Analyzing images (still or moving) is at least as difficult and complex as analyzing written text. I do not think there exists a general way of analyzing or classifying imagery that makes any sense. Images are generally polysemous, so how to assess their "meaning" has been a battlefield in philosophy, art history, hermeneutics, semiotics, and psychology for centuries. We could list some widespread uses, however. I've tried to write about this in a recent book on Web media, but it is in Norwegian, unfortunately. Among typical uses in web pages, you find: description or demonstration (this is what it looks like), explanation (figures, maps, step-by-step illustrations), visual entry points (something to catch the eye and attract attention). There are many kinds of images. Photographs have a strong sense of being "proof", as they are mechanical recordings of light. This still holds true in the age of Photoshop: the vast majority of photos are never manipulated in post-production, and I will argue we still think of photos as "true". Drawings, on the other hand, are stylized, they can leave out unnecessary detail. Artists may also exaggerate detail (like in charicature, but also in the width of a river on a map), and draw the impossible. In commercial web design (as in other graphic design), the most common use of imagery is to attach meaning to a product or a company, what is known as "connotations" in semiotics. Today, Tiger Woods adorns the home page of accenture.com. He is not a consultant for the firm, nor do they do golf consulting (as far as I know). But they want to communicate that the values Woods represent also are the values of Accenture. His image is used as a metaphor. But then again, many photo amateurs post photos that are just "beautiful", according to mainstream photo aestethics. While being displays of harmony, color, lines, perspective, or emotion, these images of course also serve to demonstrate the skills of the photographer. Which again, means, I guess, that to analyze images all depends on what you are interested in, what your research problem is. Isn't that the case for analysis of language and writing too? I don't have a recipe for you, but you may find some examples of analyses I have done on http://fagerjord.no/rhetoricalconvergence --anders -- Anders Fagerjord, dr. art. Associate professor, Department of Media and Communcation, Unversity of Oslo P.O. Box 1093 Blindern N-0317 OSLO Norway http://www.media.uio.no http://fagerjord.no