critique
Thomas Peter Lukas (tpl4q@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU)
Thu, 18 Apr 1996 12:52:02 -0400 (EDT)
>
> >
> > I am responding to Group V's hypertext project.
> > 1. I found that the project overall held my attention. I
> > attribute this to the excellent matching of background to the
> > dark and eery quality of the images.
> > 2. But the backgrounds caused a little bit of trouble for me
> > because they didn't seem consistant with the narrative. I
> > think each "room" and narrative should be equipped with its own
> > background.
> > 3.While the images contributed to the churchlike (stale and
> > musty) atmosphere, I was a bit put off by the
> > repetitiveness repetitiveness of images from frame to frame.
> > For example, at the beginning of the work the user clicks on
> > the archway to go forward. But then the user is confronted by
> > the same archway again. I might suggest the simulation of an
> > approcch to the archway, by enlarging the the picture (as if
> > zooming in) by consecutive frame.
> > 4. But this is all picky stuff. Overall the project is
> > impressive.
> > 5.But sometimes the narrative is abruptly switched to something
> > else. I think of this project as somewhat of an illustrated
> > short story. In my opinion, a good short story reaches a
> > series of mini-resolutions. Since this project incorporates a
> > series of mini-narratives, I would like ot see some resolution
> > along the way. It wanders. Maybe that's the point.
> > 6.The ratio of text to images is about perfect. Many
> > text-based hypertexts can be nerve-wracking if there's too much
> > text per page. I think the average user is interested in hitting a new
> > page about every thirty seconds.
> > 7.Nice work
> > Tom Lukas
> >
>
>