Tried, tested and proven
RSS icon Email icon
  • Annotated Bibliography #10 – Final summary

    Posted on August 26th, 2011 admin 2 comments

    The chosen extract for this annotated bibliography assessment is extract two on Blogging thoughts: personal publication as an online research tool by Torill Mortensen and Jill Walker. I have provided a brief introduction of the authors in this post to have an idea of where the author was coming from so that I could relate to the extract easier. From researching and analyzing this extract, I found out how much the web has changed, hence, it lead me to point out the limitation and strengths of this extract. The extract focused on weblogs when it was still a new phenomena, but for the current generation, weblogs has become part of our life and it is not something people would talk and get excited about these days. However, keeping a weblog is part of this Networked Media course, so I explained the relation of the extract to this course in this post to show my understanding of how the extract relates to thinking and writing in space, which is also part of our blog writing assessment. As I was slowly going deeper into analyzing the extract, I first had to identify the field of the extract and the main arguments by the authors to get a better overview where my evaluation was leading me to. Moving on, I decided to focus on certain sentences of the extract as it helped me to understand the entire extract better and helped me to relate my other close readings to the extract. I focused on this sentence ‘weblogs are densely interlinked‘ and also ‘this anchors blogs in the public arena, as part of a communal discourse‘. After having a better understanding of the entire extract, it reminded me of my experience as a blogger and how I can relate my experience with the extract here. Finally, this assessment reminded me why we were annotating this extract in the first place- as part of the research for the project! So I briefly discussed the relevance of the extract to the production of design and hypertext essay in this post.

    Overall, I would say it was a bit of a challenge for me to annotate this extract into different blog entries as I find that everything I was trying to explain seems to interrelate with one another. Perhaps that was the purpose of this assessment as the extract described ‘links are like roots, tendrils, reaching out between fragments, creating a context for bits and pieces…’. To annotate this extract into different entries, we are making use of links which connects the pieces together. This extract has brought an insight of the power of links, connecting people together and thus creating a community in the blogosphere.

    I have also compiled my list of Annotated Bibliography entries here for easier access:

    1. Background of the authors
    2. The field of the extract
    3. Main arguments by the authors
    4. The relation of extract with Networked Media course
    5. Limitations and strengths of the text
    6. Focusing on ‘weblogs are densely interlinked’
    7. Focusing on ‘communal discourse’
    8. Personal viewpoint relating to the extract
    9. Discussion of the production of hypertext essay

    References:

  • Annotated Bibliography #9 – Pre-production of hypertext essay

    Posted on August 23rd, 2011 admin No comments

    The purpose of this annotated bibliography is part of our research for the upcoming project on hypertext essay. In the post Main argument by authors, I mentioned that the authors argued that people’s way of thinking and writing changes when they use different tools. Comparing to how weblogs alters the way we think and write, producing a hypertext essay also alters our traditional way of thinking. We have to think out of the box as it is more than just writing on the web and incorporating it with links. Hogue (2010) mentioned that people read book text from top to bottom, left to right, front to back, but people don’t necessarily read hypertext in the same linear way. So reading a hypertext is different, it depends on each reader what they want to read first. In the hypertext essay, we will provide different links that will take readers to different websites, but not necessarily two readers will end up reading the same content because once they decide to click on different links, the content will be different.

    Therefore, in the production of the design and the hypertext essay, we have to make use of our weblogs to document and archive our ideas. Our ideas written in the blog can be ‘single, small, insignificant ideas’ (Mortensen & Walker 2002) but that is the purpose of weblogs – it focuses on connecting our thoughts together which at the end will connect our thoughts and ideas for the production of hypertext essay. So, the emphasis of the extract that relates to the design and production of the hypertext essay is to document any thoughts that come to mind about the project. We never know how helpful a small paragraph of idea could be.

    Besides that, the extract also states that ‘weblogs are densely interlinked’ (Mortensen & Walker 2002), which relates to the project because hypertext is all about incorporating the use of hyperlinks. So in the production of hypertext essay, we have to interlink the content to some of our research on this extract. In the same way of how it relates to weblogs, we are considered writing for an audience as it is publish in public for people to read, so we need to consider what information to share with the audience. These are also some other questions that came to mind when connecting the relation of the extract to the production of the hypertext essay. What words do we need to link so that it will give readers more information about our hypertext essay? How are we going to transit from one webpage to another?

    References:

    • Hogue, D 2010, ‘What is Hypertext?’ viewed 20 August 2011, <http://www.mshogue.com/ce9/hypertext/htx_essay.htm>.
    • Mortensen, T & Walker, J 2002, ‘Blogging Thoughts: Personal Publication as an Online Research Tool’ in Researching Ict’s in Context. Ed. Andrew Morrison. Oslo: University of Oslo, pp. 249-259.