For your Partnered #DH project Critique essay, you were asked to use Shannon Mattern’s criteria for evaluating Multimodal Student Work and the peer review criteria from Galey & Ruecker’s “How a Prototype Argues”, (2010) to evaluate selected digital humanities projects. This is an important exercise, especially to those new to #dh, as it helps you think about what does and doesn’t work, about the usefulness of various genres of projects, and about how current projects might be altered to become more useful, more user- friendly, and/or more academically rigorous. As we critique existing projects, we come to a better grasp of how we might develop and manifest our own projects. An important next gesture, then, is for us to establish assessment (read: grading) criteria for our own final transmedia projects. We’ll start where we’ve already started: we’ll look at Mattern’s comprehensive criteria and chose those that best suit our needs. Then we’ll add more, delete the unnecessaries, and edit those we want to tweak. Here I’ve posted my annotated copy of her list. These criteria are now posted on Rap Genius. Your assignment, to be completed within the next two weeks, is to add at least four annotations to that Rap Genius page expressing your ideas and opinions about these criteria. You can add criteria or vote for a deletion. You can suggest edits or request justification for why I’ve highlighted certain Search Recent Posts Diego Slide Pooja Final Present 1 – Side Presentation Greg’s One Slide Presentation Portal 2 Project: 1 Slide Presentation Recent Comments direct sales training on Daytripper Blog Post Zenobia Huse on Daytripper – Search TECHNOSCIENCE / ECOMATERIALITY / LITERATURE Evaluating Digital Humanities Projects: Collaborative Course Assessment HOME SYLLABUS SCHEDULE ASSIGNMENTS AR_BLOG https://sites.duke.edu/lit80s_01_f2014 http://sites.duke.edu/lit80s_01_f2014/partnered-dh-project-critique/ http://journalofdigitalhumanities.org/1-4/evaluating-multimodal-work-revisited-by-shannon-mattern/ http://llc.oxfordjournals.org/content/25/4/405.abstract http://genius.com/tags/poetry https://sites.duke.edu/lit80s_01_f2014/2014/12/03/diego-slide/ https://sites.duke.edu/lit80s_01_f2014/2014/12/03/pooja-final-present/ https://sites.duke.edu/lit80s_01_f2014/2014/12/03/1-side-presentation/ https://sites.duke.edu/lit80s_01_f2014/2014/12/03/gregs-one-slide-presentation/ https://sites.duke.edu/lit80s_01_f2014/2014/12/03/portal-2-project-1-slide-presentation/ http://www.pajeuwebtv.com.br/profile.php?u=JonelleSaav https://sites.duke.edu/lit80s_01_f2014/2014/10/17/daytripper-blog-post-2/#comment-2229 http://monstervacuum.com/ https://sites.duke.edu/lit80s_01_f2014/2014/10/18/daytripper-graphic-novel-annotation/#comment-2098 https://sites.duke.edu/lit80s_01_f2014/ https://sites.duke.edu/lit80s_01_f2014/syllabus/ https://sites.duke.edu/lit80s_01_f2014/schedule/ https://sites.duke.edu/lit80s_01_f2014/assignments/ https://sites.duke.edu/lit80s_01_f2014/ar_blog/ sections. The criteria I feel most important to our project are highlighted and annotated below. I welcome all comments. Go! Gould Annotations – Click and Zoom to read Gould annotations page 2 Graphic Novel annotation Concerns Over Sexuality In Game Spaces | fourgirlsblogmcc on Gamer Theory Critique Pooja Mehta on Infinite Twitter Poem Amanda Starling Gould on Powerful Digital Representation Archives December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 March 2014 Categories Uncategorized Meta Log in Entries RSS Comments RSS WordPress.org http://sites.duke.edu/lit80s_02_f2013/files/2013/09/Augmenting-Realities-Final-Project-Criteria_Page_1.jpg http://sites.duke.edu/lit80s_02_f2013/files/2013/09/Augmenting-Realities-Final-Project-Criteria_Page_2.jpg https://sites.duke.edu/lit80s_01_f2014/2014/10/18/daytripper-graphic-novel-annotation/#comment-2098 http://fourgirlsblogmcc.wordpress.com/2014/11/17/concerns-over-sexuality-in-game-spaces/ https://sites.duke.edu/lit80s_01_f2014/2014/10/06/gamers-theory-critique/#comment-66 https://sites.duke.edu/lit80s_01_f2014/2014/10/24/infinite-twitter-poem/#comment-51 http://texturalliterature.blogspot.com/ https://sites.duke.edu/lit80s_01_f2014/2014/09/15/powerful-digital-representation/#comment-22 https://sites.duke.edu/lit80s_01_f2014/2014/12/ https://sites.duke.edu/lit80s_01_f2014/2014/11/ https://sites.duke.edu/lit80s_01_f2014/2014/10/ https://sites.duke.edu/lit80s_01_f2014/2014/09/ https://sites.duke.edu/lit80s_01_f2014/2014/03/ https://sites.duke.edu/lit80s_01_f2014/category/uncategorized/ https://sites.duke.edu/lit80s_01_f2014/wp-login.php https://sites.duke.edu/lit80s_01_f2014/feed/ https://sites.duke.edu/lit80s_01_f2014/comments/feed/ https://wordpress.org/ Gould annotations page 3 To these, let’s add: A consideration of Digital Preservation: Let’s think about how we might best preserve our content as a whole. And let’s consider best practices for saving our own personal work. Remember, it is always best to write your webcontent using a saveable (and backup-able) document source, like Word or Google Docs, that you can save, store, and archive. Should our site go down or become compromised, you’ll want to have a backup copy of your hard work. Make sure you download a copy of your media element if possible and/or store an extra copy in the cloud. Let’s think too about zombie links and dead sites. asg Comment Name Leave a Reply Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked http://sites.duke.edu/lit80s_02_f2013/files/2013/09/Augmenting-Realities-Final-Project-Criteria_Page_3.jpg Copyright © 2017 All rights reserved. Designed by Email Website POST COMMENT Technoscience / Ecomateriality / Literature is powered by WordPress at Duke WordPress Sites. Please read the Duke Wordpress Policies. Contact the Duke WordPress team. https://sites.duke.edu/lit80s_01_f2014/feed/ http://twitter.com/stargould http://www.nattywp.com/ https://duke.edu/ http://wordpress.org/ http://sites.duke.edu/ http://sites.duke.edu/policies/ http://sites.duke.edu/help/