In my first blog post, I stated my belief that the most
important division of digital literacies was between the sociocultural and the
functional. That division—between “how it works” and “why does it work this
way?”—has been a theme throughout the course. I already had some experience with
the Adobe product suite. Without such a steep functional learning curve, I
tried to focus as much as possible on tying the readings to our projects. I
spent hours making my collage in Photoshop only to decide that I had visualized
the enframing of my subject rather than the standing reserve. As frustrating as
it was, I scrapped the collage, and started from scratch. I would have been
much more reluctant to do that if I hadn’t had prior experience with Photoshop.
I imagine it would have been much more difficult to translate ideas as
difficult as Heidegger’s into a functional form that I was a novice at.
In this sense, my pre-existing literacy helped me to
accomplish my coursework. The software we used is also not cheap, in general.
The versions we used in class were available to us through a corporate
partnership the university had made. The link between access and literacy is
not a trivial one. We read more than once about how the technological wonders
of the digital era can be used to enforce existing social barriers. In my last
blog post, I questioned Selfe and Selfe’s assertion that the “cyborg” selves
created by our attachment to technology could break down those barriers.
And when barriers are broken, it doesn’t always paint a
pretty picture. I think Adobe Illustrator, which my group analyzed for our
project, is a great product. It’s fun to use, and makes beautiful art. I’m sure
many people would, and do, enjoy using it as part of their daily job.
Unfortunately, as we learned from our research, Illustrator’s ease of use may
be tied to how few people get to make a decent living as graphic designers.
Digital innovation isn’t neutral; it has effects on society and the people in
them.
I took the most pleasure in considering and demonstrating
how important design is. I was intrigued by the examples the Jones and Hafner
used in the Multimodality chapter, and I took it as a challenge to find my own
examples on the web and analyze how their aesthetic affects their
interpretation. I intended the website I made for our final project to
represent my ideal web magazine. I’m very aware of what size of type of fonts I
prefer, how much whitespace I want, and what kind of images complement the
text. I ended up replicating pretty closely the spatial logic that Jones and
Hafner explained to be evident in most of the modern web. I can honestly say I
did not intend this. I don’t think that’s a bad thing, either. It’s only on
reflection that I thought about why I had made what I had; a good example of
how important it is to have both sides of literacy.