Accessibility and usability: Web technologies

Accessibility and usability: Web technologies Abstract: The relationship between accessibility and usability can be a contentious issue especially with the advent of new web technologies. Does accessibility have an adverse effect on usability and vice versa and is this in anyway affected by new web technologies? With the advent of new web technologies it is thought by some that the two supposedly bipolar methodologies of web design and evaluation contradict one another even more. In order to determine if this is in fact true this paper will look at the effect of new web technologies on accessibility and usability and the current practices in each of these areas. This paper considers various views on this topic, compares definitions and methodologies and concludes that even when using new web technologies, embracing both sets of practices and recognizing their points of similarity, it is still possible, with considered and judicious use of new web technologies to make a web design that is both usable and accessible. 1. Introduction Some accessibility practitioners believe that by applying new web technologies to a web design, that because of the added level of complexity, they create another barrier to disabled people (Everett 2006). Some usability practitioners believe that by enforcing accessibility practices that the interactivity will in some way suffer (Koch 2002). In terms of new web technologies is this still the case. Is there any merit in these beliefs? Can common ground be found to achieve the some kind of balance? There appears to be a lack of clarity of what constitutes a usable web site and misunderstanding of what constitutes a truly accessible website. The aim of this paper is to discuss the relationship between usability and accessibility by firstly looking at the differences between them and where they overlap. We will then need to understand current thinking on the relationship between accessibility and usability and how it is affected by current web technologies. Will Web Standards and new web technologies have an effect on accessibility and usability? With the advent of Web standards (Featherstone et al. The Web Standards Project 1998) and updated web accessibility guidelines (Henry et al. W3C 2008) it has become easier for developers to create sites that are more usable and accessible. This paper will also investigate technologies such as AJAX (Asynchronous JavaScript and XML)(Garrett 2005), and whether this will have any further effect on the relationship between accessibility and usability 2. Definitions and methodologies 2.1 New web technologies (Web 2.0) The concept of Web2.0 began with a conference brainstorming session. Members noted that far from being unviable after 2001, when many online businesses collapsed, the web was more important than ever, with exciting new applications and sites appearing regularly (OReilly 2002). Web 2.0 websites are characterized by their rich and interactive content. This is in stark contrast to the static HTML. By using scripting technologies such as JavaScript an AJAX (Garrett 2005) it is now possible to create web-based applications that resemble desktop applications with the advantage of being able to access them from almost anywhere. Through the use of scripting libraries it is now possible to add interactive desktop-like interface items to web pages and provide the ability to allow users to make changes to current content. Core characteristics of Web 2.0 web sites are (OReilly 2002): Web Services, not packaged software (Web applications) User control over data sources that become more comprehensive the more people use them (Wikis) Users trusted as co-developers (Wikis, blogs) Harnessing collective intelligence Software available to almost any device (Mobile Apps) Lightweight user interfaces and development models With all of these new technologies and coding techniques, what effect do they have on the relationship between accessibility and usability? Web 2.0 has the potential to enhance usability due to the added ability to create a more rich and interactive environment for the website user. However with all of these new technologies, can they be interpreted by assistive technologies used by disabled users? Have disabled users been considered? Will methodologies such as design and evaluation need to change? 2.2 Accessibility The web gives people with disabilities the ability to do things that they would be unable to do via any other avenue. The web offers them freedom and independence. However, all of these possibilities are removed if a web site is not created in an accessible way. Essentially accessibility can be defined as access for everyone no matter what disability they suffer from (Berners-Lee, via Henry W3C 2009). Other have a more flexible approach such as Clark (2002) where he suggests that allowances of for disabled users should be made to make a website accessible. Another term used in connection with Accessibility is Universal Design, which incorporates elements of usability with the goal of making websites or any product as usable as possible by as many people as possible without requiring adapted or specialized design. (Mace 2008) The guidelines by which most accessibility practitioners develop and evaluate websites is Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 which are updated standards developed by The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). These are written to accommodate new technologies and provide better and more comprehensive help for developers and designers when trying to make websites accessible. These standards consist of 12 guidelines that are organized under 4 principles: perceivable, operable, understandable, and robust. For each guideline, there are testable success criteria, which are at three levels of priority: A, AA, and AAA with all A guidelines having the highest priority (Caldwell et al. W3C 2008). The four principles of the WCAG 2.0 guidelines can be explained as follows (Caldwell et al. W3C 2008): Perceivable Web content should be made available to any or all of the senses sight, hearing, and/or touch Operable Interface objects such as forms, controls, and navigation must be operable independent of the input method Understandable The sites content, information and interface must be understandable to the target audience Robust Sites can be used reliably by a wide variety of user agents such as web browsers, mobile devices and assistive technologies The W3C also lists various methods for evaluating websites for accessibility to determine their compliance with WCAG (Abou-Zahra et al. W3C WAI 2008). Various methods including preliminary reviews, manual and automated evaluation tools, are used to determine compliance. When developing websites whether with new technologies or not it is recommended that Web Standards coding practices should be used to attain conformance with WCAG 2.0. Web standards are technologies and practices established by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), along with other groups and standards bodies for creating and interpreting web-based content. By making use of these technologies it is possible to create web content that benefit a greater number of users and at the same time making this content usable in the long-term regardless of technology changes (Featherstone et al. WASP 2006). The Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) has developed an Accessible Rich Internet Applications Suite (ARIA) in order to make rich internet content more accessible for people with disabilities (Henry et al. W3C 2009). This suite is currently not fully supported in all user agents (browsers) and AJAX libraries (Henry et al. W3C 2009). Will updated accessibility practices be able to enhance or be incorporated into usability practices? 2.3 Usability The generally accepted definition for usability in ISO 9241 states: the extent to which a product can be used by specified users to achieve specified goals with effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction in a specified context of use Usability is defined by five quality components (Nielsen 2003): Learnability: Ease with which a basic task can be completed at the first attempt. Efficiency: The speed with which a task is performed Memorability: The ease with which an interface will be remembered. Errors: The number and severity of errors Satisfaction: The level of enjoyment or pleasure when using an interface An extension of usability is the term User-Centered Design (UCD) (Preece et al. 2006), where users are involved throughout the lifecycle of website developments by using structured methodologies in order to determine and meet all the needs of the target user (Usability.gov 2009). Some of the techniques used include (Usability.gov 2009): Usability testing Representative users are observed while attempting to complete set tasks. Notes on the observations of user behavior and comments are made. Card sorting Participants arrange and even label cards representing site content into logical groups and categories to inform the information architecture of a site design. Individual interviews Individual participants are interviewed typically for 30 minutes to an hour either in person, by telephone, or by any means available which allows conversation. These interviews can be formal or informal and do not involve observation. Contextual interview or field studies Contextual interviews are similar to user testing because the users are observed, however they are not given a set of task but are rather observed in there natural environment. Observers also take notes. Surveys These are used to obtain data from large groups of people in a relatively short time and are normally used to gather user requirements. They can also be used for summative usability evaluation. Focus groups These are usually a discussion among eight to twelve current users or potential users or stakeholders of your site conducted by an experienced moderator. Focus groups typically lasts approximately two hours and covers a range of topics that are decided on beforehand. Task analysis Is used to determine the typical tasks that users perform to achieve a particular goal. Work patterns are studied and broken down to provide a list of tasks and the order in which they are performed. Prototypes Are representations of your website/application shown to users in order to inform the design and determine any major defects before proceeding with further development. These can range from paper drawings (low-fidelity) to near complete products (high-fidelity). Expert evaluations Experts are asked to evaluate sites for usability employing various methods such as heuristic evaluation where sites are evaluated against a set of usability principles. Other methods such as Cognitive walkthroughs and pluralistic evaluation are used (Preece et al. 2006). Will usability practices need to include accessibility practices in order to include people with disabilities or will doing this minimize usability of web products? 3. Relationship 3.1 Would disabled users also benefit if usability practitioners considered accessibility guidelines as part of the efficiency and satisfaction of a site? By analyzing the definitions for accessibility and usability to understand their relationship to one another we can see that accessibility focuses on the making allowances to improve the experience for a particular group of users whereas usability focuses on the effectiveness, satisfaction and efficiency in achieving a specified goal of a particular user when using a website. We can see here that the goals are similar albeit with a slight difference in focus. Disabled users can be considered a group of users with varying needs however; in many cases they are not considered when websites are being built (Disability Rights Commission 2004). If a site is not accessible to a user it will obviously not be an enjoyable or effective experience (Clark 2002). With usability the target audience is determined by means of usability techniques such as questionnaires, surveys and focus groups (Preece et al. 2006). However in many cases accessibility practitioners do not attempt to determine the level of use by a particular disability group for a specified website (Chandrashekar et al. 2006). Some work has been done in this area, however the uptake has not been as expected (Sloan 2006). In addition when websites are developed the focus of the accessibility effort is placed on the needs of blind users without bearing in mind the needs of other user groups such as those with colour-blindness or low vision. This is mainly due to a lack of awareness of what disability groups exist, besides blind users, and the varying difficulties encountered by these people. The WCAG 2.0 guidelines attempt to cover these areas but without being able to see these users encounter problems there is little impact and therefore less motivation to cater for these users. From this we can deduce that disabled users should be included as a potential target group and this should be determined by incorporating usability techniques into web accessibility practices. 3.2 Should both sets of guidelines and principles be adopted by both sets of practitioners or should a single Universal set of guidelines be used? If we compare the most commonly used guidelines of both parties we can see that there are similarities. Usability practitioners commonly make use of Nielsens usability heuristics to perform expert evaluations (Nielsen 1994): Visibility of system status Information should be given to the user via appropriate and reasonably timed feedback Match between system and the real world Language and terms that are familiar to the target audience should be used. Information should be presented naturally and logically. User control and freedom If a user makes a mistake they must be able to exit the function easily or undo the action without being confronted by confusing and unnecessary screens or dialogs. Consistency and standards The system should be consistent in terms of words to indicate actions, navigation and the system should use conventions that the user is accustomed to. Error prevention Always attempt to prevent the error in the design instead of providing good error messages Recognition rather than recall System elements, actions and objects should always be visible or easy to retrieve in order to alleviate the need for recall of previous actions or instructions. Flexibility and efficiency of use The system should be flexible enough to accommodate experienced and inexperienced users. The system should be configurable to allow access to frequently used actions. Aesthetic and minimalist design Only important and relevant information should be displayed in dialogues. Irrelevant or unnecessary information will detract or diminish the visibility of important information. Help users recognize, diagnose, and recover from errors Messages and suggested solutions to problems should be written in language that is plain, precise and constructive. Help and documentation If necessary, documentation should be focused, concise, concrete and easy to locate Now let us expand on the four principles of the WCAG 2.0 accessibility guidelines mentioned in section 2.1(WCAG 2008) and point out any similarities between these and Nielsens heuristics. Perceivable Web content should be made available to any or all of the senses sight, hearing, and/or touch. Usability guidelines for Visibility of System Status, Recognition rather than recall (Nielsen 1994) will fail for the disabled user if the items in the site are not perceivable. Operable Interface objects such as forms, controls, and navigation must be operable independent of the input method User control and freedom and Flexibility and efficiency of use (Nielsen 1994) guidelines are not satisfied if they are not operable. If a site is very complex or unattractive it can be difficult to operate therefore it should make use of Aesthetic and minimalist design (Nielsen 1994). A site cannot be operated if it does not apply Consistency and standards (Nielsen 1994). Understandable The sites content, information and interface must be understandable to the target audience User control and freedom, Consistency and standards, Error prevention (Nielsen 1994) cannot occur if the content is not understandable. Help and documentation (Nielsen 1994) is necessary to improve understanding. It also not possible to Help users recognize, diagnose, and recover from errors (Nielsen 1994) if the site cannot be understood. Robust Sites can be used reliably by a wide variety of user agents such as web browsers, mobile devices and assistive technologies. In many cases minimalist design (Nielsen 1994) of a website will allow for web standards-based coding techniques to be employed which will allow it to be used on a variety of devices. Also be easier to follow platform conventions in terms of Consistency and standards (Nielsen 1994). As we can see there is an overlap between the two sets of principles. This overlap in principles could be the reason that Thatcher et al. (2003) where he suggests that accessibility issues are a type of usability problem hence accessibility is a subset of usability. Conversely Universal usability as conceptualized by Shneiderman (2003) where usability problems are thought of as a subset of accessibility problems, which expands the scope of usability to include disabled users in usability evaluations. However it is suggested the relationship between accessibility and usability isnt simply a case of applying a universal approach but that issues also be grouped into categories (Petrie et al. 2007). These being: Problems that only disabled users experience are referred to as pure accessibility problems Problems that only able-bodied users experience are referred to as pure usability problems Problems that both groups of users experience are referred to as universal usability problems The use of a universal set of guidelines is a good starting point however they will need to be refined to include the various accessibility and usability problems encountered by disabled and able-bodied users. 3.3 Should accessibility professionals employ usability practices? Usability practitioners employ numerous methods to determine the effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction of a project whereas accessibility practitioners will use various techniques and methods to achieve compliance with a set of guidelines. User testing is used by both sets of practitioners, more so by usability practitioners (Chandrashekar et al. 2006). However the difference being that usability practitioners will use this method early on and throughout the design process (Preece et al. 2006 p412). Accessibility practitioners will employ this method at the end of the project. Both groups make use of design guidelines (section 3.2). However guidelines are possibly not the most effective way of evaluating accessibility or usability as they are to be used as guidance but cannot by their nature guarantee the desired results. There are similarities between the accessibility and usability principles with accessibility guidelines being more technical in nature (Kelly et al. 2007), as they require websites to present a particular level of coding. However there are a number of non-technical accessibility guidelines. It is often thought that by making use of accessibility guidelines or universal design techniques that a site will be accessible by all. However this is not necessarily the case (Petrie 2007). Usability guidelines can also present problems (Spool 2002). As with the use of any guidelines they can conflict with one another, they can be misinterpreted and misapplied and they do not guarantee results. In practice accessibility experts will evaluate web sites against guidelines as opposed to user testing. However this has also been found to not be the most effective way of making a website accessible as shown by Disability Rights Commission (DRC) investigation, into website accessibility for disabled people. The study found that designers could not be expected to understand and repair the problems that disabled users experience when visiting a website. To overcome this problem the report suggests that disabled users should be directly involved in the development process (Disability Rights Commission 2004). Guidelines are important from a technical standpoint however it is also important to recognize that the guidelines cannot accommodate all users all of the time. The areas where the guidelines are not practical or important need to be clearly identified and alternate methods need to be identified in order to achieve accessibility (Kelly et al. 2007). Since the publication of the WCAG 2.0 in 2008, however, there are a variety of success criteria and methods suggested that could be used to achieve accessibility (Henry 2008). This being the case guidelines for measuring accessibility is still used predominantly because of the difference in cost between an expert evaluation and user testing and the availability of participants. It is often difficult to get a broad spectrum of users with varying disabilities and therefore accessibility practitioners inevitably end up repeatedly utilizing the same participants for disabled user testing. The reason cost is an issue is due to the fact that accessibility is not built into the project from the beginning and that many do not view it as being of great importance as the number of disabled users is thought to be proportionately very low in comparison with non-disabled users. However there is a strong business case for including disabled users. Christopherson (2007) states: The combined spending power of the 10 million people with a disability in the UK amounts to  £80 billion. There are 6 million people in the UK with dyslexia, with severe cases numbering around 4 million. Many users do not class themselves as disabled even though they may often suffer from disabilities that arent physically manifested such as age related issues, colour-blindness or cognitive difficulties. Some websites do not cater for older devices. By not including disabled users fully may exclude many users from a website which could mean a significant loss in revenue. In many cases accessibility testing is normally regarded as something that can be quickly done at the end of a project in order to comply with the legal obligations of a project. This approach to web accessibility is very shortsighted and potentially costly. If accessibility problems are encountered at the end of a project they can be very difficult to rectify after the fact. As is now recognized in the usability field, it is more efficient and cost effective to include usability evaluation from the beginning and throughout a project. This should also the case for accessibility evaluation as promoted by Henry (2007) in his book Just Ask: Integrating Accessibility Throughout Design. The main chapters deal with: The importance of building accessibility at the beginning and throughout the project Including disabled users and not relying only on standards and guidelines Tips on how to deal with disabled users It is better to involve disabled users throughout the lifespan of a project rather than relying on guidelines alone. By involving disabled users practitioners may be able to determine accessibility issues and usability issues which may have been otherwise missed in usability testing (Petrie 2007 pp 405). Accessibility professionals should not adopt usability principles if they are only going to rely on guidelines. However the usability practice of including actual users in evaluation and design from the start and throughout a project should be adopted. 3.4 What effect do new technologies have on usability? As stated earlier (section 2.1) new web technologies can enhance usability. Is this statement true? Does the ability to add more interactivity to a website improve the usability? According to Nielsen (2007) Web 2.0 technologies add more complexity to a website where it is sometimes not necessary and divert design resources. In his report he found amongst other things that: Internet applications were too complex Community content has too few users on the Internet Features merged from different websites (Mashups) can cause branding confusion Application type websites will benefit most from the use Web 2.0 technologies. Most other websites have very few repeated actions thus not requiring the use of this technology. Therefore as Nielsen (2007) states that efficiency is not as important as simplicity and that modest use of Web 2.0 technologies can be of benefit, however the benefits of advanced features have little effect in improving the users experience. If used modestly new technologies can be beneficial for certain types of user experience such as web applications. 3.5 What effect does new technologies have on accessibility? In a study by Hailpern et al. (2009) it was found that Web 2.0 applications force blind users to adapt to an inaccessible use model, although the evolution of technologies such as WAI-ARIA (section 2.3) and AJAX (section 2.3) may change this in the future. Some believe that Web 2.0 will make it more difficult to create accessible websites. Christopherson via Everett (2006) states that if accessibility is not kept in mind there is a greater chance that Web 2.0 will cause problems for disabled users. Basically Web 2.0 adds a further level of complexity, both in terms of accessibility and usability and this will need to be considered throughout the design process if these technologies are going to be used. 4. Conclusion To make sites that are usable and accessible we will need to change our thinking of usability. Is your site still usable if sighted people can fully and conveniently use it but it is a frustrating exercise for a blind person? (Clark 2003) In understanding the concept of an accessible site we have to understand what an accessible site is. A disabled persons experience of a website does not have to be identical to that of an able-bodied person. If accessibility features are simple and well written they should be unnoticed (Clark 2002). Clark (2002) reiterates, Equality is a misnomer. Equivalency is the goal. As can be seen from the above discussion there is an overlap between the definitions and methodologies employed by accessibility and usability practitioners and that there is scope for accessibility guidelines to be employed by usability practitioners and vice versa. However this is not simply a case of making a universal set of guidelines, as firstly accessibility and usability issues cannot be universally grouped and that there are distinct groups of accessibility issues. Secondly the use solely of guidelines is fraught with controversy and do not necessarily guarantee that a site will be accessible or usable. Involving users both disabled and able-bodied throughout the project lifecycle is the most effective approach in achieving the most usable and accessible product. Involving disabled users is also makes good business sense. Web 2.0 technologies do have an effect on the relationship between accessibility and usability. For them to not have a negative effect they need to be used with discretion always bearing in mind that they add a level of complexity for both able-bodied and disabled users. Therefore we can conclude that that by embracing the techniques and methodologies and recognizing points of similarity between usability and accessibility practices, and with modest and careful, considered use of new web technologies a web design can be made both usable and accessible. References Abou-Zahra, S (ed) (2008) Evaluating Web Sites for Accessibility: Overview. Worldwide Web Consortium, Web Accessibility Initiative. Available at: http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/Overview.html. Accessed 7 December 2009. Caldwell, B, Cooper, M, Reid, LG Vanderheiden, G (2008) Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0. Available at: http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/. Accessed 7 December 2009. Christopherson, R (2007) Making the business case for accessibility. AbilityNet. Available at: http://www.abilitynet.org.uk/webbusinesscase. Accessed 7 December 2009. Chandrashekar, S, Fels, D, Stockman, T, Benedyk, R. (2006) Using think aloud protocol with blind users: A case for inclusive usability evaluation methods. Proceedings of the 8th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on computers and accessibility, Portland, Oregon Clark, J (2002) Building Accessible Websites. New Riders. Available at: http://joeclark.org/book/. Accessed 7 December 2009. Disability Rights Commission (2004) The web: access and inclusion for disabled people. Available at: http://joeclark.org/dossiers/DRC-GB.html. Accessed 7 December 2009. Everett, C (2006) Web 2.0: A step backwards for accessibility? ZDNet.co.uk. Available at: http://resources.zdnet.co.uk/articles/0,1000001991,39284428,00.htm. Accessed 7 December 2009. Featherstone, D. Gustavson, A. Sims, G (1998) Working together for standards The Web Standards Project. Available at: http://www.webstandards.org. Accessed 7 December 2009. Garrett, JJ (2005) Ajax: A New Approach to Web Applications. Adaptive Path. http://www.adaptivepath.com/ideas/essays/archives/000385.php. Accessed 7 December 2009. Hailpern, J, Guarino-Reid, L, Boardman, R, Annam, S (2009) Web 2.0: blind to an accessible new world. Proceedings of the 18th international Conference on World Wide Web (Madrid, Spain, April 20 24, 2009). WWW 09. ACM, New York, NY. Henry, SL (2009) W3C: Accessibility. Worldwide Web Consortium. Available at: http://www.w3.org/standards/webdesign/accessibility. Accessed 7 December 2009. Henry, SL (2007) Just Ask: Integrating Accessibility Throughout Design. Madison, WI. Available at: http://www.uiAccess.com/JustAsk/. Accessed 7 December 2009.

Changing Family Dynamics

The Acceptance of Multifaceted Lifestyles The New Western Family A white picket fence surrounding a red-brick house in which a doting wife, successful and hard-working husband, and two and one half children reside was, at one point in time, the epitome of North American life. Since the era of that belief has passed, North American society is being affected by various factors that act as catalysts for the fall of the American Dream and the subsequent rise in the embodiment of increasingly different family structures.Modern North American culture prides itself in its inclusiveness and adaptability, yet it is prepared to accept that the definition of a family is no longer one of concrete wording? According the Andrew Cherlin, â€Å"Marriage has undergone a process of deinstitutionalization—a weakening of the social norms that define partners’ behaviour—over the past few decades (2004: 848). Studies in divorce, cohabitation, remarriage, and the legalization of gay a nd lesbian unions have proven that the nuclear family no longer consists of a man, woman, and a reasonable number of children.This literature review not only explores and distinguishes various factors discussed in pieces of work that influence North American society to embrace demographically diverse structures both also discusses the potential for a future resurfacing of the American Dream. Divorce and the Nuclear Family A nuclear family is commonly defined as a father, mother, and dependent children. This definition is being deconstructed by many factors, primarily through divorce. The introduction of no-fault unilateral divorce laws in North America forms the query of whether divorce rates were affected or not.According to Justin Wolfers (2006:1806), author of ‘Did Unilateral Divorce Laws Raise Divorce Rates? A Reconciliation and New Results’, both types of divorce, consensual and otherwise, form a particular number of divorces each year. These subcategories of divor ce, however, do not comprise the amount of divorces that occur annually though the simple process of marital unsuitability. Andrew Cherlin (2005:36) writes that in the early 1900s, â€Å"about 10 percent of all marriages ended in divorce, and the figure rose to about one-third for marriages begun in 1950.But the rise was particularly sharp during the 1960s and 1970s, when the likelihood that a married couple would divorce increased substantially. † This threat of divorce may have been, in fact, what prevented young adults from getting married in the first place. Rather than marry with the fear of divorce, a sense of security can be established by remaining single for longer periods of time. The age at which many individuals first marry has increased and now rests between 25 and 30 years of age (Cherlin 2005:40). The rate of divorce has seemingly plateaued as of recently.However, this does not indicate that the introduction of no fault unilateral divorce laws did not impact th e rates of divorce in any way. The chain-reaction caused by these laws is one that directly influences marriage. Marriages have become less frequent, and their decline unequivocally results in an analogous fall in the number of divorces (Rasul 2003:28). Andrew Cherlin (2004:849) discusses that the decrease in marriages has much to do with its deinstitutionalization process. North American society is adopting new methods of living as family units, such as cohabitation and remarriage.Cohabitation, Remarriage, and the Nuclear Family Cohabitation is the act of living, unmarried, with a partner. According to Cherlin, a large number of couples cohabitate as a replacement for marriage. However, a similar amount of these relationships dissolve within twenty-four months, suggesting that it is not a strong alternative for a marital union (2005:35). During the twentieth century, typical beliefs surrounding marriage were again changing. Having children, living together, and maintaining sexual r elationships are all facets of life that were beginning to fit the social norms established (Cherlin 2005:40).Regarding the success of marriages associated with pre-marital cohabitation, indicators are not positive, as many unions fail shortly after being made legal (Rasul 2003:30). This being said, not all new marriages end in disaster. Remarriage is a new marriage to a new partner, and is an increasingly prevalent family structure in North American society. Following divorce, individuals who decide to marry again engage in remarriage. This type of marriage can involve parties who have children or who are childless. In the case that children are involved, step-families are created.As quoted by Godina in the review of, ‘Understanding Stepfamilies: Their Structure and Dynamics’, fellow writer, Grinwald, believes that, â€Å"by the year 2000 the stepfamily will be the predominant family structure in the United States and will actually outnumber the nuclear family† (Godina cited Grinwald 2001:318). This statement is in accordance with others, all supporting the conviction that stepfamilies are becoming an increasingly dominant family structure and that many children will be members of one in their lifetimes (Godina 2001:318).Individuals who do not remarry, or those who have not been previously married take on different family structures then those previously discussed. These forms are the single-parent household or a lone existence. Single Parents, Habitual Solitude, and the Nuclear Family Contrary to the nuclear family structure previously discussed are the family structures involving single parenthood and habitual solitude. There are two primary ways in which single-parent families are established, the first being through divorce.A divorced parent who has children and makes the decision not to remarry establishes themself as a single-parent family unit. The second way is through unwed pregnancy. This lifestyle is not only growing in populari ty for couples alone, but it is also adopting a sense of normalcy to incorporate the birth of children. According to Cherlin, as cohabitation is generally seen as equivalent to marriage in modern North American society, many children that would at first be deemed illegitimate are in actuality, not.Rather, they are born of a cohabitating couple. (2004:849). The authors of, ‘Context and Inclusivity in Canada’s Evolving Definition of the Family’, Nicholas Bala and Rebecca Jaremko Bromwich concur with Cherlin’s hypothesis, stating that the increased number of children being raised by single parents can be explained not only by the increase in divorce rates and corresponding rise in couple separation and the births of children in cohabitating relationships rather than marriages (2002:148).For individuals who have no children and no existing desire to wed or cohabitate, there is the option of living by oneself. This lifestyle choice is also increasing in North A merican society, even if only for part of a person’s life. Achieving success and happiness are often considered common goals shared by the majority of North American society. For many, this means acquiring a post-secondary education and procuring an enjoyable, rewarding career.These two objectives, receiving an education and job position, are two things, according to Andrew Cherlin that young adults are completing before considering marriage (2004:852). Stefan Buzar, Philip E. Ogden, and Ray Hall’s article titled, ‘Households matter: the quiet demography of urban transformation’, is in accordance with Cherlin’s report, stating that the new trends being discovered in family demographics include evidence supporting the idea that not only are the traditions surrounding marriage devolving, but marriage itself is changing and is often being put off by adults (2005:416).Not only are members of North American society delaying marriage, but some are assumin g roles in an entirely different form of marriage than that historically accepted. This form is that of same-sex relationships. Homosexuality and the Nuclear Family Once prohibited, same-sex unions are no longer a thing of the past, as the lesbian-gay community has received and is continuing to receive support from North American society regarding both marriage legalization and lifestyle recognition (Bala and Bromwich 2002:148).This statement is in agreement with Cherlin’s article, ‘The Deinstitutionalization of American Marriage’, in which he discusses how the deinstitutionalization of marriage was influenced not only by the acceptance of lifestyles such as cohabitation and non-marital conception, but also by the window of opportunity the aforementioned factors created for same-sex relationships to emerge as a new lifestyle choice (2004:852).Same-sex unions, which are now accepted in many countries including Canada and a number of American States is the newest a ddition to the breakdown of marriage as an institution, yet despite its unspoken level of normalcy, organizations such as the Roman Catholic Church do not view it in positive light. In fact, â€Å"in January 2001, the Vatican released a document attacking homosexual unions as ‘a deplorable distortion’, signifying ‘a serious sign of the contemporary breakdown in the moral conscience† (Bala and Bromwich 2002:165). The disdain towards same-sex partnership however, is not seen in all religious communities.Similar to legal institutions, they too are slowly changing their perspectives on gay and lesbian marriages. The shift from, at one point in time, displaying no support for same-sex unions whatsoever to showing an increasing amount annually suggests that there is new hope for the diversity of family demographics. The Future of Family Structures The out-dated, seemingly archaic beliefs that a family is comprised of a man, woman, and their dependent children is now steadily being replaced in North American society by the ideology that a family unit can consist of a number of combinations of men, women, and children.From single parents with children to large step-families and from gay and lesbian couples to habitually single individuals, the information and knowledge discussed in this literature review is purposed to open the eyes of North American society and equip them with the ability to readily accept the new and more diverse family structures mentioned and prepare society for the new definition of family. As discussed in Andrew Cherlin’s article, the future of the North American family structure cannot be determined exactly.Rather, it can be hypothesised that family demographics will continue to change and create more diverse structures, or the demographics will revert to the way they were during the era of the American Dream (2004:858). Studying family demographics and the factors that influence their changes is important to so ciety because in order to be fully accepting of new family forms, the North American society must first understand them. In fact, Jean M.Lynch states in her article, ‘Considerations of Family Structure and Gender Composition: The Lesbian and Gay Stepfamily’ that, â€Å"the study of alternative family forms as unique and a recognition of distinct challenges and strengths is of paramount importance in expanding the family studies research,† (2000:94). North American society is becoming increasingly inclusive of multifaceted family forms. Factors mentioned in this literature review such as divorce, remarriage, single parenting, are continuously impacting demographics concerning family diversity.The iteration of defining a contemporary North American family has, and likely will continue to change over the years. However, in continuing to accept a variety of family structures, North American societies will move forward demographically, and therefore promote further de velopment of the family structure. References Bala, Nicholas. , and Rebecca Jaremko Bromwich. 2002. â€Å"Context and Inclusivity in Canada’s Evolving Definition of the Family. † International Journal of Law, Policy, and the Family 16(2):148 Buzar, Stefan, Philip E. Ogden, and Ray Hall. 2005. Households matter: the quiet demography of urban transformation. † Progress in Human Geography 29(4): 416. Cherlin, Andrew J. 2005. â€Å"American Marriage in the Early Twenty-First Century. † The Future of Children 15(2):33-55 Cherlin, Andrew J. 2004. â€Å"The Deinstitutionalization of American Marriage. † Journal of Marriage and Family 66(4):849 Cherlin, Andrew J. 2010. â€Å"Demographic Trends in the United States: A Review of Research in the 2000s. † Journal of Marriage and Family 72(3):409 Godina, E. 2001. Review of Understanding Stepfamilies: Their Structure and Dynamics. Edited by Craig A. Everett.Journal of Biosocial Science 33(2):317-318 Lynch, Jean. 2000. â€Å"Considerations of Family Structure and Gender Composition: The Lesbian and Gay Stepfamily. † Journal of Homosexuality 40(2):81-95 Rasul, Imran. 2003. â€Å"The Impact of Divorce Laws on Marriage. † Department of Business, University of Chicago and CEPR, Chicago, Illinois. Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved 4 November 2011 http://www. cepr. org/meets/wkcn/3/3519/papers/Rasul. pdf Wolfers, Justin. 2006. â€Å"Did Unilateral Divorce Laws Raise Divorce Rates? A Reconciliation and New Results. † The American Economic Review 96(5):1806, 1814.

How Great Websites Help Improve Your Business

Take a look at the websites for Harley-Davidson (www. harley-davidson. com), Yamaha (www. yamaha-motor. com), and Indian (www. indianmotorcycle. com). Who are their potential customers? How is each of these companies appealing to their potential customers? Are they using emotion, facts, comparisons, etc? How effective do you believe each of them to be? Harley Davidson (www. harley-davidson. com) Who doesn’t know Harley Davidson? It is a popular American motorcycle manufacturer. Also known as H-D or Harley founded in 1903 by William Harley and Walter, William, and Arthur Davidson, who built their first three motorcycles in a shed in Milwaukee.Harley sells heavyweight which is over 750  cc motorcycles designed for traveling on highways. It was one of two major American motorcycle manufacturers to survive the  Great Depression during the first decade of 20th century. Harley-Davidson has come a long way since filing for bankruptcy in 1986 once the company realized how to conne ct with potential customers. According to Ken Schmidt, Harley-Davidson's former director of communication said that they don’t compete with hardware which only creates pricing pressure. Instead, they use the hardware as protection and the process behind it as their weapon.Their weapon of choice is getting potential customers to like them more than their competitors. From a hardware and utility perspective, everything does the same thing, so Harley do business with people, brands and organizations they like. Schmidt also said â€Å"When all things are the same and we feel no inclination to do business with one particular company over another, we buy from whoever is willing to sell us a cool piece of hardware at the lowest price. We are all consumers; the things we buy, the reasons we buy them, regardless of how much we spend, do not make sense. Notice our customer is one of the key points in doing business. Harley-Davidson sale person continuously ask potential customers what that they really wanted and produce that product and sell it to them at a profit. Harley-Davidson brings motorcyclists together to create social network. Today there are 1,300 Harley dealers worldwide, 650 of which are in United States. The group are getting larger. The sales person refers the customers as a friend. The customer feels good once you treat them like a friend.By this they will go out and spread the word which create a bigger chain of ‘friends’ around the world. Current customers have told Harley-Davidson’s management to keep the identity, look and sound of the motorcycles because they are unique. When customers view are heard and accepted it develop greater brand loyalty, creating customer experience that is unique and valuable. Harley-Davidson ranging from CEO and sales person maintained personalised relationships with customers through face to face and social media contact. They use advertising nationally about four to five television commercials a year.These commercials are recognised because they are advertising the company not the product. They also advertised in national magazines such as Road ; Track, Popular Science, and Fortune as well as specific motorcycle magazines as Easy Rider. Locally, individual Harley-Davidson dealers advertise on the radio and through direct mail. Internet is a great and fast way to promote as it reaches the entire world. Harley owners can find new product where new customers are able to see what products Harley-Davidson has to offer and can compare the price with similar products.The more information the public can get the more chances of a potential customer. The purpose of Harley-Davidson's mass media advertising is to inform and remind which move customers from ignorance to awareness. The plant's maintenance organization is a strong proponent of: * Technology * A focus on detail and root causes * Team concepts * Communication and sharing By effectively using these â€Å"tools,† sa ys lead maintenance reliability engineer Dana Fluet, â€Å"We are moving toward being 100 precent proactive and having zero fire-fighting. It's the way that we're doing business at Harley-Davidson. As a result for the full year 2012, Harley-Davidson continues to forecast a five – seven percent increase in motorcycle shipment compared to last year, 2011. Companies can build customer relationships at many levels, depending on the nature of the target market. Harley-Davidson established the  Harley Owners Group  (HOG) in 1983 which gives Harley riders a way to share their common passion of â€Å"making the Harley-Davidson dream a way of life† HOG also build on the strong loyalty and community of Harley-Davidson enthusiasts as a means to promote not just a consumer product, but a lifestyle. HOG members typically spend 30% more han other Harley owners, on such items as clothing and Harley-Davidson-sponsored events. HOG went international in 1991, with the first officia l European HOG Rally in Cheltenham, England. Today, more than one million members and more than 1400 chapters worldwide make HOG the largest factory-sponsored motorcycle organization in the world. HOG benefits include two magazines (Hog Tales and Enthusiast), a HOG Touring Handbook, a roadside assistance program, a specially designed insurance program, theft reward service, a travel center, and a â€Å"Fly & Ride† program enabling members to rent Harleys while on vacation. . http://www. sema. org/sema-enews/2010/13/sema-show-seminar-how-harley-davidson-reinvented-itself 2. http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Harley-Davidson 3. http://www. scribd. com/doc/2670384/Harley-Davidson-Analysis 4. http://www. scribd. com/doc/19943405/Harley-Davidson-Case-Study 5. http://catalogue. pearsoned. co. uk/assets/hip/gb/hip_gb_pearsonhighered/samplechapter/0273755021. pdf 6. Text Book Principle of Marketing Thirteenth edition Yamaha (www. yamaha-motor. com)Genichi Kawakami was the first son of Ka ichi Kawakami, the third-generation president of Nippon Gakki (musical instruments and electronics; presently Yamaha Corporation). He was the second Kawakami to join the Nippon Gakki Company. He explored producing many products, including sewing machines, auto parts, scooters, three-wheeled utility vehicles including motorcycles. Market and competitive factors led him to focus on the motorcycle market. Genichi actually visited the United States many times during this period. â€Å"If you are going to make it, make it the very best there is. With these words as their motto, the development team poured all their energy into building the first prototype, and ten months later in August of 1954 the first model was complete. It was the Yamaha YA-1. The bike was powered by an air-cooled, 2-stroke, single cylinder 125cc engine. Yamaha continued to grow. They have diversity products including snowmobiles, race kart engines, generators, scooters, ATVs, personal watercraft and more. Genichi K awakami step up for Yamaha Motor Company's success with his vision and philosophies.His total honesty towards the customer and making products that hold their own enables the company that serves people in thirty-three countries, to provide an improved lifestyle through exceptional quality, high performance products. Yamaha motor has expended to Star motorcycles, Sport, Outdoors, Watercraft and Marine. Now Yamaha motor has more than 400 dealers across the country and now they are planning to spread out to more cities increasing its dealer network to 2000 by 2018. To be on top you have to know your customer.Genichi once said, â€Å"I believe that the most important thing when building a product is to always keep in mind the standpoint of the people who will use it. † An example of the commitment to â€Å"walking in the customers' shoes† was the move in 1966 by Yamaha to continue its expansion. John Bayliss who is the Motorcycle Product Manager of Yamaha Motor Canada Ltd said â€Å"The new FJR1300 is attracting lots of very positive feedback. A number of customers have already stepped up and left deposits with our dealers, without even seeing the bike in person! It tells us that the designers and engineers have done a great job and satisfied customers need.Yamaha motor website makes the customer easy to find what they want. Yamaha motor also created a link ‘My YAMAHA’ is for you. By becoming a member of ‘My Yamaha’ customer will have access to many exclusive member benefits such as build a customised web page and set as your browser’s home page, Create & Save accessorised ATVs in any of the Build-Your-Own sections, Build & Save a Wish List for Genuine Yamaha Parts and Accessories and also customer can view and print vehicle Maintenance Schedules & Services Specifications back from year 2002.Yamaha motor also offer Pro Yamaha Motorsports dealer. A Pro Yamaha Motorsport dealer is a customer satisfaction focused dealer ship that has consistently excelled in providing customer with the best sales experience, the best service experience and the best ownership experience. By ‘Walking in customers shoes’ slogan it will make Yamaha motor understand the needs of customer by this they will deliver faster and better. By having more products in the market, it will be easier for people to know your brand. 1. www. amaha-motor. com 2. http://www. presidion. com/industry_solutions/commercial/materials/case_studies /Yamaha%20Motor%20Europe. pdf 3. http://cars. sulekha. com/yamaha-motors-expand-their-dealership-network-in-maharashtra_car_news_2935 4. http://www. yamaha-motor. com/sport/myyamaha/login/L3Nwb3J0L215eWFtYWhhL2hvbWUuYXNweA==/starthere. aspx Indian Motorcycle (www. indianmotorcycle. com) The Indian motorcycle was originally founded as the Hendee Manufacturing Company by George M. Hendee in 1897 who manufacture bicycles.They renamed the Indian Motocycle Manufacturing Company  in 1928. Ca rl Oscar Hedstrom  joined in 1900. Both of them are former bicycle racers and manufacturers. They teamed up to produce a motorcycle in Hendee’s home town of Springfield. It was successful and the sales increased drastically during the next decade. In April 2011, Polaris Industries purchased Indian Motorcycle Company. Backed by $2 billion Company, the customer can expect the confidence of the Polaris engineering team, vision, quality and performance to be delivered in the classic Indian Motorcycle.Now, Polaris is redesigning Indian bikes from a clean sheet of paper to capture the spirit of the Chief and other Indians from a half-century ago, but to use a modern engine and other components to make the bikes rider-friendly. With the slow economy, Indian had a tough road due to a restricted and high end line of motorcycles. Polaris, on the other hand is far more expanded and able to weather the current market conditions. This could be a good combination for both companies This store also carries many ranges of back seats, decorative trim, leather jackets, hats, shirts and more.Customers and fans can join a rewards membership program for added benefits, events and discounts. We use mobile toolboxes & equipment to set up a fabrication shop under canopy for customers to get a unique & personal experience in the techniques. There are hundreds of events held all over the country each year. Indian motorcycle show potential customers that the modifications & builds can be done without huge machines & million dollar facilities, they can get their local dealer to do the modifications or even do some themselves.They even do small workshops for potential & existing customers. This can help to change customer thinking. In Indian Motorcycle website it stated RIDE PROUD. RIDE INDIAN. Indian Motorcycle is determined to deliver a premium experience to riders around the world. Indian Motorcycle is looking for a select dealer business operator that will proudly represent t heir brand while assuring a premium buying and ownership experience for consumers. Understanding what customers need in a purchase experience is critical in meeting the needs of the market.We spent a substantial amount of time talking with motorcycle riders to understand what they want from their dealer. This understanding was the basis for the store design and dealership operational expectations. The customer experience is paramount in the success of the Indian Motorcycle brand and a profitable dealership. Indian Motorcycle store branding was established directly from what consumers told us and what they expected when shopping for a premium motorcycle. These riders want an open environment that allows enough room to walk between the motorcycles.They do not want to have to walk through or around other products to get to the bikes. Having an adequate selection of apparel and accessories is also very important to their potential consumers. The store layout and design will give custome rs a premium shopping experience that is constant with their expectations. This look and feel will be consistent in the dealerships, at major motorcycling events, and all other consumer and public interactions with Indian Motorcycle. In addition to the dealership location and shopping environment, customers also have expectations about how they should be treated.They want to be able to sit on the motorcycles, start the motorcycles, and take a test ride. It is important to them to be able to feel firsthand how the motorcycle performs and fits their riding style. These riders want to be able to have conversations with a knowledgeable staff that listens and responds properly. They want the staff to be motorcycle buffs that understand motorcycle riders. Indian motorcycle training, support, and operational standards will help ensure a positive â€Å"frictionless† interaction with our consumers.With the development of this strategy, they also understand the need to align with the r ight partners in the market. Indian Motorcycle dealers will need to understand and embrace the â€Å"Ride Proud, Ride Indian† culture. They should understand that that they are making an investment in their future with Indian Motorcycle. They will be expected to maintain the highest level of respect for the Indian Motorcycle brand and the Indian Motorcycle rider. Indian Motorcycle gathers and uses your personal information to run the Indian Motorcycle Web site and carry out the services you have requested.They also use your personally identifiable information to inform you of other products or services available from Indian Motorcycle and its associates. Indian Motorcycle may also contact you via surveys to conduct research about your opinion of current services or of potential new services that may be offered. Indian Motorcycle keeps track of the websites and pages that customers visited within Indian Motorcycle in order to decide what Indian Motorcycle services are the most popular. This data is used to deliver modified content and advertising within Indian Motorcycle to customers that are interested in a particular subject area.Indian Motorcycle is an iconic brand with a proud legacy and a bright future. We will offer Indian Motorcycle Brand training to ensure that all dealership appreciate the legendary heritage of Indian Motorcycle and the brand that they have been entrusted to help steward and grow. Training will also be provided to be certain that dealership personnel understand who the customer is and what they expect in a finest shopping experience. 1. http://www. indianmotorcycle. com/en-us/pages/home. aspx 2. http://www. phatridez. biz/Polaris. html 3. http://thekneeslider. com/polaris-buys-indian-motorcycles/

Arguments of Plato in The Republic and Aristotle in Poetics

What does imitation (mimesis) involve for Plato and Aristotle? Explain its different features. Mimesis, the ‘imitative representation of the real world in art and literature’ , is a form that was particularly evident within the governance of art in Ancient Greece. Although its exact interpretation does vary, it is most commonly used to describe artistic creation as a whole. The value and need for mimesis has been argued by a number of scholars including Sigmund Freud, Philip Sydney and Adam Smith, but this essay will focus on the arguments outlined by Plato in The Republic and Aristotle in Poetics, attempting to demonstrate the different features of imitation (mimesis) and what it involves for them both. In Plato’s The Republic, he†¦show more content†¦Finally, when the artist then creates his painting of the carpenter’s bed, he is not imitating the idea; rather he is imitating the object. This therefore means that the painting (imitation) is at third removed from the ultimate reality of the bed. Moreover, Plato explains that mimesis is â₠¬Ëœa long way removed from truth, and it is able to reproduce everything because it has little grasp of anything†¦ a painter can paint a portrait of a shoemaker or a carpenter or any other craftsman without understanding any of their crafts’. Moreover, according to Plato, many of his contemporaries speak of poets like Homer as though they ‘†¦are masters of all forms of skill, and know all about human excellence and defect and about religion’ . This poses a problem for mimesis because, Plato maintains, the audiences forget that they are being entertained and mistake Homer’s imitation of human behaviour for real knowledge, believing for example, his false portrayal of Zeus. Plato’s third objection to imitation (mimesis) is from a moral point of view in which he believes that the more convincing an imitation is, the more it undermines the psychological stability of even the greatest humans. He argues that the essence of any human is to have higher rational principles as well as lower emotional principles but in order for humans to live a life of reason and righteousness, we must encourage our rational principles over our emotional ones. However, he claims that imitation (mimesis) tends toShow MoreRelatedAnalysis Of The Book The First Ones 1562 Words   |  7 Pagesminds and Plato and Aristotle were the first philosophers to answer these questions. 2. Plato 2.1. His Life To many people, Plato was known as the first writer of philosophy. Plato was born in Athens in 429 BC (Plato-Biography, egs.edu). His birth name was Aristocles and gained the nickname Platon later on. He had two brothers named Adeimantus and Glaucon (Plato-Biography, egs.edu). When Plato met Socrates, he adopted his philosophy and discussed about virtue. From 409 BC to 404 BC, Plato was inRead MoreEssay about Plato and Aristotles Definition of Art1274 Words   |  6 Pagesterm as we know it. It encompassed painting, sculpting, poetry, and all what he still recognize as art, as well as craftwork, carpentry and similar occupations. Plato was the first to address the nature of art seriously, and did so quite emphatically. Considering it unimportant and even dangerous, he denounced it. His student, Aristotle, who handled the same subject next, held incompatible and sometimes opposing views on the matter. Their views were greatly influenced by their metaphysical beliefsRead MorePlato , in the â€Å"Republic â€Å", ambitiously sets out to prove that art imitates reality by distracting900 Words   |  4 PagesPlato, in the â€Å"Republic â€Å", ambitiously sets out to prove that art imitates reality by distracting us from the truth and appeals to socially destructive emotions. He continued his statement by referring that art provides no real knowledge, and that it undermines personal and social well being. In this paper, I will argue that Plato makes an invalid implicit assumption that the representation of life through arts is dangerous and doesn’t define the truth since it uses imitation. I will demonstrateRead MoreMimesis: Plato and Aristotle1536 Words   |  7 PagesMimesis: Plato and Aristotle 1,515 Words Philosophy 2348: Aesthetics\ The term ‘mimesis’ is loosely defined as ‘imitation’, and although an extensive paper could be written about the cogency of such a narrow definition, I will instead focus on Plato and Aristotle’s contrasting judgements of mimesis (imitation). I will spend one section discussing Plato’s ideas on mimesis and how they relate to his philosophy of reality and the forms. I will then spend a section examining Aristotle’s differingRead MoreThe Evolving Role of Poetry and the Poet Essay1751 Words   |  8 Pagesfootnotes to Plato, claimed Alfred North Whitehead in 1929s Process and Reality. Plato studied under Socrates in Athens, Greece, and showed a deep interest for politics. It wasnt until Socrates death that Plato turned from politics to philosophy. He developed Idealism in opposition to the belief of the Sophists and opened a school in Athens. The Academy was one of the first organized schools in Western Civilization it was here that Plato taught his most famous student, Aristotle. Platos mostRead MorePlato s Views On Art And Representation1322 Words   |  6 Pagesagainst this topic. Plato, one of the pioneer of Western philosophy, is one of the foremost scholar to denounce art and representation, whereas Aristotle, and most of the modern scholars like Derrida directly criticize Plato’s opinion and applaud art and representation. Some scholars like Joyce, however, are not so vocal about their support, but instead prefer to show their approval by means of their art, like Joyce does in Portrait of the Young Man as an Artist. Plato, in his Republic, argued that artRead MoreComparison Between Aristotle and Plato on Mimesis4881 Words   |  20 PagesiA comparison between Aristotle and Plato on mimesis 1. Introduction Mimesis, as a controversial concept starting from the 15th century, is among the oldest terms in literature and artistic theory, and is certainly among the most fundamental. Developing centuries, the concept of mimesis has been explored and reinterpreted by scholars in various academic fields. The word â€Å"Mimesis† developed from the root mimos, noun designating both a person who imitates and a specific genre of performance basedRead MoreHow Do Reason and Imagination Shape Poetry?1979 Words   |  8 PagesImagination, the result is generally seen as more damaging to the art form. Shelley goes on to relate that â€Å"It is admitted that the exercise of the imagination is most delightful, but it is alledged that that of reason is more useful†, and therefore the argument is made that Reason is a more useful inspiration for poetry since it revolves around real world notions, while the Imagination is useless fantasy. Shelley argues against this, putting forth that â€Å" whatever strengthens and purifies the affections,Read More Apology for Poetry Essay1900 Words   |  8 Pageson poetry; it is known Gosson’s remarks prompt Sidney’s attitude to defend not only against Gosson but as well as Plato. Stephen Gosson’s Puritan credentials, disregards him as the primary source for submitting the essay. Sidney addresses the poetic contributions and principles demonstrated by Aristotle, Plato, and other European scholars. Plato’s Republic implements most of the poetic knowledge Sidney reinforces in his defense. The abundance of sciences portrays significant purposes in life; SidneyRead More Matthew Arnold versus Aristotles Poetics Essay examples3833 Words   |  16 PagesThe value of imitation: a vision of Aristotles Poetics Aristotle wrote his Poetics thousands of years before Matthew Arnolds birth. His reasons for composing it were different from Arnolds reasons for using it as an element of his own poetic criticism. We can safely say that Arnold was inclined to use the Poetics as an inspiration for his own poetry, and as a cultural weapon in the fight for artistic and social renewal. Aristotle, by contrast, was more concerned with discovering general truths