This question asks readers to identify additional reasons (other than Warnick's) why politicians might not use interactive features on their sites. It almost seems to expect that readers would be able to identify other reasons, although this is not explicitly stated and is quickly left behind in favor of asking readers to determine which of Warnick's reasons is the "most reasonable or obvious ... for the avoidance." Both questions could conceivably be asked (and answered in a different way) for each election in which candidates have websites. In fact, one could ask the question about websites for local, state, and national candidates to see if there is any difference between different categories. Theoretically, the most sophisticated sites should be for presidential candidates (if only because these candidates should have the most money to spend on developing their sites), although this may not be the case.

The final question asks readers to consider other websites that might seek non-interactive designs and why they might seek those designs. The question is visually separated from the other paragraph, indicating that it also moves away from the thought processes and/or subject of the previous paragraph. It requires that readers rely on their own experiences with web browsing - which might not be fully successful if the readers have not had extensive experience with different types of websites or if the readers have differing definitions of interactivity than Warnick's. If they do have reasonable experience with web browsing and/or accept the Warnick definitions of interactivity, readers can make connections (intertextuality) between these sites that Warnick cites and sites with which the readers themselves may be familiar, potentially a very useful discussion.

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?