After reading the three readings
assigned for today, I was left with several ideas in conclusion. The main idea
I was left with and really want to discuss, is this idea of how it is the
Rhetorician’s responsibility to choose the appropriate fonts, genre, and
imagery within a text to make that text successful. That is then to say, a
Rhetorician must have a highly developed sense of situational awareness, and
therefore, an intimacy with the audience he is writing for. Fonts are
important. Imagery is important. Size is significant. Spaciality is
significant. These elements all deploy the success of a text because these are
the elements that portray a visual cohesion to the reader’s attention. Fonts,
for example, my hold an audience’s interest based upon how much “effort” may be
needed to continue reading a text. Fonts also set texts apart within the same
genre.
An example of this would be a
resume—but this genre embodies several of these foundational
classifications—also utilizing spaciality, size of fonts, etc. If a resume is
too cluttered or not full enough or the font does not impose “ a professional
quality” it most likely will be skipped over and a reading of what it contains
will not be given the opportunity to persuade the audience of the writer’s
qualifications. So that is then to argue that the “visual appearance” of the
text is just as rhetorically influencable as the writing itself.
The author, and Rhetorician, must
be aware of what the appearance of the text should look like to appeal to the
different discourse communities he is writing for. These constraints will
guarantee the success or failure of the text within the constraint of “visual
appeal” (as discussed in Bernhardt’s text p 73). For example, if we were to
write academic essay, as we do, and the format were perfect, although the
content sucks, we might acquire a C or D, but at least the visual appeal kept
the professor reading it until the end. If we took another essay; and it were
written so perfectly that the professor couldn’t have written it better; and we
changed the font from 12 to 40 then the visual appeal would surely cause that reader to dismiss it and it most likely would be graded as an F. It would
not fit the criterion for the audience that it was intended for, nor would it
be visually appealing to read. Take that same essay and put it into essayed
form—even if not perfect, but mostly appealing it could be the difference
between the F and a B grade. This is where this idea resonates with me.
Another concept of this is that a
Rhetorician must know the purpose of the text to know the genre of the text.
Are full sentences necessary? Or are bullet points more appropriate? This again
influences the visual appeal to an audience and brings us back to the resume
example. If you are designing something for an audience that is short on time
design is imperative to get the audience to read that text. If a resume is filled as in an essay--he or she will not give it the time it requires to read, because it does not take the consideration of the reader into account and because it does not look like a resume. It looks like an essay. It is not visually appealing to the desire of the audience and therefore is unnecessary.
Hyper texts encompass these
ideas also—probably even more so. If it is visually appealing it is probably easier
to use. It has to appeal to the audience for use. This would explain the use of
different browsers or email interfaces amongst users. It MUST be visually
appealing to the user for that user to continue its use or refer it to other
users. Things such as how customizable the interface is or the readablility of
the fonts may highly influence the desirablility or the preferences of the
user. While there are many other factors to this, the visual cohesion to their
preferences are probably the most influential. I know that I utilize certain
sites or tools on the web over others based on how they appeal to me visually
and I know I am not alone.
