A Burning Idea - Spring 2019 Course

After reviewing our contract in relation to our finished website, I would say that we met the majority of our goals. For points we were not able to meet exactly, I would say that our alternatives usually satisfied the same goals, or that they otherwise worked in service to our overarching design objectives.

We aspired to create a site which maximized visual diversity and interactivity, but not at the cost of readability or accessibility. While our initial estimate of “one or more visuals per section/subsection” proved to be overambitious, major sections did make use of consistent visuals and embedded tools. In some instances, we actually avoided including visuals as a stylistic decision. Our “home” section, and some parent pages like “the cases” or “‘real witchcraft’ in the 21st century,” were intended to be simple and direct. At one point, we considered incorporating buttons to link to each individual section of our site on our homepage, but decided that it would ultimately be an unnecessary feature, and that it might undermine the sequence of each section in our header menu, which we felt was intuitive. Sections which were dependent on context relied heavily on user engagement, making use of short video clips, clickable content, framing questions, and the expectation of user input to personally connect the user to the social and religious context of the Mallory case. Our use of aesthetics was consistent throughout the site, a point which came up repeatedly in peer review. We doubled down on this idea by limiting the use of bright colors on our site where possible.

Our division of labor did function mostly according to the terms of our contract. I was primarily responsible for the home page, context pages, and the formatting of the “about us” section, while Olivia worked almost exclusively on the “cases,” “Harry Potter in the US,” and “Additional materials” sections as well as interview transcription. The one exception to our contract in this regard was Olivia’s “incorporation of primary/secondary sources” task, which we pursued individually while working on each of our sections. Point of contact responsibilities and equipment management were mostly irrelevant, though Olivia did satisfy our space for a second interviewee in the form of Dana Kling. On a similar note, our expected list of digital tools did prove effective, with the exception of Thinglink which we replaced with Genially, a free alternative which ended up contributing some needed variety, and Visme, which was made irrelevant by Genially.

Our expected page arrangement went through some significant revisions which were often the result of changes to our overarching project goals, as well as developments in our understanding of the case. As we began to develop a clearer focus on the correlation between censorship and fundamentalism, we cut some extraneous material, and as we experimented with WordPress and received commentary, we found more effective ways to arrange and divide certain pages. Some changes to our pages were superficial, like framing a page on Caryl Matrisciana as “perceptions” of Wicca, while others were substantive, like substituting a “case outcome” section for a less holistic “significance” section.

Our least successful contract element was undoubtedly our expected timeframe. Producing a rough outline of our completed site took well over our target date of April 8th. This led to further complications regarding our other deadlines, particularly our April 12th copyright review and April 22nd peer review. In general, I attribute this to circumstances outside of class, but also to issues with accessibility, which slowed the process of acquiring sources and often compelled us to change the direction and scope of our project.

We have a finished website! Building our project site has been a long and challenging process, but I am extremely satisfied with our final product. Thank you again to everyone who helped get us to this point, we couldn’t have done it without your support!

Statement of Purpose

The intent of this project will be to explore the interplay between the 2006-2007 Gwinnett County, Georgia challenge to J. K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series and the entrenchment of the Religious Right in the United States from 1970-Present, with an emphasis on broad perceptions of the alternative religion, Wicca. The project will be intended for a general audience, and both user engagement and accessibility will be prioritized.

In order to keep the rise of the Religious Right and Wicca as “real witchcraft” at the forefront of our site, we made sure to incorporate ideas from one or both of these perspectives in each of our primary sections. In “‘Real Witchcraft’ in the 21st Century” we feature a detailed analysis of the identity and beliefs of the Religious Right and the history, perception, and practices of Wicca. This context is then worked into our analysis of the Harry Potter series as a whole and the Laura Mallory case in particular. In the section “Harry Potter in the United States,” we discuss religious belief and fear of witchcraft as the reason why the books are so heavily contested within the United States. In the “Cases” section, we link religious conservatism and belief in demonic possession in the region to a lack of local response to Mallory’s claims, as well as reasoning for Mallory’s choice to challenge Harry Potter in the first place. The “Significance” page wraps up our thoughts on the case in relation to these big-picture ideas through a Genially infographic highlighting important case questions and answers created by both Avery and myself. By working these elements into every section of our website, we hope to convey a cohesive project rooted in a study of the 21st Century rise of the Religious Right and fear of the occult.

We also honor our statement of purpose by prioritizing user engagement and accessibility. Our use of tools such as Genially, TimelineJS, and StorymapJS allow viewers to explore data in a fun, creative way. We also use embedded pdfs, embedded websites, and metaslider presentations to break up text and create visually compelling pages. All of these tools are user-friendly and encourage accessibility. We also encourage accessibility through our incorporation of embedded links on every page. For external links, this system allows users to look further into a fact as soon as they read it. Additionally, internal links provide an alternative method of navigation to our main navigation bar. We also provide a separate “resources” section dedicated to housing additional articles relating to our project and PDF transcripts of our full interviews with Dr. Lisa Eickholdt and Mr. Dana Kling. With its own location on our main navigation bar, the resources section is both easy to find and easy to use.

Conclusion

The idea we hoped to set up in our project contract and explore in the project itself is that of personal belief and fear of the unknown as a driving force in censorship debates, which we believe we have achieved in “Laura Mallory and the Forbidden Book: Harry Potter, Censorship, and ‘Real Witchcraft’ in Gwinnett County, Georgia.’” We hope you enjoy the final GCSU project site as much as we do!

As my last blog post, I will be explaining how Maelyn and I accomplished the goals of our contract and what led us to the finished product of our website.

Our contract listed out specific jobs Maelyn and I had to complete, and throughout this class we found that most of the “structured” jobs we created molded together and became interchanged between the two of us. We both not only successfully accomplished what we laid out in our contract, but exceeded those goals in research, design, and working together effectively to create our final project. Read on to see how we did that!

One of the first obstacles we ran into was tracking down and interviewing faculty and staff of the school where our book was censored. Although Maelyn was assigned this task, we found that this had to be reworked later as we could not find anyone to interview. However, we successfully accomplished this by interviewing other important people who, I believe, contributed to our project more so than anyone who worked at the school. We found this issue happened a bit where tasks and dates were not strictly followed and had to be edited, but we made it work.

For our COPLACDigital course, Jacob and I created a project contract to guide us in the creation of our website. Although we deviated from the original plan summarized in this document, our website turned out better than I imagined. As I thought of new ideas, I knew being flexible with the plan would yield the best end product.

Mission statement

In this section of the contract we state the intention of our website:

“Our goal is to educate the Southern Ontario and Western New York regions, on the origins of this complaint, as well as situating the incident regarding The Golden Compass within the larger contexts of the long history of censorship.”

SUNY Geneseo 2019 Project Contract

I believe we accomplished this goal. There are numerous pages dedicated to explaining the intricate details of this case including the people involved and the chronology of events. The Halton region is also described in the “Where?” section of the website. We made sure to incorporate our own analyses of the case including if we thought the school board made the correct decision.

Digital tools

Jacob and I incorporated a large number of digital tools into our pages. I created a TimelineJS, made a navigation system using hyperlinked book covers, and embedded both a Google Slides presentation and a song from the film. I also utilized the StoryMapJS I made for class on the “About Lauren” page.

Timeline  

The due dates we scheduled for certain pages did get a little shuffled. Pages were not always worked on in the order listed. I ran into some technical difficulties while at a conference in Florida, thus resulting in a minor delay. Additionally, Geneseo’s wifi did not make using WordPress user friendly; therefore, I had to find a place off campus to work. This restricted the dates and times I was able to edit the website. Despite my inability to access WordPress directly all the time, I did continually work on the website content via Word or Google Docs. I tried to work on a different page every weekend and was pretty successful. In wrapping up the project, I have been to Sweet Arts Bakery everyday this past week. If you are ever in Geneseo, I would highly recommend stopping in and picking up a cinnamon bun. They are huge and delicious! Although the timeline was not followed exactly, we completed all of the pages we set out to do plus several extra.

Division of Labor

The division of labor did get slightly unbalanced at some points during the project, but this was not intentional. I adopted a couple of topics Jacob was originally supposed to address. Jacob and I both selected the pages we wanted to work on and did so independently until the review process. I also added additional pages to my workload as they came to mind.

Here is a list of what I worked on:

1. Website theme and navigation
2. Homepage
3. Book summary and anti-Catholic themes
4. Timeline
5. Primary sources (school board documents)
6. Viewpoints of different groups (school board members, complainant, media, Catholic organizations, and external commenters)
7. Interviews
8. Autobiography

Conclusion

On Saturday, I had a website party with my housemates, Shannon, Grace, and Claire. I provided the pepperoni pizza and they reviewed the website. They provided a lot of good feedback, especially with regard to the summary of the text. They recommended to make it shorter and skipping over some of the minor plot details. This should make the story easier to understand, specifically for viewers who have not read the book. Their extra eyes were also helpful for catching spelling errors and cleaning up the pages in general.

I am very pleased with the final version of The Golden Compass website. It conveys the case in an approachable manner and is good for all viewers. I really hope my classmates and professors enjoy reading it. I am looking forward to giving our presentation this afternoon.

My website design skills have improved throughout this course. Considering I have never made a website before, I think this one turned out quite well. I have recently been awarded a Student Ambassadorship from Geneseo to pursue a project of my own design. For this project, I will be making a website. Although I am focusing on a totally different topic (intellectual and developmental disabilities), the skills I learned in this course will definitely be applicable.

Greetings, all! Prepare to be amazed as you read my reviewing of our project contract in real time.

First, to the mission statement! Okay, actually, the mission statement mostly has generalities. So it goes. Let us evaluate it, anyway. We certainly did elucidate readers on the educational system in Ontario. Regarding the history of censorship, that mostly disappeared for a more modern description of censorship, but I find that to be acceptable. As I recall, I could not find any comprehensive histories of Canadian censorship, and it is likely for the best that I lacked an excuse to be even more long-winded. I would say we did well in terms of treating both sides with respect, sans our analyses, which were meant to be our own personal opinions. I ragged on Pullman quite a bit in my analysis, though there was also specified in the mission statement to be such a section, so that works out well. I cannot find much else in the mission statement I can evaluate, save for perhaps some descriptions of the ideals of how we were to treat the case, which I am not objective enough to judge.

For the digital tools section, I would say that we ended up using those tools that we needed. For instance, Audacity, YouTube, and iMovie were the three completely unused tools, as we did not have video or audio recordings of interviews, but rather transcripts (or email correspondence, both work). We did not end up communicating much, instead with Lauren and I focusing on our own work, so Google Docs was not used overmuch. We ended up using a Coggle for navigation and not planning purposes on the home page, and then this was cut, but Coggle did make a temporary appearance on our website. The other tools were used as expected.

We then get into the section entitled “Website Organization/Milestones.” This section ended up rather changed in terms of organization in reality, and even more changed in terms of deadlines. While I may have met a few of these deadlines, I mostly just hung out at Crickets Coffee, spending way too much money on tea and bagels, as we neared the due date for our website’s first draft, writing all of the things that should have been done weeks before. Such is life. The website looks good now, so I will say that my procrastination worked out in the end. I suspect listing organization differences would be pointless and tedious, so let us just say that, while we kept with the same structure for the overall headings, pages did end up being moved around.

Now, to the pages themselves. Looking at things, every single page that we had allotted to do, both Lauren and I, was included in the final website, sans a page on the complainant, which was provisional in the contract and ultimately information we were unable to gather. Some pages, such as “Primary Sources,” ended up being split into many separate pages with different goals, such as specifically providing school documents or dealing with the media response to the case. We also added a page on “The Taboo of Atheism” that we never predicted in our contract, and many pages have expanded degrees of content, though none are lacking as far as this section is concerned.

The “Additional Milestones” page was mostly just an extension of the previous section, and was concerned with due dates, so needless to say they were flexible, though due dates such as those for the completed and draft websites were approximately met.

Now, to the Division of Labor. One can tell than Lauren started this section of the contract, because I am the sort of person who would have spelled it “labour.” We did trade some amount in terms of who was doing what whilst in the midst of creating the website. Namely, I ended up writing the page on Philip Pullman, whereas Lauren took on the viewpoints of outside organizations, although said organizations appear throughout our website on both of our pages. We also ended up editing and proofreading our own work instead of each other’s, which was probably easier on both of us. Navigation ended up being somewhat more Lauren’s duty, despite being listed as being one of mine, though our navigation was not particularly complicated and was primarily just the bar at the top of our website.

I did indeed end up doing my “biography” page, which became my half of the “About the Authors,” as well as my allotted summary of the Canadian educational system, although that page ended up becoming strictly on the province of Ontario. My StoryMap for additional challenges is present as well, as are the inevitable editing and citations for my half. The history of Halton/Southern Ontario was the only part of this which ended up with significant alterations. Ultimately, I did do an history of Halton page, but because Halton is a Regional Municipality and has no real community history because it is primarily an administrative division. Thus, said page ended up being completely replaced with a page on Halton’s demographics, which is ultimately much more useful than an history of administrative boundaries. Ultimately, this was the only significant alteration of a page from what was originally listed in my half of this section of the contract.

I came into looking at our project contract with very low expectations, knowing quite a bit had changed since then, but it ultimately seems that while the content of pages may have changed a great deal, the outline in our project contract was surprisingly unchanged overall.

So, with this, I am all but done. Woohoo! Click here to a Google Doc with our project contract.

As the semester winds to a close, the time for reflection is upon us. While this course might be ending early for some of the other COPLAC schools, it’s ending late for us, and I feel like I can finally give it my full attention. This post is an evaluation of to what extent Baylee and I followed our project contract for the construction of our website.

Content

The pages that make up our website wound up being significantly different than what we had originally outlined. While we scrapped the “key players” section–because there were only about 3–I added branching pages to the “historical context” tab that I think are useful in breaking down the individual components that make up the case’s background. We also added the “About Us” and “About COPLAC” sections, which we hadn’t thought of when we built our contract. I feel comfortable with our deviations from the contract on this front because I think it shows a good amount of adaptation to the specific needs of our project as it developed and became more substantial.

I also think we successfully adhered to our mission statement, which was as follows:

The goal of this site is to build an informative and comprehensive account of the censorship dispute between young adult fiction author Ellen Hopkins and Whittier Middle School in Norman, Oklahoma is 2009. We intend to showcase the importance of the case to the state of literary censorship in Oklahoma and locate its place in the larger framework of historical and cultural movements related to censorship.

USAO 2019 Project contract

My only lament is that our account of the case could have been far more “comprehensive” if we had the voice of the complainant. Though we were not given her name, fear still lingers with me that we could have tried a little harder to get it and track her down. If we had that, we could have a more thorough “other side” of the story and its events.

Delivery

I’m extremely happy with how the visual components of the website turned out. I owe lots of this to Baylee, because the time I spent trying to figure out the colors and layouts was unproductive and frustrating. I think the images we chose are sleek and coherent with the visual scheme. We succeeded in producing the “uncluttered, professional appearance” we outlined in the contract.

Though we had a list of tools outlined in the contract, the only one we used in the final product was TimelineJS. We never did an in-person interview, so we did not use Audacity or Soundcloud at any point. While I love how the timeline looks embedded in the site, I’m sad that we didn’t get to experiment with more. I’m also still bitter about the Venngage embedding debacle, because I think clickable infographics could have added a lot to our site’s navigation scheme. However, I think the relative simplicity of the site is appropriate for the subject and the goals of the site.

We also managed to make the site easily navigable, which our contract states as a major goal. While I would have liked to include a search bar, our site probably doesn’t have a large enough amount of content to justify one.

In Conclusion

Overall, I think Baylee and I accomplished what we set out to with this site. We produced a visually-appealing, user-friendly site with a good amount of information both factual and analytical. We kept the division of labor we outlined, playing to our individual strengths, and the result reflects that. It might not be the most complicated or fancy site in the world, but it is appropriate for our topic, and I consider it to be a success.

At the beginning of this project Genevieve and I wrote a contract that guided us in the creation of our website. You can read it here

Our Mission Statement

Genevieve and I worked incredibly hard to fulfill the goals we set for ourselves in the first part of our contract. Our website is the most comprehensive account of information available and would be a great resource for any students interested in researching the case.

Our website is also very easy to navigate, which I take a lot of pride in. We direct people to the most central parts of the website on the homepage while also having a navigation bar at the top. People can either go through the pages one by one or choose the ones most applicable to their research.

We did change one of the sections of the website once we started organizing all of our information. We decided we did not have enough for the “key players” page, and chose to make a “public responses” one instead. This was the right decision for our website. It helped us meet our overall goal.

Tools

We built our website using Parabola, and we did choose a purple and grey color scheme. The look of our website is both true to the book and professional. As far as the visual aspect of our project, we did exactly what we stated with the overall look.

We interviewed Karin Perry by emailing her questions. Therefore we had no audio clips to include in the site. However, we did state that we might discover different tools as we went. I used GoogleSheets to create the graphs on the page “Norman and Whittier Middle School.” We simply used embed to keep the interactive function. We did use TimelineJS, Coggle, and Newspapers.com.

Division of Labor and Structure

We stated that we would divide our labor evenly by each worked on four main sections of the website. It actually ended up that each of us worked on three main pages and collaborated on four, instead of only two. After we chose to not include the key players page, Genevieve took on creating the public responses page. We both worked on the Primary Sources and Home pages.

The division of labor did not go exactly how we had it planned, but we mostly followed the guide we had set for ourselves. We also worked to keep the labor even as we finished the website. We collaborated as we went to make sure that our pages looked well together.

I remained in charge of communication with Karin Perry, while Genevieve received official documents from the school. We worked together on the timeline, visuals, and interview.

In Conclusion

The last section of our contract indicated the specific milestones we tried to keep to as we worked on our project.

Overall, despite changing one page from the structure we had originally planned, Genevieve and I created plan for our website that we followed through to create something we are very proud of. Part of creating it was learning as we went, but we chose to leave room for development in our contract. The structure, design, and intellectual content of the site are on par with what we set out to do with this project.

Wow! I cannot believe that it is almost the end of the semester, especially because this one seems like it has gone by so quickly. From concept to finished website, I have learned so much from this course and the project. Plus, it feels really nice to google ‘The Floatplane Project COPLAC’ and see the finished website pop up on my laptop screen!!

Overall

Reflecting on the website, I feel as if I met or exceeded most of the terms set forth in the agreement. First, the website thoroughly honors the fundamental purpose of its creation, which was to “educate a general public audience on the censorship movement against Clyde Edgerton’s The Floatplane Notebooks in Carroll County Public Schools in Carroll County, VA in 1992. . . [and]. . .explore dimensions of literary censorship with the intention of providing necessary context for the Carroll County case and the course” (Turner, 2019). On the site, I provided information on the case and attempted to make some concrete connections between all the sections of the site. I also made specific, such as the colors and the pictures, that I thought would appeal best to a more universal audience instead of one specific audience. Generally, I also stayed true to the original description of my website, with the five original information categories and page citations using links and footnotes (which was a very interesting experience because my APA-trained brain had to learn the basics of Chicago Manuscript Style!) (Turner, 2019).

Website Pages and Information

As far as its pages, the project actually exceeds the scope of pages listed in the contract. For example, the context section of the site was supposed to have two pages, one on Carroll County and one on Appalachian culture (Turner, 2019), but the finished project has three – the two listed in the contract plus an additional page on Appalachian literature. I knew after I drafted the first two pages that I could never cover the information I wanted to in two pages, so dividing the culture and literature page allowed me to look deeper into the historical roots of Appalachian culture and the trends of Appalachian literature, especially as literature is related to the representation of culture. In addition, the case section contained some different/additional sections from the three listed in the contract, the challengers of the case, the community reactions to the case, and research conclusions from the case (Turner, 2019). Instead of those three, I divided the challengers section into one section for individuals who challenged the book and one for those who defended the book. I kept the administration and research conclusion pages the same in structure. To add to the project and to compensate for the removal of the section on the media, I chose relevant news articles and school board documents to feature as subpages under the divisions that characterize the information I am presenting on the pages.

Beyond the changes, I would like to briefly discuss the pages that mostly stayed the same. I think the homepage is beautiful and engaging – it is everything I wanted it to be when I set to creating an interactive menu in my contract (Turner, 2019). I also think that the slider gives the page some life about it because it moves and ties in the site. In addition, the section about the project also remained very close to the vision of the contract, in which the section was supposed to have a page on the project, a page on the website, and a page about me (Turner, 2019). In fact, the page on the website is one of my favorite pages on the site because it offers an explanation of choices, similar to this blog post, but I also think it serves the analysis I offered on the case by talking about the presentational choices that I made in re-telling the story of The Floatplane Notebooks in Carroll County.

Time and Deadlines

If I chose one area I struggled with on the project, it would be time. Owing  partly to the fact that this was a single person project, I had to pace in order to finish the website with quality and scope that I wanted it to be – especially because I left my contract worrying if I has created a plan that was too ambitious for the amount of time I had in the semester. Having finished the website, I feel I can say that my contract definitely was ambitious, especially when it came to drafting out the schedule for completion of milestones. In the contract, I divided completing sections of the site with conducting research on for the project throughout the semester, but I gave myself room to move those deadlines if necessary (Turner, 2019). I ended up moving a lot of those deadlines, often times beyond what I had anticipated when I wrote the contract. For example, with contacting the school board and alumni groups, I did not get responses as quickly as I had hoped, which caused me to change my plans for working on the site. For the first few weeks, I also delayed in sending out information to Ms. Goldwasser, which also placed me behind schedule. However, all of the deadlines were met (excepting, getting responses from the alumni because I was not able to gain permission to post on the social media group). Generally, I put in my contract that I would work on the site at least one hour and fifteen minutes per day (Turner, 2019). For the most part, I met that requirement. I can only count a handful of days – around 10 – where I did not meet the requirement. However, on weeks where I did not meet the requirement, and on weeks closer to the deadlines of the project, I found that I spent more time, often whole weekends, finishing up drafts and revisions for the week. In the end, I finished the website draft on April 8, a day earlier that the April 9 date, I had listed on my contract (Turner, 2019). I finished the final revisions fore the website on April 26, the day it was due for the course (I discovered that I listed April 16 as the due date for the final revisions for my site (Turner, 2019), which was an error in my contract).

Although I would love to expand and further revise the site if time allowed, especially because I had a few more materials that I did not get to feature on the site, I feel confident in saying that this project is positively representative of the terms of the contract and that it is a sincere, thorough, and hard-work-filled attempt to record and analyze the Carroll County case, as well as to apply what I have learned and considered from the readings and discussions from throughout the semester.

References

Turner, T. (2019). Burning Idea Course Contract_Spring 2019_TurnerUVAWISE. [PDF]. Wise, VA.

 

Look where are we now! It is crazy to think that just two months ago all my pages were blank. I am very pleased with what Jacob and I have accomplished in such a short time. Our website is undergoing its final revisions, and we will be recording our practice presentation this Thursday.

A last minute 180

After taking a good look at my website, I realized there were certain aspects I was not satisfied with. The appearance in general just looked a little disorganized. With the recent revisions, I not only believe this site is more visually appealing, but also contains much better content.

The homepage gained a short summary of the case. This should help clarify things for the reader, as they will already know the basic premise when they browse the rest of the site. Additionally, the Coggle diagram was replaced with some hyperlinked book covers. The book covers are positioned in the recommended viewing order. This looks much better considering I could not make the Coggle the appropriate size for the page. Also, the header image was changed to a picture of the northern lights (alternative book title) and the yellow font was changed to purple to make it easier to read. The title of the website is officially “A Compass for Censorship.”

The biggest changes were made in the “Who?” section. The content on “The School Board” page was reformatted into a google slides presentation, which was embedded into the page. Quotes were also added. Instead of just listing the articles on “The Media” page, I summarized the ones I believed were the most important. I made sure to include a wide variety of opinions, as to show all sides of the argument. This page is now one of my favorites.

I created a branch off the summary page called “Anti-Catholic Themes.” This page specifically addresses the content of the book that religious individuals were not pleased with. I felt this was necessary since the anti-Catholic sentiment is not obvious to all readers.

The page titled “Lauren’s Analysis” has also been enhanced. In the old version, it seemed like I was jumping to the conclusion DO NOT CENSOR. This was a bit brash on my part. Throughout this course, I have learned that censorship is most certainly not black and white. I believe I did a better job of discussing both sides of the argument, while also showcasing the reasoning behind my conclusion.

Wrapping up

There is still work to be done! I will be editing the “Taboo of Atheism” page today, and trying to clarify the definition I provided. Additionally, I plan on writing a short paragraph exploring the history of atheism, and how it is a somewhat unconventional practice throughout time. In editing this page, I aim to eliminate some of my personal viewpoints in the text.

Lastly, I am not sure how but I would like to improve the quality of my TimelineJS on the “When?” page. I have struggled to find events to incorporate that are not already discussed in detail on other pages. I am going to do some digging right now.

The Anticipation

I am very excited to hear everyone’s thoughts about my website! Hopefully, those who attend our presentation and view our site can learn something new. I am also eager to see my classmate’s finished projects. I cannot wait for next class.