Kostelnick and Petroski

These two texts argue that seemingly typical design decisions such as using bold lettering or choosing a bridge layout not be treated arbitrarily. Kostelnick's article is important for any form of professional writing. Specifically, as I read this article, I thought about how easy it was for me to put my thesis headings in bold, large letters. Yet, Kostelnick and Foucault's articles reminded me that ease of use and convention should not be the basis of solving a problem.

Design is rhetorical; hence, I should have considered the fact that although bold text is easier for an audience to find on a page, my audience, three MAPC professors, read student thesis proposals every year and can recognize headings and sub-headings. Therefore, it was not necessary that I used bold lettering. Also, Kostelnick's article suggests that (which I had forgotten) bold text can also be offensive if used in the wrong context. Certainly my intention was not to offend three of the most important people currently in my life, but this point proves that I have to be very careful as to how I implement such choices - even if my audience is design professionals who know the difference.

The Petroski text was a perfect complement to both Kostelnick and Dorothy Winsor's articles. Obviously, Winsor's article talks about how engineers write themselves as engineers and Petroski's shows how engineers go about being engineers: invention through previous design interaction. For instance, Petroski discusses at length about how many people were fearful of using iron in railway bridges because of the numerous failed designs. Consequently, many engineers and their audiences rallied behind using wooden bridges because "that was the way things had always been done". Yet, Petroski points out that although the wooden bridges were widely used, they too were not without problems.

Another example of "good" design gone wrong is Alcatraz. Built as an impenetrable keep for the nation's most notorious prisoners, Alcatraz, or "the Rock", only lived up to its name for a short while. Made of mostly iron and concrete, the building is located on its own island in the San Francisco Bay. The design was effective as far as the intimidation factor was concerned; however, the salt water surrounding the island wore on the building over the years causing it to deteriorate and foster prison escapes. Although the inmates themselves actually did the crime, this design oversight could be blamed for numerous prison guard murders and the mass hysteria in San Francisco during the building's operation years.

I really enjoyed reading these two texts and don't have any nasty commentary to make about them. As a change, I thought I would show a clip from YouTube.com of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge disaster. Ironically, I saw a special on the History Channel about bridges, and this one was mentioned. I did not see this situation in a rhetorical light until I read Petroski's article. I also commend Petroski for daring to combine the two extremes of writing: poetry and professional writing (Robert Frost's poem).

www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mclp9QmCGs