Hey.
Here’s the link to the pitch and critique.
And here’s a brief rehash:
I recently joined the New Media Lab (NML) at the CUNY Graduate Center. The lab coordinators asked me to create an icon and write a blurb about my project that will be posted on the NML website.
I wanted to use WebNotes to critique the real NML page, however, it will not be posted for another couple of weeks and as you know this assignment for ITP Core II is due by tomorrow. So I have pasted the blurb and icon on my blog. Then I used WebNotes to comment on this icon and blurb. I found it a bit overwhelming when I looked at the WebNotes; to ameliorate this I suggest minimizing all of the stickies and then going through and maximizing and minimizing as you please.
p
Thanks, Phil– interesting presentation, and it raises a lot of valuable questions for us to chew over together.
– Where and how should progress on your project be tracked? How when/do/might you draw other folks into your process?
– You foreground secondary literature in the presentation of your topic. Over time, it would be nice for this to fade away and inform your project (and be cited) and for your voice/concerns/assertion to emerge. Citing materials from well over a decade ago opens you up to the criticism that you’re picking some scholarship that’s low-hanging fruit. There are (I’m assuming) more contemporary conversations enveloping your topic; either do a stronger job of justifying your literature, or fade it to the background (understanding, this is early in the process and it helps to get your stuff down on “paper”… which points to one potential drawback about taking your process public: you may not be ready — not having read enough — for certain types of feedback).
– what do you mean by “templates”?
– who are your subjects? how does the research on the sociality of writing inform your framing of these subjects?