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
----------------
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.