Professor Van Kley provided both written and audio/media commentary on the conference draft. Below are his written critiques:

As I mentioned in our group conference, the audio comment above constitutes my main feedback. Below are some scattered notes that served as a foundation for the audio comment. Use it at your own risk!

Argument/structure:

• -your opening lays our a pretty clear concept. A space that’s not marked by special interests;
• – be wary of Ivy League exceptionalism

• – could you add more evidence in the piece? Do you have any list of events you can describe/link? (details page.)
• – The oldenburg page is structured in a way I’m finding a bit confusing (stand-alone summary meets application in a single paragraph). Could summarize first; break; then apply. Also, might need to tell us what social good the Third space supposedly provides.
• x. another possible question: third space is not home and not work; this space is not home and not club space. That’s a shift, right? Do you need to account for that shift more carefully?

• – OK; “self-contained” means isolating?
• – size doesn’t produce the inability to hide, right? openness does.

Design:

• -Avoid centering text if it’s more than a line or two. Left align instead
• – Your section headings should help us see a logical rogression of claim; that’s not happening right now.
• – acknowledgements is in a weird spot Some pages seem like they’re just placeholders for images, is that right? How can you integrate claim and media? see the performance recording and the interior page.
• – lots of chances to play around with graphic design on the oldenburg page (could do a checklist with 2 columns, for example–Oldenburg features | Hop yes/no)