Each week we will do read and response. Try to read at lease one writing every week, and your responses can be posted here. Read and response is not required, but please do the best you can.
Before the class, please read through all the responses, try to prompt questions(to your classmate or to the reading) and post it in comments.
The articles provided me with numerous metaphors that deepened my understanding of websites. One thing that was really helpful in the first article was the paragraph that explained what a website, URL, server, domain name, IP, and links are and how they are connected with each other. The author really highlighted the role of a designer when making websites, even stating that her clients want their website to do the job of“setting the record straight” on who they are and what they do.
I actually liked this article, and it gave an interesting insight into what a website actually is. Especially today when a website can be pretty much anything, and I liked Schwulst's analogy about a website being kind of like a puddle--"ephemeral" was a good word for it. The internet is always changing, so it makes sense that a website should too. I also think it's crazy how the internet is only 29 years old; with how it looks today, it seems like it's been around for much longer.
The first article was really interesting to read because it pulled me back into somewhat of a simplicity mindset. I liked where she was saying how people feel this pressure today but it really shouldn’t be stressful, it should be a place where artists are just creating. I loved how she was saying that we need to take the web back and allow mistakes because that shows that it’s growing. Overall, it gave me a sense of calmness and peace to remember that we don’t need to please what society tells us is needed.
The second article did a really well job of being simple and to the point of what a website is. I think it is a great place to refer back to and also it’s a simple read and to the point.
Edit
I really liked how the first article presented so many metaphors connected to the purpose of a website. It really shows the diverse range of how a website can serve as both an art form and a technological tool. I also liked how Schwulst incorporated the idea of individualism throughout the discussion; I began to realize the importance of the relationship between creator and audience, and how accessibility, user experience, and progression are crucial to not only creating but also maintaining a website. In the second article, a point really stood out to me:“websites are inhabited”. Growing up at the same time as the internet has really shaped my outlook on what I perceive as design and technological aesthetics.
The first website provided me many insight about the possibilities in how a website could be. The author used close, life-related metaphors to explain to us how a website should be and also reminded the audience that we should not be afraid of the web and instead look at it as somewhere where artists create. I like the analogy of the puddle and the garden, as sometimes websites burst out all a sudden like the autumn season but sometimes the gardener(designer) has to work on it for a long time in order to get a breakthrough like in the winter.
I really enjoyed all of the analogies. Sometimes it’s difficult to think of the internet as something natural like a plant or a garden but it makes sense. I also really liked the analogy of a room. I think this is very fitting for what a website is, a space to sit and observe. Not every room looks the same and holds the same energy just like websites, they are catered to an audience. I was also kind of shocked at the fact that the internet is only 29.
I found Laurel Schwurst’s writing to be an easy read that was very informational. I expected it to be a hard read considering it’s an article about coding and websites, but I actually learned a lot. In fact, the article inspired me to create MY website instead of one that follows what other people would like. In the other article I realized that websites are more physical than I thought. I like thinking of the internet as one large city and each type of site is a different building. I wish I could visit that city, it would be crazy! Is the deep web a whole different city or just a neighborhood of“Internet City”?
Schwult’s article explains the purpose and structure of websites simply yet coherently. She uses metaphors like plants, houses and puddles to make the complex concept of webpages more easier for us to understand. I agree with her statement“the web is what you make of it”, I believe it’s a vessel that holds a huge amount of content, that ranges from educational to entertainment. It’s up to the user how they decide to use the internet.
It's interesting to see how websites are viewed as a cultural artifact, which is appropriate, considering that these built realities represent a different world and can be accessed anywhere by anyone. A website creator then becomes both the author and creator to establish their identity as an object and subject.
I found the first article quite intriguing as it spoke about taking back the web from big corporations. The web was designed as more of a free space but large social media platforms have used it as a marketing tactic to become richer.
The article by Laurel Schwulst not only gave a deeper insight into web design, but also allowed you to sort of view websites as spaces for yourself to explore and create for others. She goes through comparisons that make you think way broader about web design and almost forces you to become more openminded.
The web design as the architecture reading was helpful in regards to the general understanding of a website as well as how one can view the content through the structure.
Both of the articles were really interesting especially“Web Design as Architecture”, comparing the web design world to architecture form. The website is pretty simple, readable, and the most important thing is each sentence has a dense idea. Compared to the first one, it talked about the general idea of what websites are like. I thought a website is only for professional coders but after reading the articles, the idea of the website came as a comfortable space where you share your own idea and provide information just like learning portfolio. I think artists should create websites to show off their works, ideas, or maybe the research of random topics.
Both websites were similar to each other but their format is completely different.“Web design as architecture” is more clear and gives facts but the other one is longer and more explanatory. I found“Web design as architecture” article interesting because it compares something virtual(websites) that is something that is in real life(buildings). The other article focuses more on the root of websites while also comparing it to real life objects.
it is very interesting that Schwulst points out that websites can be anything. i have never thought in that way before and I think websites are just the product of technology, it is definitely dead but not alive. However, this article changes my mind, the imperfection and the interactivity of it makes it live. We can keep edit it thus it evolves, grows and never dies even when we die.
This article is compelling to me. I loved Laurel’s idea about websites are inherently unfinished and imperfect.
She describes her website as a shifting house next to a river of knowledge, that’s why websites never reach a perfect state or extreme. One can always go for better. Comparing a website with other artworks such as painting or ceramic, the difference is website is variable，while others are not. Once the paint dries, it is difficult to cover, just as ceramics cannot change their shape once they are fired.
I also agree that websites have unlimited possibilities. Just as Laurel's website may be a house near the river, and mine may be a color palette.
Week 1