In keeping with people posting progress and being transparent, I present to you my Argument Outline, which includes a bit of a paper outline as well. It’s a bit lengthy as I’ve put in some data points and questions along the way of the outline. These data points and questions really just emerged while writing the argument outline, so I went with it.

Argument/Paper Outline

  • Deviant Art provides a better
    quality critical discourse
    • What does quality critical
      discourse look like?
    • What does non-quality critical
      discourse look like?
    • Why does this matter?
  • It has particular formal
    features that help this
    • 100+ word critique
    • 5 star ratings
      • vision
      • originality
      • technique
      • impact
      • overall (set by system)
    • Fair/Unfair Critique button
    • Threaded Comments
    • Sharing Features
    • Favorite
    • Print
    • Enlarge Photo (while staying
      on the same page)
    • Photo statistics
    • Featured in (group)
    • Add to group
    • Photograph and Camera Details
      • Only available sometimes
    • Ability to “collect”
    • Edit a photo
    • Emoticons
    • Download a photo
    • Artist Name (deviant name)
    • Artist Avatar (deviant id)
    • Photo Title
    • Photo Category
    • Artist Comment
    • Watchers
    • Comment on Critique itslef
  • It has particular use qualities
    that help this
    • Ambiguity
      • Rating system has no intrinsic
      • Written critique adds meaning
        to the ratings
    • Identity
      • Critiques are linked to
        the criticizers profile page
      • Every critique is published
        right away
      • Criticizers ‘watchers’
        are notified when a new critique is published by the criticizer
    • Social Actability
      • Critique is automatically
      • No ability to edit a published
      • Critique is out there in
        the world for all to see
      • Criticizer is able to hide
        commentary of critique
      • Conversation (through comments)
        between photographer and criticizer
        • Happens only after the critique
          is published
    • Personal Connectedness
      • Links to criticizer’s
        profile page
      • Artist can choose to accept
        or reject a critique as fair/unfair
      • Artist can add commentary
        to critique
  • These formal and use qualities
    create a particular style
    • What is style?
  • This style is affect and
    made sense of through social structures
    • What social structures?
      • Camera type
      • Photography culture
      • Camera settings and details
      • Photographers use of particular
      • Photos can belong to groups
        • Acceptance into a group
          is not guaranteed
        • There are group norms and
          group styles
      • Terminology of photography
      • Terminology of art
      • Terminology of Deviant Art
        • “deviations”
          • From what, a norm?
          • What is the norm?
    • How is style affected by
      social structures?
    • How is this style made sense
      of through social structures?
      • Marxism?
  • This style is also emergent
    through embodied subjectivity
    • What is embodied subjectivity?
    • How does it help style emerge?
    • Flow of leaving a critique
    • Critique is emergent
    • Values of photography and
      criticizer are embedded into critique
  • This style leads to better
    quality critical discourse
    • How does this style lead
      to a quality critical discourse?
    • Why does this matter?
    • What does this mean for
      the HCI community and field?
  • However, it still has weaknesses
    • What are these weaknesses?
      • Poor flow while leaving
        a critique
        • Screen size limitations
        • Vertical layout
      • Pliability?
      • Transparency?
      • Relevance?
      • Technological determinism
        plays a role in what kind of critique can be given

      Ok, so that looks really long, sorry. However, all of this was pretty emergent as I whiteboard-ed out my thoughts in the wonderful whiteboard room. Furthermore, most of this was just a quick expansion of pre-existing writings I’ve done for this paper. The process of going from a basic argument to this took me about 3 hours, maybe a bit more. I’d be happy to have some feedback or commentary.