To get acquainted with Web 2.0 applications, we will begin by considering them both as sites of digital literacy (reading and writing activity) and as spaces constitutive of much of our own digital writing in the weeks ahead. To borrow Steven Johnson's metaphor, Web 2.0 applications are rain-forest-like in their richness and ecological sophistication. For the app.atomy project (a blend of application anatomy), you will choose a single Web 2.0 application, using it and studying it in an effort to understand it as a site of digital writing activity and as an application that you can, in turn, introduce to your colleagues in this course.

Begin simply by clicking through a few of the following applications. We'll work primarily with those in the first list, although I offer the second list as yet another tier of possibilities.

Flickr
Bloglines
del.icio.us
Technorati
Odeo
Wayfaring

Tabblo
Notefish
Cite-u-like
Rrove
Dandelife
Instructables
Something you'd like to see added as a possibility? Let me know.

In the days ahead, you should spend time checking out the possibilities here and narrowing your preferences. On Wednesday, Sept. 6, we'll formalize our choices, so it will be important for you to have a sense of the application you would like to work with before that session.

Consider the following questions as heuristics:

• Who uses this site? How do they use it? Why?
• Do the users seem serious? Are they professionals? Are they hobbyists?
• How is the application designed to be used? What does it say, explicitly, it is to be used for?
• What are its features? Do some features appear to be put to more use than others?
• What are some of the most innovative uses you can find? What makes them innovative? Can you think of other innovative uses? Other ways to stretch this application?
• How might you explain the site to another person while framing it in terms of digital writing or its usefulness to one's being digital?
• What kind of digital literacy manifests within this application? To what extent is the application amenable to digital writing?
• What are the rhythms and tempos of the application? In other words, how are time and frequency involved?
• What are the limitations of the site stemming from your early experiences trying it out? Are there broader limitations? Things it can't or won't allow you to do?
• Placeholder: We'll add to this list in class.

What will the app.atomies project look like? It will include the following pieces: a brief overview or introduction, a procedural how-to explaining to others how to use the application, and an analysis section commenting on the digital literacy activity proliferating in concert with the application. You may add other elements beyond the ones listed here. You have a fair amount of flexibility in terms of presentation. Your project must include screenshots (we'll go over this in class; use eight or fewer screenshots). To present your app.atomy project, you might use an application such as Tabblo or Instructables. You can also look into using Wink (a demonstration will follow), Powerpoint, or simply set it up as a series of blog entries, which, of course, will become more manageable in the weeks ahead.

When we share this work in class, you should expect to speak briefly and informally about what you have done. Projects will be due on Wednesday, September 27.

Grading criteria:

An "A" will be awarded to projects that, in addition to including each of the required sections (an introduction/overview, a procedural how-to, and an analysis of the writing activity involved with the application), makes use of screenshots and annotations to present the procedural how-to. "A" work may also venture into some explanation of how the site functions as a Web 2.0 application and how the application is being put to use both at the site and beyond the site. An "A" project will also demonstrate a critical understanding of the application during the presentation. The written portions will be carefully done, with evidence of proofreading and attention to readability. "A" work is turned in on time.

A "B" will be awarded to projects that, in addition to including each of the required sections (an introduction/overview, a procedural how-to, and an analysis of the writing activity involved with the application), makes use of screenshots and annotations to present the procedural how-to, although the screenshots might not be purposeful in each case or might be difficult to follow. A "B" project will satisfy each of the required areas with a resonably developed account the application's function, how to use the application, and how writing activity is involved. A "B" project will call attention to some of the critical concerns involved with the application during the presentation but might not address them with responses or explanations. The written portions will be carefully done, with evidence of proofreading and attention to readability, although some surface features may be distracting or confusing. "B" work is turned in on time.

A "C" will be assigned to projects that include each of the three required sections but does not make use of screenshots to explain. A "C" may be assigned because one area of the project us underdeveloped or unclear. "C" work makes little or no reference to critical aspects of the application during the presentation. Written portions may be underdeveloped or missing altogether. "C" work is turned in on time.

Lower grades may be assigned to work that is unfinished or otherwise lacking in the basic components required for the project, including the brief in-class presentation. Lower grades may also be assinged to work that is turned in late.