of cannons and new media

Gifford Brooke, Collin. Lingua Fracta : Toward a Rhetoric of New Media. Cresskill, N.J.: Hampton Press, 2009.
Admittedly, I came to Brooke with the purpose of building out the theory/practice map for my first minor exam. I realize he is not speaking directly to the relationships among various disciplines. However, his emphasis on new media has implications for practicing information architects (IAers) and technical communicators (TCers). While his interest is clearly on teachers of Comp and Rhet, the extension to those who practice in these spaces is logical (or so I will claim). My reading below is therefore well short of a critical summary, and likely rife with misinterpretations.

In regard to my mapping effort, Brooke aligns nicely with Clark’s rhetoric of technology (the hub/spoke metaphor is working well so far). Brooke’s sandbox is hypertext – specifically the claims and arguments of the post-hypertext era. He places his call for a modern treatment of hypertext between technology (new media) and rhetoric (more accurately, his re-imagining of the five cannons). “We shape our technologies even as they shape us.” Brooke is concerned with practices of new media technologies that enable and assist – and this is precisely the point of intersection where IA and TC practices occur and overlap.

Technology as a linga franca – connections and crossings of boundaries.

Specific problem in IA and Human-computer Interaction (HCI): “… we frequently assume that our individual (or even community) experiences with various technologies can be extrapolated for all users, or that the values of those experiences are the same at every level of interaction.”

“Any rhetoric of new media should begin with an understanding that our unit of analysis must shift from textual objects to medial interfaces.” What are the implications for teaching this shift in the TC classroom? What does this shift look like at the curricular level? Brooke is calling for a disciplinary bridge – “… teachers and student of writing … are indeed uniquely positioned to contribute to discussion and debates about new media … this presumes that we reorganize the various contributions that information technologies make to rhetorical situations.”

This is where IA and TC can help! The implication for IA – and by extension TC: “… we must begin to move from text-based rhetoric, exemplified by out attachment to the printed page, to a rhetoric that can account for the dynamics of the interface.” This move Brooke calls for is based on his re-imagining – really a modern interpretation – of the five cannons: invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery. This re-imagining asks us to consider the practices associated with the cannons (cannons as activity, rather than static objects) against new media and the rhetorics of technology.

Invention: “… practices of invention, writing, and reading do indeed differ from those associated with print technology” – this is a critical point understanding for the IAer and TCer. These differences are realized through a broader understanding of invention not as a singular activity with a single end point, but as an ongoing activity – a continual process of rhetorical activity.

Arrangement: Brooke pulls arrangement back out of invention and delivery, recasting it as “arrangement of pattern.” This re-imagining is only possible in a context of technology-mediated production and products. Implications for IA – “The model of [online] space … is an active one when compared to the passive conception of space as container … attend to the spaces that we build through the creation of [online] presence… work ourselves free of the regularity of sequential media…”

Style: We must consider style in terms of “interfaces” rather than static texts. Implications for IA – “… new media interfaces … help us move from the abstracted single perspective of the reader of a static text of the viewer of a painting to the multiple and partial perspectives necessary for many form of new media.” The modern IAer must allow for an expanded concept of style as interface that encourages examination of the viewer/user/reader. “Just as we look at and through interfaces, we also look from a particular position … an emergent quality of a specific interaction among user, interface, and objects.”

Memory: Implications for IA – we need to understand the effects that changes in technology have on conceptions of individual memory. “…we need to think of memory not simply as storage of data, but also in terms of the construction of pattern…” This expanded notion of memory is complicated by the “persistence” of information and technologies that support and create that persistence. “…new media challenges our traditional notion of memory as storage … its ability to emulate … background processes … through new tools … aggregation…”

Delivery: Implication for IA – delivery as performance in the context of new media – more precisely the technologies that enable this performance. IAers and TCers need to understand delivery as performance if they are to fully understand the rhetorical complexities of communicating with and through new media. “Although we understand at some level the idea of performing a role or particular identity, however, the notion that discourse is performed is largely foreign, except in certain contexts…”

My reading only, with humble apologies to an accessible scholar, a wonderful teacher, a candid mentor, and all-around good guy…

oh loathsome blogger - revisited

It’s a discipline. I keep telling myself that. The chaotic pace of things this time of year only goes so far to excuse drop-off-the-earth absences. What bothers me the most is that I haven’t taken the time to use this space to sort out my thinking, which is really the most practical thing this space is good for. Well that and navel gazing.

And sorting out my thinking I shall be doing over the coming weeks and months. Lots of really exciting (cool?) efforts underway that I’m going to need to vet and mull. Vet and mull? Hmmmm. There’s a lot of cheese layered on that pomposity, eh?

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.

ccr 760: on wolf, et al

This essay starts with an interesting statement: "... designing a Web page was a rhetorical act fraught with real-world implications." I like that statement because it applies to just about any design activity that involves communicating information.

I read the essay on the heels of a meeting with a project team designing and developing a course to prepare faculty to teach online. Usability implications oozed from every statement that was made about sequencing instruction, focusing on specific tools, varying the presentation techniques, etc. In terms of a continuity of design (not to mention nomenclature), the course as it is currently imagined will be a hodgepodge of chunks of information and activities. If there is a consideration toward usability, it stops at the point at which users/students will access the course content.

I mention this project because the principal designers would benefit greatly from an "Access First" design approach. Interestingly enough, the topic of universal design will be introduced in the third week of the course to familiarize students with accessibility issues -- focusing on the user's needs and ranges of (dis)abilities.

In many ways, the Access First design approach sounds a lot like descriptions of Information Design, which we reviewed a few weeks ago. I therefore wasn't surprised to see that quote from Redish, arguing for a more holistic consideration of usability studies. This broader view of users and possible uses of the system (information product) is what she claims is essential for effective and practical information design.

I agree with the authors' conclusions that current approaches to usability (analysis and studies) can be limiting in that they do not make space for the freedom, flexibility, and high-degree of personalization realized by Web 2.0 technologies. However, you have to start somewhere -- and think existing approaches to usability can provide at least a baseline for analysis. From there, we can start to look for more creative and interactive ways to assess usability in ways that mirror the technologies and spaces we're analyzing.

760: on salvo and rosinski

Random Family Member: “Mitch, tell me again what it is you do.”

Mitch the Technical Communicator: “I’m a rhetorically trained, human-centered communication specialist.”

Family Member: “Oh, you work with Greek robots. That’s cool man!”

Mitch: “What? No, I contribute to the development of usable, human-scaled virtual information spaces and advocate for user needs in emerging digital spaces.”

Family Member: “So you’re like the dude in Avatar? I thought that was fake.”

Mitch: “Avatar is fake. Um, let’s see… OK, what I do most of the time is pay attention to context by transcending sentence- and paragraph-level content and the design of written communication intended to be placed on paper. But recently I’m being asked to understand how search engines and databases work within specific contexts to organize access to information, and how I can also consider context as I assign keywords, create summaries, and otherwise prepare documents for a searchable future.”

Family Member: “Dude, why didn’t you just tell me you’re an information designer? You ashamed or something?”

Mitch: “An information designer? What the hell is that? I’m a technical writer. Maybe I’m a very confused technical writer, but that’s what I am -- at least that's what I think I am. Is it still an open bar?”

Aside from the unnecessarily complicated descriptions of information design (ID) and technical communication (as disciplines and practices), the essay provides an excellent survey of the development of ID and its relationship to tech comm and the technical communicator. Most useful, I think, is the lexicon that Salvo & Rosinski (S&R) present because it gives us a way to discuss the outcomes or products of ID. Carliner earlier referred to blueprints; Albers and Mazur made reference to guidelines. S&R’s lexicon allows us to label and identify specific aspects of ID so we can place certain ID activities within the work (current or future) of the technical communicator.

Most interesting of the lexicon is ambience. “Effective ambient design helps users understand the purpose and content … with a quick glance” (120). This is a brutally difficult challenge; at least it is for me, which is why I rely so heavily on exceptionally talented graphic designers. Here's the funny thing about ambient design and the example of the quick guide for the office chair: Getting the user to use the guide isn’t necessarily the problem. It’s often more about getting the user to remember that the quick guide is right there in the arm of the chair.

As part of our body of knowledge, S&R make two principle claims that allow us to continue on with the historical and professionalization narratives we’ve been working through: 1) That technical communicators have a role (actually a stake) in shaping the field/practice of information design in the present and immediate future, and 2) Technical communicators are in an ideal position to continue doing what they’ve been doing for a long time – implementing good designs in their information products, but now the emphasis is on digital media.

Here are two asides from the essay:

1. I found it interesting that in defining what they mean by critical literacy, S&R are also describing some of the competencies required to be an effective information designer. Full participation in a community, which they call critical literacy, “requires that one comprehend not merely the words, but also the purposes or uses for the selection of those words in a given context” (103). Then again, that's probably why the essay is included in Spilka's text.
   
2. At what point did we start referring to the “early years of the World Wide Web” (106) as if they were halcyon days?

760: on kirkpatrick

"The age of privacy is over..."

As many of the comments to the article reflect, I think we have to start by identifying the "age" we're talking about and the definition of "privacy" we're working with.

I completely agree with Kirkpatrick's assessment that "Facebook itself is a major agent of social change..." FB's position that, "People have really gotten comfortable not only sharing more information and different kinds, but more openly and with more people" is anecdotal and sloppy at best.

On the other hand, Kirkpatrick's claim that, "Accessible social networking technology changes communication between people in a way similar to if not as intensely as the introduction of the telephone and the printing press" is a shoddy apples-to-oranges comparison. Privacy in cyberspace is not as simplistic as un-listing your phone number from Yellow Pages.

I think we would all agree that social norms have changed since the advent of the printing press and the telephone. Similarly, technology has changed in ways that draw vast communities of people "closer" together -- in intended and unintended ways. The basic concept of privacy -- of what people want other people to know about them -- has similarly been changed. I don't think, as FB claims, that systems are modified to "reflect what the current social norms are." Quite to the contrary, I think the systems shape and drive many of those norms -- they facilitate the openness and make possible the sharing of information in ways that people are not prepared to deal with.

On a wider scale, I'm a troubled that 8 sentences uttered by a 26 year-old can have such a dramatic impact on the daily activities of 350 million people. Maybe that sounds like crotchety-old-man-speak, but I have similar concerns with the likes of Larry Ellison, Bill Gates, and Steve Jobs.

760: on berners-lee’s information management proposal

I read Tim Berners-Lee’s Weaving the Web while I was working on Polaris. We had been using the old WinHelp spec, but it’s .rtf format was proving restrictive as Polaris matured and more functionality was added. I’d used hypertext before for help systems (there was that clunky HyperCard system for Seagull Press in ’94), but I felt like I needed to understand hypertext in a broader context. That’s why I picked up the book. I read it in a few days and went on an evangelizing kick, trying to get all of the writers and testers in our little group to bone up on hypertext theory. I argued that the morphing HTML specification and more scalable help systems (such as Compressed HTML Help and JavaHelp) would require us to understand what we were creating. The old practice of committing text and images to the ether and wishing for the best wasn't going to cut it any longer.

Looking back, it’s obvious I really didn’t get it myself. It seems we would have been better off by simply immersing ourselves in a hypertext environment, as Berners-Lee described in his CERN proposal, and let the system take a shapes that reflected our changing needs, skills sets, knowledge, etc.

There are two aspects of Berner-Lee’s original proposal that are only now beginning to fully emerge on the web. The first is the ability to modify (edit) information directly through the browser. The WorldWideWeb browser (and later Opera and Amaya) would provide this feature. And in fact, a number of knowledge management systems, such as Canterbury, would ship with propriety viewer/editors. But I think it was the distributed nature of the connectedness of the Internet (and later the web) that made (and continue to make) this feature impractical outside of dedicated communal knowledge systems, such as wikis.

The second aspect of the proposal that took a while to take shape is what we identify today as Web 2.0 technologies. Before mash-ups, RSS, XML, and new media, technical communicators were struggling to adapt the first HTML specifications to create interactive help systems. The closest we came was context-sensitive help (and later embedded help), which allowed us to push specific topics to the end-user at specific points within a workflow. It was clunky, but it worked.

Reading the CERN proposal brings a lot of that work into focus in a good way – a fun way.

More specific to how we’re being asked to consider the proposal against the rest of this week’s readings, Berners-Lee is imagining a system dramatically different from the one-dimensional “fetch-retrieve” system envisioned by Wells and manifest in the early computing systems of the late 1940s and early 1950s: “For this to be possible, the method of storage must not place its own restraints on the information. This is why a ‘web’ of notes with links (like references) between them is far more useful than a fixed hierarchical system.”

In specifically addressing the problem with “tree” hierarchies of data, Berners-Lee is re-articulating Bush’s vision of non-linear, dynamic relationships among information objects. Perhaps more important to the progress narrative among the readings, Berners-Lee is refining Licklider and Taylor’s imagining of a communication system with the capabilities to capture communicative models: “When describing a complex system, many people resort to diagrams with circles and arrows. Circles and arrows leave one free to describe the interrelationships between things in a way that tables, for example, do not. The system we need is like a diagram of circles and arrows, where circles and arrows can stand for anything” (Berners-Lee).

Berners-Lee’s vision is impressive when it’s considered against the modern web. Here’s a guy who was responding to the age-old problem of retaining organizational knowledge in a way that would be useful to those who stayed on and those who came in. His simple proposal, coupled with enabling technologies, has quite literally changed the way the world communicates.

more irony

Interesting article. Here's what's funny: The guy belabors the fact that years of online reading (surfing, scanning, scratching, etc.) has changed the way he reads. And yet, here he is, writing a long, drawn-out argument which he hopes we'll wade through -- as if we wont scan, scratch, and sniff through the page to get the gist, find his principle point, and move on. Better to modify your writing habits based on how you and a million other droids now read.

Just because you write it, does not mean that they'll read it.