When looking at Sloan's original text compared to the hypertext, it was hard to even relate the two versions of the text. I felt as though the original text was much more straight forward and got the point across in a lot clearer of a way than the hypertext. Although the pictures in the hypertext allowed us to develop a connection to the events and really be able to see what was being discussed, it almost added too many images without really putting any description by the image so you were slightly forced to guess what part of the reading the image really connected to. I found the links very distracting because, by going off on a deeper explanation of that part of the text, I tended to forget what exactly I was reading and its purpose. So therefore I believe that the original text was more efficient at getting the point across, although I believe if they included the pictures in the original text along with a description then the combination of both the hypertext and the original text.
When looking at the Miller and Brouma's text I believe a hypertext would be useful to an extent at describing the meaning of the poetry/word usage involved because it can get slightly confusing, but too many links would again cause the same problem as that which occured in the hypertexting of Sloan's text.
I like the observation you made about the two texts seeming unrelated because of the number of differences.
ReplyDeleteI don't however agree with your opinion of the pictures. The way I saw it, they were not there to simply add knowledge for the reader about the topic, I believe that they were there to set the emotional appeal that was taken out along with the personal story about the father's friend. Therefore, captions probably would have taken away the tone that was trying to be addressed.
Also, I think the way the links are handled by the reader really contributes or detracts from their effectiveness. What I mean is, you stated that the links were too distracting and confused you-- but when I read the hyperlink version, the links helped me greatly. I believe this may be because I only open few (as it says in my blog- only the ones I wanted more information on). I mean, there is no way for me to know how many links you opened but that is just my hypothesis.
I hope I didn't offend you in any way :) I decided to comment on your blog because of our differing standpoints so there were obviously going to be arguments for my opinion.
-Julie :)
I liked being able to see that someone else had a different point of view about the texts than I did. I Although we had different opinions I agree with a lot of what you had to say. I also thought that the links were somewhat distracting. Instead of focusing on the reading, I went and looked at the links and completely forgot about the text. I also thought that they helped me understand the reading a little bit better.
ReplyDeleteThe only thing I disagree with you about is the pictures. I really think the pictures added to the story, and to me it helped put me in the story. I enjoyed reading your opposing opinion on the text!
At first when I read the hyper text, I right away thought that it was so much easier to understand, but after listening to what you said it makes a lot of sense on how the links were distracting. I know exactly what you mean because when I was reading there would be several words highlighted and it made my eyes automatically stop and want to click on that link. I agree that the story compared to the hypertext gives a certain feel and leaves the hypertext missing those ideal parts in the story which made it all come together. It really is a matter of how well you can take in information, because for me when reading the hypertext, it went through one ear and out the other because it was SO short, but when reading the story, I took the time and sat down and finished it. The length of the hypertext with all of the extra distractions made it feel just like another online article, it didn't feel special.. if you know what I mean. Great job!
ReplyDelete