I'd hoped to talk about the "look" of social justice sites in class, because here on the blog I'd like you to focus on the rhetoric of social justice. If you recall from our first day of class, rhetoric can be described as "the art or science of using words effectively to influence or persuade." Comparing the site you chose with EFF, how do they convey the importance of their missions in words? What key phrases can you identify as working to persuade the reader -- and how? Explain the effect of specific terms or phrases on the reader. What sort of emotions or realisation are they meant to provoke? What is particularly effective (and what is not)? How do the visual elements (color, images, spacing, relative size, etc.) enhance the message?
Once you're done -- enjoy your spring break!
By comparing the EFF and Adbusters it is easy to see that the EFF’s website is very user-friendly. By looking at the website we can see that they use a very basic color scheme consisting of red, blue, white, gray, and black, in comparison to the Adbusters website which consists of black, white, and yellow. The idea of color choice pulls the reader in and grabs their initial attention if all else fails to grab their attention (ie. content, pictures, graphics) the color choice will. The words that stand out to me the most in the Adbuster’s mission statement are; students, educators, advancement of new social activist movement, information age, power structures, and 21st century. In comparison to the EFF’s mission statement, which consists of the words; activists, consumers, beats back bad legislation, educates, non-profit, and individual donors. These words stand out and pull the reader in to keep them interested and wanting to read more about their mission, and by using such specific words that an individual can connect to instantly enables them to feel as though them reading the mission is of some importance. Both sites contain images, I feel as though the images, (spoofed) advertisements, and video clippings on the Adbuster’s website are more eye-catching to the viewer than the lack their of images on the EFF’s website. I think that the content on the EFF’s website is very valuable and useful information as if the information and content on the Adbuster’s site however, the EFF’s website’s lack of images/graphics/etc. enable the viewers to pay full attention instead of becoming distracted by images that capture their attention.
ReplyDeleteEFF.com conveys their importance to the public by telling the audience about themselves in their About section. They claim to have lawyers, policy analysts, activists, and technologists to support them, and provide protection to people with digital media. I could not find a clear mission statement, which is quite different than PETA. When you first go to the PETA website, their mission statement is clearly stated. EFF.com uses phrases like “When our freedoms in the networked world come under attack, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is the first line of defense” which explains to the reader that EFF would protect you as well. This phrase makes the reader feel safe, and secure with this site. This site is also very user friendly as Briana mentioned. The icons are very specific, and if you click on them they will show articles and litigations that focus on that topic. Like if you were to click on Free speech, then one would see 8 of the most recent litigations (although you can see more if you click on the “All Free Speech Cases”. One would also see news articles and “Other Resources”. The colors are mainly White, Blue and Red, which could stand for the colors of the American Flag. This is significant because it is a social justice website.
ReplyDeleteIn comparison with the EFF, Social Justice Challenge isn't as colorful. As Tiffany mentioned, the red, white, and blue colors, whether we take notice or not, can be taken as being patriotic. However, the Social Justice Challenge has a graphic at the top with paper figures holding hands. This is significant because it is sending a message about being unified. As far as what it says in words, the quote by U2 is a good eye catcher. "Where you live should not decide whether you live or whether you die." It gets you interested in what this site is really offering and makes you think. In addition, their mission statement on the side is meant to provoke the realization that you should be a part of this cause and you should be aware. It uses phrases like, "Reading and literacy can not only make us better individuals but it can also motivate us to effect greater changes around us."
ReplyDeleteThe EFF site does not have a clear statement or words that catch you right on the main page like the Social Justice Blog. When you go deeper and look at the links and read their "about" or "take action", you learn more about their mission, which is "defending your digital rights." The "take action" page commands us to "Tell the FCC" and "Don't let Google" do this or that. It clearly is trying to persuade readers to join its cause, and that's what a social justice website really wants to help its cause.
In comparing the Teachers for Social Justice with the Electric Frontier Foundation, I can clearly see some differences. I believe that the Teachers for Social Justice get their message across more clearly than EFF because at first glance, I can see what the TSJ's mission is. On the EFF page, it's not as clear. The EFF page is more appealing to the eye, but not to the mind. For one of these websites, it should not only catch your eye, but make sure that their mission statement is clear. I think what makes these websites so effective is colors, clear statements and links to link it to Facebook, Twitter and other such sites. I believe sites that have too many other links to other sites makes the viewer distracted by how much there is for them on the site. The site should have one focus, with pictures that get across the message clearly and effectively.
ReplyDeleteComparing EFF to Unicef you see that Eff's homepage is full of stuff and my mind races looking at it. I cannot concentrate on any one thing.The Unicef web page is better but not by much. It is not a cluttered but at the bottom of the page they show there top stories and the title is in blue but then the words are in a dull gray color and hard to read.
ReplyDeleteThere messages are both easily processable in there About Us links. The EFF makes there case clear as to what they are trying to do by saying. "EFF fights for freedom primarily in the courts, bringing and defending lawsuits even when that means taking on the US government or large corporations."
Unicef makes there cause a little more definite by staing "Doing whatever it takes to save a child" in the first line of the about us in big words. The EFF was alot harder to find as it was in the second paragraph. Unicef makes it clear right at the gecko what they are saying a representing.
The EFF uses things like Ipod and laptops things that everyone can connect with in there first line. And it draws a person in to read the rest because if it something that pertains to them they are more likely to be interested. Even though Unicef does not have any catchy phrases they are help children and it takes a very heartless person to not even read there about us on how they help them.
Unicef is trying to evoke the emotion of sadness. They want to show sad, neglected children and basically make them into a charity case. they want you to feel bad and then you will donate to the cause because you feel so bad for these children.
EFF did not really strike up any emotion in me, I didnt not feel anything besides the fact that they want my money to help them
win cases and thats not really a true emotion.
Unicef's bright blue and pictures of young children help make this site look like its a little more interesting. But I feel like unless you know what Unicef is you would never visit this site.
EFF first off the red was not helping me. Red usually evokes anger and it made me hesitant before I even looked further into the site. When I clicked on their blog section the first thing i saw was a giant Barney and I had no clue how that made this site look. Then I realized it was for there birthday party but still a little weird to be on there corporate blog.
I chose the American Friends Service Committee. The website is extremely colorful and interactive. It provides a lot of links and information for the viewer. However, I find it quite strange because the right half of the website is just white. EFF is also very colorful and interactive. It may be a little bit cluttered though. AFSC is more about touching the emotion of the reader. They talk about terrible events that are on going in the world that they are trying to change. I didn't really think EFF was trying effect the reader emotionally. After reading through AFSC's website I understood what their mission is. EFF's mission to be is still unclear to me. All I really saw were links to websites, blogs, and how to buy "EFF swag." You can definitely tell which website is a social justice website and which is a corporate website.
ReplyDelete