1. Create and recreate technical research documents with an emphasis on format, audience, and style
2. Analyze how rhetorical theories are used in existing technical and professional documents, including what you find 'effective' and 'ineffective'
3. Understand how to successfully construct professional documents associated with the hiring process (e.g. resumes, cover letters, and interview prep.)
4. Research and respond to ethical concerns in professional and technical writing
Friday, August 30, 2013
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
"But language is also power. It can persuade, control, and manipulate" (Johnson 18).
In User-centered Technology, Johnson argues that we need to move from a system-centered view of technology to a user-centered view of technology. The main problems he identifies are as follows:
1. The categorization of technology as mundane has made it almost invisible (he later applies this claim to users and technical communicators as well); thus, little research has been has been performed, especially from a user-centered perspective. This makes "the knowledge of everyday practice" (5) controlled by technology and 'experts' who design it.
2. Furthermore, technology's invisibility creates a devaluing of practice (and thus an emphasis on formal learning). Johnson asks readers to consider who can better judge the usefulness (or 'good') of a home, for example, the designer or the people (users) that actually live in it.
3. When users are not 'invisible' they are often categorized as idiots, downplaying user knowledge. Therefore, technical documents need to be "dumbed down" and either separate features from use (system-centered documentation) or simply address 'the generalized user', which fails to consider the complex nature of the actual situation (user-friendly/task documentation)
4. Technical writing courses have been accused of requiring students to simply fill in forms or neglecting the history of the discipline. They also have the danger of becoming too text-based.
Throughout the book, action and 'doing' are emphasized as a solutions to many of the problems cited. My impression is that, to Johnson, being passive is just as negative as being considered passive (e.g. the user). Users need to be a part of the decision-making process, which involves an appreciation and elevation of practice and 'metis', the ability to act quickly and prudently while remaining flexible in a set of ever-changing conditions, i.e. cunning intelligence (53). Thus, Johnson not only wants to rework Kinneavy's Rhetorical Triangle (35) so that it becomes the User-Centered Rhetorical Triangle (36), he also wants to insert it into the ever-expanding circles that form 'The User-Centered Rhetorical Complex of Technology" in Figure 2.7 (39).
The figure indicates that environment, culture, and history are important as well as communities/disciplines and the distinctions that come along with learning, doing, and producing. While the definitions of these categories are sometimes vague (i.e. community), I start to understand his implications more when he offers examples (a real strength of the book as a whole). For instance, Johnson uses bicycles to talk about users and non-users a.k.a cyclists and anti-cyclists (95), groups that give different meanings to technology. These meanings lead to "interpretative flexibility" (95), a way of making diverse conclusions from the same set of data. Later, in his discussion of computer instructions, he advocates for writing that is specific to users' work and the tasks they are performing (based on environment and culture). This may also involve a shift based on media (online vs. print) and one that allows for 'reading' in the context of doing.
Johnson also stresses the importance of addressing technological determinism, the idea that technology is the driver of change, that there is an inevitable and linear mode of progression. Johnson refers to the mechanical tomato harvester, which put many small growers out of business, as one example (105). When the workers attempted to fight back, the university (a co-developer) replied that if they stopped that they would be forced to stop all practical research. "After all, the university argues, how can you stand in the way of progress?" (106). Though his use of examples, readers understand that he is concerned with history and ethics in technical communication as well, and these are indeed brought up as important in his chapter on educational pedagogy.
Questions:
1. What do you think of Ellul's claim that "ancients could choose which techniques they wanted to use and which they wanted to ignore" (103) but now "technology...is a living thing that can (does) control every aspect of human existence? Is how Ellul defines technique different than the 'way of making' that Johnson uses earlier (18)?
2. I wonder what Johnson would say about a user's (my) propensity to Google a problem that I might be having with my computer or a certain program and the different forums that exist. It seems like a more user centered approach in that one can (sometimes) get answers that are task-specific and that users are (in part) producers. However, there is also a lot of "dumbing down", unrelated or useless responses, etc. I find that it often takes me a very long time to find a solution; however, is this still better?
I typed in a random excel error message to offer an example of what one of the response threads might look like.
Link: http://www.computing.net/answers/dbase/runtime-error-1004-in-excel/764.html
(He does mention that forums are increasing on page 120, but could not find his opinion about this or if this was really a different strategy)
3. Along with this, can we be 'too specific' in terms of task/discipline? Does Johnson seem to think so?
4. Do you agree with Johnson when he talks about nostalgia? "The hand-wringing associated with nostalgic sentimentality solves next to nothing, as we have seen in recent calls for a return to basics in education, which merely advocate a return to a time that exists only in the minds of those who have benefited from the educational status quo" (59).
Confusion/Clarification/Questions:
1. I am a bit confused about the moves that Johnson makes when making his user-centered figures. For example, if language is a form of technology, would Johnson also move reader to the center of the Kinneavy's Rhetorical Triangle (35)? If not, what does he see as the distinction?
2. I would like to understand more about 'techne', the interplay between its definitions, and its relationship to 'metis'.
3. Is there a difference between human activity designers and participatory designers (84)?
4. What work has been done on computer documentation since 1998?
1. The categorization of technology as mundane has made it almost invisible (he later applies this claim to users and technical communicators as well); thus, little research has been has been performed, especially from a user-centered perspective. This makes "the knowledge of everyday practice" (5) controlled by technology and 'experts' who design it.
2. Furthermore, technology's invisibility creates a devaluing of practice (and thus an emphasis on formal learning). Johnson asks readers to consider who can better judge the usefulness (or 'good') of a home, for example, the designer or the people (users) that actually live in it.
3. When users are not 'invisible' they are often categorized as idiots, downplaying user knowledge. Therefore, technical documents need to be "dumbed down" and either separate features from use (system-centered documentation) or simply address 'the generalized user', which fails to consider the complex nature of the actual situation (user-friendly/task documentation)
4. Technical writing courses have been accused of requiring students to simply fill in forms or neglecting the history of the discipline. They also have the danger of becoming too text-based.
 |
| "Technology is, like rhetoric and fire, a paradox of power and powerfulness" (111). |
The figure indicates that environment, culture, and history are important as well as communities/disciplines and the distinctions that come along with learning, doing, and producing. While the definitions of these categories are sometimes vague (i.e. community), I start to understand his implications more when he offers examples (a real strength of the book as a whole). For instance, Johnson uses bicycles to talk about users and non-users a.k.a cyclists and anti-cyclists (95), groups that give different meanings to technology. These meanings lead to "interpretative flexibility" (95), a way of making diverse conclusions from the same set of data. Later, in his discussion of computer instructions, he advocates for writing that is specific to users' work and the tasks they are performing (based on environment and culture). This may also involve a shift based on media (online vs. print) and one that allows for 'reading' in the context of doing.
 |
| Side note: The section on using instructions as a last resort really resonated with me, as I come from a long line of folks who hate technical documentation. Though my father (pictured above) is very mechanically-inclined, I think I have seen him pick up an instruction manual once. However, this make me wonder about gender bias and the idea that the need for technical documentation is 'unmanly', similar to asking for directions. |
Johnson also stresses the importance of addressing technological determinism, the idea that technology is the driver of change, that there is an inevitable and linear mode of progression. Johnson refers to the mechanical tomato harvester, which put many small growers out of business, as one example (105). When the workers attempted to fight back, the university (a co-developer) replied that if they stopped that they would be forced to stop all practical research. "After all, the university argues, how can you stand in the way of progress?" (106). Though his use of examples, readers understand that he is concerned with history and ethics in technical communication as well, and these are indeed brought up as important in his chapter on educational pedagogy.
Questions:
1. What do you think of Ellul's claim that "ancients could choose which techniques they wanted to use and which they wanted to ignore" (103) but now "technology...is a living thing that can (does) control every aspect of human existence? Is how Ellul defines technique different than the 'way of making' that Johnson uses earlier (18)?
2. I wonder what Johnson would say about a user's (my) propensity to Google a problem that I might be having with my computer or a certain program and the different forums that exist. It seems like a more user centered approach in that one can (sometimes) get answers that are task-specific and that users are (in part) producers. However, there is also a lot of "dumbing down", unrelated or useless responses, etc. I find that it often takes me a very long time to find a solution; however, is this still better?
I typed in a random excel error message to offer an example of what one of the response threads might look like.
Link: http://www.computing.net/answers/dbase/runtime-error-1004-in-excel/764.html
(He does mention that forums are increasing on page 120, but could not find his opinion about this or if this was really a different strategy)
3. Along with this, can we be 'too specific' in terms of task/discipline? Does Johnson seem to think so?
4. Do you agree with Johnson when he talks about nostalgia? "The hand-wringing associated with nostalgic sentimentality solves next to nothing, as we have seen in recent calls for a return to basics in education, which merely advocate a return to a time that exists only in the minds of those who have benefited from the educational status quo" (59).
Confusion/Clarification/Questions:
1. I am a bit confused about the moves that Johnson makes when making his user-centered figures. For example, if language is a form of technology, would Johnson also move reader to the center of the Kinneavy's Rhetorical Triangle (35)? If not, what does he see as the distinction?
2. I would like to understand more about 'techne', the interplay between its definitions, and its relationship to 'metis'.
3. Is there a difference between human activity designers and participatory designers (84)?
4. What work has been done on computer documentation since 1998?
"Thus instructional materials have, innocently or not, played a significant role in the continuation of the modern technology myth that the role of experts is to invent, while the role of novices is to await, with baited breath, the perfectly designed artifact" (119).
 |
| http://empyreanedge.com/archives/9846 |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)