A good document, as suggested by Reep (2006 p. 135) is one that incorporates the four design principles which are balance, proportion, sequence, and consistency. Putnis and Petelin (1996) on the other hand recommend a few strategies in designing documents such as maintaining a recognisable flow of information and creating a balance between visuals and texts, all of which complement Reep's principles. In further illustrating what constitutes as a good document, I will draw upon the slides from my earlier group presentation and highlight the improvisations made in my individual presentation.
The image above is taken from my group presentation. Here it is apparent that the placement of words is not systematic while the name of the topic is not distinguished from the rest of the text. The frame used to outline the group members' names is very untidy while the colour combinations are absolutely horrible. Based on the compositional principles by Kress and van Leeuwen (2006 p. 177), it is agreeable that salience and framing were given to the wrong element within the text with the title of our topic deserving more emphasis.
Now here's an improvisation in my individual presentation. The colour combination of the text complements the background colour. There is also balance between visuals and texts, which Walsh (2006) describes as essential in the interpretation of multimodal texts. Also, there is a significant difference in font sizes, whereby the title has larger font sizes to give more salience.
A key difference between the two presentations is the writing style I adopted in my individual presentation. While the group discussion was rather simplified, my individual presentation incorporated a more in depth discussion, offering various perspectives. Rothman (2005) refers to this as technical writing, where the element of reasoning is involved. The inclusion of expert opinions coupled with sophisticated examples gave a more professional look, catering to a more learned audience. This adds credibility to the presentation, thus making it a better document all round.
In conclusion, it is apparent that certain features provide added "weight" to a document. From the comparison between the two presentations, I believe that I have succeeded at creating a better document.
References
Kress, G & van Leeuwen, T 2006, 'Chapter 6: the meaning of composition', in Reading Images: the Grammar of Visual Design, 2nd edn, Routledge, New York , p. 175-214.
Putnis, P & Petelin, R 1996, 'Chapter 7: writing to communicate', in Professional Communication: Principles and Applications, Prentice Hall, Sydney, p. 223-263.Reep, DC 2006, 'Chapter 4: principles of document design', in Technical Writing, 6th edn, Pearson Edu Inc, New York, p. 173-190.
Rothman, S 2005, What makes good scientific and technical writing?, Associated Content, viewed 12 April.
Walsh, M 2006, 'Textual shift: examining the reading process with print, visual, and multimodal texts', Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, vol. 29, no. 1, p. 24-37.
