhetoric: Its Functions and Its Scope"]]
* [[Burke, Kenneth "Definition of Man"]]
:
:
* [[Corder, Jim W. "Argument as Emergence, Rhetoric as Love"]]
* [["CCCC Position Statement"]]
:
:
* [[Delagrange, Susan "When Reflection is Design"]]
* [[DePew, Kevin Eric “Through the Eyes of Researchers, Rhetors, and Audiences”]]
* [[Downs, Douglas and Elizabeth Wardle “Teaching About Writing, Righting Misconceptions: (Re)Envisioning 'First Year Composition' as 'Introduction to Writing Studies'”]]

== E-H ==
* [[Ede, Lisa S. and Andrea A. Lunsford "On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric"]]
* [[Ehninger, Douglas "On Systems of Rhetoric"]]
:
:
* [[Fisher, Walter "Narration as a Human Communication Paradigm"]]
* [[Foucault, Michel "What Is an Author?"]]
:
* [[Hea, Amy C. Kimme "Riding The Wave"]]
* [[Halloran, Michael S. "On the End of Rhetoric: Classical and Modern"]]
* [[Hart-Davidson, Bill and Steven D. Krause “Re: The Future of Computers and Writing: A Multivocal Textumentary”]]

== I-L ==
* [[Jenkins, Henry "Eight Traits of the New Media Landscape"]]
* [[Johnson-Eilola, Johndan “Negative Spaces: From Production to Connection in Composition”]]
:
:
* [[Logie, John “Champing at the Bits: Computers, Copyright, ad the Composition Classroom”]]
* [[Lunsford, Andrea and Lisa Ede "On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric"]]

== M-P ==
* [[McIntire-Strasburg, Janice "Multimedia Research"]]
* [[McKeon, Richard “The Uses of Rhetoric in a Technological Age: Architectonic Productive Arts”]]
* [[Moeller, Ryan and David Christensen "System Mapping: A Genre Field Analysis of the National Science Foundation's Grant Proposal and Funding Process"]]
:
:
* [[Ohmann, Richard “In Lieu of a New Rhetoric”]]
:
:
* [[Palmquist, Mike, Kate Kiefer, James Hartvigsen, and Barbara Goodlew "Contrasts: Teaching and Learning about Writing in Traditional and Computer Classrooms"]]
* [[Perelman, Chaïm "The New Rhetoric: A Theory of Practical Reasoning"]]
== Q-T ==
* [[Richards, I.A. "How to Read a Page"]]
* [[Rickly, Rebecca "Messy Contexts: Research as a Rhetorical Situation"]]
:
:
* [[Saussure, Ferdinand de "Nature of the Linguistic Sign"]]
* [[Scott, Robert L. "On Viewing Rhetoric as Epistemic"]]
* [[Sidler, Michelle "Playing Scavenger and Gazer with Scientific Discourse: Opportunities and Ethics for Online Research"]]
* [[Selfe, Cynthia L. & Richard J. Selfe Jr. "The Politics of the Interface: Power and Its Exercise in Electronic Contact Zones"]]
* [[Slatin, John M. "Reading Hypertext: Order and Coherence in a New Medium"]]
* [[Sorapure, Madeleine, Pamela Inglesby, and George Yatchisin "Web Literacy: Challenges and Opportunities for Research in a New Medium"]]
:
:
* [[Toulmin, Stephen "The Layout of Arguments"]]
== U-X ==
* [[Vatz, Richard "The Myth of the Rhetorical Situation]]
:
:
* [[Wardle, Elizabeth and Douglas Downs “Teaching About Writing, Righting Misconceptions: (Re)Envisioning 'First Year Composition' as 'Introduction to Writing Studies'”]]
* [[Weaver, Richard "The Cultural Role of Rhetoric]]
* [[Williams, Sean D. "Part 2: Toward an Integrated Composition Pedagogy in Hypertext"]]
== Y & Z ==
* [[Yancey, Kathleen Blake "Looking for Sources of Coherence in a Fragmented World: Notes toward a New Assessment Design"]]
* [[Yancey, Kathleen Blake "Made Not Only in Words: Composition in a New Key"]]

Jenkins, Henry "Eight Traits of the New Media Landscape"

2012-04-13T16:53:42Z

Bailey Bounds:

'''Summary'''

Henry Jenkins wrote a blog post called “[http://http://henryjenkins.org/2006/11/eight_traits_of_the_new_media.html Eight Traits of the New Media Landscape]” in 2006. Before describing his eight traits, Jenkins highlights that when considering the media landscape, it is important to list more than just tools and technologies. Jenkins feels that the focus of the new media landscape should not be on emerging technologies but on emerging cultural practices. It is important to “to understand the underlying logic shaping our current moment of media in transition.”

Here are Jenkins' eight traits of the new media landscape:
1) Innovative
2) Convergent
3) Everyday
4) Appropriative
5) Networked
6) Global
7) Generational
8) Unequal

'''Innovative:'''
New media is always being created and is quickly absorbed in culture.

'''Convergent:'''
All kinds of media are broadcast across a broad range of channels, and media is shaped top-down and bottom-up at the same time with conglomerates controlling messages and consumers expressing how they want their media.

'''Everyday:'''
Media technology is fully integrated into everyday interactions.

'''Appropriative:'''
New technology makes it easy to re-purpose media images, and cultures are communicating through borrowed media content.

'''Networked:'''
Messages flow easily from one place to another, and communication is not a one-many receiver model but a many-many model.

'''Global:'''
New technologies allow people to communicate with other people around the world.

'''Generational:'''
Young people have different cultural styles and values in the new media landscape than their parents, and both adults and young people know less about each other’s media values and assumptions than they think.

'''Unequal:'''
Media allows for different levels of participation, and “participating may be elective for those who have the resources needed to belong in the first place but no such option can be exercised by those who are being left behind.” Unequal is the only trait that Jenkins feels describes current educational institutes.

Jenkins, Henry "Eight Traits of the New Media Landscape"

2012-04-13T16:52:02Z

Bailey Bounds:

'''Summary'''

Henry Jenkins wrote a blog post called “[http://http://henryjenkins.org/2006/11/eight_traits_of_the_new_media.html Eight Traits of the New Media Landscape]” in 2006. Before describing his eight traits, Jenkins highlights that when considering the media landscape, it is important to list more than just tools and technologies. Jenkins feels that the focus of the new media landscape should not be on emerging technologies but on emerging cultural practices. It is important to “to understand the underlying logic shaping our current moment of media in transition.”

Here are Jenkins' eight traits of the new media landscape
1) Innovative
2) Convergent
3) Everyday
4) Appropriative
5) Networked
6) Global
7) Generational
8) Unequal

'''Innovative:'''
New media is always being created and is quickly absorbed in culture.

'''Convergent:'''
All kinds of media are broadcast across a broad range of channels, and media is shaped top-down and bottom-up at the same time with conglomerates controlling messages and consumers expressing how they want their media.

'''Everyday:'''
Media technology is fully integrated into everyday interactions.

'''Appropriative:'''
New technology makes it easy to re-purpose media images, and cultures are communicating through borrowed media content.

'''Networked:'''
Messages flow easily from one place to another, and communication is not a one-many receiver model but a many-many model.

'''Global:'''
New technologies allow people to communicate with other people around the world.

'''Generational:'''
Young people have different cultural styles and values in the new media landscape than their parents, and both adults and young people know less about each other’s media values and assumptions than they think.

'''Unequal:'''
Media allows for different levels of participation, and “participating may be elective for those who have the resources needed to belong in the first place but no such option can be exercised by those who are being left behind.” Unequal is the only trait that Jenkins feels describes current educational institutes.

Jenkins, Henry "Eight Traits of the New Media Landscape"

2012-04-13T16:49:41Z

Bailey Bounds:

'''Summary'''

Henry Jenkins wrote a blog post called “[Eight Traits of the New Media Landscape]” in 2006. Before describing his eight traits, Jenkins highlights that when considering the media landscape, it is important to list more than just tools and technologies. Jenkins feels that the focus of the new media landscape should not be on emerging technologies but on emerging cultural practices. It is important to “to understand the underlying logic shaping our current moment of media in transition.”

Here are Jenkins' eight traits of the new media landscape
1) Innovative
2) Convergent
3) Everyday
4) Appropriative
5) Networked
6) Global
7) Generational
8) Unequal

'''Innovative:'''
New media is always being created and is quickly absorbed in culture.

'''Convergent:'''
All kinds of media are broadcast across a broad range of channels, and media is shaped top-down and bottom-up at the same time with conglomerates controlling messages and consumers expressing how they want their media.

'''Everyday:'''
Media technology is fully integrated into everyday interactions.

'''Appropriative:'''
New technology makes it easy to re-purpose media images, and cultures are communicating through borrowed media content.

'''Networked:'''
Messages flow easily from one place to another, and communication is not a one-many receiver model but a many-many model.

'''Global:'''
New technologies allow people to communicate with other people around the world.

'''Generational:'''
Young people have different cultural styles and values in the new media landscape than their parents, and both adults and young people know less about each other’s media values and assumptions than they think.

'''Unequal:'''
Media allows for different levels of participation, and “participating may be elective for those who have the resources needed to belong in the first place but no such option can be exercised by those who are being left behind.” Unequal is the only trait that Jenkins feels describes current educational institutes.

Jenkins, Henry "Eight Traits of the New Media Landscape"

2012-04-13T16:48:46Z

Bailey Bounds: Created page with "'''Summary''' Henry Jenkins wrote a blog post called “[Eight Traits of the New Media Landscape]” in 2006. Before describing his eight traits, Jenkins highlights that when co..."

'''Summary'''

Henry Jenkins wrote a blog post called “[Eight Traits of the New Media Landscape]” in 2006. Before describing his eight traits, Jenkins highlights that when considering the media landscape, it is important to list more than just tools and technologies. Jenkins feels that the focus of the new media landscape should not be on emerging technologies but on emerging cultural practices. It is important to “to understand the underlying logic shaping our current moment of media in transition.”

Here are Jenkins' eight traits of the new media landscape
1) Innovative
2) Convergent
3) Everyday
4) Appropriative
5) Networked
6) Global
7) Generational
8) Unequal

'''Innovative'''
New media is always being created and is quickly absorbed in culture.

'''Convergent'''
All kinds of media are broadcast across a broad range of channels, and media is shaped top-down and bottom-up at the same time with conglomerates controlling messages and consumers expressing how they want their media.

'''Everyday'''
Media technology is fully integrated into everyday interactions.

'''Appropriative'''
New technology makes it easy to re-purpose media images, and cultures are communicating through borrowed media content.

'''Networked'''
Messages flow easily from one place to another, and communication is not a one-many receiver model but a many-many model.

'''Global'''
New technologies allow people to communicate with other people around the world.

'''Generational'''
Young people have different cultural styles and values in the new media landscape than their parents, and both adults and young people know less about each other’s media values and assumptions than they think.

'''Unequal'''
Media allows for different levels of participation, and “participating may be elective for those who have the resources needed to belong in the first place but no such option can be exercised by those who are being left behind.” Unequal is the only trait that Jenkins feels describes current educational institutes.

Article Summaries

2012-04-13T16:36:57Z

Bailey Bounds: /* I-L */

This page links to in-depth article summaries from prominent authors in this field. Links are organized by author's last name.

== A-D ==
* [[Aristotle, Poetics]]
* [[Aristotle, Rhetoric]]
:
:
* [[Bakhtin, Mikhail "Toward a Methodology for the Human Sciences"]]
* [[Baron, Dennis "From Pencils to Pixels: The Stages of Literacy Technology"]]
* [[Barthes, Roland "Death of the Author"]]
* [[Blythe, Stuart "Coding Digital Texts and Multimedia"]]
*[[Bitzer, Lloyd "The Rhetorical Situation"]]
* [[Brent, Douglas "Rogerian Rhetoric: An Alternative to Traditional Rhetoric"]]
* [[Bryant, Donald C. "Rhetoric: Its Functions and Its Scope"]]
* [[Burke, Kenneth "Definition of Man"]]
:
:
* [[Corder, Jim W. "Argument as Emergence, Rhetoric as Love"]]
* [["CCCC Position Statement"]]
:
:
* [[DePew, Kevin Eric “Through the Eyes of Researchers, Rhetors, and Audiences”]]
* [[Downs, Douglas and Elizabeth Wardle “Teaching About Writing, Righting Misconceptions: (Re)Envisioning 'First Year Composition' as 'Introduction to Writing Studies'”]]
== E-H ==
* [[Ede, Lisa S. and Andrea A. Lunsford "On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric"]]
* [[Ehninger, Douglas "On Systems of Rhetoric"]]
:
:
* [[Fisher, Walter "Narration as a Human Communication Paradigm"]]
* [[Foucault, Michel "What Is an Author?"]]
:
* [[Hea, Amy C. Kimme "Riding The Wave"]]
* [[Halloran, Michael S. "On the End of Rhetoric: Classical and Modern"]]
* [[Hart-Davidson, Bill and Steven D. Krause “Re: The Future of Computers and Writing: A Multivocal Textumentary”]]

== I-L ==
* [[Jenkins, Henry "Eight Traits of the New Media Landscape"]]
* [[Johnson-Eilola, Johndan “Negative Spaces: From Production to Connection in Composition”]]
:
:
* [[Logie, John “Champing at the Bits: Computers, Copyright, ad the Composition Classroom”]]
* [[Lunsford, Andrea and Lisa Ede "On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric"]]

== M-P ==
* [[McIntire-Strasburg, Janice "Multimedia Research"]]
* [[McKeon, Richard “The Uses of Rhetoric in a Technological Age: Architectonic Productive Arts”]]
* [[Moeller, Ryan and David Christensen "System Mapping: A Genre Field Analysis of the National Science Foundation's Grant Proposal and Funding Process"]]
:
:
* [[Ohmann, Richard “In Lieu of a New Rhetoric”]]
:
:
* [[Palmquist, Mike, Kate Kiefer, James Hartvigsen, and Barbara Goodlew "Contrasts: Teaching and Learning about Writing in Traditional and Computer Classrooms"]]
* [[Perelman, Chaïm "The New Rhetoric: A Theory of Practical Reasoning"]]
== Q-T ==
* [[Richards, I.A. "How to Read a Page"]]
* [[Rickly, Rebecca "Messy Contexts: Research as a Rhetorical Situation"]]
:
:
* [[Saussure, Ferdinand de "Nature of the Linguistic Sign"]]
* [[Scott, Robert L. "On Viewing Rhetoric as Epistemic"]]
* [[Sidler, Michelle "Playing Scavenger and Gazer with Scientific Discourse: Opportunities and Ethics for Online Research"]]
* [[Selfe, Cynthia L. & Richard J. Selfe Jr. "The Politics of the Interface: Power and Its Exercise in Electronic Contact Zones"]]
* [[Slatin, John M. "Reading Hypertext: Order and Coherence in a New Medium"]]
* [[Sorapure, Madeleine, Pamela Inglesby, and George Yatchisin "Web Literacy: Challenges and Opportunities for Research in a New Medium"]]
:
:
* [[Toulmin, Stephen "The Layout of Arguments"]]
== U-X ==
* [[Vatz, Richard "The Myth of the Rhetorical Situation]]
:
:
* [[Wardle, Elizabeth and Douglas Downs “Teaching About Writing, Righting Misconceptions: (Re)Envisioning 'First Year Composition' as 'Introduction to Writing Studies'”]]
* [[Weaver, Richard "The Cultural Role of Rhetoric]]
* [[Williams, Sean D. "Part 2: Toward an Integrated Composition Pedagogy in Hypertext"]]
== Y & Z ==
* [[Yancey, Kathleen Blake "Looking for Sources of Coherence in a Fragmented World: Notes toward a New Assessment Design"]]
* [[Yancey, Kathleen Blake "Made Not Only in Words: Composition in a New Key"]]