As I am doing a structuralist analysis of the website (http://www.storyofstuff.com), I find myself continuously going on a path of jusifying the design of the website. I end up applying the various concepts that we have studied to justify why the design of the website is the way it is or my own insights about how the design of the website could have been improved based on these concepts/ theories. For an example, this is a portion of what I wrote:
Changes in either the syntagmatic or paradigmatic differences impact the understanding. The syntagm of the video is the sequence it follows. This video, being a documentary, follows the introduction, middle, climax sequence. However, it gives the user freedom to jump around the sequence and play with the syntagmatic structure by clicking on the various chapter links. The order in which the chapters are seen constructs the meaning of the film. So, there are 7! different meanings that can be constructed based on the sequence in which the web documentary is watched. A person who is watching this video for the first time needs to follow the syntagm structure in order to develop a complete understanding. However, there may be other times when the user needs to visit only particular chapters. The design achieves this by laying more emphasis on playing the documentary in a proper sequence. The position of the word “play” occupies the centre of the page, is the largest font size on the page, and dynamically moves to attract the user to click on it. The links for clicking on the chapters are less prominent comparatively. Also, these links are separated from the video by a gray space to underemphasize them as a part of the video.
As I look back at the reading of Kickasola, I believe that he was also trying to study and basically justify Kieslowski’s work.
However, I am still a bit sceptical. Am I on the correct path? Is this what we are expected to do?