 |
| Bleue, L'eau. "Domestic Life" 2/19/2011. via Flickr. Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic |
- What do the conventions of this genre - the Quick Reference Guide - seem to be?
- Each of the QRGs is written to provide information to the reader. They all use a type of listing system for the main topics in helping to define their talking points. The listing systems vary, from numbered to people's names, but each utilizes it. They also seem to present data without bias, though the Presidential rundown deviates from this a little.
- How are those conventions defined by the author's formatting and design choices?
- For the stem cell article, the author breaks down the list by types of stem cells. The author for the Gamergate piece breaks the article into headlines in a logical chronological order. The article on Puerto Rico debt using numbers in an apparent highest priority scheme. The Sochi Olympic ceremony is divided chronological by appearance of the items needing further articulation. Finally, the 2016 Presidential who's who is broken down by political party and then by individual candidate with a repeated data set for each.
- What does the purpose of these QRGs seem to be?
- Each of the QRGs is designed to provide further information on a given topic. The appear to meant for informational purposes only.
- Who is the intended audience for these different QRGs? Are they all intended for similar audiences? Or different? How and why?
- Each articles seems intended for general public use. They are providing information to any reader who would like to know data on the given topic. Though the topics vary and are probably geared toward one demographic more than another, they all represent information. It would be hard to imagine that a large percentage of people would be worried about Gamergate and also Puerto Rico's debt situation, the articles make no differentiation as to who they are intended for other than topic. The styles made be more geared toward certain types though. For instance, the stem cell article is written very analytically with jargon and photos you would find in a biology class while the Gamergate article looks like a Pop-Culture piece referencing tending issues of the fringe.
Reflections after peer review:
- After reviewing my peers perspectives on QRFs, I have started to rethink my views on intended audiences. I still believe that any information is for general consumption but as an author you need to tailor your work to the majority of readers to keep interest in the topic and you. None of the QRFs we viewed were identical. Each was styled a different way and rather than this being due to the author's whims I'm know thinking it is also including the preferences or expectations of the majority of the readers.
- The review of my peers work definitely opened me up to some new ways of thinking and changed how I will approach similar pieces in the future. I would like to thank those who I commented on and commend their excellent insight.
- The peers I reviewed.
I agree with your input about how QRGs having a listing system for their main topics. This is an effective way of informing readers about a brief topic in the entire guide. I also agree with your response where you talk about how each article seems to be intended for general public use. Presenting information in QRG with a very limited to non-existent bias is an important quality to a QRG. Good response!
ReplyDeleteSomething I also picked up on was the broadness of the audience for these QRGs. Although each QRG may be on a specialized topic, they each are worded and formatted so that any reader with an interest can approach the article and get a basic understanding of the topic at hand. I'm glad that someone else also picked up on that!
ReplyDeleteI feel like the broadness of the audience thing is accurate, but we also should consider the fact that somebody reading a QRG probably has a special type of interest. Most people with significant prior knowledge of a subject would go find something a little more detailed and substantial than a QRG, but there still has to be some level of interest for them to even choose to read the QRG.
ReplyDeleteThe point that you made regarding format and design choice is what stood out to me the most. I agree that the listing of information is done purposefully and according to what type of information is being presented. It essentially guides the audience through the topic so anyone can briefly read and process the information.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree that bias should be removed from QRG's. Opinions bog down the facts that should be presented. I am having difficulty separating my opinion from the facts that I should be focusing on, but ill be more cognizant as I edit.
ReplyDelete