E-Portfolio

http://dhsla101h.weebly.com/index.html

World's Worst Website

http://www.angelfire.com/super/badwebs/ 
 

This link is to the “World’s Worst Website,” created by a blogger who wanted to demonstrate just how badly a website can be designed.

If want to click on the link, you can see just how annoying and ugly it is. The wallpaper is distracting and the orange is not really that pretty of a color for a website. Speaking of colors, there are many clashing shades of blue, yellow, red, orange, lavender (I think), and others that just should not go together. The gifs and thumbnail graphics are so overused and distracting that it gives someone a headache after 30 seconds of looking over the page. In addition to the horrible visuals, the repeating music adds another layer of annoyance to the point where I had to mute my computer while writing this post.

One thing that amused me about this site is that it was created solely for the purpose of educating people about web design. It has a great number of do-nots incorporated into it so that people who are interested in web design have a good idea of what not to put into a website. Plus, the site gives the viewer tips on how to improve or fix errors that have probably been committed already.

So I suggest that if you want to get into web design, look at sites that are designed to inform and educate you about what to do and what not to do, like this one.

Snuggie

 

Ah, the Snuggie – the blanket with sleeves. We all know what it is and how ridiculous and unnecessary it is, but now that we all can see infomercials and commercials in a new light, it’s kind of entertaining to watch the commercial for the rhetorical devices it uses. So let’s explore them, shall we?

Right off the back, the commercial addresses a problem that affects many Americans today: the cost of living. It somehow links the ineffectiveness of regular blankets to heating costs. This is an example of the commercial outlining a problem that the consumer hasn’t thought about: your blanket doesn’t work, you’re forced to turn up the heat, and the heating bill gets more expensive. I bet none of you have ever thought of your sleeveless blanket as being a financial hazard. The ad forces you to make that connection so that the solution of buying a different type of blanket doesn’t sound like such a bad idea.

Throughout the ad, they mention problems that could be seen as minor inconveniences caused by sleeveless blankets, but nothing that seemed too troubling, such as the blanket slipping off (but notice how the woman is awkwardly trying to get covered with the regular blanket… she’s horrible at it!), the inability to hold a baby, the inability to hold a dog, the inability to eat or walk, etc. By outlining all of the things you could do with a backwards robe/can’t do with a blanket, the viewer is forced to see what could be slightly better and is automatically dissatisfied with his/her current blanket situation because the audience is being reminded of the minor inconveniences that don’t really cause many troubles. The more we think about them, the more bothersome they become.

At the end, the commercial tries to seal the deal with a free book light that’s given to anyone who calls within a certain time span. The company doesn’t want the audience to (understandably) double think their decision of buying a Snuggie, so they give an extra incentive to convince the consumer to buy.

I guess infomercials are kind of fun to watch now.

Dented Head Girl

                                          source: desigg.com
 

This is an advertisement trying to convince drivers to drive more safely in neighborhoods and towns. I don’t know about you, but I find this to be very effective because of the imagery and the look of plain sadness on the child’s face. This ad relies a lot on pathos and also requires the audience to think about what it’s saying, which leads to a more effective message.

First, let’s look at the text: “In town, car accidents don’t just happen to cars.” What this does is cause the audience to think about what or whom else it could affect. In this case, it’s little girls like this one pictured. The viewer now understands that cars could cause harm to children if driven too fast or recklessly. This leads to the image of the girl… and the giant dent in her head. The metallic indent is supposed to be like a dent in a car after an accident, which is kind of a cynical way to look at these kinds of collisions -- the girl is like a car. But it gets the point across.

The imagery is disturbing to say the least, and I think that’s what the makers aimed to do. Whenever we think of car crashes and accidents, we think of car-hit-car instead of car-hit-small child, and that’s what is being discussed here. One of the most disturbing things in this ad, besides from the gaping crater in the kid’s skull, is that this cute little girl is being looked at as a damaged car or a car part. The cuteness adds to the pathos because no one ever wants to see something adorable hurt or mistreated in any way.

OMG Santorum Actually Said that?!?!?

                                            Source: Facebook
 

THIS IS RIDICULOUS! HOW CAN ANY PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE SAY THIS… oh wait… it’s not real.

That was my reaction when I saw this ad because, as much as I dislike Santorum, anyone who would make this statement is mentally unstable. I thought this until I saw who the creators were: Americans For A More American America (a political satire site); however, I actually believed that Santorum said this for a second, just like a lot of other people on Facebook.

But I’m smart enough to point out satire when I see it, so why did this take me a while? This is because Americans For A More American America was clever when parodying Santorum. For the first part of the statement, the group used language that was similar to the way Santorum spoke. He actually said on his website that the Obama Department of Justice “seems to favor pornographers over children and families.” This is almost word-for-word with the first sentence of the parody, making at least the first part of it very believable. After that, the message becomes exaggerated with emphasis on gay pornography and calling the gay lifestyle a “deathstyle.” But what really made me feel stupid after realizing that this was fake was the last sentence: “This is the one of only a few things I see eye to eye on with the Taliban.” That hit it home for me and turned my rage into laughter. He’s crazy, but he’s not that crazy. But given what people already know about Santorum and his gay bashing and views on homosexuality, the statements aren’t that unrealistic. This causes people to think, “Yeah, he would say that,” which leads people to believe that the quote is real… that is until they read the last sentence… hopefully.

The thing I find interesting about this is that AFAMAA (I don’t feel like typing out the whole name again) was very sneaky in this parody with the gradually increasing exaggeration. This makes the audience not fully aware that what they’re reading is really a joke, thus causing anger in those who haven’t caught on yet.

Still, the name, Americans For A More American America, should trigger some questions about the legitimacy of the quote.

r/Atheism

I am addicted to Reddit.com. If you haven’t heard of it, it is basically a website where users submit links to share with the world. The links can be sad, funny, serious, stupid, political, religious, etc. Within Reddit are “subreddits,” which host links that cater to certain audiences. For instance, there is r/Gaming for video gamers, r/Politics for government nerds like me, r/Nosleep for those who like scary stories, and many others. There is one subreddit, however, that just doesn’t sit right with me. It’s called r/Atheism, and it’s exactly what it sounds like plus some.

Usually I don’t have a problem with atheists or agnostics, but some of the links on r/Atheism are just plain insulting and some of the users are straight-up bigots. Instead of talking about secular subjects (like perhaps public policy, scientific theories, or whatnot), they dedicate their time to bash and belittle anything religious with snarky and insulting messages. They generalize the entire Christian community by focusing on religious lunatics and non-mainstream Christian groups. In my eyes, this group of users is a bunch of bullies; they try to make themselves look smarter and better than everyone else by trying to break the spirits of everyone else.

Don’t believe me? Check out this picture that was posted 15 hours ago on r/Atheism and has gotten 565 up-votes since:

This is insulting because this guy thought that religious people were simpletons before visiting the site, and now he wants to avoid them like he’s afraid of them. Religious people aren’t idiots and we shouldn’t be feared, or avoided, or whatever that Yao Ming face means. R/Atheism creates bigots and this is an example of such an instance.

So, instead of bashing people of faith, why don't these people talk about useful and productive things? I know some religious groups give Christians/Muslims/etc a bad name,  but you're not doing any favors for the reasonable atheists' and agnostics' name, either.

If you want to check it out for yourself, here’s the link: http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism

Controversy! Woot!

So this week we read about controversy, and since I’m bored with advertisements, I’m going to give my two cents on some hot issues that have Americans talking these days.

Gay Marriage:

            Why not? What’s so wrong about it? As far as I’m concerned, I haven’t heard a single, valid argument that proves same-sex marriage is perilous to the United States. Well, I haven’t heard any arguments that didn’t hide behind religion. Many of these Republicans and conservatives that oppose gay marriage are backed by religious-right groups and only state religious reasons for their political actions. Under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, this is not acceptable in American politics and I don’t see why they can’t see that. I have a friend who is fairly conservative and he said that he doesn’t support gay marriage only because it’s not what the word means. Please. Words change all the time (I won’t go into details because I’m lazy). Also, marriage itself is viewed differently, culture by culture; some people have more than one wife/husband even though it’s not as usual as a union between one man and one woman.

            I don’t really understand why Republicans are so caught up on this issue. Instead trying to figure out a way to make health care affordable (they complain about Obamacare… what’s their suggestion?), or bringing jobs back to American soil (because “job creators” are so reliable on that), they are trying to fix social issues that have no effect on the well being of the country.

Abortion:

            I don’t like it, but that doesn’t mean that it should be illegal, at least not during the first trimester. By this time, a woman should be able to decide whether to keep the fetus or not if she is at all questioning it; however, in cases of incest and rape, there should be no restrictions on a woman’s right to choose. But then again, I am not a woman, so I have no credibility to voice my opinion on the matter. I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: this is a woman’s issue. It’s not a politician’s and not even the government’s.

Immigration:

            Immigrants built this country, and it’s dumb to forget that fact. This is why we should welcome anyone who wants to live here by giving illegal immigrants a way to gain citizenship instead of threatening them with deportation.

Medical Marijuana:

            There have been studies that prove that marijuana does have some beneficial properties for people with certain medical conditions. If people have good reasons for using marijuana for medical purposes, I have no problem with it. In fact, I support the legalization of marijuana with government regulation (similar as with alcohol). Not only would it cut crime rates, but also drug cartels and drug rings would die off because of lack of business. Plus, think of how much tax money the government could make from marijuana sales. A lot of people have a bad image of marijuana because of the perceived health risks involved, but the fact is, no one has ever died from an overdose, nor have any non-chronic users developed health issues from it. You know what’s a lot worse for people? Alcohol… people have been known to overdose on alcohol and that’s legal. Cigarettes are legal as well, even though there’s a strong connection between those and lung cancer. Let’s get away from rumors and misperceptions and look at the facts.

Contraception:

            It prevents the spread of STDs/STIs and it prevents unwanted pregnancy. Sounds pretty good to me! It should be taught in schools because kids are kids and they’re going to do what they’re going to do. I don’t believe an abstinence-only curriculum is effective because it doesn’t recognize that fact. Over 50% of people between the ages of 18 and 25 said that they have tried marijuana at least once in 2004 and that number is growing, and they have been told to not do it at all numerous times by schools. Just telling people to not have sex at all does not work. Yes, I know that the only 100% effective way to not get pregnant/contract an STD is to not have sex. Duh. But if I’m feeling stupid enough to try it anyway, I should probably know about the next best option.

            On the question of whether birth control should be covered by insurance companies, I believe it should. Besides from being a contraceptive, birth control pills can be an effective medication for certain health conditions. So, for the sake of health, not contraception, insurance companies should cover “the pill.”

Wow. This is a long post… so I’ll stop here. If you want to read more of my ranting, go to my passion blog. If you want, you can even start an argument with me! Those are always fun. :)

Graffiti Jesus

This work is by an artist who goes by Banksy, an underground graffiti artist who keeps his identity hidden. His works are usually satirical and this one is no exception. Although this image may cause controversy, because of the misuse of the image of the Crucifixion, Banksy is making a valid point about society and its treatment of holidays such as Christmas and Easter.

When you look at this image, you automatically notice three things: the image is mostly black and white, the gifts are the only things that have color, and there is no cross. If you are familiar with Banksy, you should not be surprised to see that the picture is almost colorless. Most of Banksy’s works are in black, white, and one other random color. The black and white is used to bring the audience’s attention to the colored parts of the image. In this case the third color is pink, which brings the viewer’s attention to the gifts. Banksy wants you to focus on the gifts because he wants you to see how Jesus and them clash together; they don’t go together. This is attacking the materialism that has taken over Christian holidays by illustrating that the two do not belong together. The exclusion of the cross symbolizes the exclusion of religious meaning behind the holidays. The combination of the presents and lack of cross basically tells the viewer that materialism has replaced the role of religion in Christmas and Easter, which means that the holidays lost their meaning in today’s culture. Though I may not agree with Banksy’s use of the Crucifixion, he makes a pretty convincing argument about today’s society and consumer holidays.

Our Personal Ethos

A few classes ago, we talked about how we build our own ethos or character to show a certain side of ourselves to the world. A lot of the things we wear and do in public are mostly because we want others to see a certain type of person. Look at anyone’s Facebook profile picture. There is a reason that person chose that picture to be the picture that people look at first when they click on your name. If the picture is a photo of the person with other people or at a party, the person might be trying to say, “I’m social, I like to have fun, and I have friends!” Or if a guy’s picture is him in a suit with a water gun and making a funny face, he may be saying, “I’m classy but I’m also funny.” However, wardrobe also is a way to build your character. A person wearing a soccer jersey may be telling people how athletic he is, or a person with a Penn State hat may be trying to emphasize his identity as a Penn State student. I will explain how my clothing choice was my attempt to build my own ethos.

This is kind of weird for me to do, because I never really thought about this until that class a while ago. When I was young, my clothes were nothing special. I just wore jeans, plain t-shirts, and the occasional hat. But something happened in my life that made me feel like I needed to look differently: I took up the drums and played in rock bands. As I became more involved in rock music, my appearance changed. My hair grew out and the clothes I wore weren’t the same as from my younger years. I was trying to fit the stereotype of a rock drummer, which is weird to think about, because I didn’t even notice it. As time went on, my hair got even longer, my clothes became darker, and my jeans became thinner (although they never shrunk to the “skinny” size, thank God), especially since I started playing hardcore and punk music. Subconsciously, I wanted people to know that I was a musician in a certain genre of music by wearing this clothing.

Even in college, I still sometimes wear these clothes. I’m not really sure why, but I think it’s because I still want to tell people that I play music, or maybe it’s because I’m used to wearing them. They’re actually really comfortable, now that I think about it.

Samsung Ad

                                                        Source: toxel.com
 

Since we’re covering advertisements, here’s another still one. I am particularly interested in this one because it combines two of my loves: electronics and music. This is an ad for the Samsung brand, which I find interesting because it isn’t advertising for one product.

When you look at this, you can see the phones arranged in such a way that it looks like the “sign of the horns.” This sign is usually seen at rock concerts, so it makes the connection between the phones and music. Also, by making the phones look like a hand, the company is saying something along the lines of, “Buy our cell phones, and you will literally have awesome music in your hands.” By showing different varieties of phones, Samsung is saying that many of their phones are capable of playing music, giving the consumer a choice of color and style. This gives the audience a sense of freedom of expression. If you look at the lighting of the image, the blue light surrounded by black in the background is similar to the setting at a rock concert or at a performance of some sort. This is telling the audience that they can use the phones to personally experience music just as if they were at a concert. Also, if everything else didn’t give the message away enough, the text on the bottom sums it all up: “Express your musical side.”

FedEx Express Ad

                                          Source: webdesignbooth.com

This week's post will be a bit short, but today I want to take a look at a still advertisement. As you can see from the logo on the box, this one’s from FedEx Express. From this ad, the company wants to convey the message that any item will be shipped quickly and safely. By making it look as if the vase is being exchanged from one pair of hands to the other, FedEx is basically saying, “The shipment will be so quick, it will seem like you are directly receiving it from the sender's hands.” Also, if you look closely, the ends of the vase look shiny and clean. Whether this is intentional or not, it gives off the impression that the shipping process will be so reliable (in either direction) that the product will end up in the same, if not better, condition as it was when it was packaged.

Notice the tone of the ad as a whole. The beige/tan backdrop makes one think of simplicity, comfort, and reliability. I think a reason for this is that it’s the same as the skin tone of the hands handling the vase. By doing this, it emphasizes that the reliability of the shipping is comparable to being handled by human hands. The simplicity of the background and the box is also contrasted by the intricate designs of the vase. In my eyes, this tells the audience that the delivery company doesn’t need to look fancy to provide quality service and to ship fancy things.

These are all just my observations and opinions. What do you think?

ASPCA Commercial

I remember watching television a while ago and enjoying the comedic genius of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. When it cut to commercials, I watched a depressing commercial that tugged at my heartstrings. It was an ASPCA ad starring Sarah McLachlan and her famous song, “Angel.” This commercial had images of suffering animals that were victims of animal abuse to the tune of the song. In the end, McLachlan appears with a dog saying that with “just 60¢ a day, you can help rescue animals from their abusers, and provide medical, food, shelter, and love,” all with a simple call to the phone number on the screen. This made me cry when I saw it.

This commercial does a very good job at making people want to donate to the ASPCA. It’s oozing with emotional appeal. By showing the hurting and abused animals, the audience feels their sadness. Plus, Sarah McLachlan’s song just exponentially adds to the depression: “In the arms of the angel, fly away from here, from this dark, cold hotel room, and the endlessness that you fear.” With these lyrics and the slow solo piano, the viewer is further put into the mindset of dismay for the cats and dogs that are displayed. The audience suddenly feels an emotional attachment to the hurting animals.

This ad also incorporates the “bandwagon” factor by adding a celebrity: Sarah McLachlan herself. This leads the audience to think, “Oh, since a famous person is promoting it, it must be worth considering!” Plus, to show that she loves animals, she has a cute dog next to her. People love following celebrities. Whenever Oprah suggests a book, the book sells more. If Morgan Freeman starts talking about penguins, people start to become interested in penguins. The point is, for some reason, celebrity involvement greatly heightens the public’s interest in the subject. So it was a good idea to include McLachlan in the ad.

The next thing this commercial does is guilt trip (for lack of a better word) you into wanting to donate to the cause. To do this, McLachlan explains that it’s only 60¢ a day, which leaves the viewer feeling selfish and lazy because it doesn’t seem like it takes a lot of money and time, especially if it’s only one phone call. The ad tells you straight up that there is no logical reason for you not to call and save animals. Now, I don’t mean to sound cynical, because it is a good cause, but I find it sad that people need to feel guilty to do something good for the world. Charity commercials should not have to do this.

These tactics aren’t new. Organizations such as Unicef, Christian Children’s Fund (now called ChildFund), PETA, and others use commercials with the same strategies because they know what gets people to participate. If a single screen commercial with a monotone speaker were to be aired, people would think nothing of it. But if sad music, pain, and celebrities were to be included, then people would pay attention, thus making it effective.

I Believe in Consideration

http://www.personal.psu.edu/dhs5105/blogs/consideration.mp3

Dishonesty and Hypocrisy

 

I’ve been following the Republican presidential primaries fairly consistently and I am appalled at what I’m seeing. It hurts me to watch these candidates, but I watch them anyway because politics is like crack to me. Right now I would like to focus on Gingrich and Santorum. I would like to highlight just a couple of things about these candidates that bother me: hypocrisy and dishonesty.

One thing that I cannot stand is dishonesty, especially if it’s by political figures. During one of the debates, I noticed an instance where a GOP candidate intentionally lied in response to a question. In South Carolina, CNN’s John King asked Newt Gingrich about his second ex-wife’s claim that he asked for an open marriage. Gingrich replied by saying that the allegations are false. He then attacked ABC News reporting on it: "Every personal friend I have who knew us in that period says the story was false. We offered several of them to ABC to prove it was false. They weren't interested, because they would like to attack any Republican." Newt lied on national television. After Gingrich’s answer, his campaign told King differently, stating that no witnesses were ever offered to ABC. This says a lot about his character if his own campaign’s correction is true. What if he really did ask for an open marriage? I know family values is not really Newt’s strong suit, considering his multiple marriages and extramarital affairs, but lying to the public about it while also attacking ABC for something they didn’t even do is a very low blow. I have never liked Gingrich, but any respect I have reserved for him is being drained every time I see him speak.

Hypocrisy is another thing that strikes a nerve in me when politicians are guilty of it. Rick Santorum is infamous for his condemnation of homosexuality, claiming that it isn’t “good for society” and comparing it to polygamy and bestiality. Ridiculous, right? Well, in Iowa, Santorum suddenly had a spark of sympathy for homosexuals. When asked about his position on Iran, Santorum criticized the Iranian government by calling it a “mullahcracy” that “tramples on the rights of women [and] tramples on the rights of gays.” Since when did Santorum of all people start caring about gay people? This is the same man who believes that the legalization of gay marriage would lead to the legalization of polygamy, pedophilia, and bestiality. This is the same man who said that same-sex couples with children would be robbing those children of they need and deserve. I don’t believe Santorum has sympathy for the wellbeing of Iranian homosexuals, since he doesn’t seem to care for American homosexuals. Because of this, he is a hypocrite.

There are many other things that bother me about the current GOP candidates, but there is just too much for one post. Maybe I will revisit this subject in later posts. However, I think there is one thing we can all agree on: Obama has to be one of the luckiest incumbents on the planet with this selection of opponents.

Nutty Rhetoric

I am a huge Xbox and Nintendo fan, so when Sony introduced the PlayStation Portable (PSP), I wasn’t too excited. They introduced it a few years ago, and along with it came ridiculous ads… and not in the good way.

The commercial I have posted is an example of this. If you couldn’t watch the commercial for some reason, it is a black-and-white ad starring two animated squirrels who look like they’re on an acid trip. One squirrel (we will call him Squirrel 1) invites the other (Squirrel 2) to go outside and play. Squirrel 2 rejects the invitation, stating that he’s busy playing “nut.” Squirrel 1 counters that by introducing “portable nut,” the “nut you can play with outside.” After the skit, a monotone voice echoes Squirrel 1 while a 2D PSP appears on the screen.

By now, if you’re like me, you should be confused and a little intellectually insulted by this ad. How could the writers think that this was a good idea? In my humble opinion, this commercial is one of the byproducts of this randomness-is-cool/minimalist era of advertising. What do cartoon squirrels and nuts have to do with PlayStation? Nothing, but it's random, so it must be funny to young people! We’ve all seen more of this in one way or another. Maybe you can recall the incredibly awkward and idiotic Hotpocket commercials where a person is doing some mundane task, such as going on a date or playing the flute, and a stereotypical, old Asian man pops up out of nowhere and yells something along the lines of “You no hungry for _____! You hungry for Hotpockets!” If you haven’t seen those, then you’re lucky. I feel like I became dumber by watching those commercials. Those ads were offensive, awkward, and didn’t even talk about the product. However, I need to give credit where it’s due; they really hit the nail on the head with the randomness factor.

But let’s take this back to the PSP commercial.

Maybe this is obvious, but these writers are clearly targeting a young audience. Although it may be hard to locate, there is some rhetoric in these ads.

Clearly, these advertisements are supposed to be comical while, at the same time, depicting a real-life situation faced by many video game-loving young people: a friend invites another to come outside and play, but the other friend wants to stay inside to play his immobile video game system. This feeling of contradicting wants is relatable to the viewer and forces the viewer to say, “How are they going to fix this?” The emotion of helplessness is then lessened by the introduction of the portable version of the same thing that was keeping the friend indoors. By implying that someone can play the game outside while spending time with his friend, wants are met and everyone is happy :)! However, if they did a plain commercial where they only provided the logical advantages of the PSP, it would bore their audience.

“So,” the writers thought, “why not add squirrels?!” By adding the squirrels, the writers appealed to the youthful, cartoon-loving side of the audience.

You may ask yourself, “Then what’s the point of the nuts representing video game systems?” Well, think about it. Do squirrels have the ability to enjoy video games? No. What can they enjoy? NUTS! So by setting nuts as equivalent to video game systems, the writers display how the situation is the same as the one many young people face.

 Plus, if the squirrels didn’t get the point across to some people, the monotone voice of a twenty-something year old male at the end of the ad outlines the point of the skit: “PSP: It’s like a nut you can play with outside” (mimicking Squirrel 1).

What I’m saying is that this commercial, no matter how stupid it may be, has some power to persuade consumers to purchase PSPs. The commercial has a clear goal of telling consumers what the benefits (or benefit) of the PSP are while appealing to the youth of the audience. It serves its purpose.

However, I do always wonder why the writers chose “It’s like a nut you can play with outside” as a tagline. I hope no one takes it literally.