Module:
Comments
by VP
Trying
to put content on one side, this is an excellent little web site, particular
strengths being:
·
Well-chosen topic for a web-presentation! Serious philosophy students chipping in
their bit to an interest that has a wide web following.
·
Clean, attractive, lucid appearance.
·
Navigation appropriate to the purpose –
outstandingly intuitive.
·
Technically the pages work - navigation
professional.
·
The attractiveness of the index page particularly is
key – it makes a visitor who is half-way interested
want to go in.
·
Use of graphics restrained and highly effective.
·
The individual sections are each clearly structured
and manageable for the inexpert visitor.
Maybe
these virtues are slightly offset by the fact that are
not many moving parts? – Eg absence of bells and whistles Well, mostly the cleverness of design is
itself responsible for the appearance that there are just a few manageable
things being offered. One might compare
websites produced under this banner in past years – though bearing in mind the
general advance of the web year on year.
Suggestions:
On
the other hand, each section of text is presented simply as a column of
text! Ie there is no attempt to do
other than present continuous text cleanly.
The challenge of presenting ideas / facts in a web page is to exploit
the fact that you are not bound by the constraints of print media but can ask
afresh the question: how to get stuff across effectively?
Unhappily,
I think the constraint on this front comes from the requirement that each
individual on the team should have a bit that can be separately assessed as
theirs, and that this will be assessed on its ‘intellectual’ merits as a
presentation of philosophical ideas.
It is easy to see this requirement as asking for a sort of essay from each individual, albeit
published on the screen. I myself would
like this requirement to be dropped.
I
think it’s quite a defect though that the different pages show no signs of
collaboration between the authors.
There are separate discussions of personal identity on the Blade Runner
and Paycheck pages and they relationship is not at all complimentary – they
just make the same points in much the same way.
68%
VP
3 June, 2005
RF's
contribution
Blade Runner
Some
points as I read through:
Clean
efficient prose throughout, at home on the web. Completely attuned to what visitors will
find accessible.
Section on Philosophical
issues
Be
nice to have a reference to, say, Locke on human identity, and in general to
classical or accessible commentary literature, to give visitors attractive
avenues to explore next? Just a list of
links would have been worthwhile? But see below.
Links
to autism studies etc would be well worthwhile ?
I
like the way you give a clear unambiguous statement at the end of each section
of what you think the point in summary is.
Yes,
Obviously
what you write here is based on a detailed and secure knowledge of the books
and the film.
Two
things I would highlight when considering future work of this kind:
1. Not sure your decision to abjure links was
for the best. But it certainly gives a
wonderful limpidity to your presentation, and avoids weighing your reader down
with the deadening thought that to understand anything s/he has got to plough
through a mountain of follow-up reading.
I quite like avoiding that in an introduction.
2. Did you consider having a separate short
page for each ‘issue’? - Like they do
in the web programming tutorials? I’m
attracted to that style on the whole.
The
task set was to create a web introduction to the philosophical
dimensions of Blade Runner that would be accessible to peers without a
backgroiund in philosophy. I think your
work here fulfills this objective quite admirably.
70%
Many
thanks
VP
3 June, 2005
IW's contribution
Minority Report
Some
points as I read through:
A portfolio of pages which together offer a
stimulating introduction to the film and book – and their philosophical issues. Good work.
You
leave the question of the threat determinism levels at ethics till the last
moment, as I suppose a coup de théatre, and that leaves you no scope for real
discussion. But it might cross
visitors’ minds earlier and make them frustrated over the issue you do explore, the question of whether
anticipatory punishment is ethically justified.
For
web presentation you might have considered breaking up the pages as you have
them into more user-friendly junks? And
linked to things that would take topics further?
Your
plot summary was impressively thorough – it could even be off-puttingly
detailed…-?
65%
Many
thanks
VP
3 June, 2005
LR's contribution
Total Recall
A
terrifically confusing plot set out almost with something verging on clarity –
congratulations!
An interesting and potentially engaging discussion
of the philosophical dimension of identity too. I like the way you take the opportunity to
introduce Aristotle. I suppose if you
had gone further and linked your discussion of memory to Locke it would have
been too heavy as an accessible introduction -?
I
think you should probably have broken the philosophy discussion up a bit – it’s
long and demanding for an accessible web page, don’t you think? But I note your
attempt – successful I think – to hit an appropriate unsolemn tone with your
prose.
The
other point is your not going in for links.
I can think of reasons why you might have taken this as a policy
decision, but I’m not sure I agree with them.
You yourself make much more of the philosophy than the others and links
– esp to Aristotle – would surely have been
appropriate to this way of interpreting the brief - ?
Oh
– I see you do put in references for
the biography bit – then why not for the philosophy?
I
like the biographical page.
Many
thanks
63%
VP
3 June, 2005
J's contribution
Paycheck
You
tell your visitors about the plot and you identify a number of philosophical
problems it prompts, so basic mission accomplished.
I
think the result is a bit minimal though!
Maybe you ran out of time, a precious commodity in any world.
Some
particular points:
1. Doesn’t your plot summary end a bit
abruptly?
2. Your discussion of personal identity covers
the same ground as the one on the Blade Runner page, which doesn’t say much for
the team effort.
3. I do like your involving Locke though – this
seems to me to have been an opportunity not to have missed.
In
general though you ‘raise’ a number of philosophical issues you don’t run with
them at all. I think you should have
taken each at least a little bit further.
48%
Many
thanks
VP
9 June, 2005