The digital journalism II class received a new mission from Professor Lowe Wednesday. Students studied the photography and audio on the website that Professor Lowe assigned to us early in the beginning of the semester. The task concerned me because I based my last blogs about The Arizona Republic on their lack of quality technology usage. The website failed at hitting satisfactory levels. But again I studied what it presented.
The online newspaper provided OK results at first. In one photo, you could see the creases by a man's eyes as he grinned. His sense of place, a stitched symbol of Arizona State University, gleamed from his maroon-colored shirt.
Advertisements represented itself even better than the photos the site gave: Arizona editors didn't create the ads. You can't just switch from taking average photos of people to making pieces of what looks like a girl from the nose down, breathing out the word 'Red' in bright letters and produce a focal point from her crimson-stained mouth.
I then noticed that when clicking one of the pictures under the photo tab that one had a bug crawling up a little girl's sleeve. Of course I thought "ew, gross" and then tried to zoom in to look at it some more. But the page didn't allow me access to zoom in any farther. The page left me angry with only receiving a pixilated photo and hungry for answers of what type of big bug that girl had on her shirt. But I kept at my assignment and ended up moving on to sound, immediately clicking on the video tab. The page did a pretty good job covering this. But midway through watching a video the thought hit me: video mixes audio with movement. And the professor asked for audio only.
In comparison to the New York Times "One in 8 Million" series, New York Times occupied more experience with mixing pictures with audio. But The Arizona Republic didn't do this: they just had audio mixed with moving graphics. But hey, I can't point out anything really wrong with the videos. Do these pieces count for audio? I'd recommend no one fix them then. This served as a strong suit for Arizona's page. Why fix what's not broken?
Again, not Arizona's best day. Maybe it will get better in the future. Maybe. Oh; and I went back and clicked on the pixilated picture of the girl and the bug. It led me to a set of clear photos, including the one that I started looking at. Again, the news source needs a separate editor for fixing up these fuzzy images for readers; not everyone will continue searching for clear illustrations. But the bug was a grasshopper: quite an ugly looking critter.