LookingAtTheTexualizedRhetSit exercise, start with some notes of description, leading to some initial consideration of how the artifact addresses the rhetorical situation.
BSUHomePageAsArgument - followed by your initials.
1. Use the guide below to make notes on your observations. Use Longaker, pp. XX for more. The actual home page is http://www.bemidjistate.edu. Try it out to get a sense of how the interactions work. Then use screencast to describe the content that was active on 20 Sep. (The screencasts are the same. One has a higher resolution than the other.)
I've adapted the guide a little to suit the artifact we're looking at - and especially to include considerations of interaction.
2. As you did before, draw on y0ur notes to compose a couple of informal but extensive paragraphs about how the BSU home page argues for a set of beliefs, values, and a way of understanding the university. These are very preliminary. From these notes, we'll define as a group how to further analyze the home page as an argument.
The elements of the page tend to stay the same from week to week: a background image with a set of circles, each containing a portrait image. The specific background image, the specific portraits, and the accompanying text is changed each week (I believe it's by week). The lower panel that slides into view when the page is scrolled also remains constant. The content in the upper part of the panel changes regularly; the content in the lower squares remains constant.
Each aspect deserves 5 - 7 sentences or points each. Perhaps more. As Longaker notes, understanding a rhetorical message depends on understanding the presuppositions in which that specific message and the interaction is embedded. === A description of the artifact === Describe the page. For the text, consider length, the nature of the sentence (it isn't one), the level of formality .... The headings in the menus are text, too. === the implied rhetor === From the artifact, what can you infer about the implied rhetor? Not just demographic info but values, beliefs, knowledge ... === the intended addressee === From the artifact, what can you infer about the intended addressee? Again, not just basic info but values, beliefs, knowledge ... And in this case, what the intended address is expected to do to work with the page. === the occasion === From the artifact, infer the **specific** occasion. This is part of kaios, along with the exigence. Something occasions the rhetor to tweet and so shapes the text. The background image, the portraits, and the text associated with the portraits change regularly. That's going to be a signal of the occasion and the exigence. === the exigence === From the artifact, infer the exigence. === the kind of discourse=== Deliberative, judicial, epideictic. There are three kinds of discourse involved: one in words and text, and another in image, and a third in interaction. Consider the menu items: Academics, Admissions, etc, and the text that appears in the panel that appears when a user rolls over a menu item. That's text discourse. ===the forum and genre === The forum is the web, and the genre is university home page. === the physical material === Consider here the interaction of scrolling to bring the panel into view, moving the mouse indicator over menus, clicking on the images, what happens when a user rolls over a menu item. === the presuppositions === Draw on what you have inferred from your consideration above to consider the presuppositions. The more you develop this, the more you will understand the text and how it works rhetorically. ===the issue or question=== From the artifact, and what you have considered above, infer the issue or question that **this specific set of images** address.
BSU Homepage as an Argument, Part 2: PresentationalEnthymemesAndTheBSUHomepage