The site is based on minimalism. The audience is given no clue as to who the creator(s) are, and we are left to figure it out on our own (using search engines and whatnot). There is no credits page, no comparisons (academic or otherwise), and no accreditation. Nowhere do we find that this website was created by two professors at American universities. Nowhere do we find their personal backgrounds, or even a link to these relevant topics. Nowhere do we learn that this website won the Net-Z-Lab Internet Art Prize (Technische Universitat, Chemnitz, Germany), and that it was selected for the XXV Bienal de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. Why not?
These professors are obviously proud of their website and design. They won an award, and were nominated for another. Why not blatantly post information linking them to Tuesday afternoon? Would a credits page interfere with the minimalist structure of the website? Did they not have enough time to finish this part of the website?
I do think that a credits page would interfere with the design and structure of the website as a whole, however, I think that it is a necessary interference. Knowing that the internet is filled with inaccuracy, bias, and fiction, the audience is better off to be shown that Tuesday Afternoon was created by scholars intending to use their knowledge to bring some sort of change to the world.
This is where I should mention that there is no absolutely linear progression. While the path they have created does follow a linear progression, nowhere are we informed that we MUST follow this path. (It is arranged as more of a hypertext garden, where all pieces of the whole come together not in a linear progression, but as the reader finds each story. This progression actually works in this scenario. We do not need a navigation bar or special menu in order to navigate the site.)
In terms of design, the minimalist approach is working. Minimalism helps contribute to the empty and unfulfilled feelings that can be associated with immigration. People leave their homelands in search of a better life. They leave behind poverty, crime, a lack of education, and systems that aren't working for them to go to a place that won't even let them inside their borders. I can understand the frustration behind the website, but again, their purpose is undermined by text. The minimalist approach to text is not working here, as their site relies on the background and perspective of the audience. Textually, the site assumes that its audience has the reading abilities of an American 8th grader, but who would really be accessing this website? You guessed it, students and scholars. University students will most likely read at a more elevated level than an 8th grader. Thus, the methods in which they convey the immigration stories must be more demanding in order to reach this audience. Just stating that 'capital crosses borders with ease' is not enough. (Plus, when mentioning the movement of money in a thesis statement such as this, we expect a continuation of this thought. However, this idea is looked over in the stories of Tuesday Afternoon.) Inconsistencies abound. At one point the narrator states that s/he 'recognized a person in the back of a van.' When clicking on this thought, the rest of the story appears. It reads, " There is someone sitting in the greyish van straight in front of me. The back of the van is barred. I discover the shape of a person. In the front sits a man around fifty in uniform…" This doesn't make any sense, as there is no real recognition of this figure in the van! (Plus, it sounds like something a 14 year old might say.)
We want to learn something here and not feel like we're reading a child's book. This isn't childish information. Why stoop to using a global text that has an academic audience?