Talk:Visual literacy

message: Nice job expanding this stub. Your project is now listed at Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects#Oregon_State_University. Some advice:
* those of you who have not registered may consider doing so, as this can prove to your teachers that it was you who has done the editing. After registering, you may also claim those anonimous edits for your accounts.
* when you are editing, try using Wikipedia:Summary box
* you may want to link referenced (cited) works with the places in text that are actually reffering to them using Wikipedia:Footnotes
* some of the images (:Image:WWIIAdvertisement.jpg. :Image:Warcost.gif, :Image:2002-sales-product-category-chart.jpg, :Image:Budweiser ad.jpg and :Image:Advertisement.jpg) you uploaded have no Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and thus will be deleted soon unless you can provide relevant information
Keep up the good job. If you want, you can ask for more comments on Wikipedia:Peer review. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some suggestions 

message: I'd like to encourage editors of this article carefully to review the Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:No original research.  It appears to me that much of the current content of this article is "original research" in the sense prohibited by the policy -- that is, it's novel and unattributed media criticism, rather than an encyclopedia article reporting well-accepted fact.  The mere presence of citations to the web sites and media discussed does not make this critical discussion anything but original research.  Discussion is welcome, but I think in the end much of this content will end up needing to be heavily modified, deleted, or severely cut. -- Rbellin|Talk 21:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the original material which it seemed to me was unlikely to be revised into useful encyclopedic article content. -- Rbellin|Talk 19:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  original research? 

message: Ok, so I understand what it is about, but not what it exactly is. 
Literacy seems to be about understanding and communicating with that media, e.g. verbal literacy. So visual literacy must be about understanding communication in illustrations etc.? Everybody must be visually literal to some extend, while some being better than others obvious. I thought the word would be applied to groups of people like: "Children of today are more visually literal than 50 years ago, because they meet many more illustrations in school and in their daily life". 
But in this article, there is a definition: "Visual literacy is the ability to evaluate, apply, or create conceptual visual representations. Skills include the evaluation of advantages and disadvantages of visual representations, to improve shortcomings, to use them to create and communicate knowledge, or to devise new ways of representing insights". This stresses visual literacy as something for teachers or authors of communication material and teaching material, and not to students receiving it. 
I think the article on visual literacy in education supports my understanding, and thus the above definition has a wrong or too narrow focus. 
193.140.194.116 (talk) 15:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is visual literacy? 

message: I happened across this article and it struck me that it needed something visual to demonstrate what it was all about.  I added 4 items - pretty much off the top of my head after a quick reading.  Feel free to replace any of these if you have better visual examples.  Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needed something visual