I liked the more in-depth discussion on the topics discussed in the previous readings and the analyses of each. While the other readings gave great explanations of the processes of creating visual rhetoric via different modes, I enjoyed seeing real examples broken down and discussed piece by piece. The key terms, audience stance, transparency, and hybridity, gave a thorough definition to what we discussed in class yesterday about the importance of audience, as each of these are based on the intended or desired audience. With the examples given in the paper, I think that Boese’s interactive web dissertation was extremely fascinating, but too complicated, at least for a first time viewer. I would be afraid of implementing elements similar to her in fear of first time users being turned off by the complexity they have yet to discover and learn how to interact with. On the other hand, the class with the Shakespeare web site created a more simple layout to interact with, it seemed. Although I did not actually visit the site, it looked like a good example for the type of site I could analyze for my project. However, I think I would want my site to be a mix of the two, on the level of attractiveness and intractability. Moving on, I also enjoyed reading Dr. Hocks’ explanation of how she likes to teach visual rhetoric to her students. I think reading from that perspective also gave me a bit of a greater grasp of what visual rhetoric is and how we should go about putting it to use.