Plans for Hurt Park and The Homeless Article

My plans for the Built Environment Analysis is to include multiple pages or posts connected to a main menu that will introduce sub headers including the Introduction, Background, The Built Environment Itself, General Consensus, Conclusion. Below is a small sketch of what I intend the menu page to look like with images that either I have taken or have creative commons right to use. I plan to have all images hyperlinked as well leading to the posts themselves another thing that may be slightly different is the number of columns for different posts I will create.

Main Menu Concept Page Sketch drawn and taken by Arnas Ribaciauskas

I will strive to have my main opening image to draw an emotional draw or add attention to the topic at hand. my topic deal with the homeless problem in a bit of a serious tone and issues that fixed furniture throughout parks attracts the homeless population. I have personally taken some photos and videos of the location itself and have permission from the people who are in the photos as well. Having said this I have yet to find all their placements and still don’t know exactly what my header image is but will show something that has a sense of pity or emotional heartbreak to draw my readers in.

 

Finally I have yet to decide to have a lower menu to flip through the posts or just have a lower right hand and left hand corner hyperlink that sends you to the next page in a linear chronological fashion. I’m still considering many things.

My Analysis: The Varsity: A Deconstruction (Visual) Document

1. What are the posts doing?
It vividly describes the scenery and individual items normally seen in a restaurant but allows the reader to visualize specific descriptions through its large amount of detail.
2. What is the message of each post?
This message in this one is to create a visual representation of a purely written description of a restaurant and allow readers to feel as if they could see and feel the restaurant.
3. Who is the intended audience? How do you know?
Sociologists, Anthropologists, People who are doing research into the descriptive settings of settings, this being the Varsity restaurant. It goes into great length going into individually focused items located throughout the restaurant with vivid detail.
4. How might the information be useful? To Whom? Why?
People who are doing research throughout the Varsity will appreciate the detail and descriptive features mentioned from pepper shakers, to napkins.
5. How does the author establish credibility?(ethos)  
The author has been to the restaurant showing he has taken his own photos spent time gathering a large amount of objective data.
6. What could be changed to improve the effectiveness of each post?
For this specific article, a large more broad description on the setting, describing spacing and spacial awareness.

Link to the Article addressed: http://sites.gsu.edu/mmolini1/2016/10/02/the-varsity-a-deconstruction-visual/

Comparison Between Two Summaries

1. They are substantially different with Summary A being only one long intricate sentence that does not add substance to the story. The summary acts more as a theme then a summary addressing very little where the citation is almost as large as the text. Summary B has far more substance with a beginning plot summary focusing on broad details in the text. It is far more subjective because of this substance where the author through his use of examples and choppy writing style personify his opinion over the text. The summary itself goes off topic to an extent focusing on the wrong aspects of the paper for too long but overall with its flaws in mind is far better then the lack luster substance of Summary A.
2. Many People from College Students to those interested in the Deetz and Cromely case studies would find summary A almost entirely unusable rather coming out more confused  with its vague word choice and brief explanation. While summary B would be far more tangible and allow for greater understanding of the test but does stray off topic and only relates the main point vaguely at the end, which may misdirect the reader.
3. and 4. Summary A could focus on expanding the actual content of its summary by making it longer then a single sentence. Also changing the structure and length of its sentences so as to not bore the reader or dull them. They also could provide examples and chronologically explain the flow of the text with a few main points.

Summary B could work on the flow of its writing style by not making it a brief topic of each few paragraphs in the article. These short summary sentences cause the summary to feel choppy and not well constructed. Also it focuses entirely too much on the background information and doesn’t address the main topic of the primary and secondary research and the process of gathering this new information. The last sentence does address archaeology but is far too general only addressing the importance of  archaeology and not the technique or process that was used in gathering the evidence and new information addressed in the article.

Summaries can be found on this page, In the PowerPoint section for For Wednesday February 8th 2017. (Slide 3 and 4).

This Week…