I first dove into Gallagher’s The Rhetorical Template which focuses on Web 2.0 and its uses in creating the rhetorical situation through “content” and “form” online. Gallagher positions his article to ask the following questions: “Does the rhetorical situation derive from the situation itself or the rhetor?” He also follows up this question with the perspective of the writer/template creating the “rhetorical discourse” on the web. His look into templates, specifically Facebook’s focus on the profile picture with the use of the overall larger image creates a rhetorical scenario that he unpacks with genre theory and his focused questions he articulates to his students.
I then began to read Arola’s article, The Design of Web 2.0: The Rise of the Template, The Fall of Design (which I realize would have been supportive to read before Gallagher’s article). Arola is arguing for a new process in which Web 2.0 is engaged with by both teachers and students at a design level. She utilizes Myspace and Facebook as key examples of coding and seamless technology, like “the post” - web authorship, and active engagement use of the interface. She inserts her fear, similar to Gallagher, that the interface will become invisible and not questioned in social media circles.
To continue the concept of Interfaces, Selfe & Selfe Jr.’s article The Politics of the Interface: Power and Its Exercise in Electronic Contact Zones establishes the argument that computer use without questioning ties into domination and colonialism - therefore teachers need to expose the relationships between education and technology. They tap into practices of class privilege as well as marginalized voices/demographics that use computers - but are left out of opportunities that uplift communities or create actual engaging/academic experiences that lead to change. They too ask for critical readings of Interfaces as borders - places that leave languages, voices, and experiences behind.
Drucker’s article, Reading Interface, explores Graphical User Interfaces (GUI) as interfaces on the web, but also establishes the metaphor of what is on the screen. She asserts that “As we make a text, we are produced by it as its subject” - concluding that the interface must be manipulated, but that it also alters our experience with the digital content it is interacting with.
Carnegie’s article, Interface as Exordium: The Rhetoric of Interactivity breaks down this concept into three arenas to explore: multi-directionality, manipulability, and presence. Multi-directionality establishes interactivity, very similar to Instant Messaging and social media communication or even Google chat in an email interface. Manipulability focuses on “gadgets” that emphasize manipulating content, forms, and design on a web page with access to deeper levels of online engineering. Presence is associated with the timing and moment of being “present” with another user, or lack of presence that exits with a system or user online.
Buck’s article on The Invisible Interface: MS Word in the Writing Center seemed a bit from the outside of this conversation as it was a case study of a writing tutor with two different students using a digital approach to working on a paper. The case study itself was interesting, as well as the transcribed discussion between tutor and student, but the overall findings did not reveal an emphasis on further implications. With Google docs and sharing docs with other users, this case study may be improved to look at how users can manipulate one doc with two computers.
Wysocki and Jasken write What Should Be an Unforgettable Face...to discuss the aspects of Interface and allowing more accessible interfaces for students and teachers alike. The invisible interface is made visible - or at least discussed and broken down in this article to expose users, designers, and audience - all in discussion with form and content.
The three articles that I’m going to look at more closely together are Selfe/Selfe Jr., Carnegie, and Arola. These three articles did not apply perfect arguments towards each other, but they do cross-over in the rhetorical discussion about online activity and communities that use that space. While Carnegie breaks down the three primary modes of interactivity, it seems the most effective, or at least skill oriented is Manipulability. She argues that it is defined as “the degree to which users can influence or manipulate the form and content of new media communication…[it is limited to] intellectual engagement…” (168). The engineering aspect of interactivity is similar to what Selfe and Selfe Jr. argue for in the borders that are created through tech literacy. Skill sets are needed, therefore the educational background and teaching is needed to promote avenues for tech literacy.
My question is:
If computers are “learning environments” and areas of “Educational Space” - then the skill sets and process that are needed to manipulate Web 2.0 (design skill sets to manipulate interfaces) must be explicit in the academic setting. How can we create a “technological class” of students that understand code as well as reading interface as a visible medium to interact with?
No comments:
Post a Comment