English 421: Technical Writing

The two methods of responding methods for critiquing are very different. Each has its advantages and disadvantages, but I believe that face-to-face communication is superior in this specific situation. Online responses can be both good and bad. One could argue that in today’s society, we are very often on computers anyway, and being able to respond to different things should be easy, since we are already online anyway. Essentially, we can virtually take the work anywhere, for the most part. On the flip side of the coin, being online is not always a convenience. It is not easy to always gain access to a computer lab, or carry around a laptop all day long. Sure, we can connect anytime we want, granted we have the means to actually get there. This hinderance can sometimes limit the work we can do.

 

As far as face-to-face responses, there is nothing quite like seeing what the other person is talking about. I much prefer to see EXACTLY where my work is being critiqued, i.e. marks on my paper. I can gain a much better read into what is wrong, and do it more quickly. Have to read an online blog, then go back to my document and find where the error is, and continue to shuffle back and forth can be a pain in the you-know-what. Also, if a person is presenting their critique to me face-to-face, I can ask them questions on the spot if I do not understand something, and we can discuss multiple way to tackle a problem, and do it at length if necessary. As for the reviewer, taking a document and being able to critique it literally anywhere is much easier as well. When I review a document I do not feel that I can communicate everything that I want to in just a few sentences, and it’s much easier to talk about something than to write it, at least for me.