As is often the case, I find myself thinking about the websites I frequent the most when reading each week’s material. Eric P. Kumpf’s article “Visual Metadiscourse: Designing the Considerate Text” (Technical Communication Quarterly 9.4) reminded me of all the horrible websites I have seen, and why others keep me going back time and time again. Kumpf offers a definition of metadiscourse, and cites several scholars who further “explain its usefulness during the writing process for helping readers interpret and understand textual content” (p. 401)

Kumpf offers an alternative to Vande Kopple’s “seven classifications [for metadiscourse],” in which he discusses the application of ten different “ad hoc categories” (p. 404), which I think are far more relevant than Vande Kopple’s. Whereas an inappropriate font type in an essay is somewhat irritating, it is something the marker must overcome, but a similarly irritating font type used on a website will undoubtedly result in the user leaving.

• First impression: the curb appeal Kumpf speaks of is certainly something I have experienced, whether it is because of an improper font type or a ‘wall’ of text, I am almost certain to leave. “We see documents before we read them: this initial encounter evokes an aesthetic response but one with immediate practical consequences.” (p. 406)
• Heft refers to the wall of text I spoke of previously, some websites are far too like a ‘Word document,’ and I often skim read them before scrolling to the bottom.
• Convention refers to expectations we might have; for instance I would expect a news website such as http://news.bbc.co.uk/ to show a main headline with several other stories beneath, easily categorized. However, as Andrew’s presentation showed last week, the Fox News website was disappointing and did not support the expectations I had of a news website.
• Chunking is another? tool that Kumpf cites to ease the reading of texts. It is the spaces between words that allow us to navigate and understand what we have read, and effective use of chunking online allows us to better understand content.
• External skeleton refers to the ‘bones’ of the text, i.e. page numbers and headings. I feel this is less important? (encountered) on the internet, as page numbers are somewhat obsolete but effective tagging of pages helps readers separate information.
• Consistency is something we come to expect from regularly frequented sites. It would be discouraging to go to a website that changes repeatedly. While updates are necessary, a familiar (sense) WC? must remain.
• Expense incurred to create a website while sometimes obvious is not always necessary. Take for example “Oh No They Didn’t” http://community.livejournal.com/ohnotheydidnt/ - a live journal community created for free to share celebrity gossip. The layout is simplistic and almost text-free, with large chunks of text hidden behind cuts. The photos posted are of a high quality and commenting is encouraged. If one were to compare “Oh No They Didn’t” to “Perez Hilton,” (the most frequented gossip website) one would notice the expense differences, though that is not to say that the former is not effective.
• Attraction “describes the ability to maintain readers once engaged.” This is key to the understanding of Kumpf’s ten ad hoc categories, I feel. Without a good first impression, supported by clever use of chunking and consistency, attraction cannot be maintained. I have been guilty of looking only at photos, and skimming the text, as Kumpf describes when referring to The National Geographic, which uses a photo on every page to draw readers in, encouraging them to read further.
• Interpretation is key to understanding the text by way of graphs/charts, etc. If I were shown a graph detailing the current economic crisis on the BBC News website, I would expect an apt description to explain the graph, as well as putting the article into context.
• Style ultimately is the creator’s choice. The analogy of “wearing a striped shirt with plaid pants,” amused me. Often there is no accounting for taste, and if a website looks imperfect, my interest is lost.
The internet allows us to be choosy, and while many website fail the ones that work, work well, and for a reason. Kumpf’s article provides ten ad hoc categories that if followed would help create more easily read text’s online. The relationships we have with our most frequented websites, be it mindless celebrity gossip (of which I am fan) or intellectually gripping news websites are personal, and while I recognise how some author’s do not fulfil Kumpf’s categories, I like them nonetheless . “Oh No They Didn’t” is not particularly stunning, in fact it follows a very basic blog format, but it is one of my most frequented websites.