From Dead Media Archive
ugh having problems with FOOTNOTES/CITATIONS. Any one have tips?
I think this wiki doesn't have that capability. At least the 10 dossiers I just looked at had in text citations and no footnotes. IDK
A.G's Comments: Hypercard
Very interesting dossier that shows a lot of promise. The write up is largely dominated by Wikipedia-style description and historical overview. A bit of this is fine, but our goal in this course is to leave that type of writing alone, and focus on the readings and using the critical techniques. In short I'm looking for more criticism in this dossier, more of an argument. I like how you describe "turning down the corner" of a card in terms of a skeuomorph. That's good. But can you elaborate on that? The mention of dioptric and catoptric layers is also quite tantalizing. But I need more. How exactly is the logic of "seeing through" and "looking at" deployed in this medium? The section on "HyperCard and the Extension of Writing" opens a number of interesting doors. But the quotations are off here--where do they end? Do you have nested quotations? If so, indicate them with single quotes when inside double quotes. Keep an eye on your grammar details, otherwise things start to fall apart. In general I'd like to see a lot more focus on deploying concepts from the reading and from the critical approaches that we've covered in class. As far as I can see there is not a single mention of the readings at all in this dossier. And in the crit, when asked about possible connections to Vismann, you admitted that you hadn't considered that. Fair enough, one can't cover everything. But you might try to focus more on this aspect in future dossiers. Try to stake a position and defend it. Try to avoid the neutral and descriptive language that one might see on Wikipedia. The section at the end on remediation of the archive format is good; more sections like this.