Disclaimer: Although much of this musing describes The Grinnell Guide, the primary focus is on my attitude toward the world and not on that document.
The other day, I watched two Grinnell students present their excellent work on the new Grinnell Guide to Research, Writing, and Speaking [1]. I have not had time to fully explore the guide, but the parts that I've looked at have been very nice, from coverage of the Oxford Comma [4] to a wide variety of suggestions on how to approach the writing process that acknowledge that one size does not fit all.
But my initial reaction was not "It's so great that we have this resource" or "It's wonderful that we trust students to develop this resource". It was "Why is it hidden behind a password wall on GrinCo?" Actually, it was a bit worse than that, it was "Given that the folks developing this guide relied on public resources at other institutions, it is immoral to hide this guide behind a password wall at GrinCo."
My next reaction was "Wow, they could have done a much better job of formatting this." What don't I like about the formatting? Well, I expect that some people will want to print it. It should be designed so that it looks appropriate when printed double sided. That includes making sure that page numbers are on the outside edge (right-hand side on odd-numbered pages, left-hand side on even-numbered pages), keeping the marginalia on the outside margins [5], and so on and so forth.
I dislike indented section titles, and they make significant use of them. I could probably spend some time finding evidence that they are a bad idea. For example, we tend to assume that indentation implies subordination. The content of a section should be subordinate to the title, not vice versa. In much writing, indentation suggests quotation (as in block quotes).
Their are very strange typographic choices, such as occasional font switches (a quick glance shows one in the middle of page 18), an inconsistent methodology for separating paragraphs [6], the use of the word "Page" next to each page number, as in "11 | Page", inconsistent formatting of lists lists, and more. Perhaps I shouldn't say "strange typographic choices" as much as "no clear attention to typographic detail".
My next thought was "Hmmm ... given these issues, I wonder whether the document is even accessible. Did they use styles, as they are supposed to? Did they run it through one of the accessibility checkers? Did they even think about accessibility?" Perhaps that's one reason it's not yet on the public-facing site.
In their presentation, the students mentioned that they were releasing the document in a way that permits others to modify it. That's great. Unfortunately, I don't see a clear Creative Commons license [7] anywhere in the document I'll keep my fingers crossed for a future version. If it were open, and in a format I could modify [8], I might even be able to address those typographic concerns [9].
As I said, my first reactions were not "This is so cool", but rather "It is immoral that we hide this work"; "the formatting sucks"; "did they think about accessibility?"; and "will it be open?".
In writing this musing, I added a few more [10], all of which seem to be related to citation and references.
Why is there no date or version number on this document? How are folks supposed to cite it without a date or version number? How are they supposed to distinguish the different versions?
I see that there are sources that they reference in the text that don't appear in the list of references. I realize that this choice is not uncommon in writing guides [11], but it annoys me.
I also consider it important that references match. What do I mean? On page 21, they reference an article in The Guardian entitled "How to teach ... graphic novels". Except they call it "How to Teach Graphic Novels". I don't mind the use of initial caps; that falls within reasonable stylistic choices. But I do not consider it appropriate to remove words from a title.
Wow. That was harsh. I don't mean for it to be.
So, here's my question: Why can't I have more positive initial reactions? I find myself acknowledging that there is great work here, but my initial reactions are to think about problems, not the positives. And those initial reactions are the norm, rather than the exception.
I probably need a few years of psychotherapy to answer that question.
But here's a quick attempt at self reflection. For whatever reason, there are a number of things I value highly. These include openness [12]; design and typography [14], particularly in printed materials or materials that mimic the printed page [15]; clarity in references and ability to reference; consistency [16]; and accessibility. Oh, yeah, as a computing professional and one who uses too much software, I also value usable software and good UI [17] and UX [18] design.
I have spent too many years of my professional life fighting with folks who don't seem to share these values. I have been particularly frustrated by the past five or so years at Grinnell in which I've regularly dealt with people in power who don't even seem to acknowledge that there is a value in openness or understand the moral and ethical concepts that underlie that value. It doesn't help that I've dealt with five years of promises that we will consider the issues. And so I seem to have lost my ability to say "That's okay; things will get better." Instead, I just get upset.
I should probably just accept that I'm an outlier in all of these issues and try to have them mean less to me. But that undermines who I am. And, as I've suggested, some of these views are deeply rooted in my ethical values. I don't want to change those.
I should remember that I know lots of people, including my colleagues in CS and elsewhere on the faculty, who share many of my values. And I should hope that those shared values will eventually triumph.
So, let's focus on the positive. The Grinnell Guide will provide an excellent resource for campus [19]. Congratulations to Vincent and Helen, as well as their advisors Janet and Tim, for a job well done. I look forward to seeing how it grows and evolves, and perhaps even contributing to that growth and evolution.
Next up: Learning to start and stop with paragraphs like that.
[1] I cannot provide a link to it because it is behind a password wall on GrinCo [2,3].
[2] A.k.a. GrinnellShare.
[3] People with access to GrinCo can find it at https://grinco.sharepoint.com/sites/academics/WritingLab/SiteAssets/SitePages/Home/The%20Grinnell%20College%20Guide%208-18-17.pdf.
[4] Coverage that also includes a nice example of why one might not use the Oxford Comma.
[5] Admittedly, that can be difficult to do in many word processing programs. Word processing does many good things; supporting good book design too rarely seems to be one of them.
[6] At times, they use a full blank line between paragraphs. In others, there is no space at all between paragraphs [7]. The latter mode calls for indenting the first line of subsequent paragraphs. They do not follow that model.
[7] Or any copyright notice, for that matter.
[8] That is, not in PDF.
[9] I've requested a Word version, or whatever format they use.
[10] I also saw lots of other good stuff.
[11] I will never use They Say, I Say because they do not provide full citations for the examples they use, which undermines nearly everything I teach my students about the value and purpose of citation.
[12] I use "openness" particularly in the sense of making academic materials freely available to others.
[14] Although you might not be able to tell that from my Web sites.
[15] Michelle will confirm that I've cared about design for as long as she's known me, which is more than thirty years.
[16] Useful consistency, not the kind of consistency that is the hobgoblin of small minds.
[17] user interface.
[18] user experience.
[19] And, I hope, the broader academic community.
Version 1.0 of 2017-08-26.