ccr 760: on diehl, et al

I'm struck by the continuity through our readings the last week -- in particular the emergence (for me) of the importance of the visual in technical communication. I think I've always understood this, but in a narrow sort of way; the visual layout of a document or web space, the structure of tabular data, the use of graphics, etc. I'm seeing now that this particular view limits the visual to a declarative role secondary to the more procedural or narrative textual elements of an information product. The "malleable functionality" (428) of the Grassroots app illustrates the fundamental benefit of the mashup: an ability to compile and combine visual and aural information in a way that makes the most sense to the user. The relative importance of that information is completely up to the user, thereby negating an author's conception of the information as primarily procedural or declarative. Perhaps this is why it was necessary for Diehl, et al. to describe maps as arguments. If we are to accept that description, it is absolutely necessary to address how public participation in the design of an information product will shape the community ethos and eventual uptake of the product (419).



I'm also seeing a connection here with claims in earlier readings for broader and more tools-based competencies for technical communicators. In this case, the authors are first trying to expose and place value on the writing activities of people involved in civic participation. This was a similar move made by Carliner, Mazur, Spinuzzi, etc. in their efforts to identify the fundamentally rhetorical and "writerly" activities of technical communicators. They (like Diehl, et all) then claim that to be effective at these activities, the communicator/author needs to be able to construct compelling arguments using a range of tools, techniques, devices, and technologies beyond those traditionally understood to be necessary for successful communication.

The call to action is ultimately the same: to expand the teaching of writing (not just technical writing) to allow for a more inclusive or expanded definition of what it means to write in technology-mediated and technology-enhanced professional, personal, and public contexts. I guess this means I need to reconsider my statement about Stolley's claim that technical writers need to know how to sling code. I likely missed the point he was trying to make.