Hi all! Hope you're excited for the end of the semester. I feel like the train is going 90 miles an hour with about 50 feet of track left, and I know I'm not the only one who feels like that.
I struggled to connect the two readings. One discusses sci-fi and TC, and the other discusses the value of TC in the information age. Both readings dealt with the goals of TC, and how our goals may need to change to shape the field. Here are some general questions to throw into the air, with possibly no effect.
What are other TC myths and goals? What are other sci-fi myths and goals? How have those ideas shaped the field? How do they inform the works we read?
What is the difference between how technology communicates with a user and the technical artifact itself?
How does considering the broader social purposes and contexts of a user reframe the role of a technical communicator?
Who wants cookies?
We will be looking through some science fiction and some job postings as opposite ends of the fantasy/reality spectrum of TC.
Job sites:
http://jobs.stc.org/c/search_results.cfm?site_id=360
http://www.techwritingjobs.com/tech-writing-jobs.php
As we look over these jobs, think about them in terms of Johnson-Eilola's classifications of routine service workers, in-person service workers, and symbolic-analytic workers. What kinds of jobs are most common and what does this mean in a larger context?
Finally, we'll talk about a few more sci-fi myths and how they might inform the field. I want to briefly discuss Neuromancer and Little Brother. Feel free to reference any sci-fi work that you're a fan of. This discussion may or may not digress into quoting scenes from Logan's Run. Does Killingsworth's essay about using sci-fi as a testing ground for theory help TC as a field? Does sci-fi relocate the value of TC work?
Thanks and enjoy the last day of classes!
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Another article I have read that someone else wants to know about
As per Dan's request, here is the citation for the article that I mentioned in class. I'll add the link later.
Graves, H. B., & Graves, R. (1998). Masters, slaves, and infant
mortality: Language challenges for technical editing.
Technical Communication Quarterly, 7(4), 389-415.
Also, for those who don't want to read the article to see if they want to read the article, below is an annotation given by Erika Bronson, a former classmate with whom I collaborated on a bibliographic resource project last winter/spring.
"Graves and Graves explore the numerous, often unnoticed
and sometimes offensive, occurrences of figurative language
in technical and scientific writing. Citing research in linguistic
theory and the rhetoric of science, they argue that the way
we use language helps to shape our understanding of reality.
Because technical writing is often viewed as 'objective' and
value-free, one responsibility for technical editors is to challenge
unquestioned, metaphorically-derived language choices in the
documents they edit. By initiating these discussions, technical
communicators, both in the workplace and the classroom, can
start to 'uncover assumptions embedded in a document that
we, as a society, may want to reconsider and change' (410).
As such, this article is an invaluable read for comprehensive
technical editors." (annotation by Erika Bronson, March 2009)
I'm sure I got the attribution wrong somehow but at least I'm giving her credit.
Graves, H. B., & Graves, R. (1998). Masters, slaves, and infant
mortality: Language challenges for technical editing.
Technical Communication Quarterly, 7(4), 389-415.
Also, for those who don't want to read the article to see if they want to read the article, below is an annotation given by Erika Bronson, a former classmate with whom I collaborated on a bibliographic resource project last winter/spring.
"Graves and Graves explore the numerous, often unnoticed
and sometimes offensive, occurrences of figurative language
in technical and scientific writing. Citing research in linguistic
theory and the rhetoric of science, they argue that the way
we use language helps to shape our understanding of reality.
Because technical writing is often viewed as 'objective' and
value-free, one responsibility for technical editors is to challenge
unquestioned, metaphorically-derived language choices in the
documents they edit. By initiating these discussions, technical
communicators, both in the workplace and the classroom, can
start to 'uncover assumptions embedded in a document that
we, as a society, may want to reconsider and change' (410).
As such, this article is an invaluable read for comprehensive
technical editors." (annotation by Erika Bronson, March 2009)
I'm sure I got the attribution wrong somehow but at least I'm giving her credit.
Screen-Based Text and Interfaces
Hi all-
Even though these two articles for today are quite outdated, we can still apply the ideas in them to the 21st century and the current technologies that exist today. We can use the ideas and notions in each article to look at screen-based text and computer interfaces that exist today. And in the spirit of previous classes, we'll have some group interaction time that will directly apply these ideas to these existing technologies.
Depending on the number of people in class tonight and personal preferences, we can have either 2 or 3 groups. Each group will take on the role of investigating one of these current technologies: Facebook, Microsoft Word, The Apple Website, or another site of personal preference.
We will use the ideas present in each article as tools to investigate these technologies, texts, and interfaces. With that in mind, we will look at how the technologies display the screen-based text through Bernhardt's nine dimensions of variance. We will also use Selfe and Selfe's article to investigate how the technologies, texts, and interfaces construct mappings and structures of privilege through a variety of means. Then at the end of the investigation we'll come back together in one group and discuss our findings and see if these ideas on screen-based text and computer interfaces are still valid in today's technologies.
A couple of general questions and expected random tangents will lead the rest of discussion tonight:
Bernhardt
1. Considering this article was written in 1993, how do you think text has been shaped since then? What changes have occurred in the way we present screen-based text and what impact do these new technologies have on our understanding of the text on screen?
2. Bernhardt states that screen based text is “tightly embedded in the context of situation; it is more likely to be bound up as a part of ongoing activities.” Does this hold true today? If so how does screen based text function this way? Can’t we read screen-based text independent from our situation now, much like paper text? Has technology changed this?
3. Bernhardt says that reading situationally embedded text is more like using text instead of reading it. What do you think he means by this? Are we users of text instead of readers of text?
4. Bernhardt takes issue with the modularity of screen-based text, especially when one has to scroll down to continue reading. Is this still a problem in today’s screen-based text?
5. How can we use Bernhardt’s nine dimensions of variance between paper text and screen-based text to understand how we view screen-based text as it appears today? Are these dimensions still relevant, and if so, how? Also, have any new variances been created by the creation of new technologies such as e-readers, e-books, online sites like scribd and online databases?
Selfe and Selfe
1. Again, considering this article was written in 1994, how have interfaces changed since then? Is this article still relevant to the way we view and understand the intersection between computer interfaces and power/privilege?
2. Selfe and Selfe are concern with how computer interfaces create structures and maps of power that privilege certain people and certain classes over others. They trace theses mappings of privilege through notions of capitalism and class, discursive modes and practices, and rational and logical thinking. Can you think of how these mappings are reflected in today’s computer interfaces? Have we made progress in decolonizing the computer interface, or are these structures and maps still prevalent today?
3. Selfe and Selfe also provide suggestions on how to remove these mappings of privilege in computer interfaces. Do you find their suggestions applicable and workable? One suggestion is to become a technology critic that is critically aware of these mappings and structures of privilege through being educated about these technologies. Do most Universities and sites of teaching train their teachers to use these technologies and provide instruction on issues with the technology and how they “touch on educational projects” or “on the growing body of scholarship and research?”
4. How can we use Selfe and Selfe’s article to understand how computer interface’s mappings and structures of power privilege people today? Also, by understanding these issues of privilege in these interfaces, how can we overcome or resist these forces today? What changes need to be made to overcome this?
Even though these two articles for today are quite outdated, we can still apply the ideas in them to the 21st century and the current technologies that exist today. We can use the ideas and notions in each article to look at screen-based text and computer interfaces that exist today. And in the spirit of previous classes, we'll have some group interaction time that will directly apply these ideas to these existing technologies.
Depending on the number of people in class tonight and personal preferences, we can have either 2 or 3 groups. Each group will take on the role of investigating one of these current technologies: Facebook, Microsoft Word, The Apple Website, or another site of personal preference.
We will use the ideas present in each article as tools to investigate these technologies, texts, and interfaces. With that in mind, we will look at how the technologies display the screen-based text through Bernhardt's nine dimensions of variance. We will also use Selfe and Selfe's article to investigate how the technologies, texts, and interfaces construct mappings and structures of privilege through a variety of means. Then at the end of the investigation we'll come back together in one group and discuss our findings and see if these ideas on screen-based text and computer interfaces are still valid in today's technologies.
A couple of general questions and expected random tangents will lead the rest of discussion tonight:
Bernhardt
1. Considering this article was written in 1993, how do you think text has been shaped since then? What changes have occurred in the way we present screen-based text and what impact do these new technologies have on our understanding of the text on screen?
2. Bernhardt states that screen based text is “tightly embedded in the context of situation; it is more likely to be bound up as a part of ongoing activities.” Does this hold true today? If so how does screen based text function this way? Can’t we read screen-based text independent from our situation now, much like paper text? Has technology changed this?
3. Bernhardt says that reading situationally embedded text is more like using text instead of reading it. What do you think he means by this? Are we users of text instead of readers of text?
4. Bernhardt takes issue with the modularity of screen-based text, especially when one has to scroll down to continue reading. Is this still a problem in today’s screen-based text?
5. How can we use Bernhardt’s nine dimensions of variance between paper text and screen-based text to understand how we view screen-based text as it appears today? Are these dimensions still relevant, and if so, how? Also, have any new variances been created by the creation of new technologies such as e-readers, e-books, online sites like scribd and online databases?
Selfe and Selfe
1. Again, considering this article was written in 1994, how have interfaces changed since then? Is this article still relevant to the way we view and understand the intersection between computer interfaces and power/privilege?
2. Selfe and Selfe are concern with how computer interfaces create structures and maps of power that privilege certain people and certain classes over others. They trace theses mappings of privilege through notions of capitalism and class, discursive modes and practices, and rational and logical thinking. Can you think of how these mappings are reflected in today’s computer interfaces? Have we made progress in decolonizing the computer interface, or are these structures and maps still prevalent today?
3. Selfe and Selfe also provide suggestions on how to remove these mappings of privilege in computer interfaces. Do you find their suggestions applicable and workable? One suggestion is to become a technology critic that is critically aware of these mappings and structures of privilege through being educated about these technologies. Do most Universities and sites of teaching train their teachers to use these technologies and provide instruction on issues with the technology and how they “touch on educational projects” or “on the growing body of scholarship and research?”
4. How can we use Selfe and Selfe’s article to understand how computer interface’s mappings and structures of power privilege people today? Also, by understanding these issues of privilege in these interfaces, how can we overcome or resist these forces today? What changes need to be made to overcome this?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)