This simplistic beta launch represents my earliest attempt to assemble a cohesive authorial website using only static pages and extremely early web conventions that prioritize content and clarity for reader accessibility over interactivity. Throughout this process, I consistently returned to the course readings on web usability, audience awareness, and rhetorical purpose, particularly regarding the distinction between writing for readers versus writing at them.
One of the most influential ideas from our readings was the emphasis on front-loading purpose. Instead of opening pages with biography or abstraction, I revised everything to foreground value via what the reader gains, why the material matters at all, and how it even connects to their interests through my content.
This is most obvious in the revised About page, which now begins with values and promises before moving into conceptual depth. This aligns with web-writing guidance that readers tend to scan first and commit later.
Another key influence for me was the idea that specifics outperform dramatic claims. Instead of asserting that rhetoric “matters,” I tried to demonstrate how it appears in concrete forms of anything we can imagine, such as video games, narratives, websites, and other digital communities I’ll touch upon later.
This approach reflects rhetorical practice being contextual rather than purely theoretical. The Life Is Strange review, in particular, functions as applied rhetoric, showing how narrative choice produces ethical persuasion through deliberately written constraint.
Readings on usability and chunking also happened to shape my editorial decisions thus far. Instructor feedback repeatedly noted that while my prose is strong, it tends toward density. In other words, I’m a yapper.
In response, I revised paragraph length, added appropriate and complementary headers, and introduced lists, not to simplify ideas, but to make complex ideas legible in a digital environment. This directly reflects the principle that web writing must respect cognitive load without blatantly infantilizing the reader.
Finally, the distinction between author bio and site About page was critical to me. Earlier drafts blurred the two as one, but revisions now separate personal history from site purpose. This distinction mirrors our readings’ insistence that About pages function rhetorically as invitations, not resumes.
First, you’ll be introduced to the site, as that’s what you’re likely here for, and then you have the option to learn about yours truly after.
Overall, I wanted this site to represent an ongoing negotiation between depth and accessibility. The readings did not ask me to abandon complexity, but to stage it rhetorically to meet readers where they are.
I am here to guide them carefully and trust their intelligence. After all, their curiosity and pursuit of knowledge led them to me for a reason.
This metacritical page will continue to evolve alongside the site, documenting how theory informs practice in real time.