Week 4 - Brochure Objectives

Site with great setup:

University of Southern California

IT Program - http://itp.usc.edu/

In my opinion this university’s IT Website is excellently laid out. It’s entertaining, engaging, and instantly grabs your attention. One of the first things you notice when going to the page is a large video player that grabs your attention and entices you. It has the text “Are you ready for tomorrow… Today?” That may seem a little cliché but it does its job in rousing your curiosity so you click to play the video. Another thing about the site that I feel works really well is the placing of the large buttons that would appear helpful to someone possibly looking to attend USC. The first button “Academic programs” is right up front so first time visitors can explore all of the university’s programs without having to do a lot of searching. Along with that another useful button “Courses” and one of the things I found most interesting, a button for “Jobs” To let potential applicants into the field explore jobs and internships to help their decision. In summary the website has a great layout that’s not hard to navigate and accurately serves its purpose.

Site that could use some work:

University of Maryland

IT Program - http://www.oit.umd.edu/

The layout of this university’s IT site isn’t particularly bad, but it’s not nearly as engaging as the previous site I discussed. It does have some well placed graphics but navigation of the website is so much more challenging and obscure. Something we discussed in class comes to mind, It seems like the layout of the site is geared more towards current students or students that know their way around rather than geared towards attracting the attention of new visitors. The links to attract new students, such as programs and courses isn’t immediately apparent. It’s a waste of time to go to a website to check out a program you’re thinking about joining and not be able to find your way around. In summary this website isn’t bad but the layout and many of the other things I discussed here could be changed and be much more appealing.

Overall Purpose

1. What are you writing? A brochure meant to entice the reader into joining the academic field of Information Technology

2. What prompts you to write? The desire to exceed

3. What outcome do you desire? That my point is accurately relayed and the reader might possibly be persuaded to really think about becoming an IT Major.

4. What outcome does your reader desire? For the reading to interesting and informative about the field.

Reader Profile

1. Who is your primary reader? My instructor and classmates

2. What is your reader’s relationship to you? Academic

3. What are your reader’s job title and responsibilities? Answered in question one

4. Who else might read your communication? Students from other classes, friends, or whoever I decide to show it to.

5. How familiar is your reader with your subject? That could range from slightly knowledgeable to no former knowledge of the subject.

6. How familiar is your reader with your specialty? Same

7. Does your reader have any communication preferences you should take into account? No

8. Should you take into account any other things about your reader when writing? Yes. For example I should probably not include too many terms pertaining to IT that the reader may not understand because their knowledge of this field may not be extensive.

Situational Analysis

1. What events and circumstances influence the way you should write? Taking into consideration different readers opinions or preconceived notions about IT.

Usability Objectives (Reader’s Tasks)

1. What are the key questions your reader will ask while reading? Questions could include; Why should I pursue a career in this field? How much is the general salary? Are the requirements particularly taxing? What are some other things to gain from this choice?

2. How will your reader search for the answer?

_X_ Sequential reading from beginning to end

3. How will your reader use the information you provide?

_X__ Attempt to determine how the information you provide will affect

1. What is your reader’s attitude toward your subject? Why? What do you want it to be? They may be slightly interested or something along those lines. That is probably a good attitude for them to start with. After reading the brochure I’d hope they were a lot more interested in this field than when they started.

2. What is your reader’s attitude toward you? Why? What do you want it to be? They may not know much about me. An introduction with a few things about myself that explain my knowledge in the field would probably help them feel they can trust the information I provide a little more.

Week 2 - Rhetorical Analysis

In my business ethics class I had to read an article titled “The Fourth wave: The Ethics of Corporate Downsizing” Written by John Orlando. The piece was particularly interesting to me because I went in to the reading as most do, with an opinion already formulated about whether corporate downsizing is a morally wrong or right decision. Although I had not done much research or reading on the topic before so I went in with an open mind that allowed me to look objectively at facts and different arguments rather than criticizing every view based on an already tight formulated opinion.

The context of this particular article is that the writer feels compelled to enter his logical arguments and opinions into a topic that has previously been talked about but never looked at from all sides. He mentions in the writing how the issue has come up many times but is often dismissed by fellow philosophers and never completely thought out, well prepared, and argued completely from all points of view. Therefore he felt it was his calling to explain his ruling out of other arguments such as one that states business owners have a fiduciary responsibility, only to the shareholders and not the workers as well. Which if were true would mean that corporate downsizing is not a moral issue but rather a financial or dutiful one. He argues that it is indeed a moral issue, gives all sides and arguments for or against the claims that it isn’t or can’t possibly be, and logically explains why his point of view should be adopted by the reader.

Going into the assignment I didn’t know much about the writer of the article. The professor just assigned us the article to read without really elaborating on any of the writer’s credentials or achievements. I was, however, able to form what I felt was a solid opinion of the writers knowledge on the topic by observing how well thought out, explained, and prepared the writer was for every side of each argument.

Not only does the article discuss whether or not corporate downsizing should be considered a moral issue, but it also discusses the place of this issue in business ethics classes. The writer imparts his opinion on the reader from all aspects of the arguments at hand successfully quelling any doubts you may have about a particular side of an argument. I think the writers intended audience is not only fellow philosophers or people with moral questions about corporate downsizing but also students like me who may have opinions on the matter but haven’t full thought the issue out.

In my opinion the writer did an extremely good job at conveying his view on the argument accurately and intelligently. When I finished reading the article I not only felt more informed about the subject as a whole but I felt that I could more confidently back my opinion knowing many more sides of the argument and having more faith in my knowledge on the subject. I did feel that the article could have been improved in certain ways. For instance; while I do believe a large part of the writers intended audience is fellow philosophers, I also believe it was also meant to inform students like me. In that light I believe the writer used many words and terms that were obscure and uncommon, such as the word “fiduciary”, which I used earlier in this blog, making comprehension and little tough at times. I also believe the writer’s style was a little hard to follow. For example, his Kafkaesque usage of dashes,  to insert thoughts in the middle of sentences.

All in all I believe the writer accurately and intelligently conveyed his view on the issue. Minor improvements aside, I think he did an excellent job of showing all sides to the reader, and persuading the audience to see the issue from his point of view.