Follow-up questions for my Magazine Review:
- How effectively do you think the review uses
traditional Sight and Sound layout conventions? Where do you think they
have been used most effectively? So they’ve been used well, is there any
way you feel they could be developed? Example, or how doesn’t it?
- What could be done, in your view that would
make it challenge industry conventions? And how might you develop them?
- How do you think font has been used
effectively? Where do you think it could be developed? Where do you think
it is similar to Sight and Sound, and where do you think it challenges it?
- What about text size, do you think it’s been
used effectively? Where do you think it’s been used best? How do you think
it either challenges or develops from Sight and Sound?
- Do you think language has been used well?
Where do you think the criticism is most effective? Where/how do you think
it could be developed to engage and inform, as well as critique better?
- Do you think the register suits the magazine
context for the review? Where do you think it is especially appropriate?
How do you think its developed Sight and Sound conventions, or how do you
think it could?
- Do you think there was an appropriate use of
ICT? Why? How do you think it could be developed or challenged to be more
innovative and effective?
- How do you think image could be integrated
with text in an effective way? How do you think it could be done in a way
that challenges Sight and Sound conventions?
- How do you think the image could be framed
well? Why? How do you think it could challenge, or conform to industry
conventions? What makes you think this?
- Do you think this works well from a
mise-en-scene perspective? Where do you think mise-en-scene is used well?
No comments:
Post a Comment