I believe that there are more advantages for putting information on the website. People use the internet everyday, so it is likely that the information that someone would like to convey gets seen by at least one viewer everyday. If the information is on paper then it likely, that only a few or no one will see it. This is a period where technology is used heavily everyday, and I think that no one will be able to live in this era if there was no technology or internet. This is just how the world is today. I believe that if you want your information to get known throughout the world the, you should put it on the Web. The Web is open to everyone so, everyone will be able to see it. There are only a few people who read or view things by paper.

I agree with this statement. People generally would fix their eyes on the larger elements. They would think that the larger elements are more important than the smaller ones. The smaller elements would be of less importance to them, so they probably would view it later or never view it at all. If you want viewers to know which elements are important then you should make them bigger, so that they can see it better and be able to understand it better.

But, you must know the point or the purpose that you are trying to reach before you can try to find what designs interest the viewer. If you do not know your purpose or what you are trying to explain then, your viewer might not know what you are portraying either. But, if you know what you are doing and know what purpose you are trying to make, then you and the viewer will be able to see what kind of point that you are trying to make.

This statement makes sense. If everything was in disorder then, nothing would make sense to you or the viewer. You must group related elements together, so that they correlate with each other. Everyone will be able to understand the contents better.

I think that enough information to me would be until the viewer and you understand what the content is about. As long as you write enough till' you and the viewer would be able to look at it and know what it is talking about then, it will be good enough for everyone. But then again, you also do not want to write too much because, the audience or viewer might get tired or it or find it very boring. You should just make sure that the first sentence summarizes the point that you are trying to reach, so that the viewers understand and know what they are looking for.

I think that display size that play an effect on how the viewers would read what is on the screen. If a screen is small then, the viewers might only be seeing maybe half of the display or information. But, if the screen is big then, the viewers would probably get a better view of the display or information is on there. Small screens would only allow viewers to see chunks of the whole picture while, big screens could allow viewers to see everything. They would probably understand the design or information that is on the big screen better than on a small screen.

Subordinate elements needs to be able to complement or give a more detailed explanation of the main elements. The viewers need to see the main element more than the subordinate ones. But, I do not think that this means that the subordinate elements are less important than the main ones. I believe that they are both equally important to the designer and the viewer, but you have to think about which element is going to catch your and the viewer's attention the most. You have to make sure the element that you and the viewer think is most important to make that one stand out the most than the rest of the ones. I believe that there should be no distinction between the subordinate and the main elements.

"Thoughtful design can help viewers in their efforts to apprehend that structure. Design, in its most simple sense, is an attempt to convey visually the logical, functional, or natural relationships that exist among the elements in an information display.(This is true, by the way, regardless of the medium.)"(pg.2-3).

This statement is saying that thoughtful design can help viewers understand the structure more clearly. Only if the design is thoroughly thought out and you as the person who is designing it understands the meaning of it, then the viewer will also understand what it is that you are trying to explain through the design. Most designs' goal are to convey a simple easily understandable relationship between the information that is also on display. If the design on the screen or page does not do that then, you need to look for another design that correlates with the information. The design and information must also be consistent in that they must always complement and relate to each other. You can not have half or three quarters of the design and information relate to each other and the other half not relate to each other, it just wouldn't make any sense. This article emphasizes a lot on design and information, and how their main goal is to relate to each other. I think the previous article that I read about fonts made me understand this article a lot more. Choosing a unique style and font for typing your information with must go with the design and vice versa.

"Any display of information, whether on a screen or on a page, should assist viewers in their efforts to distinguish objects from their backgrounds(that is, to distinguish "figure" from "ground") and from each other(that is, to discriminate)."(pg.2)

Any pictures, videos or any other display of information should help viewers know the difference between it and their background. Displays of information should not distract its' backgrounds. They should be easily visible and easy to distinguish which one is which. Even though, you might find them to be easy to distinguish, but other people might not. So, it really just comes back to not getting to personal whenever you are choosing the background and the design to make sure that they go together and not clash together. You must ask yourself, "Would the design that I am choosing complement the background or would they clash together?" You must remember that you are not the only person who is going to view this display. There is an audience out there who is going to view it, and you want them to able to tell the display and the background a part form each other. You yourself should also be able to tell them apart too.

"Screen elements, whether text, pictures, or icons, become more meaningful when they-and the relationships among them- can be readily apprehended and unambiguously interpreted by the user."(pg.1)

I think that this is a very good point. Screen elements are meaningless unless the viewer or user who is using it knows and understand what it is. If the person who is using the element does not understand what it is then it would be highly likely that the other people who are going to view it are not going to know what it is. It is highly crucial for the designer who is using the element understands what the meaning behind the element is and what it mean just by looking at it, so that other people will be able to understand it too.

You should ask yourself this question all the time when you are typing something important or making a design. Does the style or font go with the purpose of the design? What kind of font would combine well with the design? These are the basic questions that you should be asking yourself when you are looking for a font for the design. You don't want a font that doesn't go well with your design. First, it would not only look good when you see it, but it would also not look good when other people are looking at it. Fonts are a very important part in making the design look good.

It is good to know the definition of both of these words. A typeface would be the style that you choose to type something up while, a font would be the particular size of that style like, 12 or 14 point. To me, it seems like a font is just like a part of typeface. You first need to choose a typeface in order to figure out what kind of size or font you would like it.

I agree with this section of the article. You can't get too caught up when thinking about what kind of font you are going to use for each occasion. If that happens, then the design that you are working on and the font might clash together. You have to think about the people that you are working with, and what they would think about font. You also have to think about the audience of your design. Who is going to view your design, and how would you want them to view it? You can not just think about how you like the font and how you want to portray it because, other people might not like the way that you portrayed it.

This type of font would be perfect if you are making a flyer for a special event like someone's birthday party or a wedding. This decorative/display font would be perfect at grabbing someone's attention. It would not be perfect for a business type of design. Business type of designs need a more serious and readable font. They don't need a decorative/display type of font since it will only distract the viewer away from the main point.

This is one type of font that I would not use for my Service Learning Project in class. Script is the type of font that would not go well with GCCA's(Georgia Childcare Association's) website. Script is the type of font that would look good if you are trying to catch someone's attention for a party or an event. Georgia Childcare Association is looking for a more informative and serious font. I also think that Script font would not be readable for GCCA's website. Their website needs a more readable font, so that the people who are visiting their website are aware of what is happening when they visit it.

I honestly have never heard of typeface being used in context, so I don't really don't understand the difference between a typeface and font. Do they mean the same thing? In my opinion, I still think that they mean the same thing, but like the person wrote in this article they are used interchangeably. I prefer using the word "font" since, I've grown to see the word, and I use it all the time whenever I am typing something up.

This is a very interesting statement. I have never heard of this test before. I think that this would help everybody a lot. It would help everybody determine what kind of font they should use for any special occasion. Because if the I/1/l all look the same then the people looking at the design would start to get confused at which one is which. Everybody should use this test when they are stuck about which font they want to use.

We must also consider this comment whenever we are designing something for a project. We must think about the audience and how they would view our design. Would it fit with the audience, and would it catch their attention? Or, is there a certain audience that we are trying to reach when we are designing this project? For example if you are making a flyer for a tutoring session, you would want it to appeal not only to parents who are looking for knowledgeable and professional tutors, but also the parents' kids who are going to take the class. You want to make it informative and appealing, so that parents will want their kids to join the class and the parents' kids will also be excited and eager to join it.

I agree with this statement. It is necessary to dress appropriately for each occasion that you encounter like it is to choose the right and appropriate font for each occasion. For example, you wouldn't wear a winter jacket and boots during the winter. Likewise, you would want to think about what kind of font would fit for your resume that your'e sending for your dream job. You wouldn't choose some crazy unreadable font. Instead, you would choose a font that is readable and stands out from the rest of the other resumes, but not too much.

This is a tip that could help our group for the Service Learning Project. For our Service Learning Project our group is in charge of editing Georgia Childcare Association's(a non-profit organization) website. So before we can begin helping them with their website, we need to think about what kind of designs would be appropriate for their website. We also need think about what their organization is and the goal of it is. We need to think about what kinds of fonts and designs would go with their website.

Universal Design eliminates people from the workforce. Like this section of the article says, " voice recognition software for the visually impaired could be seen to eliminate the need for assistants and note-takers"(Godden and Hsy). One benefit of universal design is the idea that it could get rid of some of the stressful jobs that some people have to do. Universal design is also accessible to everyone. It is also less reliant on people. Disabled people don't have to worry about relying on another person's help. They can figure it out, and do it by themselves. Everyone can live to be more independent on themselves.

I find the examples that Clark uses to describe the idea of universal design to be very interesting. He uses examples like a unicorn, Holy Grail, or earthly Paradise to describe it. I think that describing universal design like that is a little over-exaggerating. Although it is impossible to make something that helps everyone, it is not that hard to make like the examples the person in this statement thinks it is. No one has ever tried to ever reach the goal. This is the reason why I believe that Clark thinks this way.

Universal design is the idea of helping every person no matter what their ability is. But this statement says, "Rob Imrie interrogates the limitations of the universal subject that UD posits, nothing that "UD rejects design that fails to respond to, and interact with, everyone irrespective of their socio-cultural status and bodily capabilities and capacities""(Godden and Hsy). The main idea of universal design is to help everyone of every kind no matter who they are or what there capability is. But why does Imrie say that it rejects the idea to interact with everyone. I believe that this statement is not true or it is just what one person thinks about the idea. Universal design is supposed to interact with everyone and help everyone in a sociable environment.

I disagree with this statement. I believe that reciprocity is a universal subject. Reciprocity means the exchanging things for mutual benefits. Why does this statement say that, "it should not need to flatten us out into a universal subject in the process."(Godden and Hsy)? Is it saying that is should not be considered universally? Is it saying that the idea of universal design should not be reciprocated? Why not? Universal design would only help people and make their lives better. It is not going to harm anyone. I think that universal design should be brought outside of the world. It will do good things for everyone.

Failure of universal design, does not mean that we have failed to recognize every single person in the world. I think of failure of being one step closer to success. We learn from our mistakes. Failure helps us recognize what we have done wrong, so that we can improve on it the next time we try something. We will be able to do what we need to do with caution, and realize that nobody is perfect.

I understand that the goal of UD is problematic because; that would require the world to be of no mistakes and everyone would be living in their own perfect world, but that doesn't mean that it's going to harm anyone. UD is an impossible goal to achieve, and I'm pretty sure everyone is aware of it, but it will be helpful to everyone. UD would make everyone's life a whole lot easier. We're not saying that we should change every product or every product that we make from now on has to flow with the idea of universal design. If every product in the world went with the idea of universal design, then the world would be too perfect and people would be too scared to live in it. I am just saying that some projects along the way could be thought with the idea of being universally designed.

UD often fails because; it doesn't have a particular audience. All objects, resources, or tools have a particular audience. I do believe that UD is not possible since, it is hard not to focus on a particular audience. If products didn't have a specific audience then, it might fail in the real world or no one would ever notice it. Universal design is a difficult idea to cover, since you have to think of every kind of person while making your invention.

Why is Rick against the idea of universal design? He is a disable academic, so shouldn't he be for it? Universal design can do many good things for us. It might be impossible for inventors to think about every kind of person when making their object, but I believe that they already made a few objects that could be made for everyone. For example, in the previous article that I read called: " Disability, Universal Design, and the Digital Humanities" it talks about an automated garage door. Automated garage doors close by themselves with just a click of one button. I believe that everyone can or is able to use this kind of tool. It's a tool that can make everyone's life a whole lot easier.

This quote is very sad, but it is also true. I agree with this quote that if everyone does live long enough then, disability is a trait that we all inhabit. It all depends on how well we take care of ourselves. If we take good care of ourselves for a long time then, we might not inhabit any disability. If we don't take good care of ourselves then, we might become disabled. But like this statement says, "disability conjures an elusive future"(Godden and Hsy). Disability appears to be difficult to remember or recall. This means that if we do dwell on disability for a long time, it will get harder to remember how acquired it.

The author's opinion in this article is totally different from the previous article called: "Disability, Universal Design, and the Digital Humanities." This article states that it is impossible to make a device that is accessible in every language and in every sensor, motor, or knowledge. The other article("Disabilities, Universal Design, and the Digital Humanities") encourages inventors to make designs that are universal. In other words, it encourages people to make designs that are pleasing to everyone. I believe that both of the article are correct. While it would make the world better for everyone to live in if all designs were universal so that everyone could have access to them, it is also not very realistic to believe that people can make designs that satisfy everyones' needs at the same time. Not every inventor is going to think about everybody in the world while making their invention. They are only going to focus on a particular audience because, if they did focus on everyone then, they would never succeed in making their new device or tool.

People with disabilities have been neglected for a long time. But I think that inventors are improving to make devices that are accessible to non-disabled people also accessible to disabled people. They made a huge improvement with wheelchairs. Before, it was people who were sitting on wheelchairs had to manually roll the wheels for the wheelchair to move. They still make this kind, but you are seeing less and less of these. Now with a press of just one button and the turning of a small cylinder-like stick, people can move when they want without having to move the wheels by themselves. I believe that if inventors keep trying to make these kind of improvements, then everyone will be very satisfied.

Blind people can't use any device with a screen. Since they can't see, a screen is basically useless to them. They would have to use devices that have a braille or audio transcribed in it. I think that digital inventors should start thinking of some way to improve devices with screens, so that blind people can start using them too. Blind people might also want to use touch screen. They want to fit in, and not want other people to think that they are different from anyone else. Blind people don't want to be judged just because they are blind.

Touch screens are bringing more of the possibility of people just having to use their finger to touch. Mouses are beginning to be useless. In this section, it says that touch screens help the disabled. But, what about people who are blind? How do they use touch screens? Blind people can't see the screen, so how can they use it. I believe that blind people would find the mouses more useful than touch screen. With mouses, the innovators can put braille on them so it would be easier for them to use it. Innovators can't really put braille on the touch screen. But, it think that digital inventors can start thinking about how they are going to put braille on touch screen. This will make it a whole lot easier for blind people to use. Therefore, I do not agree when this section says that, "Both of these technologies are extremely useful for people who are disabled..."(Williams).

I don't quite understand this section of the article. Don't useful and usable mean the same thing? If something is usable, should it not also be useful? Usable means something that is available or convenient while, useful means something that is helpful or of good effect. When inventing a device, we should focus on it being usable because, if it is usable then it should also be useful. Usable is for short term, while useful is for long term. Innovators should first think about making the device or tool usable, and then think about how to make it useful. Because, if the device is available or of convenience, then it should also be of advantageous or helpful.

I also agree that people with disabilities will be at great advantage if digital people continue to work on projects that take on the concept of universal design principles. Even though it might be time consuming and take a lot of hard work from the digital innovators, but people with disabilities really need this help. Working for disabled people, could also help the innovators rethink about invention whether it really helps everybody or just a particular audience. For example, how can tools in the kitchen be reinvented to help not only non-disabled people but also disabled people? Are there even tools in the kitchen that help disabled people who like to cook food? These are some questions that innovators might be thinking of to help the disabled people.

I feel like this online tool will be able to help a lot of disabled people. The users of this tool will be able to read aloud what is on the screen, while the people who have low vision or are blind can just listen to what is on the screen. People who are hard of hearing or are deaf can read the captions that people have transcribed using the tool. Scripto is a "user-friendly interface"(Williams) that allows people to contribute their own translations to an online source.

So, does the anthologize tool help the blind people? If so, how? I don't quite understand what this anthologize tool does. According to a previous section in this article, anthologize "transforms WordPress 3.0 into a platform for publishing electronic texts"(Williams). So, it converts texts into readable versions? Anthologize can transfer texts into a format called XML that "work with digital talking book devices or with braille output devices"(Williams). This tool makes it easier for blind people read a book or text. But, what is an XML format?http://www.w3schools.com/xml/xml_whatis.asp This link shows what is an XML format, what is does, and how it does it. XML is a software and hardware tool that is used for storing and transporting data. It stands for Extensible Markup Language. XML simplifies a lot of things like data sharing, data transport, platform changes, and data availability.

I agree with this statement. I believe that people who are thinking about innovating new things that they should always think about everyone instead of just focusing about a particular audience. For example when making new phones, the inventors should think about the people who are semi-blind or fully blind and make phones where both the screen and the words on the screen are big enough for those people to see them. We should always refer to the biggest audience possible in our minds when we are making new designs on new objects. This is one way that we can improve the world, so that people with or without disabilities can live in harmony.

This is a definition for universal design. Universal design is the idea of designing all products for people despite their age, ability, or status in life. I believe that we need to focus a lot on this concept. Everyone should be able to have access on a product without having to worry about what their age is, what they are able to do, or how wealthy they are. Innovators should develop more products that are accessible to everyone instead of just a particular audience.

This section of the article is very interesting. It is saying that something that is created to assist a disabled person to make their life easier may not be pleasing or may not help people who are not disabled. And something that has a universal design, is made for everyone. Everyone can use a universal design, but the design that is made for disabled people might only be usable for them and not for everyone. This part of the article is stating the difference for a design that is specifically made for the disabled and a design that is made for everyone.

I agree with this statement. Universal design is not only efficient to those people who are disabled; it is efficient for everyone to use. An example of an universal design mentioned in a previous section of this article would be the automatic garage door. It is affordable and easily accessible for people with or without disabilities. With a click of just one button, the garage door will close by itself. You don't have to walk up to the garage door and use your hands to push it down. The automatic garage door is efficient is that it closes your garage door for you without you having to waste any of your energy. It's productive without you having to do anything for it.

This reason states that applying universal design principles also helps digital resources more suited with multiple devices. Some online resources in the world only work on a desktop or laptop computer. Universal design principles can make online resources compatible with not only your computer, but with a phone, tablet, or any other mobile device. This way you can go to the online resource without having to bring a laptop. You can just search it on your phone or tablet.

The dialogue between the clinician and student on page 218 talks about what the symptoms the student is looking for when the golden retriever had gotten hit by a car. The symptoms that the student looks at are all visible signs. Both the clinician and student are using complex words or technical language to describe the golden retriever's pain. But, the data collectors did not understand some of the words, and so they had to ask more questions or rephrase them.

"..., which encouraged students to memorize a vast number of facts without emphasizing the problem-solving skills essential for the practitioner."(Schryer 214). I think that this is still happening today. People don't look at the bigger picture of their problem. They need someone to help them to solve it, and then they just need to memorize the answer part of the problem and they think that this is okay when it really isn't. The people aren't going to get anything out of the problem, they will only remember the answer to it, and not think about how to solve it when the same problem hits them again.

"Yet Bakhtin also suggests that speech genres are "changeable, flexible, and plastic.""(Schryer 213). What does this writer mean by "plastic?" How are speech genres "plastic?" https://bu.digication.com/UHCST111HI_2010_09-12/Review_of_The_Problem_of_Speech_Genres/published ^This link states the definition of a speech genre.The writer states in the link, "that there are diverse spheres of communication, and the generally stable utterances within each sphere constitute speech genres."(Bakhtin). It states that a speech genre is not just a simple genre, but its what in each "sphere" that holds a speech genre. Speech genres are different than other type of genres.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/genre ^ This link provides a broad definition of genre. Genre is a category of a composition, like music or literature, that are then grouped with each other based on the similarities that they have.

"Contradictions always exist. It is through contradictions, in fact, that change occurs. This sense of complexity and creative contradiction is reflected in the term transformativity. Genres are, in fact, characterized by transformativity."(Schryer 210). ^This quote states that genre is characterized by the way it changes. Genre belongs in different groups, and it changes based on the groups that they belong to.

"a genre is an emic phenomenon."(Schryer 207). ^The link above provides a definition of an emic. The word emic in this sentence means that genre is a person's perception of it. Whoever studies genre is bound to question it's explanation.

"a genre represents a series of texts sharing features at the levels of content, form, and style."(Schryer 207). ^This is a more detailed definition of genre.

I believe that there is nothing wrong with labeling record keeping as a genre. Record keeping is a category of writing; it is writing something down so you can remember it or taking notes that someone says that you think is important. I don't understand why this article states that there is a problem with stating record keeping as a genre. Maybe it is because that this article was written such a long time ago that in that time record keeping was not thought of as a genre.

"This article argues that record keeping is a central discursive practice in disciplines such as psychiatry, social work, and medicine."(Schryer 204). ^ I believe that this is not the case. People all over the world keep some kind of record keeping, everyone just has different kinds of it. For example, when students go to school, they write notes from the lectures or things that their teachers say that they think are important to them. I believe that this is a type of record keeping.

..."triangulation as a central concern for qualitative researchers. It is through triangulation, or detailed cross- checking and cross- referencing, that valid generalizations emerge from ethnographic research."(Schryer 201). ^This is a definition of triangulation.

Technology is loaded with tons of information. It is needed a lot, and it will keep improving. You can almost find anything with the use of technology. It's used everyday by everybody in the world. I don't think anyone can live without it except maybe old people who are still learning and adjusting to it. It may become a problem or may not with the next generation. It will all depend on how they use it or what they use it for.

This is what they mean when they say that no technology is neutral. Technology is very biased to the people who use it.

Technology is dependent on other technological information. It is never independent. For example, you can get an iPhone that is bigger in size now which is called the iPhone 6 plus. It was probably influenced by Samsung since they have the Samsung Galaxy Note. I am pretty sure that the creators of the iPhone 6 plus wanted people to know that the iPhone's screen can also be very big just like the Samsung's.

Writing and rhetorical issues are very important in the course of technical writing.

These are the different types of planning. I think that strategic planning is the most important because; you need to first figure out how technologies blend into each other, and what effect they will have when you use them. The rest of the planning types all depend on the results of strategic planning.

What do they mean when they say "empirical research?"

https://msu.edu/~bhatta30/wra/exams/Article.pdf

This link provides more roles or jobs that come out of technical communication.

But, it has already happened. Technology keeps changing and improving, and we as people don't get much opinion on it. We as people don't get much say in what we want to happen to technology. Technology develops and improves when we least expect it. I believe that people will not blame technology, but rather themselves. They are going to blame themselves for not catching up to the latest technology and for being too old-fashioned.

It is easy to retrieve something, but it is also easy to lose that same thing if you don't focus on the goal. If you want something really badly you must be able to focus on it without thinking about anything else. But, if you lose your goal it is okay too because; you can always get right back up and try again and again until you reach it. You must persevere and remember that if you can't put your own effort in what you want to do, you can easily lose the purpose of what you wanted in the first place.

I would probably agree with this comparison if it was back in the days where technology wasn't as efficient as now. But, now that since everyone in the world uses and relies a lot on technology this comparison between writers with technology and missing the train does not match up.

This is an example of a tool and technology. Technology is something that builds a website up to what it is made of while, a tool is the website as whole.

revised definitions of what a technical communicator does

Since when?

two definitions of what a technical communicator does

some of the jobs within technical communication

How do technical communicators produce the products or the services that they provide?

definition of technical communication