Sunday, December 17, 2006

Daniele's feedback

Certainly it is not so easy to be critical and constructive towards my colleagues' work. I believe that after Daniel Schneider's sardonic reprimand, all of us girded up our loins and, as a consequence, focused our attention on those aspects that both Daniel Schneider and Sarah put in evidence.
Like Francesca did, I do not want to signal the minimal imperfections made my companions as well, above all because I lack the grammatical or stylistic competence; but it is important for me to try to disclose the salient points which characterized the revision of our initial contributions.

- Cleaning and conciseness at visual level: the introduction of ordered paragraphs and the enunciation by means of points have given all the texts great readability;
- Graphic emphasis on keywords: the utilization of terms or expressions in bold constitutes an effective method to stress the fundamental aspects in each article.
- Internal hypertext links: as Daniel Schneider suggested on his e-mail, hyperlinks has been created in all the articles; hyperlinks that by binding the internal entries one another, serve to give edutech compactness and organicity;
- Reformulation of the references: in the light of what is written on OWL, all of us have changed the bibliographies in our articles, taking into account not only the address of the web site used as source, but also the author's name, the date of publication and the date of retrieval of the document.

On the whole, I think that after a first "experimental" attempt and the consultation of OWL at Purdue web site, all of us are ready to decently write on a wiki, maybe trying to be more critical towards sources (sources need to be evaluated and compared) and to avoid the excessive textualism.


No comments: