Re-imagining Potentials for Online Oxford English Dictionary (OED):
An exercise for the purpose of stimulating thought about re-representations for Communicative Objective #1 (CO1), the re-contextualizing the Oxford English Dictionary (OED).

Shipka's Forum Prompt:
Re-imagining Potentials for Online OED

P.C. Paul's Response ·  W. Chewning's Response ·  B. Bauhaus' Response ·  Y. Martin's Response ·  C. Wychgram's Response ·  S. Kibler's Response

A. Sheikh's Response ·  M. deLauney's Response ·  C. Gatton's Response ·  G. Masters' Response ·  D. Wentworth's Response ·  P. Hartman's Response

E. Sanchez's Response ·  E. Piccirillo's Response ·  D. Panchwagh's Response

...if I am actually answering the question. I may have to modify the entry. I think there is more I can write about how the OED could represent definitions of words.

         I was told way, way back when while attending SUNY Farmingdale in Comp 101 by the Chair of the English Dept. and Philosophy Dept. (he was both), that the Oxford English Dictionary was the bible of the English language and this was the dictionary an English major should use versus Webster's and others. For etymologies, the Oxford is the Holy Book (regardless of which religion) of the English language. The Oxford is also helpful in using the word in several sentences to demonstrate proper usage.

         On the other hand, as poor speller the Oxford does not play nicely with me so I end up using dictionary.com for spelling corrections. If I am seeking a definition and can't spell the word I end up crossing between dictionary.com and the Oxford.

         As far as the web site itself, the OED has always had a clean, friendly, easy to use approach as far as the user is concerned. It is peculiar to me that the simple search window is right justified. This is an English Dictionary and typically a Westerner uses English but reads left to right, so the quick search window being right justified and not left justified seems odd to me. Apparently the OED considers their name to be of primary importance and the search window second not vice versa. The first page has a help section that is useful so one doesn't have to hunt for it. "Latest new and revised entries" and "Featured additions" are "neat" features for those heavily involved with words. The advanced search options are real kewl for those who are not familiar with Booleans or who do not know what Booleans are making the search user friendly. When one does bring a definition up on the dictionary the OED also shows its placement in the dictionary in relation to other words, words before and after the entry which could be helpful when one is not sure of the spelling. Some features like "List by entry, List by date, and Entry map I am not clear as how I would use these but someone else may be able to provide some insight on this.

         Pronunciation, Spellings Etymology, Quotations, and Date Chart are useful features also.

         There are many, many things I could do with this database in reference to content and demonstrating the definition of a word. I could create a video clip, an audio clip, a 3D object that could be rotated by grabbing it with a mouse, an illustration, a word game, an animation sequence. There's a whole host of things that could be done. Pssssst! (whispering) The word is "Secret." Secret.

         The Oxford English Dictionary's very first definition is the following:
         1. Kept from knowledge or observation; hidden, concealed.
                  a. Predicatively (esp. in to keep secret): Kept from public knowledge, or from the knowledge of persons specified;
                 not allowed to be known, or only by selected persons...zzzzzzzzzzzzzz. How do you define "borrrriiiinnngggg?"

I know, let's make this an activity/game. But first let me tell you a faerie tale.

A long, long time ago, during the Middle Ages, there was a carpenter or a Free Mason. He was illiterate and could not read like everyone else. But being a Free Mason he knew 33 useful facts that he learned as being an apprentice in the craft of carpentry from a Master Free Mason. The Master Free Mason made him swear never to repeat the 33 useful facts that he taught him: keep them a secret. So the Free Mason would build a town filled with shops for the tin smith, the cobbler, and the baker. The tin smith, the cobbler, and the baker were very happy. Why do you ask? Because people always needed pots repaired, shoes repaired, and bread baked. But the Free Mason was very sad and jealous of the tin smith, the cobbler, and the baker. Once he was done building the town, there was no more work left to do and he couldn't make money to eat, but the tin smith, the cobbler, and the baker always had work, so they could eat and were very happy. The Free Mason sat in front of the baker's shop with his head hanging low. A pixie faerie flew past him and saw that he was sad.

"Why are you so sad Mr. Free Mason," said the pixie faerie.
"You see I built these shops for the tin smith, the cobbler, and the baker. They were very kind and paid me for my work, but you see now that the town is built, there's no more work, and I have no more money to eat. I don't know what to do," said the Free Mason.
"Oh, Mr. Free Mason that's so sad. But you do know 33 secrets don't you?"
"Yes, yes I do, but that won't buy me bread, said the Free Mason."
"Oh yes it will," said the pixie faerie. "Come follow me we have to cross the land to a new place where I know there are other people who want a town."

         So the pixie faerie and the Free Mason set out with his Mason's square underneath his arm and they arrived at a clearing where they met some people living in the clearing. A very hard and stern man came forward and said in a boisterous voice, "Who are you stranger and why are you here?" The Free Mason replied, "I am a Free Mason and this pixie led me here because the people want a town." "Oh so you're a Free Mason aye? Why these three fellows with me are also Free Masons. But I know this because I have built several towns with them and they know the secrets of the Free Masons. But I don't know you, Stranger. If you are a Free Mason hand me your Mason's Square."

         The stranger handed the hard and stern man his Mason's square and the three men walked across the clearing and disappeared to a secret location where no one could see or hear. Some time went by and the three men returned across the clearing. The hard and stern Free Mason walked up to the Stranger Free Mason and handed back his Mason's square. As the hard and stern man did so, he slapped the stranger on the back let go a belly laugh. "Hahahaha, so you are a Free Mason! Come, join us. We need another man to build this town and when we are done, we shall go off and find another place where people need a town, Free Mason." So by keeping a secret, this was how the Free Masons made sure they always had work.

         Okay, so maybe for some this was a little bit more entertaining than the OED entry. Or it could be an insult to you intelligence and put you off. But does this faerie tale really tell us what a secret is. Maybe. If you were not annoyed by the faerie tale you may now be asking, "Ooo! Ooo! What's the secret! What's the secret! I've got to know the Mason's secret! I won't be able to sleep tonight unless I know the secret!" Do you like games? "Yes! Yes! I like games." Do you like to draw? "Yes, yes. I love to draw." Okay, let's play a word game. I'm going to tell you in words what to draw in the drawing program. If you make a mistake the game will tell you so each step of the way. If you get it right, the game will tell you you're right and let you go on to the next step. If you have trouble with the task you can click "Show Me" and the game will show you what to do. When you are done with the task, you will know step by step what the three Free Mason's did to see if the Stranger was telling the truth and you will also know the first secret of the Free Mason's.

         By defining secret through an illustration or by example, there are still other ways I could define it continuing to use the Free Masons. I could probably explain it as a Geometrical Proof or have the user construct the secret by geometry, which is pretty much what I would do in the game, but with the game I can at least make the secret interactive. I can engage the viewer. I could probably make it a contest too in the classroom. Have people pair off, give out the instructions in words and the team that completes the instructions correctly first wins the contest.

         If someone reads this post, I would guess the inquiring mind would be curious "Where in hell did you get this idea of using the Free Mason's for the purpose of illustrating the definition by example of the word "secret." I think this "process" is much more interesting and demonstrates how one or two words planted into a "fertile mind" like a "seed" can blossom into the development of a whole universe of possibilities. The faerie tale is mine, the drawing game is mine. The seed was the explanation of the connection of the Free Masons to Geometry, that's a "seeeeeecret," unless someone is interested in how A lead to B, which lead to C. This I will definitely use in my choices section of the project because I'm sure Shipka would be highly interested what began the innovative process.

"Multi-media/modal OED" by W. Chewning

The OED Word of the day is...

BOOTYLICIOUS

Originally a sound bite appeared with this post of Snoop Doggy Dogg using the word "bootylicious" that was not rescued before Blackboard was deleted.

Response to W. Chewning's "Multi-media/modal OED" by B. Bauhaus
Hahahaha! Ohhhh man... Bill, you're my hero.

P.S. I'm borrowing your sound idea ;-)

Response to B. Bauhaus' post by W. Chewning
Nah... you're my heroine. In fact, you're bootylicious... in a chill sorta way. :-)

Response to B. Bauhaus' post and W. Chewning's post by P.C. Paul
I don't think I should have opened this... Hahahaha.

Response to W. Chewning's "Multi-media/modal OED" by P.C. Paul
This is fabulous! I love this! I wish I could do half of what I can think of in this class because I'm just so bored with writing. So the spaces are wide open and I find myself constrained by the technologies available to me. Ok that's enough wining. Let me move on to what I can do, and that's argue.

         I think we will all find that we are on the same page, that the OED is a wholly useful tool for the English language, but because of the OED being subject to academic review, it is also limited in the sense of breaking out of its own mold. I see it as the same problem as with the U.S. military. Those in power tend to remain in power. The holders of power refuse to change or innovate and cling to the old tried and true methods.

         Case in point with the military is women for the most part are not promoted to high level posts because the old power holders use the "Have been in front line combat?" as the key to high level promotion. Congress has a clause set up preventing women from serving in front line combat which prevents women from gaining this key experience for high level promotion. My point is the good old boy network act as gatekeepers and things will not change until such time that the good old boys retire. Turning this towards the OED, we have English scholars that are "old school" and regulate what directions the OED will move in and not move in. Therefore, the "old timers" act as "gatekeepers" preventing change. In addition, as they retire and leave openings, as new blood is needed, the new blood will be scrutinized to be sure their ideas are in line with the current status quo. After all, as with all organizations, radicals and visionaries are unacceptable unless this is the culture of the organization. No one wants to bring in someone who will "rustle everyone's feathers." This all boils down to the fact that, "Where there's people, there's politics."

         If the OED, as boring as it is to our mindset, and actually all the training we have been receiving in writing is just as boring because "The times, they are a changin'," that your definition here tells me a great deal more about the definition of "bootylicious" this stimulates me to browse for the definition of more words. Therefore, would this not increase people's vocabularies if learning is made fun?

         This entry brings up another point, if it is "pop culture" it's likely not to be in the OED. Case in point, I wrote a strange argument paper last semester, which is on the edge of an unseen argument. The islands of the argument exist but no one has engineered the bridges to go island hopping to arrive at the last island of the argument. I needed some cheap easy definitions to bring my reader up to speed real quickly in order to bring down the hammer of what my argument was. It took 28 pages just to build the argument because of all the support and background necessary to state the argument in one paragraph. I had to use Wikipedia because none of the dictionaries define the words. The problem is they are well-established words in Western Pop Culture and accepted into the language but are borrowed from Japanese culture because they do not exist in the English language. This happens all the time. Society changes, language changes, (thought corrupts language, language corrupts thought) but the gatekeepers don't see this. I was working with "Manga," but more specifically with sub-genres of Manga, that being "Hentai," "Tentacle Sex," and "Lolicon." Without Wikipedia even with its shortcomings of being clearly non-academic, I would have never known what these words meant unless I was a participant of this culture.

         Now the argument becomes should the OED remain a dictionary because it is an academic refereed source for the English language and Wikipedia kept as an encyclopedia but should Wikipedia spend more time validating the validity of entries submitted?

Response to P.C. Paul's post by W. Chewning
Interesting analogy with the gatekeepers and good-old-boys' networks. The counter-argument would be that, although times are a-changin' , they are always changing, and there's something to be said about SLOW change. Our system of government is set up to be dynamic so that it can adapt to change, but it's also set up to check and balance those changes so as not to break itself; glasnost didn't save the Soviet Union. The same thing could be said about our system of education, and the quick change that's been attempted over recent years has drawn its share of criticism.

         As for wikis, they are amazingly social and say a lot about society. The obvious problem, as you state it, is how closely to "police" the content. It's obvious that some oversight is required, but who sets the standards? It seems to me that Wikipedia's political entries often reflect a liberal slant. I don't know if this trend results from the tendencies of participants to be from a liberal mindset, or if the post-publication review process is slanted that way...or maybe it's a sign of the time. The point is, though, one can never tell what happens "Behind the Wiki" (damn, what a great title for a paper), and that pretty much goes against the whole wiki philosophy.

         Anyway, thanks for the response!

Response to W. Chewning's post by P.C. Paul
W. Chewning said, "Interesting analogy with the gatekeepers and good-old-boys' networks. The counter-argument would be that, although times are a-changin' , [why of course, how else would one sing it...] they are always changing, [the only thing constant is change] and there's something to be said about SLOW change. Our system of government is set up to be dynamic so that it can adapt to change, but it's also set up to check and balance those changes so as not to break itself; glasnost didn't save the Soviet Union. The same thing could be said about our system of education, and the quick change that's been attempted over recent years has drawn its share of criticism."

         Yes, let’s stick with education for it is what I am being hammered with. For those of us who would like to see faster change and see ways in which the landscape is changing are cited as "Heretics and Anarchists" or worse yet, "completely mad/insane" (Anarchy in the U.S.A., I know what I want, I just don’t know how to get it...) Original lyrics read "Anarchy in the U.K., I don’t know what I want, But I know how to get it…). Let’s say for example I submitted a paper for publication on the analysis of the current OED database with a recommendation on how the OED should be re-positioned in the form of a fairy tale, "Once there was an online dictionary…" we both know it would never be accepted. I think what we are "edging" for resides between "Anarchy and Status Quo." This is where I see Wikipedia coming in and could rescue the day if used properly.

         W. Chewning said, "As for wikis, they are amazingly social and say a lot about society. The obvious problem, as you state it, is how closely to "police" the content. It's obvious that some oversight is required, but who sets the standards? [From what I see, and I don’t see much outside looking in], the users "police" themselves, meaning that be sure what you post is correct, i.e., be "responsible" with what one posts and the users "police" each other which seems like a democratic exchange of information.] It seems to me that Wikipedia's political entries often reflect a liberal slant [might be, but it doesn’t seem to make a difference for me as to how I use it]. I don't know if this trend results from the tendencies of participants to be from a liberal mindset, or if the post-publication review process is slanted that way... [might be] or maybe it's a sign of the time [might be]. The point is, though, one can never tell what happens "Behind the Wiki" [makes for an interesting investigative journalism article] (damn, what a great title for a paper), and that pretty much goes against the whole wiki philosophy." Good point.

         The site, as it is right now, indicates a kind of professionalism and elitism. The title, or main heading, on the home page tips you off right away. the bolded, times new roman typeface of the heading "Oxford English Dictionary," and it's white-against-navy color scheme is probably constructed in such a way as to keep the web-surfer aware of the professionalism of the site that he's visiting at all times. Since the site is also constructed using html frames, the main heading is always visible. Another not-so-subtle attempt at highlighting the elitism of the website is portrayed in the lower right-hand corner which reads, "OXFORD University Press," and is visible at all times, too. It’s like the page is saying, "Hi, I’m important, don't you dare forget it." I can see why the designer chose to do this, as well. I can't speak for everyone, but in general, the consumer wants to know that they're experiencing something real and truthful. We want authenticity. We want to see that proof of copyright and that brand name stamped all over the damn thing.

         Back to the html frames... the site is split up into about 5 frames. 2 on the top, containing the main heading ("Oxford English Dictionary"), search bar, and the searched-for word in over-sized type. 1 on the bottom, containing the "Oxford University Press" logo, list and search preferences, and the 'sign out' button. The 2 frames in middle consist of a list of closely related words to the searched-for word. For example, I just searched for "surf" (in verb form). The list on the left-most part of the site indicates other similarly spelled words like "surf" as a noun, "surface," or "surfable." The right-most frame, out of the middle 2, contains the pronunciation, etymology, quotations, date chart, and additions of the word "surf" (in verb form). This is all well and good, and helpful, too, but SO boring. Then again, maybe Oxford University is a boring place and they chose to emphasize that with the website. Goofballs, but you know, at least they provide definitions for words like, say, "bootylicious." ;-)

         I like the idea of having the dictionary online so I’d keep that aspect of it intact while redesigning. What if a blind person wants to use it? I would incorporate sound files so that when they reached the page, they'd be prompted by a voice saying, "Hey dudes, welcome to the site of Brittany’s Infinite Knowledge," or something to that affect. You get the idea. From there, using a Braille keyboard, they could navigate through the site, search for words and the definitions, pronunciations, etc. would be represented through sound files.

         For a more visually stimulating experience, you'd have the option of turning the sound off. Pictures of examples of how the word is used would be portrayed under the typed definition. In general, the site would be a whole lot sweeter if I had control over it. Keeping the title "Oxford English Dictionary" is important because the consumer thinks it's important, therefore the heading is necessary to keep the credibility of the site intact. I'd definitely tweak it a bit. check it out, yo:

Oh, and another thing of utmost importance: no capital letters shall be used. ever. they’re annoying. and i don't like them. as you can see.

         Back to what i mentioned earlier about the clickable guitar strings and such... the five tabs at the top of the homepage that say things like 'nerdy, nerdier, nerdiest," or they might as well, could be redesigned into a guitar. word?: [B. Bauhaus in both ENGL 324 and 407 Blackboard postings never used CAPITAL LETTERS EVER to the point to where her convention was annoying. All of her posts were adjusted to the accepted Standard English writing convention.]

yes, the words i searched for on the site included "dude," "surf," and "chill." "chill" turned out to be an excellent option because it can be used as a noun, adverb, aaaand a verb which, in turn, produces an abundance of info. about the word. various definitions were provided. here's my personal favorite:

"Oxford Omega Style" a response to B. Bauhaus' "oxford: b-unit style" by P.C. Paul
I understand web design and I’m sure Bill does also. The OED does what it does cleanly and succinctly without throwing the user for loops, unlike the Federal Government Patent site (cough, cough) which leave a great deal to be desired. On the other hand, the OED does serve its necessary purpose, "If it was said in the OED, it must be true." The OED provides base to build truth. Wikipedia on the other hand, one has to scrutinize Wikipedia. In Wikipedia the truth is sandwiched between two lies. Sometimes, I don’t have time to beat my head against the wall to determine what is the truth.

         Case in point, in a multimodality argument paper I argued that "telling you that Kruschev banged his shoe on the podium as he was speaking in the UN is not the same as viewing a video clip of Kruschev doing the same." Here’s the clincher, the illustration was okay for my purpose, but there is an inherent problem I could not resolve at the time because of time restraints. I couldn’t find a photograph or a video clip of Kruschev doing this. This bugged the hell out of me. After the semester was over I spent days trying to find this information. I did find finally find the information. The information is, this is a myth! Why? I had one source, which refuted the incident. The claim was made by the New York Times. I went back to the microfilm and found the article that made this claim. Sure enough, it was there in words only. The photograph run with the article shows Kruschev sitting with his shoe on the desk. If Kruschev had actually banged his shoe on the desk to illustrate a point, don’t you think every newspaper there would have photographed this? The photo doesn’t exist. It never happened. What happened is that someone was walking behind him too close, accidentally stepped on his heel causing Kruschev to loose his shoe. Being an extremely large man it was not feasible for him to bend down and put his shoe on. He carried it to the desk in his hand and put it on the desk.

         Now why the myth? Two reasons. When one reads the paper one finds this was a magicians trick by the newspapers. Why? Because the American public’s mind was focused on something much more important: The Presidential Debate to be held that evening between Nixion and John F. Kennedy. This is where the American public’s mind was focused. A magician does only one of two things: Either the magician focuses the audiences mind away from him/her while they do the necessary dirty work or they dialog making you focus directly on them while they do their dirty work. The New York Times chose the former versus the latter.

         Why did the New York Times create this myth? To make Kruschev, the U.S.S.R. and the government look like they were backwards and crude to make American society appear superior in order to support the ideology of the Cold War. The Cold War could have never been supported without support of the American public.

         Your second paragraph is an astute observation and I agree the colors, fonts chosen, and other features are all design decisions to support the fact that the OED is an entity of authority. On the other, hand, it does serve its purpose as a place and core as to where one may obtain the truth and trust what is said without having to consider everything as suspect of lying or creating myths for some hidden agenda. Switching out of this disciple and into another, The OED could be considered as a "Strange Attractor" from Chaos Theory in Mathematics. The OED is the core, the point to where other definitions are drawn towards and from there the rest of the definition can be found in the periphery as one continues outward. In other words, the further one proceeds from the core, the more suspect it becomes as being the truth or less closely related to the true definition. So the OED is written for a specific audience and keeps us all on the same page, while Wikipedia blurs the boundaries moving out towards the periphery. A group of "elitists" "control" the OED and Wikipedia places "control" in the hands of the user. Hmmmm, this looks remotely familiar. U.S.S.R. vs U.S. Which is a better form of leadership, central power or distributed power?

         Or better yet, does it take more skill to "manually" surf, i.e., a surfboard as it stand now or a self-powered surfboard with a remote control of some kind for the operator to use to control the surfboard as they stand on it?

A response to B. Bauhaus' "oxford: b-unit style" by W. Chewning
Wow... Jack Johnson makes some pretty good definition-reading music.

         You comments about "nerd, nerdier, nerdiest" really struck a chord (a guitar pun...get it?) with me, as did your themed OED designs that would appeal to surfers or musicians; you might have touched on the future of web design. Skins and themes have allowed people to personalize their GUIs based on personal interests, but I don't know of any way to allow for "web skins." Wouldn't it be cool if you could set the OED to a certain theme? Wow...

A response to W. Chewning's post by B. Bauhaus
Bill, sweet idea! I think I’ve seen something like that on a few websites, although, each theme on the single site had to do with the website's given content (ex. if John Mayer’s site had interchangeable schemes, they'd all have his face on them). But, what I haven't seen are skins tailored to suit anyone and everyone's personal preferences. That would be hot. Dude, you better go patent that idea!! :-)

         Getting into the cosmetics of the site, the site colors at home were actually more appealing to me than the colors at the library. They used the basic colors including red, white, and blue this was standard throughout many dictionaries and it was acceptable. The other dictionary websites to me were much easier to maneuver through on both aspects, home and library. I was able to access all the other sites from home and was able to obtain the information requested without too many avenues for error. With the OED they want you to eventually subscribe to their site. I find this very unsettling because you don't even have a choice of trying the site out prior to entering in your information for future purchase. The OED needs to also make their site more universal friendly since they do want people to pay for the site. Bilingual preferences should be offered upon entering the site. ["Why? We speak English in this country and countries define themselves by language, boarders, and culture.," said P.C. Paul] Also I would use less selections under the subheadings with the original site because this will confused many users. At the library once I was able to use the site address given it was very direct as to my word search choice. They may want to also add more vivid pictures as explanations as visually needed.

         Getting to my selection, I looked up several words to see what I would decide to use as my word. Golden, trust, connect, help, and peace were many of the words I looked up yet

BLACK, BLACK, AND MORE BLACK

Response to Y. Martin's "The "b" word" by E. Piccirillo
I am very interested in hearing more about your word in workshop tomorrow. Suck up.
[This text was originally in red and has been re-contextualized in black for the purposes of "this" website and legibility]

         I actually enjoyed the OED enough to browse the site for nearly an hour, especially the British slang and etymology links because I'm interested in historical linguistics. Its interface is clear and intuitive. Although it is drab, the design is functional and unobtrusive while browsing, unlike the brighter color scheme and animated advertisements of Dictionary.com and similar free dictionaries. It would probably be fairly easy for someone without much prior online experience to navigate the site, although some of the vocabulary used in links might be a problem (in an informal survey of friends on Instant Messenger, 4 out of 5 college students had no idea what "etymology" was, and one thought it had something to do with bugs.)

         The entries themselves are another matter, being written in high-level academic English with vocabulary that I frankly thought was chosen just to prove the editor's knowledge (opprobrious? what?). That's really off-putting. If they must use less common words in definitions, at least make the difficult word a link to its own entry, as in Wikipedia, or have the definition pop up on a mouse-over. The citations on each entry's main page are really distracting too, since there is already a link to quotations at the top of each entry. I know the OED's esteem comes from having this record of word use, but if I'm looking up a word for a Scrabble tournament or something, do I really care how the word was used in 1638? Realistically, a tiny fraction of dictionary users care about that kind of thing, although it's nice that the OED comes with a "paper trail", so all that excess information does it make it harder to scroll through to what they want.

         The OED is a functional reference text, so I expect a sense of reliability and permanence from it. There's no denying that the OED website practically oozes elitist British refinement (deeming itself "the definitive record of the English language," British-sizing the American slang, and always keeping its logo prominent), but the style does give it a certain perceived clout. I'm sure that's intentional - after all, the OED wants to sell itself as not just any dictionary, but THE dictionary. The citations and peer review do legitimize the OED's claims, but they only accept text sources. A slang term might be around for years before it's accepted enough to be written down.

         The OED is already making attempts to appeal to a wider audience, through public projects like AskOxford.com and the BBC series Wordhunt and Balderdash & Piffle. I like how the OED archives "non-standard" English (slang, dialect, etc.) in addition to the proper British RP. However, the references required by the OED make it hard to include colloquialisms, and when they do get included, the original date or location is wrong. That's why sites like Urbandictionary.com are better at tracking new words. For something like the OED, I don't think you can have people directly make entries like Urbandictionary.com (that has problems, because people often make up really stupid definitions). But maybe the OED could partner with sites like Urbandictionary to monitor slang terms that seem to be gaining enough popularity (measured by page views, maybe?) to merit a definition, even if they're not widely written about yet.

         I don't think the OED's size, updatability and convenient search-ability could be duplicated in any form other than online, but they're reaching out through TV and radio. Email word-of-the-day is a good idea, but how about text message word-of-the-day? And cool words that people might actually use, not the usual crap you get from word-a-day tear-off calendars. Also, how about an OED crossword puzzle or word search? You can buy games like that at supermarket checkouts, so they must be pretty popular. Online or phone-based word games could be fun, too. They could partner with Virgin Mobile or some other wireless carrier and offer free text message credits for correct answers to word games. So basically, keep the academic core of the OED as it is, but add features to make the experience easier, more fun, and more open to public involvement.

A response to C. Wychgram's "A Few Little Changes Could Make a Big Difference" by E. Piccirillo
urbandictionary.com is my life. it's the only way i've been able to follow my dream of dating a rapper.

A response to E. Piccirillo's post by W. Chewning
DJ Lizzie said, "that's my word (and you can't use this BILL). peace."

But you know very well that I wanna be just like you when I grow up!

Peas...

         I also think that due to the dull colors and lack of graphics and sounds the common reader would get on the site, do what they have to do and then get off of it as soon as they are done, not feeling compelled to do further searching. However, if the site included a more colorful background with more interesting fonts combined with graphics, pictures, and sound to further help the understanding of the reader, as well as providing flat out entertainment, the reader would be more likely to peruse the site even after their initial search has been completed. I’m not a talented artist or even very versed in the world of computer graphics and the like, but I definitely think that a site that included a more stimulating appeal to the senses would possibly even draw readers just for entertainment purposes.

         If I was hired to make this site more user-friendly, I would add more colors. Make more appealing to the younger crowd. For instance, middle school and high school [students.] I think that type of group would benefit more from this site then adults would. For instance one of the words I looked up was “sike”. It was helpful that there was a list of words on the left-hand side that gave options of other words like this, but the definition itself wasn’t as helpful. I would probably make the definition at little bit clearer and clearer to see. Right after the definition there was a little paragraph that had sentences of where or how the word has been used (not sure though). Everything was bunched up together that made the definition more confusing and not as clear. I would spread everything out; maybe besides having the list of words on the left I would put a link of it somewhere on the page, more room is available for the definition. Also I think pictures never hurts anyone’s, even for adults. I think a picture is one of the best ways to understand something. If a picture was added, that wouldn’t’ hurt but make it more appealing, attracting the user and making the user pay more attention.

         Overall, I like the website. It was easy to use, similar to a conventional dictionary in layout, which is comforting when you first start using something new. I really like the side navigation bar when you are looking at the entries and the different search options. The search option is nice because there are two versions: Simple Search and Advanced Search. The advanced search is amazing with all of the options: search for entries or quotes; search in full text, 1st cited, definition, Quotations, pronunciation, subject, and on and on; search near or not near other things; search by part of speech; etc. The navigation bar also allows you many options: alphabetical list, chronological list, a map of just your entry. The entry also gives many options: show or don't show the etymology, pronunciation, quotations, spellings, date chart, and draft additions for the new version that they are working on. The point here is that the site offers a wide range of options and customization for the user, which definitely makes it easier to use.

         One thing the page is lacking (as some other people have already said) is pictures. Some entries would be so much more helpful if they included an image of what they were referring to. For instance, if you look up 'Mona Lisa' the definition is "A. n. allusively. A woman having an enigmatic smile or expression such as that of the woman in Leonardo's painting Mona Lisa. Also in extended use. B. adj. (attrib.). Of a smile, etc.: reminiscent of that represented in Leonardo's painting Mona Lisa; enigmatic, mysterious." If someone had never seen a picture of the Mona Lisa, this definition would be a lot less useful than it would for someone who could visualize her smile. It seems like it would be relatively easy to add picture to the entries, especially since they already have the site mapped out to facilitate turning different functions on and off. They could add an images button and have the default set to off so that people would not have to worry about page loading times, then if they wanted the images they could turn them on.

         Also I like the "lost for words" option because I really like Random entry generator type things. You can find some really interesting stuff that way.

My Word Choice on the OED:
I found the OED website for one, to be COSTLY! For a one month subscription at $29.95-that’s ridiculous! This in itself becomes discouraging for users because it involves taking money out of our pockets! I wouldn’t mind paying $19.95 for one month, but the $29.95 offer is too costly for me! (I am not cheap, but an online dictionary subscription is not too appealing for me.) Maybe, if the website were more aesthetically pleasing in appearance and provided their benefits in a different light that appealed to a wide range of users, then maybe I would consider it. It’s similar to hard copy dictionaries. The book covers are bland in physical appearance with a lack of color and enthusiasm for its contents behind the cover.

         Besides its cost and poor/tasteless representation, the OED website was organized very plainly, typical of any other online or physical dictionary. The only aspect to the website that I liked was the options provided at the top of the page.

         I like when websites give me choices. When there are links to click on, I feel more interested to find out what’s beyond each link. It’s like having a door in front of you-you’re curious has to what’s behind it as compared to when there is a huge linear block of text before you. I become bored and usually don’t finish the text, thus, losing possibly important information. In addition to links, the links should offer more choices, such as a link into a complex definition, one into a simpler definition (using common, less sophisticated words), one into a abstract of the etymology, one into a longer, more detailed etymology, one into connotations, and one for mini-skits on each word. On the Dictionary website, the user has the choice to decide what they feel is important to read and what is not at that moment in time. Also, maybe a Did you Know? section/link would appeal to users-trivia is always an appealer. Also, it might be more fun if the website offered competitions between users in word knowledge. Competition is always stimulating for people. This would also motivate users to looks at words as important to know.

         Another idea in re-formatting the dictionary is creating different spaces for each word. I think it would be exciting to see each entry have a different space in which it is presented, kind of like www.myspace.com. If the space was used more productively and fonts were played with to somehow fit the word would be different then looking at the traditional layout of a dictionary. I currently don’t have a myspace account, but when my cousin is on her space, I enjoy viewing other spaces and the choices in how they present their virtual space. I think by making the dictionary space more vibrant (moving away from white and neutral colors), others might be interested in reading the words in the space. If I were to choose between picking up a dictionary or an encyclopedia to read just for the hell of it, I would choose the encyclopedia because an encyclopedia incorporates images with the text. If I get bored, my eyes willingly trail over to the image in need of a break. It’s nice to provide variety [for] the eye. This is why different fonts and colors might go a long way-it keeps the eyes more alive to move onto the next word. I think that the reason why authors of dictionaries don’t venture out of the box is because they assume that the dictionary will no longer be considered or viewed in the category of formality or academia. Plain and rigid/conservative formatting constitutes academia work. It is better to stay in the box rather than near the edges or go outside of it.

         Another idea to improve the use of dictionaries could be to provide music in the background where each user can choose the genre they want to accompany them while reading the words they choose/have to read, or even audio definitions could be an option. Someone who doesn’t want to sit at the computer for hours listening to definitions could have this option.

         I actually think that audio CDs that provide definitions and then a mini-skit about/on the etymology, denotations, or connotations of the word would be nice to have. Or even its users could become interactive with the site where they had the option to produce a mini skit of the experience, history, or connotation of the word and submit their skit for others to view. Viewers could then respond through blogs, etc. The user could also have the option to download a group of words from his/her computer onto a blank CD and then would be able to listen to it where they choose i.e. in their car, before bed, etc. Like a recipe, the user could have the option to choose the words they are interested in learning about, the links, outlined proportions, and a choice of music in between the information (to serve as a break when needed) to download on the CD.

         I have decided that waving will not be my word choice for the OED project. I have chosen addiction.

"Johnny Bravo waving bye bye."

A response to C. Gatton 's "The Outdated English Dictionary" by E. Piccirillo
i really like your myspace idea. like if you were to give the word "waving" a page. it's pictures could all be of the same hand doing different waves. and then its friends could be pictures of all different looking hands doing different waves. and then the hand friends could leave comments like "hey, i thought i saw you wave at me the other day- but it was weird, what did it mean" good place to put definitions etc. ...or not. or you're really weirded out by me... ok see ya *wave* [Originally this text was in red font with blue highlighting and has been recontextualized for "this" website.]

A response to C. Gatton 's "The Outdated English Dictionary" by W. Chewning
I had a classmate who wrote a CNF piece about addiction as a "place." It was quite an interesting essay. You can certainly do a lot with your word...looking forward to it!

         Something else surprised me when I looked at the entry for “science.” The definitions that were presented first did not reflect the modern usage or understanding of the word at all. Instead, they described science in an archaic sense as a “personal attribute” or a “trained skill,” definitions which tether the broad concept of science to individuals. Only after scrolling for quite some time did I encounter definitions more in line with our current perception of science as a methodical branch of study. I’m not sure how they determine the ordering of definitions, but I would put the most commonly understood ones first.

         If I were to make OED-browsing more enjoyable, I would include pictures with entries. I looked up some proper names like Einstein and found no pictures to accompany the brief entries. (In my old tattered dictionary at home, there is indeed a little picture of Einstein next to his name.) In my opinion pictures would add not only interest to the OED but also helpfulness, by giving visual representations when words simply won’t suffice.

A response to G. Masters' "OED: A critique" by W. Chewning
I agree that I do not find anything wrong with the OED. It serves it’s purpose and audience with dignity. I see it as being what one would expect as the authority on the English language. From reading the posts there are alternative dictionaries that also serve a purpose and a particular audience.

         Agreed, the most current definition should be shown first then dating back to the earliest definition. I would think the images would be used when words fail to communicate, such as in “Einstein.” Eureka! That’s it! It was the “Bush Tetras.” Sorry I’ve been racking by brain for three weeks now trying to remember the name of the group. “You Taste Like the Tropics.” Never mind. Follow this link to hear samples of the Bush Tetras

         Along with adding pictures to the site, I would add what the website dictionary.com has for most words: a sound file that says the word. Granted that there are many, many words, the idea of the computer pronouncing the word for the user would be awesome. Also, I think there is a lot of wasted space between the top, middle, and bottom parts of the site. Cutting the top and bottom bars down to allow more space for the word and its definition/information would scrolling less of a nuisance.

         I thought of a few words to choose from for this project but when I noticed the thousands of choices from the side bar, I tried out the “lost for words” button. The “lost for words” button is a nice little toy for bored visitors. Many of the words I got were simple words such as 4x4, regatta, and doh…yes doh! I can see how some unknown words would be shown through this function.

         Not a show that is too closely tied to the word or words of the day, of course, but definitely influenced heavily by it. Words with longer definitions and histories could even have a "special" which ran longer than the regular show--which would have to get an hour time slot.

         The words would not have to be covered in order, and certain words could be skipped, sacrificing some of the show's integrity in the process. Ideally the words would be covered in order and in their entirety. But Fox would never go for that.

         I would go so far as to write a potential script for the show here, but I'll think about that for my OED assignment. Perhaps even write a proposal of some sort and mail it to Fox, just to see what they would say. No script, just the idea in "hey what about this" format. But that wouldn't work. I would have to send a potential script for them to throw out along with the proposal.

         The main problem with this idea is keeping each show interesting enough while still incorporating the entire definition and etymology and whatnot. Which is why I think that it would be coolest in its pure form, but only marketable in a watered down sensationalized OED show form. If such a thing exists. Or could exist. But I think it will next week. Possibly.

         The way the OED is presented online is boring. I like the big books better.

Second Part:
If I were hired to make the OED more user friendly, I would first begin with adding translations to the examples as well as adding some full or partial text of the text where that word appears, which could be accessed by clicking at the name of the writer or book that comes after each sentence in the examples. I would also put the link for the definition of that word as the top link that will appear when somebody searches for it. Furthermore, I would make the examples easier to understand as well as change the format they appear. Also, I would offer the OED for download or on CD for a small amount of money, so people who do not have internet can also use it. Finally, I would take into account the users that read and will read the OED, so it can be friendlier to them.

A response to E. Sanchez's "OED" by E. Piccirillo
you make a good point when you say, "I do not know whether people will think this is important or not..." there are different things that are important to different people and you highlight one of them with the complaint about old english. to some people it may not matter, but for others who really need that context to understand the word, but don't get anything from the example; they may never understand the word, its spelling, definition etc. and therefore the dictionary has failed. this could be a good springboard for your project.

         see you in class! [Originally this text was in red font with blue highlighting and has been recontextualized for "this" website.]

         two years later i got a 1994 chevy corsica, so i guess it all evened out. five years later that dictionary is sitting on the about to buckle desk shelf in my apartment. it weighs about 20 lbs. i have never opened it. talk about not being user-friendly.

         the oed online does cost money, but so did that abomination of a dictionary my mom gave me, along with the motive to self-reflect upon years of emotional neglect and present-related abuse growing up.

         i mean how much easier could it be to use? you want to know about a word? you type it in. then you're given a sidebar list of words close to it in the english language. you can look at those too. maybe one of those is what you're looking for. an online addition also makes revisions easier. i mean have you seen a picture or an in person of the oed? it's like 14 different books plus supplements. -cough- cough- most impractical thing ever -cough-cough- and yeah it doesn't have pictures, but have you guys seen the pictures they put in dictionaries? Say the word is knit... it shows a picture of either a certain stitch or of two knitting needles and a ball of yarn. yeah. thanks. that helps me understand the word a lot more. go get an encyclopedia. asking for pictures in a dictionary is like asking a milkshake to be an ice cream cone. i kinda see where you're coming from, in terms of illustrating process to better understand definition, but yeah, not so much. what it needs, that a lot of dictionary sites do have is the audio pronunciation. that's getting to the real core of what work a dictionary is doing. yes, images can provide definition and context for something, but i'm trying to give a focused purpose to the dictionary. that is the question we maybe need to be asking in order to process and evaluate our words. what IS the purpose of a dictionary (the oed)?

         i wouldn't change the site. it has no friggin' advertisements asking you who lil'bow wow is dating or whether or not the free cell phone is behind bouncing banana 1, 2 or 3. I mean it's a dictionary. it's a dictionary for people who want to know about words. their spelling, definition, pronunciation, use and some history. ok, its not for kids. but here. order this from amazon dot com if you.

         and if you don't get how to use the site. take the tour. here's a link sarah n. because i know you couldn't figure it out. http://dictionary.oed.com/tour usually, I go to dictionary dot com if i need to look up a word. and i'll probably keep doing that, just because it's free and i don't have to hear about how the word was used in J Daus' Bullinger on Apocal.

         this is one of my complaints, they need to get some more modern examples for their context portion.

         ok gotta go drop beats and call out. peace.

         p.s. - please check out the OED's love child: www.urbandictionary.com

         one last thing, if you guys could post an answer to this question:

A response to E. Piccirillo 's "what happened? he OEDed. PLEASE RESPOND TO QUESTION" by P. Hartman
I'm addicted to pants. I use them every single day. Help me.

A response to E. Piccirillo 's "what happened? he OEDed. PLEASE RESPOND TO QUESTION" by W. Chewning
I guess I might be addicted to stuff. Yeah, stuff...like, in general. I tend to keep stuff, but I need the stuff I keep. Most of it is pretty organized, so I suppose that makes me a functioning addict. I don't see it as much of a problem; I don't steal to get stuff, I've never injected or smoked any of my stuff, and my addiction to stuff has never really interfered with my family or vocation. Then again, if you tried to take my stuff away from me, I very well might shoot you. So, I'm protective of my stuff... at least I don't try to hide it.

         If you like stuff, too, that's cool... but don't ask me where I get my stuff because I'm no narc. I'm a vault!

A response to E. Piccirillo 's "what happened? he OEDed. PLEASE RESPOND TO QUESTION" by P.C. Paul
I'm addicted to air and breathing. It's funny (peculiar) how living things like to go on living. Help me too!!!! Not many people have had experiences with air.

         That said, I had a hard time searching for words. In my opinion, the search engine should be much easier to navigate. I looked up the word "time" and I came up with six different time links, but I had to click on each link to find the specific definition I was looking for, which is time in reference to space and a moving period of seconds, minutes, etc... The references weren't specific though. I felt like it would be easier to click on the word "time" and then see the different definitions as opposed to having to click on six different "time" links to find the definition I was looking for. True, the OED presents many different definitions and the history of the word, but obviously people will search for a specific definition.

         In addition, the definitions themselves are hard to interpret because the font was so large, and the paragraph structures are so jumbled. The fact that the sentences referring to the definition are in bold is a good thing, but I still felt that the sentences weren't presented neatly. The overall layout wasn't organized.

         I believe the definitions should be organized in a numerical form according to chronological order. In the online portion, the dates are scrambled and not in a set order.

         Overall though, the site is fairly easy to navigate and comprehensive. When compared to the actual OED, it is quicker to find what you are looking for, and the information is just as accurate if not even more depending on the edition that someone uses to find a definition.