Website!

I am so excited to announce that I officially have a website!

Please make sure to check it out at http://courtneygerman92.wix.com/courtney-german (or you can just click here!) and let me know what you think!

I have really enjoyed having a blog for this semester of Digital Communications, and I look forward to keeping it updated!

Personal Favorites

I am so excited about this post, because . . . it's all about me!  My favorite aspects of websites, my favorite designs, even my favorite colors - all are important features of any website of mine.

I checked out wix.com and felt like I was planning a party!  So of course, what is the first step to planning a party?  The guest list!

There are tons of important decisions to make when it comes to designing a website.  Who is my audience?  Who am I catering it to?  Why?  And most importantly, what decisions do I need to make in order to cater to my intended audience?

In my case, my intended audience is targeted to interest graduate school committees, future or potential employers, and internship opportunities.  So, my website needs to be polished and professional, to attract such an established audience.

The next step is to figure out the party (read: website) objective.  Simply put, my objective is to impress each of the above audiences.

So what's the strategy?  What is my party's entertainment going to be?  How can I establish and successfully complete my objective?

There are a lot of contributing elements to interesting these audiences.  First, I think a strong resume is essential.  It builds the argument for my experience (another very important element.)  I also think it would be really helpful to have my work, writing, etc. easily available for review on the website.  That way, with the click of a mouse, my audience can see the pieces that I want them to look at.

However, I don't think it's all about content (though I definitely think content is THE most important element!  It gives the audience the most to work with). I think the site needs to be easy to navigate, clean, clear, attractive, and organized.  I think it needs to have tabs to allow the audience to find the information they want to - maybe separate tabs for my experience, resume, example pieces, links to my videos, my contact information, links to my social media, etc.  I want my website to put everything out there - to show my audience my very best, and even more.

One element that I didn't think about until Professor Price mentioned it is "applicable life experience."  What a great idea to put on my website!  For example, I am hoping to attend a 3 week long Study Away in New Zealand this May.  The trip is all about media and culture in New Zealand - so my experience on the trip would likely apply to my future career.  That is definitely something that I want to be able to bring to the table on my website, so a tab for "applicable life experience" is a fantastic contribution to the site.

For my website design inspirations, I had so much fun checking out websites that I thought communicated effectively.  Here are some of my favorite elements!

I really appreciate how clean and simple the tabs are - really articulate.

I love the little blurbs about each person, and how readily available the contact information is!  Both of the above examples come from Melbourne Promotions - the site is available at this link!

In this example, I really appreciate that the title is BOLD and stands out, and I love the organization of the tabs across the top line.  Very accessible and organized!  Click to view the full blog 

I love the tabs, and the picture is beautiful and striking.  It definitely makes the website standout.  I also like the links to social media that this provides!  Check out the entire site here!

All of this "party planning" also caused me to become obsessed with logos . . . Here are some of my favorites!

I found all these logos through webdesignledger.com.  Check out more through this link!

So. Much. Fun!  This definitely made me want to design a logo for myself - kind of to brand myself!  I will have to get going!

What are your suggestions for branding yourself?  For attracting these types of audiences?  What else should I aim to add to my website?

Know Your Audience

Letting Go of the Words: Writing Web Content that Works, an article by Janice Redish, easily lays out several techniques and step-by-step descriptions of how to write effective, attractive, web content.

Her first tip (we [audiences] all interpret as we read), is about writing for the exact audience you intend to reach.  To do that effectively though, you first have to understand your audience . . .

Janice Redish’s 7 Steps to Understanding Audiences:

1: List your major audiences

2: Gather information about your audiences

3. List major characteristics for each audience

4. Gather your audiences’ questions, tasks, and stories

5. Use your information to create personas

6. Include the persona’s goals and tasks

7. Use your information to write scenarios for your site

Pretty simple steps, right?  Easy to follow?  Redish goes even more in depth, breaking down these steps, but I think they are pretty self-explanatory.  It is definitely interesting to think about the importance of each step, though!  Without targeting the correct audience, web content will not reach anyone effectively.

For instance, think about the audience that Seventeen magazine seeks to reach.  Probably girls between the ages of 13 and 20.  How does the magazine do that effectively? 

Bright colors, fun articles, fashion advice, do-it-yourself hairstyles, relationship Q&As . . . the entire content of the magazine looks to gain teenage subscribers.

Think about Family Circle magazine now.  Who is Family Circle trying to reach?  For the most part, the editors and publishers target their magazine’s content towards women with families – moms with school-age kids.  How does Family Circle do this?  By knowing and understanding its audience!  By recognizing that the people they are targeting to subscribe to Family Circle are interested in things like recipes, home décor, and balancing grocery lists.

It’s all about the audience!  If you were designing a web site, what content would you put on it?  What audience would you be targeting?

User Experience

Jesse James Garrett's article "User Experience and Why it Matters" begins with a strikingly accurate anecdote, detailing just about everything minor that can go wrong at the onset of a work day.

Incorrect alarm clock.  Running late.  Seemingly broken coffeemaker.  Car gas light on.  Long line to pay for gas.  You get the picture.

The overarching, umbrella that each of these minor (but when combined, enormous) problems stem from is user experience, according to Garrett.

User experience, huh?

Garrett says in his first chapter:

            “Every one of the previous cases of “bad luck” could have been avoided had someone             made different choices in designing a product of service.  These examples all demonstrate a lack of attention to the user experience: the experience the product creates for the people who use it in the real world.  When a product is being developed, people pay a great deal of attention to what it does.  User experience is the other, often overlooked, side of the equation – how it works – that can often make the difference between a successful product and a failure.”

Let’s break this down, shall we?

In short, according to Garrett, user accessibility, user friendliness and the like, all boil down to user experience . . . how it is for the user to use the technology, the product, etc.  How it works on the outside.

Garrett goes on to describe the various aspects of user experience.  For example, a poorly constructed product would naturally negatively affect user experience.  Likewise, the context of a product also affects its user’s experience – whether or not it is functional.

As Garrett importantly asserts, “The world’s most powerful functionality falters and fails if users can’t figure out how to make it work . . . . simply put, if your users have a bad experience, they won’t come back.”

And, even worse, if consumers have a lousy time with one product, they will often look to another product, likely a competitor’s, instead.

So what can I take from all of this?  I have to say, I absolutely agree with Garrett.  As a consumers and a user, I find myself unbelievably frustrated by products that I don’t consider user friendly.  In fact, I would attribute the wild success of Apple products to the very notion that their products are user friendly – much more so than their competitors!

versus

What do you think?  Do you agree?  What has your experience as a consumer been?

Print Journalism in Greenville

How is print journalism affecting Greenville, SC?  Check out the video below to see!

Online Editing

Chapter 6 of Brian Carroll's work Writing for Digital Media focuses on the idea of online editing, from both the perspectives of design and publishing.  Carroll brought up several excellent points, and I want to highlight and discuss each individually, below.

Carroll asserts in one of his first paragraphs:

 "Online publishing is not at all like editing for print, at least in terms of job responsibilities.  In print, there are clear distinctions between roles and duties among writers, designers, editors, and copyeditors.  Media convergence online is blurring and blending the job descriptions and responsibilities traditionally assigned to writers and editors.  Even hotshot page designers need to know how to write a declarative sentence; writing skills are not optional" (Carroll 120).

His assertion stating that writing skills are not optional was of particular interest to me.  Am I the only one who notices the constant spelling, grammatical, and content errors spread across Internet websites?  To what writing skills is Carroll referring to?  

Certainly, there are well written pieces available on the Internet - but because anyone can "publish" his or her work on the blogosphere or create a website, I definitely feel as though writing abilities and quality is decreased on the Internet.  Something to think about . . . .

I also enjoyed Carroll's online editing step-by-step directions.  I found it very appropriate and useful for people who edit and publish their work independently on the Internet.  In particular, I enjoyed his recommendation to define the style of the website or Internet source that content is published on - I agree it makes a difference to how the piece should be edited.

The case studies Carroll featured in this chapter were also quite informative.  I especially appreciated Case Study 3: Error Prevention Project in Brazil, because I found the idea of training writers and editors to learn how to prevent errors really interesting.  If we start with educating children as they learn to write, perhaps writing skills will only be enhanced and nourished as they grow up.

What do you think about all the various elements of online editing?  Do you think it is the same or different than print editing?  Why?

Perspective

In my last post, I talked a lot about the importance of editing.  In particular, I focused on the unbelievable amount of behind the scenes work that editors dedicate to film productions.  Editors have the unique ability to manipulate the story they have, into the story they want to tell.

So do storytellers.

The storyteller is the person who is – what else? – telling the story!  It’s the narrator, but it is not necessarily always very obvious as to who the storyteller is.  See, not all storytellers tell their story via voiceover, or having a main role.  The storyteller is just the perspective the story is told in.

In “Point of View,” an article by John S. Douglass and Glenn P. Harnden, the authors further explain the importance of the storyteller’s viewpoint.  In a sense, they explain, the viewpoint demonstrates how the entire story is depicted.

Think about the last time you and a friend saw something significant happen.  Take, for example, a confrontation between two of your suite mates, that you and your roommate both saw happen.

Think about the different angles you saw it happen at.  Think of the distance between you and the incident, versus between your friend and the incident.  Think about what you knew about the people involved in the incident, prior to the incident actually happening.

It’s likely that when either of you would tell the story back, and actually go through it play by play, you may have noticed different things.  You may have differing opinions about who is right and who is wrong.  Maybe you saw something happen that the other person didn’t.  It’s all about the perspective.

This article reminded me of the proverb we’ve all heard – before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes.  It’s all about perspective, isn’t it?  It’s very important to put yourself in other people’s shoes . . . to think things through . . . to see where else the story can go.  That’s why it is so important to have a storyteller.

The questions this brings me to though, is why do perspectives sometimes differ only slightly, and other times differ completely?  What causes those differing interpretations?  Can they be prevented?  Also, I wonder how perspectives are taken into consideration and context when witnesses testify in court cases?  Perspective can change so much about a case, after all.

The Story of Editing

The variety of steps involved in producing film is amazing to me.  I mean, think about it.  There are so many steps involved that don't get their fair share of credit.  Take editing for example.

Editing has the opportunity to take a film that is good to something great.  Editing allows for manipulation of the film, to switch up timing, scenes, and transitions, to cover up cinematography mishaps or poor acting.  Different camera angles and shots are crucial to the success of a film, but without the talent and work of an editor, they make no difference.

Although I certainly recognized the importance of editing with regard to movie and filmmaking, it wasn't until I learned more about the inside steps of editing that I began to understand just how great an impact it has.

In "The Aesthetics of Editing," an article by Osgood and Hinshaw, the authors describe the vital role editing plays, particularly with regard to television commercials.

Think about it.  Advertising companies get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to produce very short - even twenty or thirty second long commercials.  

Now let's take this a step further.  What about Super Bowl ads?  What about Olympic sponsor ads?  Those advertisements are worth millions of dollars, and last less than half a minute!  And it's not so much the idea behind the ad, although that is important.  It is about the editing, the put together of footage, that counts in the end.

Take the Best Buy commercial from the 2013 Super Bowl for example:

How many different times did Amy Poehler really say those lines?  How many extra shots were filmed?  Probably a significant amount.

Because the reality of filmmaking is, most of what is shot doesn't get used without being manipulated.  Audio is enhanced, order is switched around, soundtracks are put in, mistakes are eliminated.  Without editing, videos would not look like they do.  They would be much longer, much more heavily laden with mistakes, and much more unprofessional looking.

So my question for discussion is, why is editing so overlooked?  Why aren't the roles of editors more recognized?  Why aren't they more glamorized?  Editors may not be in the spotlight, but their jobs are integral to the success of video footage.

The 2D Field

Zettl's article entitled "The Two Dimensional Field" explained the varying aspects and perspectives of quality filmography.  I found the article to be particularly compelling when he talked about the two main directions - horizontal and vertical.

The section about these two main directions explained the differences between shooting film horizontally and shooting it vertically.  In a similar way, the section reminded me of taking pictures in a landscape style as opposed to a portrait style.  These styles are different because they portray images from differing perspectives.

For example, a horizontal picture, or landscape style picture, is viewed as calming and serene.  Consider this example:

Notice how in this photograph, the eye immediately focuses on the horizon.  The eye follows a horizontal line, and focuses on the different elements, but mainly on the finished picture as a whole.

The picture is calming because it was taken with clean, simple, serene lines as the primary focus.

Photographs with a vertical main direction are more striking and exciting.  Consider this picture of a skyscraper, and notice where your eyes immediately focus:

In this picture, your eyes immediately look up to see the image from a vertical direction.  The upward lines are striking and interesting to look at, rather than calming and serene.

These aspects of Zettl's chapter will be very helpful to me, not only for my video project, but also for the pictures that I take for pleasure and hopefully in the future for my career.  It is important to understand the varying elements of a picture, as well as how pictures are viewed and interpreted by audiences.

The questions I would like to bring up for discussion, after reading this article, are first, whether or not these principles and picture elements are understood consciously or subconsciously by most viewers.  If so, then how did we come to find out the way they are viewed?  How has understanding how viewers look at pictures enhanced photographers' abilities to appeal to people?

Measuring Morality

Part III of Open Sky by Paul Virilio was significantly less verbose than the previous sections.  In this section, Virilio explores ideas about what he has named “Eye Lust” – in short, the various exposures humans face to all different forms of media in everyday life.

One quote that I found especially striking regarded cultural beliefs regarding visual experiences.  Virilio says on page 90, “The ban on representation in certain cultural practices and the refusal to see – women for example, in the case of Islam – is being superseded at this very moment by the cultural obligation to see, with the overexposure of the visible of the age of image animation taking over from the underexposure of the age of the written word.”

Virilio asks of this a few sentences later, “Should we avert our gaze, gingerly sneak a sidelong look, and so avoid the exploitative focus on offer?  These are so many questions which are not exclusive to aesthetics but concern equally the ethics of contemporary perception.”

These quotes are of particular interest to me because they bring about the idea that what we as humans, choose to look at, has the potential to demonstrate our ethical or moral beliefs.

That is somewhat of a heavy statement, and I believe it to be true in some cases, but it definitely is not a hard and fast statement.  For example, I love magazines – all sorts.  I subscribe to lots of “mommy magazines,” but surprisingly, one of my favorites is Cosmopolitan. 

However, whenever I tell people about my love for Cosmo, they are shocked – apparently I don’t give off a Cosmo-girl vibe, which I can’t complain about.  But just because I read Cosmo doesn’t, in my opinion, indicate anything about my moral character one way or the other – it is a magazine for women, about fashion, relationships, business-life, and much more.  It is more than the stereotype. 

ThoughSports Illustrated, I do make judgments about his character.  But is the swimsuit editions of Sports Illustrated on the same level as Cosmo?  That I can’t answer.

I must say, that when I see a man “reading” the swimsuit edition of

My questions for discussion debate whether or not what a person chooses to look at or in many cases, read, indicates positively or negatively on his or her moral character.  If it does, why?  If not, why not?  

Even More Complicated Than an Onion

In my last post, I analyzed Part I of Open Sky by Paul Virilio, and stated that I felt it presented a viewpoint that was very layered and complicated.  I used the example of an onion, using it as an analogy for the necessity of peeling information back, layer by layer.

Part II of Open Sky by Paul Virilio was no different.  On a positive note, it was less confusing to me than the first section of the work.  However, similarly to Part I, the author still seemed to present a somewhat complicated viewpoint of concepts that in my opinion, are not very complicated.

For example, take the concept of travel.

People all over the world travel every day.  People travel for business.  They travel for pleasure.  They travel on vacation with their families – spouses, significant others, children, parents.  They travel for volunteer work, like missions trips and medical assistance.  They travel to promote ideas.  They travel to participate in social movements.  They travel to create peace treaties.

While there are aspects of travel that can be considered complicated (like, who one is traveling with or where one is going, or how one is arriving at his or her destination), to overall concept of traveling is very simple.

You are here.  You are going to go somewhere else.

It is not too much more complicated than that.  Yes, there are decisions to be made, and there are probably going to be a few speed bumps in the process, but overall, you will probably reach your destination no worse for where, complete whatever your business is or your travel itinerary includes, and then go about returning to your home.

Virilio takes the essentially simple concept of travel, and complicates it, throwing in terms like “acceleration” and “real time barrier.”  I appreciate his comments on the effect of travel on global interaction and communication, but I can’t help but feel that he makes concepts much more complicated than they have to be.

What is your perspective on Virilio?  Do you appreciate his work?  Do you enjoy reading it?  Does reading his work come easily to you?  If not, why not?  Is there anything that would make it easier for you?

Complicated As an Onion

The first section of Paul Virilio’s work Open Sky was enigmatic at the very least, and downright foreign at most.  I have never encountered a reading like this, in all the  Communication Studies’ classes I have taken at Furman.

In a lot of ways, actually, Virilio’s work reminded me of an onion.

It wasn’t something that I could chop through and easily skim.  I had to peel it back, layer by layer, example by example.  Many of the vocabulary words that Virilio addressed were new to me, but the essential concepts, once I was able to sift through the layers of complicated examples, were simple.

Part I of Open Sky is an original collection of Virilio’s thoughts that are scientifically geared towards analyzing communication, specifically in terms of foreign/international communication, and the many accompanying features of it.  The author is fascinated with the instantaneous properties of global communication, and offers scientific explanations and practical examples to demonstrate them. 

For example, he says “the question is then no longer one of the global versus the local, or of the transnational versus the national . . . . it is, first and foremost, a question of the sudden temporal switch in which not only inside and outside disappear, the expanse of the political territory, but also the before and after of its duration, of its history; all that remains is a real instant over which, in the end, no one has any control.” 

The ideas and concepts he presents are fresh and innovative, and deepen concepts like international communication in a way that I have never experienced before.

I question though, why Virilio makes all these concepts so complicated.  Is it really necessary?  Are things really this complicated?

One of my other Communication Studies classes this semester, International Com certainly suggests that while interactive global communication is complicated, but not in quite the same way Virilio states.  More so, in the case of my International Com class, we have focused on the various barriers that are in the way of smooth, coherent global communication, of the issues such as decreased technological access and development for Third World Countries being primary in the inherent lack of fair, equally accessible international communication.

So my question remains whether or not all of Virilio’s terminology and examples are valid – are all of these concepts really this complicated?  Why or why not?  If these concepts really are so complicated, how can they be simplified?

Publications in Greenville

Created with Admarket's flickrSLiDR.

Before and After

One of the primary blog posts in Digital Communication requires a slideshow that tells a story.  The story that I chose to tell is the effect of Greenville publications on its residents.

In Digital Communication, we also learned how to use Photoshop to edit the pictures we took, in order to use the images we took in the clearest way.  Please see my edits below!

The New York Times

Before:

After:

The Greenville News

Before:

After:

Pace Magazine 

Before:

After:

The Greenville Journal

Before:

After:

Coffee Street

Before:

After:

I was amazed at the prevalence of printed publications when I went downtown.  I was expecting to see people reading newspapers and magazines, but it was a pleasant surprise to see so many people reading local media.

Reading Images

In the article "Reading Images" by Gunther Kress and Theo van Leeuwen, the authors break down the composition of photographs, in order to depict the meaning behind the images.

Most notably among the various compositions, in my opinion, was Kress and van Leeuwen's explanation of why compositions matter.  The authors state that composition as it is selected by photographers and layout editors, develops the way that readers view the image (and often its corresponding article).

The type of photograph that I personally find the most striking is the "fly on the wall" photograph.  The authors explain this type of image as one that the subjects are unaware that someone is photographing them, unaware that this event or experience or time in their life is being recorded.  One example that immediately came to my mind was the following:

This photograph was taken by a "fly on the wall" and yet it had a tremendous impact result from it.  The photograph was taken by Wayne Tilcock of The Enterprise and was captioned, "University of California, Davis Police Lt. John Pike uses pepper spray Friday to move peacefully Occupy UC Davis protesters while blocking their exit from the school's quad in Davis, CA.  Pike is a retired US Marine sergeant twice honored for his police work on campus."

The image's photographer may not have known exactly what the media audience's reaction would be to it, but he still had a purpose in mind when he took the photo.  It was to very clearly make a statement about the almost "assailant" role the police officer played for the "victims" or students.

My questions for discussion are though, do all photographs have this same power?  Who decides the impact that a photograph will have?  Is this another case of the infamous "CNN Effect"?  How is the CNN Effect determined with regard to photographs?  Do all photographs have credibility if we know that photographers take certain pictures to represent certain perspectives?

Illusions

Within only a few seconds of beginning Sturken and Cartwright’s article “Viewer Make Meaning,” I had developed a conclusion about what the authors of the article were going to say.

The example that immediately sprang to my mind is the idea of an optical illusion.

Consider the picture below:

What do you see? 

This is a classic, perhaps the most classic, example of an optical illusion.  Some people see two faces looking at each other.  Some people see a wine goblet.  Some people still, see both.

But what did the artist intend to be seen?

This example mirrors precisely what Sturken and Cartwright’s article alludes to: First, that “meanings are produced through the complex negotiations that make up the social process and practices through which we produce and interpret images.”

Wow.  So everything we see as consumers is intentional?

Second, the article indicates that “most, if not all, images have a meaning that is preferred by their producers.”  The article cites advertisers as a great example of this.  To illustrate this point, consider the Dove campaign and ads.  Personally, I am a huge fan of the Dove campaign.  I see it as nothing but a dedicated, honest company’s attempt to show women how to embrace their bodies and themselves as beautiful.

However, my sociology class recently discussed the Dove campaign at length, and one of my classmates brought to my attention that perhaps – just perhaps – Dove was actually using their “Real Beauty” campaign as an effective advertising strategy. 

Now, I don’t necessarily agree with my classmates’ hypothesis (I am after all a huge fan of the company policies, classes, and advertisements after all!)  But the idea did get me thinking about what I see, versus what the company intends for me to see.  The two are very distinctly linked, and it is important that as a consumer of media (and especially of advertising) that I see that and remember it.  How do producers, especially advertisers, so effectively cause consumers to believe in products?  

A Step in the Right Direction

Rowe’s article “Framed and Mounted: Sport Through the Photographic Eye” covers a wide variety of information regarding the area of sports photography.

The introduction of the article discusses the task of “unveiling” media sports photography – the characteristics of it, the propriety of it, the framing of it.  

Rowe says early on in the article that “still photography is . . . a form of communication that relies on the notion of ‘capture’ – frozen for all time is a gesture, an expression, incident, or landscape . . . . conducted like any other communicative act through processes of selection; many ‘snaps’ may be taken but only one shot [is] selected out of the multiple variations of angle, focus, composition, and light” (143).

I thought this quote was a marvelous representation of the true essence of what sports photography should be.  Rowe goes on to present many different examples of how sports photography is not as it should be, even arguing that it objectifies women.  Rowe cites an example of a dominant-looking male athlete standing next a submissive looking female athlete, and argues that the submissive stance of the female is objectifying.  Consider the images below from Vogue magazine, of Olympic hopefuls:

What do these images say about male athletes versus female athletes?  Why is Vogue magazine portraying gender roles this way?

I definitely do agree that Rowe presents some honest, realistic examples of the way females can be objectified by the media, particularly in terms of sports photography.  However, I also think that conversely, some media outlets do make attempts to show women as strong, athletic individuals.  The example that first comes to mind for me is the Nike commercial below.

Rowe certainly has a point when she asserts that the success of the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue isn’t the result of the public’s sudden and short-lived interest in sports.  There is definitely media out there that is still objectifying women.  But I also think that companies like Nike are taking a step in the right direction.

My questions remain though - what do you think?  Is the sports journalism that you encounter day-to-day representing empowered, strong, female athletes?  Or is it seeking, in your opinion, to have women play a submissive role?  If the latter, how can we as consumers of the media, change this?  Either way, why do you think this is?