L597 - Topics in Library and Information Science:

Content Analysis for the World Wide Web

 

 

            Semester:  Spring 2003                                   Instructor:  Dr. Susan Herring

            Time:          Thursday 1-3:45 p.m.                    Office:       LI 005 B

            Place:        LI 001                                            Phone:       (812) 856-4919 (voice mail)

            Section:     9178                                              Email:         herring @ indiana.edu

Instructor's Office Hours:  Tuesday and Thursday 4-5 p.m. and by appointment

Class majordomo list: herring_caweb @ indiana.edu

 

Required Readings:

Most of the readings for this course are available on the Web (live links are included in this syllabus). The others will be put on ereserves (http://ereserves.indiana.edu/) or on print reserve in the SLIS library.

 

1. Course Description

This course provides training in Content Analysis methods as applied to the World Wide Web. Content Analysis is a social scientific approach to analyzing meaning and structure in (typically) written documents; it can also be used to analyze images and graphic displays. In this course, we apply Content Analysis to diverse types of information communicated through HTML documents on the Web, including links, interactivity features, and textual and graphical content.[1] The methods, which are both qualitative and quantitative, can be used to address issues of organization, meaning, design, usability, interactivity, credibility, bias and cultural differences associated with the presentation of information on the Web. In contrast to the prescriptive approach of most human-computer interaction and Web design courses, the approach of this course is descriptive: rather than characterizing Web sites as simply "good" or "bad", it provides tools to understand how different site designs and content communicate socially-nuanced meaning.

            The course is structured so as to provide students with hands-on experience analyzing Web data. Each student selects a Web site (or sites) for analysis, applying each method as it is presented in class through the readings and lectures. The students' findings are shared with the class through oral presentations, and written up in short reports. At the end of the semester, the written reports are consolidated and expanded into an original research paper describing a Web genre or other collection of sites defined by the student. As little research of this type has yet been carried out, it is likely that each student project will create new knowledge about the Web. The findings of the research that comes out of this class may have implications for site design and/or content development. However, students are not expected to create actual Web sites as part of the course; rather, the focus is on creating knowledge about the Web through descriptive research.

            Students with interests in particular content domains (commerce, education, health, news reporting, performance/exhibition, politics, women, etc.) or Web genres (personal home pages, blogs, portals, etc.) should find the course especially useful, as they can focus in on those domains or genres in their choice of data for analysis.

            No previous knowledge of Content Analysis or Web design is required to do well in this course. Students are, however, assumed to have experience accessing the World Wide Web, including using search engines such as Google.

 

2.   Course Objectives

As a result of completing this course, students should gain:

   A critical perspective (in the positive sense) on the Web as a communication medium.

   Practical skills in applying and interpreting the results of Content Analysis methods.

   Nuanced understandings of Web content that can be used to inform decisions about content development, site design, evaluation and use.

 

3.   Student Requirements

 

Readings: Students are expected to read the assigned readings before each scheduled class meeting.

 

Web Site Analysis. Each student will select a Web site (or sites) for the purpose of analysis throughout the course. The sites should contain content that the student finds personally interesting, and/or that relates to their professional goals. These data will be used to train the student in applying Content Analysis methods, and may also be used (supplemented with additional data, as needed) for the final research paper.

      Reports. The results of applying the methods introduced in the course to the selected data will be presented in five oral and five written reports, where the written reports are on the same topics as the oral reports. The oral reports should be brief (5-7 minutes) and may be supported with (simple) PowerPoint displays and live internet demonstrations. The written reports should record the findings presented in the oral reports, incorporating feedback from the class and the instructor, concisely and clearly (2-4 pages, excluding appendices). Guidelines for each report will be distributed in class one week before the scheduled oral report presentation date.

      Research paper. At the end of the semester, each student will write a 5000-7000 word research paper (excluding references and appendices) content analyzing a Web genre or other collection of sites defined by the student. This research may make use of the data already analyzed during the semester, or it may supplement or replace those data with new data (with the instructor's approval). A 500-word written proposal describing the Web genre, sites to be analyzed, methods to be employed, and including a minimum of 3-5 references is due in the 11th week of the semester. At the end of the semester, the results of each student's research will be presented to the class in a formal (conference-style) oral presentation (approx. 15 minutes, depending on how many students are enrolled in the course). The written paper should follow the formal conventions for a publishable-quality research article, including footnotes and citations of scholarly work in APA (American Psychological Association) style.

 

Majordomo List. There will be a majordomo list for this course. Students are expected to check their email at least twice between class meetings, including the morning before class for last-minute announcements and reminders. Interactive participation on the majordomo list is encouraged, although it is not a requirement of the course.

 

4.   Grading

 

Your grade for the course will be calculated as follows:

 

Oral reports and class participation                            25%

            Written reports (5 x 7%)                                             35%

            Oral presentation of term paper research                  10%

Term paper                                                                  30%

                                                                                    Total:   100%

 

Grading policy:

 

     A late written report will be accepted once during the semester, no questions asked, provided it is turned in two days before the next class meeting. I reserve the right to subtract one-third of a letter grade for each day a report is late beyond the due date or this one-time extension.

     Oral reports and class participation will be graded with a check mark for each report/class meeting, to indicate that the requirement was met. Class participation means being willing and prepared to speak intelligently in class about the topics under discussion. (Note: this does NOT necessarily mean speaking a lot—you may be penalized if you habitually dominate class discussions.) In order to be able to speak intelligently about a topic, you will need to have done the readings for that topic before class. You will also need to be physically present and alert. Participation cannot be made up if you miss a class.

     The written reports and the term paper will be assigned letter grades (A, A-, B+, B, B-, C+, C, etc.). Generally speaking, an A denotes 'outstanding' work, a B is 'good', and a C is 'average' (but below the level expected for graduate-level work).

     The written reports will be graded on completeness and accuracy of application of the methods. An 'A' quality written report addresses all the questions in the guidelines and applies the methods accurately and insightfully to the data.

     The oral presentation of the final research project will be graded primarily on form: how well it is organized, how informative it is, and how clearly and professionally it communicates to the audience (i.e., the rest of the class). An 'A' quality oral report conveys an appropriate amount of information given the time allotted for presentation, is presented in a straightforward and concise manner, and is logically organized (following the schema: identification and motivation of the choice of Web genre, brief background on genre, data selected and methods of analysis, findings, and some interpretation of the findings). Visual displays are strongly encouraged.

     The final paper will be graded on content—motivation of the choice of Web genre, appropriateness of the data selection procedures, accuracy of the description and application of the methods, plausibility of the interpretations—and form—organization, clarity and quality of written expression, and appropriate use of scholarly conventions such as citations and footnotes. An 'A' quality term paper motivates the research topic, makes appropriate use of sampling and analytical techniques, and interprets the findings thoughtfully, in addition to being well-organized and clearly and professionally written. Some visual representations (e.g., screen shots) should be included of the content of the analyzed Web sites.

 

Note:  Learning is a collaborative enterprise. However, plagiarism, copyright infringement, and other types of academic dishonesty will NOT be tolerated. As a rule of thumb, when in doubt, cite the source!

 

--------------------------------------------

 

5.   Tentative Course Schedule

 

----------------

Week 1 (1/16/03):       The Web as a mode of computer-mediated communication. Introduction to Content Analysis. Selecting Web sites to analyze for this course.

 

            (No reading assignment for the first week.)

 

----------------

Week 2 (1/23/03):       History and growth of the Web. Web archives.

 

            1st oral report: Describe your data for the course.

 

Read:  Cailliau, R. (1995). A little history of the World Wide Web.

http://www.w3.org/History.html

 

Berners-Lee, T. (1996). The World Wide Web: Past, present and future.

http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/1996/ppf.html

 

Lyman, P. & Kahle, B. (1998). Archiving digital cultural artifacts: Organizing an agenda for action. D-Lib Magazine. http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july98/07lyman.html

                       

                        Woodruff, A., Aoki, P., Brewer, E., Gauthier, P., & Rowe, L.A. (1996). An

investigation of documents from the World Wide Web. [Technical. Read for understanding of types of information that can be gathered from HTML documents using automated methods of analysis.] http://epoch.cs.berkeley.edu:8000/~woodruff//inktomi/index.html

 

            Demonstration: The Wayback Machine

 

----------------

Week 3 (1/30/03):       Principles of Content Analysis. Methodological issues in analyzing the Web.

 

            1st written report due: Data description

 

Read:  Bauer, M. (2000). Classical content analysis: A review. In M. Bauer & G. Gaskell (eds.), Qualitative Researching with Text, Image and Sound (pp. 131-151). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

                       

Mitra, A., & Cohen, E. (1999). Analyzing the Web: Directions and challenges. In S. Jones (ed.), Doing Internet Research: Critical Issues and Methods for Examining the Net (pp.179-202). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

 

Wakeford, N. (2000). New media, new methodologies: Studying the Web. In D. Gauntlett (ed.), Web.Studies: Rewiring Media Studies for the Digital Age (pp.31-42). London: Arnold.

 

----------------

Week 4 (2/6/03):         Web genres. Case study: The personal homepage.

 

            Read:  Crowston, K., & Williams, M. (2000). Reproduced and emergent genres of

communication on the World-Wide Web. The Information Society16(3), 201-216. http://crowston.syr.edu/papers/Webgenres.html

 

Bates, M.J. & Lu, S. (1997). An exploratory profile of personal home pages: Content, design, metaphors. Online and CDROM Review 21 (6), 331-340.

 

Chandler, D. (1998). Personal homepages and the construction of identities on the Web. http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/short/webident.html

 

Döring, N. (2002). Personal home pages on the Web: A review of research.

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 7(3).

http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol7/issue3/doering.html

 

Arnold, J. & Miller, H. (1999). Gender and web home pages. http://ess.ntu.ac.uk/miller/cyberpsych/cal99.htm

 

----------------

Week 5 (2/13/03):       Design features: Description and prescription.

 

            2nd oral report: Analyze the genre characteristics of your data

 

Read:  Flanders, V. (2003). Web Pages that Suck. Take the tour, following all links (starting with "general, first impression")

http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/suckframe.htm

            then try the "two minute offense"

http://www.fixingyourwebsite.com/twominute.html

 

Sullivan, P. (2000).Practicing safe visual rhetoric on the web.

http://austen.english.purdue.edu/handa.html

 

                        Trochim, W.M.K. (1996). Evaluating websites.

http://trochim.human.cornell.edu/webeval/webintro/webintro.htm

 

----------------

Week 6 (2/20/03):       Assessing credibility.

 

2nd written report due: Genre analysis

 

Read:  Kapoun, Jim. (1998). Teaching undergrads WEB evaluation: A guide for library instruction. College and Research Libraries News (July/August): 522-523. [short]  http://www.ala.org/acrl/undwebev.html

 

Kirk, Elizabeth. (1996). Evaluating information found on the Internet.

http://www.library.jhu.edu/elp/useit/evaluate/

 

Fogg, B.J., et al. (2002). Stanford-Makovsky Web Credibility Study 2002: Investigating what makes Web sites credible today. http://captology.stanford.edu/pdf/Stanford-MakovskyWebCredStudy2002-prelim.pdf

 

Coste, R. (2000). Fighting speech with speech: David Duke, the Anti-Defamation League, online bookstores, and hate filters. Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Los Alamitos: IEEE Press. http://www.computer.org/proceedings/hicss/0493/04933/04933032.pdf

 

----------------

Week 7 (2/27/03):       Analyzing images: Representation and bias.

 

3rd oral report: Analyze the design and credibility of your data

 

Read:  Bell, P. (2001). Content analysis of visual images. In T. van Leeuwen & C. Jewitt (eds.), Handbook of Visual Analysis (pp.10-34). London: Sage.

 

                        Herring, S. & Martinson, A. (ms.) Representational bias in Web pornography.

 

Rajagopal, I. with Bojin, N. (2002). Digital representation: Racism on the World Wide Web. First Monday 7(10). http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue7_10/rajagopal/

 

----------------

Week 8 (3/6/03):         Analyzing images: Iconography.

 

            3rd written report due: Design and credibility

 

Read:  van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Semiotics and iconography. In T. van Leeuwen & C. Jewitt (eds.), Handbook of Visual Analysis (pp.92-118). London: Sage.

 

Schmidt-Isler, S. (2000). The language of digital genres. A semiotic investigation of style and iconology on the World Wide Web. Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Los Alamitos: IEEE Press. http://www.computer.org/proceedings/hicss/0493/04933/04933012.pdf

 

There are many collections of Web icons available online. For examples, see:

http://www.sun.com/smrc/web/classic/specs/icon.html

http://www.w3.org/Icons/WWW/

http://www.iconbazaar.com/

 

----------------

Week 9 (3/13/03):       Analyzing text:  Organization and style.

 

            4th oral report: Analyze the images in your data

 

Read:  Killian, C. (2001). Effective web writing.

http://www.webtechniques.com/archives/2001/02/kilian/

 

Nielsen, J., Schemenaur, P.J., and Fox, J. (2002). Writing for the web.

http://www.sun.com/980713/webwriting/index.html

 

Hourihan, M. (2002). What we're doing when we blog.

http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/javascript/2002/06/13/megnut.html

 

----------------

 

SPRING BREAK

 

----------------

Week 10 (3/27/03):     Analyzing text:  Perspective and metaphor.

 

            4th written report due: Image analysis

 

Read:  Fowler, R. (1991). 'Analytical tools: Critical linguistics' and 'Terms of abuse and of endearment.' Language in the News: Discourse and Ideology in the Press (pp. 66-90; 110-119). London: Routledge.

 

Lee, D. (1992). Metaphor. Competing Discourses: Perspective and Ideology in Language (pp. 65-90). London: Longman.

 

Ratzan, L. (2000). Making sense of the Web: A metaphorical approach.

Information Research 6(1). http://www.shef.ac.uk/~is/publications/infres/

 

----------------

Week 11 (4/3/03):       Culture and 'culturability'.

 

5th oral report: Analyze the text in your data

 

Read:  Barber, W. and Badre, A. (1998). Culturability: The merging of culture and

usability. Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Human Factors and the Web, June. http://www.cc.gatech.edu/gvu/people/albert.badre/abstracts.html

 

Duncker, E., Theng, Y-L. and Mohd-Nasir, N. (2000). Cultural usability in digital libraries. ASIS Bulletin 26(4). http://www.asis.org/Bulletin/May-00/duncker__et_ al.html

 

Heaton, L. (1998). Talking heads vs. virtual workspaces: A comparison of design across cultures. Journal of Information Technology, 13, 259-272.

 

Robbins, S.S., & Stylianou, A. C. (2001). A study of cultural differences in global corporate Web sites. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 42, 3-9.

 

----------------

Week 12 (4/10/03):     Interactivity. The Web as CMC reconsidered.

 

5th written report due: Textual analysis

 

            Read:  December, J. (1998). Web interactivity examples.

http://www.december.com/present/webint.html

 

Ha, L., and James, E.L. (1998). Interactivity reexamined: A baseline analysis of early business web sites. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 42(4), 457-474.

 

McGovern, G. (2002). The myth of interactivity on the Internet. http://www.gerrymcgovern.com/nt/2002/nt_2002_03_18_interactivity.htm

 

                        O'Sullivan, P. (1999). 'Personal Broadcasting': Theoretical implications of the

Web. http://www.ilstu.edu/~posull/PersBroad.htm

 

            Demonstration:  Jennicam

 

----------------

Week 13 (4/17/03):     Hypertextuality, linking and emergent configurations. Mapping the Web.

 

Read:  Kirschenbaum, M. (2000). Hypertext. In T. Swiss (Ed.), Unspun: Key Concepts for Understanding the World Wide Web (pp.120-137). NY and London: New York University Press.

 

Heylighen, F. (2000). Web connectivity analysis. Principia Cybernetica.

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/WEBCONAN.html

 

Kleinberg. J., & Lawrence, S. (2001). The structure of the Web. Science 294, 1849.

 

Gibson, G., Kleinberg, J., & Raghavan, P. (1998). Inferring Web communities

from link topology. Proc. 9th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia.

 

            Demonstration: Atlases of cyberspaces.

 

----------------

Week 14 (4/24/03):     Oral presentations of term paper research.  

 

----------------

Week 15 (5/1/03):       Oral presentations of term paper research.  

 

----------------

Week 16 (5/6/03):       Written term paper due by 5 p.m. on Tuesday, May 6.

 

----------------

 

 

Bibliography (includes references you might wish to use for your final research paper)

 

 

Arnold, J. & Miller, H. (1999). Gender and web home pages. http://ess.ntu.ac.uk/miller/cyberpsych/cal99.htm

 

Arnold, J. & Miller, H. (2000). Same old gender plot? Women academics' identities on the web. http://ess.ntu.ac.uk/miller/cyberpsych/gendplot.htm

 

Barber, W. and Badre, A. (1998). Culturability: The merging of culture and usability. Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Human Factors and the Web, June. http://www.cc.gatech.edu/gvu/people/albert.badre/abstracts.html

 

Bates, M.J. & Lu, S. (1997). An exploratory profile of personal home pages: Content, design, metaphors. Online and CDROM Review 21 (6), 331-340.

 

Bauer, C., & Scharl, A. (2000). Quantitative evaluation of web site content and structure. Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy 10, 31-43.

 

Bauer, M. (2000). Classical content analysis: A review. In M. Bauer & G. Gaskell (eds.), Qualitative Researching with Text, Image and Sound (pp. 131-151). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

 

Bell, A. (1993). Telling stories. In D. Graddol & O. Boyd-Barrett (eds.), Media Texts: Authors and Readers (pp. 100-118). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

 

Bell, A. (1998). The discourse structure of news stories. In A. Bell & P. Garrett (eds.), Approaches to Media Discourse (pp.64-104). Oxford: Blackwell.

 

Bell, P. (2001). Content analysis of visual images. In T. van Leeuwen & C. Jewitt (eds.), Handbook of Visual Analysis (pp.10-34). London: Sage.

 

Berners-Lee, T. (1996). The World Wide Web: Past, present and future. http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/1996/ppf.html

 

Berners-Lee, T. (2000). Weaving the Web. The past, present and future of the World Wide Web by its inventor. London: Orion Business Books.

 

Bretan, I.; Dewe, J.; Hallberg, A.; Wolkert, N.; and Karlgren, J. (1997). Web-specific genre visualization. Proc. of the 30th Hawaii International Conference on System Science, Jan.

 

Bucy, E., Lang, A., Potter, R.& Grabe, M.E. (1999). Formal features of cyberspace: Relationships between web page complexity and site traffic. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 50, 1246-1256.

 

Burbules , N. (1997). Rhetorics of the Web: Hyperreading and critical literacy. In Page to Screen: Taking Literacy Into the Electronic Era, Ilana Snyder, ed. New South Wales: Allen and Unwin. http://faculty.ed.uiuc.edu/burbules/ncb/papers/rhetorics.html

 

Burbules, N., and Callister, T.A. Jr. (Forthcoming).Who lives here? Access to and credibility within cyberspace. To appear in C. Bigum, C. Lanshear, et al. (eds.), Digital Rhetorics: New Technologies, Literacy, and Learning - Current Practices and New Directions. Canberra: Department of Employment, Education, Training, and Youth Affairs/Brisbane, Queensland University of Technology. http://faculty.ed.uiuc.edu/burbules/ncb/papers/who_lives_here.html

 

Bush, V. (1945). As we may think. Atlantic Monthly (July).

 

Cailliau, R. (1995). A little history of the World Wide Web. http://www.w3.org/History.html

 

Chandler, D. (1998). Personal homepages and the construction of identities on the Web. http://www.aber.ac.uk/~dgc/webident.html.

 

Cheung, C. (2000). A home on the Web: Presentations of self on personal homepages. In D. Gauntlett (Ed.), Web.Studies: Rewiring Media Studies for the Digital Age (pp.43-51). London: Arnold.

 

Choong, Y. Y. & Salvendy, G. (1999). Implications for design of computer interfaces for Chinese users in mainland China. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 11, 29-46.

 

Christensen, H. (2000). Sites for depression on the web: A comparison of consumer, professional and commercial sites. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 24(4), 396-400.

 

Codognet, P. (n.d.). The semiotics of the Web. http://pauillac.inria.fr/~codognet/web.html

 

Cook, G. (1992). The Discourse of Advertising. London: Routledge.

 

Coste, R. (2000). Fighting speech with speech: David Duke, the Anti-Defamation League, online bookstores, and hate filters. Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Los Alamitos: IEEE Press. http://www.computer.org/proceedings/hicss/0493/04933/04933032.pdf

 

Crowston, K., and Williams, M. (1999). The effects of linking on genres of Web documents. Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences. Los Alamitos: IEEE Press.

 

Crowston, K., & Williams, M. (2000). Reproduced and emergent genres of communication on the World-Wide Web. The Information Society16(3), 201-216. http://crowston.syr.edu/papers/Webgenres.html

 

Cubitt, S. 2000). Multimedia. In T. Swiss (Ed.), Unspun: Key Concepts for Understanding the World Wide Web (pp.162-186). NY and London: New York University Press.

 

Dean, J. (2000). Community. In T. Swiss (Ed.), Unspun: Key Concepts for Understanding the World Wide Web (pp.4-16). NY and London: New York University Press.

 

December, J. (1998). Web interactivity examples. http://www.december.com/present/webint.html

 

Dillon, A., and Gushrowski, B.A. (2000). Genre and the Web: Is the personal home page the first uniquely digital genre? Journal of The American Society for Information Science 51(2):202-205, 2000.

 

Döring, N. (2002). Personal home pages on the Web: A review of research. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 7(3). http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol7/issue3/doering.html

 

Duncker, E., Theng, Y-L. and Mohd-Nasir, N. (2000). Cultural usability in digital libraries. ASIS Bulletin 26(4). http://www.asis.org/Bulletin/May-00/duncker__et_ al.html

 

Erickson T. (1996) The World Wide Web as social hypertext.

http://www.pliant.org/personal/Tom_Erickson/SocialHypertext.html

 

Fallis, D. (2000). Veritistic social epistemology and information science. Social Epistemology, 14, 305-316.

 

Fink, D. & Laupase, R. (2000). Perceptions of Web site design characteristics: A Malaysian/ Australian comparison. Internet Research-Electronic Networking Applications and Policy, 10, 44-55.

 

Flanders, V. and Willis, M. (1998). Web Pages that Suck. Sybex.

 

Fleishman, G. (2001). Been 'blogging'? Web discourse hits higher level. Seattle Times, April 1. http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=ptblog01& date=20010401

 

Fleming, Jennifer. (1998). Web Navigation: Designing the User Experience. Sebastopol: O'Reilly.

 

Fowler, R. (1991). Analytical tools: Critical linguistics. Language in the News: Discourse and Ideology in the Press (pp. 66-90). London: Routledge.

 

Fowler, R. (1991). Discrimination in discourse: Gender and power. Language in the News: Discourse and Ideology in the Press (pp. 91-109). London: Routledge.

 

Fowler, R. (1991). Terms of abuse and of endearment. Language in the News: Discourse and Ideology in the Press (pp. 110-119). London: Routledge.

 

Garrand, T. (1997). Writing for Multimedia: Entertainment, Education, Training, Advertising and the World Wide Web. Boston: Focal Press. (Chapters 10-12)

 

Germain, C.A. (2000). URLs: Uniform resource locators or unreliable resource locators. College & Research Libraries 61(4), 359-365.

 

Ghose, S. & Dou, W. (1998). Interactive functions and their impacts on the appeal of Internet presence sites. Journal of Advertising Research 38, 29-43.

 

Gibson, G., Kleinberg, J., & Raghavan, P. (1998). Inferring Web communities from link topology. Proc. 9th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia

 

Graddol, D. (1993). The visual accomplishment of factuality.  In D. Graddol & O. Boyd-Barrett (eds.), Media Texts: Authors and Readers (pp. 136-159). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

 

Graddol, D. (1993). What is a text?  In D. Graddol & O. Boyd-Barrett (eds.), Media Texts: Authors and Readers (pp. 40-50). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

 

Ha, L., and James, E.L. (1998), Interactivity reexamined: A baseline analysis of early business web sites. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 42(4), 457-474.

 

Hasan, R. (1993). The texture of a text. In D. Graddol & O. Boyd-Barrett (eds.), Media Texts: Authors and Readers (pp. 74-89). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

 

Heaton, L. (1998). Talking heads vs. virtual workspaces: A comparison of design across cultures. Journal of Information Technology, 13, 259-272.

 

Herring, S. & Martinson, A. (ms.) Representational bias in Web pornography.

 

Herring, S., Martinson, A., and Scheckler, R. (2002). Designing for community: The effects of gender representation in videos on a Web site. Proceedings of the 35th Hawai’i International Conference on System Sciences. Los Alamitos: IEEE Press.

 

Hestflått, K. (2000). Strategies of inclusion in three Web-based magazines: For 'women', for 'the advanced' and for 'the home user'. Proceedings of SIGIS 2000.

 

Heylighen, F. (2000). Web connectivity analysis. Principia Cybernetica. http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/WEBCONAN.html

 

Hourihan, M. (2002). What we're doing when we blog. http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/javascript/2002/06/13/megnut.html

 

Internet Software Consortium. (2000). Internet domain survey. http://isc.org/ds/WWW-200001/report.html

 

Jewitt, C. & Oyama, R. (2001). Visual meaning: A social semiotic approach. In T. van Leeuwen & C. Jewitt (eds.), Handbook of Visual Analysis (pp.134-156). London: Sage.

 

Kapoun, J. (1998). Teaching undergrads WEB evaluation: A guide for library instruction. C&RL News (July/August): 522-523.

 

Kessler, B.; Nunberg, G.; and Schutze, H. (1997). Automatic detection of text genre. ACL'97, pp. 32-38, July.

 

Killian, C. (2001). Effective web writing. http://www.webtechniques.com/archives/2001/02/kilian/

 

Killoran, J. (1998). Under construction: Revision strategies on the web. http://comm.cudenver.edu/~jkillora/research/1998cccc.html

 

Kim, A.J. (2000). Community Building on the Web. Berkeley: Peachpit Press.

 

Kirk, E. (1996). Evaluating information found on the Internet.

http://www.library.jhu.edu/elp/useit/evaluate/

 

Kirschenbaum, M. (2000). Hypertext. In T. Swiss (Ed.), Unspun: Key Concepts for Understanding the World Wide Web (pp.120-137). NY and London: New York University Press.

 

Kleinberg. J., & Lawrence, S. (2001). The structure of the Web. Science 294, 1849.

 

Koehler, W.C. (1999). An analysis of web pages and web site constancy and permanence. Journal of the American Society of Information Science 50 (2), 162-180.

 

Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (1998). Front pages: (The critical) analysis of newspaper layout. In A. Bell & P. Garrett (eds.), Approaches to Media Discourse (pp.186-219). Oxford: Blackwell.

 

Kwasnik, B. H., Crowston, K., Nilan, M. and Roussinov, D. (2001). Identifying document genre to improve web search effectiveness. The Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 27(2).

 

Laurel, B. (1991). Computers as Theatre. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

 

Leach, J. (2000). Rhetorical analysis. In M. Bauer & G. Gaskell (eds.), Qualitative Researching with Text, Image and Sound (pp.207-226). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

 

Lombard, M., & Ditton, T. (1997). At the heart of it all: The concept of presence. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 3(2), 1-40.

 

Lyman, P. & Kahle, B. (1998). Archiving digital cultural artifacts: Organizing an agenda for action. D-Lib Magazine. http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july98/07lyman.html

                       

Marcus, A. (2001). International and intercultural user interfaces. In C. Stephanidis (Ed.), User Interfaces for All: Concepts, Methods, and Tools (pp. 47-63). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

 

Marcus, A. and Gould, E.W. (2000). Crosscurrents: Cultural dimensions and global Web user-interface design. Interactions, July-August.

 

Massey, B.L., & Levy, M.R. (1999). Interactivity, online journalism, and English-language web newspapers in Asia. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 76(1), 138-151.

 

McGovern, G. (2002). The myth of interactivity on the Internet. http://www.gerrymcgovern.com/nt/2002/nt_2002_03_18_interactivity.htm

 

McMillan, S. (2001). Survival of the fittest online: A longitudinal study of health-related Web sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 6(3). http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol6/issue3/mcmillan.html

 

Miller, H. (1999). The hypertext home: Images and metaphors of home on World Wide Web home pages. http://ess.ntu.ac.uk/miller/cyberpsych/homeweb.htm

 

Miller, H., and Mather, R. (1998). The presentation of self in WWW home pages. http://ess.ntu.ac.uk/miller/cyberpsych/millmath.htm

 

Mitra, A., & Cohen, E. (1999). Analyzing the Web: Directions and challenges. In S. Jones (ed.), Doing Internet Research: Critical Issues and Methods for Examining the Net (pp.179-202). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

 

Nelson, T. (1974). Computer Lib/Dream Machines. South Bend, IN.

 

Nielsen, J. (2000). Designing Web Usability: The Practice of Simplicity. Indianapolis: New Riders Publishing.

 

Nielsen, J. (2000). Global web: Driving the international network economy. http://www.useit.com/alertbox/980419.html

 

Nielsen, J., Schemenaur, P.J., and Fox, J.  (2002). Writing for the web. http://www.sun.com/980713/webwriting/index.html

 

O'Sullivan, P. (1999). 'Personal Broadcasting': Theoretical implications of the Web. http://www.ilstu.edu/~posull/PersBroad.htm

 

Ozok, A.A., & Salvendy, G. (2000). Measuring consistency of web page design and its effect on performance and satisfaction. Ergonomics 43(4), 443-460.

 

Penn, G. (2000). Semiotic analysis of still images. In M. Bauer & G. Gaskell (eds.), Qualitative Researching with Text, Image and Sound (pp.227-245). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

 

Porter, J., Sullivan, P., and Johnson-Eilola. (2001). Professional Writing Online. London: Longman.

 

Preece, J. (2000). Designing for Community. NY: John Wiley & Sons.

 

Rajagopal, I. with Bojin, N. (2002). Digital representation: Racism on the World Wide Web. First Monday 7(10). http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue7_10/rajagopal/

 

Ratzan, L. (2000). Making sense of the Web: a metaphorical approach. Information Research 6(1). http://www.shef.ac.uk/~is/publications/infres/

 

Robbins, S.S., & Stylianou, A. C. (2001). A study of cultural differences in global corporate Web sites. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 42, 3-9.

 

Sandberg, M. (2002). Thematic variation across personal homepages:  Constructing a professional self. Paper presented at the British Association of Applied Linguistics, Cardiff University. (Available from instructor.)

 

Schmidt-Isler, S. (2000). The language of digital genres. A semiotic investigation of style and iconology on the World Wide Web. Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Los Alamitos: IEEE Press. http://www.computer.org/proceedings/hicss/0493/04933/04933012.pdf

 

Shneiderman, B. (1998). Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction, 3rd ed. Ontario: Addison-Wesley Longman.

 

Simpson, P. (1993). Gender, ideology and point of view. Language, Ideology and Point of View (pp. 159-178). London: Routledge.

 

Simpson, P. (1993). Encoding experience in language: The system of transitivity. Language, Ideology and Point of View (pp. 86-118). London: Routledge.

 

Simpson, P. (1993). Pragmatics and point of view. Language, Ideology and Point of View (pp. 119-158). London: Routledge.

 

Sloop, J. (2000). Ideology. In T. Swiss (Ed.), Unspun: Key Concepts for Understanding the World Wide Web (pp.88-99). NY and London: New York University Press.

 

Solomon, N. (2001). Denial and the ravaging of cyberspace. http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0824-10.htm

 

Sullivan, P. (n.d.). Into print | Into webs: The consideration of visual rhetoric for print and online philanthropic documents. http://austen.english.purdue.edu/omni/ullabook.html

 

Sullivan, P. (2000).Practicing safe visual rhetoric on the web. http://austen.english.purdue.edu/handa.html

 

Swensen, J. (In press). For more information click here: Speech act theory, hypertext links, and Web site credibility. In S. Herring (ed.), Computer-Mediated Conversation. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. (Available from instructor.)

 

Tamplin, E., Marchwick, J. and Wanca, C. (1997). The diffusion of innovation: The Fortune 100 and the Internet. http://www.mindspring.com/~etamplin/research/5305.htm

 

Trochim, W.M.K. (1996). Evaluating websites.

http://trochim.human.cornell.edu/webeval/webintro/webintro.htm

 

Turner, G. (1993). Film languages. In D. Graddol & O. Boyd-Barrett (eds.), Media Texts: Authors and Readers (pp. 119-135). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

 

Van de Walle, B., and Bieber, M. (1999). Finding the underlying links within analytical Web applications. http://web.njit.edu/~bieber/pub/vb99-www/VB99-www.html

 

van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Semiotics and iconography. In T. van Leeuwen & C. Jewitt (eds.), Handbook of Visual Analysis (pp.92-118). London: Sage.

 

Wakeford, N. (2000). New media, new methodologies: Studying the Web. In D. Gauntlett (ed.), Web.Studies: Rewiring Media Studies for the Digital Age (pp.31-42). London: Arnold.

 

Weinman, L. (1998). Deconstructing Web Graphics: Web design case studies and tutorials (2nd edition). New Riders.

 

Woodard, C. (2000, March). Web survival guidelines for small magazines. Folio: The Magazine for Magazine Management 29, 81-86.

 

Woodruff, A., Aoki, P., Brewer, E., Gauthier, P., & Rowe, L.A. (1996). An investigation of documents from the World Wide Web. http://epoch.cs.berkeley.edu:8000/~woodruff//inktomi/index.html

 

 

----------------------------------

 

Questions? Contact Susan Herring: mailto:herring@indiana.edu

 

Syllabus last updated January 8, 2003.

 



[1] This course does not address reciprocally interactive text-based computer-mediated communication (CMC) such as takes place in threaded discussions and chatrooms. Methods for analyzing content of that type are taught in L597: Computer-Mediated Discourse Analysis.