http://kairos.technorhetoric.net/14.1/inventio/delagrange/index.html
The Disambiguation section of Susan Delagrange’s article “When Revision is Redesign: Key Questions for Digital Scholarship” (see link above) is highly concerned with the interactive relationship(s) between image and text. Her argument begins with the problem concerning an ambiguous relationship between the two realms. The scholarly article needs to reach to new levels of lucidity in regards to how the image on a page relates to the text it’s placed near. She provides an example for an article on “Metaphor/Metonymy/Synecdoche” in which she places two .gif’s, a man riding a horse and a flower’s life-cycle represented on a street sign. Delegrange’s article is highly supportive of scholarly articles employing a clear and cohesive connection between their presented subject matter and the images that lay alongside the text.
I think an excellent example of a scholarly webpage that does exactly this the hypermedia archive, Rossetti: http://www.rossettiarchive.org/index.html. This specific page exhibits a fine-toothed disambiguation altogether. Not only does the image and text exist simultaneously and seamlessly, but the actual color-coding in regards to the font is very consistent as well.
I get clear and cohesive, but I also wonder: what about Delagrange’s design choices gets beyond these two fundamental categories and gets to “ludicity”? That’s a whole other step up the ladder, isn’t it? Is that what the Rossetti Archive’s design choices contribute to — not just being readable but, as the word choice suggests, “enlightening” the subject matter?