#circulationproject

This week has been focused on our website projects and why they are pertinent to our course and what we have learned in terms of writing theory and culture. After presenting our projects, how we presented our information and the way it was communicated through our websites was extremely different. None of our works were identical and we each had very different styles. This made me realize how differently we each thought in terms of website structure and variations of navigation. Mine was very practical and was structured to move downward. The idea of being creative with my website and the multiple approaches I could have taken to create one escaped my mind. I had forgotten and omitted that fun part of everything, and instead focused more on the actual sources and informative, analytical aspect of it all. If I could redo everything, I would have had a lot more fun with it and not be so boring. Looking at everybody else’s, it was easy to tell who took a similar approach and who had more fun with it. Those who had more fun seemed to have better overall aesthetic and creativity in their work, and therefore a far more attractive platform. On Thursday, we went over two very different forms of sources that discussed very different subjects of emojis to the Grand Canyon. After reviewing the website source over the Grand Canyon, it was more apparent just how far and creative one can go with a website. It never occur to me to reference previous websites, since I was overly concerned with the content. I didn’t consider a lot of things. All in all, it was a time when applicability was tested and I feel I did a solid job in that aspect. The incorporation of stasis to my analytical process truly helped me navigate my information a lot better, but not the aesthetics of my website, which could’ve used a little more work.