The Bomar Gene defines individuality in a unique sense, the reader is enticed to explore either sense of narrative; either the circles or squares. The simple difference I found was that the circles seemed to be more emotional than the square links were. I thought this site was particlarly aesthetically pleasing but still organized and sensible in it’s interaction.
The underlying scrolling phrases seem to identify the basic ideal behind the text in an metaphorical relation to the individual stories that appear depending upon the choice of lexia. Howeve, I did not notice a direct interaction between the two, the underlying text seemed random and not related specifically to the changing stories above.
The immediate difference between the Bomar gene and the Lexia to Perplexia is the graphic element. While The Bomar gene contains this aspect, it is much more oriented in an organization that does not shift when the reader interacts with these elements. That is to say, in general everything stays in order. The scrolling geometrical links are attop the chosen narrative and the fundamental biline seems to continue independent on the bottom. However, in Lexia to Perplexia there is a journey through image and text which include pop-ups, though similar to that of the offset pop-ups somewhat related to the main story identified in the Bomar Gene, the pop-ups the main textuality in Lexia to Perplexia. I found that, like Afternoon, clicking upon one may create another option within a link that initially had no affect or only one affect. I especially enjoyed how the visual stimulation often occurred with no complicated textual component adding to the experience. Though, I would have to say the language in this Lexia was confusing to me, as I am only partially computer oriented. The computer and perhaps html speak did not keep my attention as much as the graphical elements did.
The overall transmission of each of these sites was completely opposite for mt interpretation purposes. I found that the Bomar gene spoke to a much more literary side of me and the Perplexity drove me to re-read for lack of connection to the concept. However the interacting imagery in Lexia to Perplexia drove my focus to try and comprehend it’s purpose. I felt these two texts were fundamentally opposing in structure while still comparable in style.