From Dead Media Archive
Jump to: navigation, search

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.