Research Methods in Technical Writing & Digital Rhetoric

 I wouldn't exactly say I have "revision" plans as much as I would like to say that I have plans to actually write the research design portion of my proposal. I am struggling to pin down exactly how to approach my research questions. I want to gather some quantitative data, but what I am most interested in is the qualitative data. I want answers to the "why" in why people perceive certain typefaces as adding or detracting from a text's credibility.  I didn't think that this was such a huge question until I sat down and actually started thinking about how to find the answer. In preparing my rough draft outline, I had a very vague idea of creating mock pages from a variety of news outlets, but I'm not certain that will be focused enough.  As I continue trying to build/decide on my research plan, I will be working on sizing down my literature review and shaping up the other portions of my proposal (those unrelated to my research methods). For now, I am ...

Once, while preparing for a conference presentation, I was advised not to use Helvetica or Times New Roman for my slides. No self-respecting academic would want to be seen in front of slides that used two of today’s most widely used fonts. But why? This piece of advice really stuck with me. Would I actually be looked down on as a lesser academic because I used a commonly used (not to mention, perfectly legible) font? Should not the consistency, reliability, and reputable functionality of a font like Helvetica  add  to my credibility?  Certainly, there are more factors than readability, professionalism, and clarity that go into a user’s assessment of ethos through typeface. Context, conditioning, and tacit criticism are possible answers to the “why?” Why shouldn’t I use Helvetica here, but I should use it there? Why does Helvetica hold the power to both improve and destabilize my document’s credibility?  The way we laypeople select fonts is typically based on some kin...