cee oh two (weirded) wrote in anti_illiteracy,
cee oh two

I was originally just going to post this to Gaia Online, but I thought this might be relevant to those of you fine folks who still visit this somewhat dormant community:

I was talking to my teacher in my Web Design class (for a project, we’re making a web page about two things we love about our school) about how, due to the limited number of classes we have to complete the aforesaid project, I felt I was wasting too much time on content, because I have a tendency to write elaborately about things. She said that usually, in web sites, people find other ways to convey their messages, such as pictures, as, on web pages, people don’t like to read too much. This got me thinking, since most people go to web sites for the content, wouldn’t more content be encouraged? Shouldn’t intelligence be praised on the Internet?

But, then, I thought, this is America. What was I thinking?

Illiteracy is almost always encouraged from the very beginning. If AOL was your very first introduction to the internet, you’re bombarded almost immediately with the dreaded acronyms, though, while convenient in some instances, some seem almost extraneous (WYSIWYG, anyone?). Sticky caps hamper one’s ability to read content on the Internet, yet it seems to be “tehkewlies”. In the face of such odds, one has to seriously wonder about the perception of intelligence on the Internet.

So, your thoughts:

Do you think, in general, intelligence is praised or derided on the Internet?

When you go on web sites, is content your primary concern? What makes a good web site to you?

Does less content attract you? Does more content discourage you from reading or visiting a web page? Does the sight of text in excess of a paragraph utterly terrify you?

Feel free to discuss anything else you feel is relevant or would contribute.
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic