What I Heard:
My concern going into peer review was my tone when talking about the constraints in my web essay. I ran into a lot of constraints on my tool, MASHER, and found myself frustrated with the tool at times. It was reassuring to hear from Miranda that my tone sounds professional and the frustration does not read in my writing. We talked about possibly organizing my affordances/constraints section in a more linear way, following the video-creation process of the tool. I am going to take this into consideration and play around with that, but we also went back to the design segment (which I am still working on) and I think I am going to walk readers through the process there. She also asked that I explain the development that MASHER is undergoing right now and that I do so in a more understandable and clear way.
What I Need To Do:
In terms of the project, I still need to finish the Modes of Communication section of my essay (I haven’t quite grasped how I want to organize it yet) and my presentation visual. I have changed my mind and I think I am going to use Powerpoint- my idea of using MASHER, itself, has gone out the window due to the limiting factors the tool has on it and the exportation troubles I have faced.
In response to peer review today, I need to reorganize and complete the design portion of the essay, explain the development of the website more clearly, and consider using the rhetorical situation section of my essay as my introduction. I am also, of course, going to go through my writing and edit it, becoming more specific and making sure it is fluid.