| Editorial: a publishing plan fulfilled | | BIB | PDF | 1-2 | |
| T. R. Girill | |||
| Intentional Learning in an Intentional World | | BIBA | PDF | 3-20 | |
| Margaret Martinez | |||
| Starting with the hypothesis that affective and cognitive audience features are as important as the traditional cognitive ones when making instruction suitable for learners, Martinez uses multiple, repeated-measures, univariate ANOVAs to experimentally assess the interaction of affective "learner orientation" with learner environment (in this case, instructional software). Her results showed that (adult) students were most satisfied when working "in the environment which closely suited their learning orientation," although achievement effects were ambiguous. Extensive background references are included. Three open commentaries immediately follow this paper. | |||
| Expanding Beyond a Cognitivist Framework | | BIBA | PDF | 21-24 | |
| Jamie Kirkley; Thomas Duffy | |||
| In this first of three commentaries on Martinez, Kirkley and Duffy argue
that while the goal of tailoring learning environments to each learner's needs
is desirable, it is also much more intricate than Martinez's approach allows.
Because "learner differentiation is endlessly complex ... it is important to go
beyond [her] four categories of learner orientations" when planning
instruction, especially computer-mediated instruction. Note: [commentary] | |||
| Intentionality and Other Nonsignificant Issues in Learning | | BIBA | PDF | 25-30 | |
| Brad Mehlenbacher | |||
| In this second of three commentaries on Martinez, Mehlenbacher praises her
"useful framework for evaluating the success or failure of particular learning
environments." But he notes that intentionality is really just one among five
dimensions of instructional situations (learner background, learner tasks,
social dynamics, instructional methods, and learning tools) that all interact
to influence educational outcomes. Note: [commentary] | |||
| Commentary on Intentional Learning | | BIBA | PDF | 31-32 | |
| Thomas L. Russell | |||
| In this third of three commentaries on Martinez, Russell warns not to take
Martinez's results (which involved an online course) as somehow endorsing
computerized adaptive-learning techniques to the exclusion of other delivery
technologies, because "research has proven that it is impossible to show
learning advantages of one technology over another." Note: [commentary] | |||
| Integrating Academics and Industry: A Challenge for Both Sides | | BIBA | PDF | 33-38 | |
| Kristene Sutliff | |||
| The need to produce technical communication graduates comfortable with
current tools, trends, and publishing techniques often competes for scarce
resources with the need to share and promote basic, enduring principles of
usable information. Sutliff urges university faculty and industry practitioners
alike to overcome this problem through more collaborative projects, such as
mentoring, shadowing, fellowships, advisory boards, guest lectures, and
equipment sharing. Note: [awareness essay] | |||
| CoRR: A Computing Research Repository | | BIBA | PDF | 41-48 | |
| Joseph Halpern | |||
| Halpern describes the decisions by which the Association for Computing Machinery integrated good features from the Los Alamos e-print (physics) archive and from Cornell University's Networked Computer Science Technical Reference Library to form their own open, permanent, online "computing research repository" (CoRR). Submitted papers are not refereed and anyone can browse and extract CoRR material for free, so CoRR's eventual success could revolutionize computer science publishing. But Halpern, a CoRR co-founder, acknowledges that several serious challenges remain: some journals forbid online preprints, the CoRR user interface is cumbersome, submissions are only self-indexed (no professional library staff manages the archive), and long-term funding is uncertain. In a separate piece in the same issue (72-77), Halpern replies to four commentaries on this proposal. | |||
| Issues of Online Research Repositories from the Perspective of the Biomedical Sciences | | BIBA | PDF | 49-53 | |
| David Armbruster | |||
| In this first of four commentaries on Halpern's repository plan, David
Armbruster explains how even though most biomedical publishers explicitly
forbid online prepublication of articles in web sites or online repositories,
electronic information-sharing projects are still spreading rapidly among
biomed workers because of the scientific benefits and the reduced publication
costs. As with computer science repositories, however, access and archiving
issues remain important and troublesome. Note: [commentary] | |||
| A Usage Based Analysis of CoRR | | BIBA | PDF | 54-59 | |
| Les Carr | |||
| In this second of four commentaries on Halpern's repository plan, four
members of the Open Citation Project, Univ. of Southampton, UK (Les Carr, Steve
Hitchcock, Wendy Hall, and Stevan Harnad) assess CoRR's past and likely future
roles by analyzing actual usage statistics (such as submissions/month) for it
and related online archives. They praise CoRR's "policy and design decisions"
but argue for "more effective promotion, stronger support,...and a clearer
relationship with refereed journals." Note: [commentary] | |||
| The Dilemma of Credibility versus Speed | | BIBA | PDF | 60-63 | |
| James Prekeges | |||
| In this third of four commentaries on Halpern's repository plan, James
Prekeges points out how CoRR's implicitly constrained but officially open
acceptance policy for submitted papers raises concerns about both censorship
and credibility at once. To avoid refereeing the incoming papers yet still help
readers assess their relative merits, Prekeges suggests using coordinated
public comments and ratings in the manner of some online auctions and
booksellers. Note: [commentary] | |||
| A Computing Research Repository: Why Not Solve the Problems First? | | BIBA | PDF | 64-71 | |
| A. J. Van Loon | |||
| In this fourth of four commentaries on Halpern's repository plan, A. J. van
Loon notes that CoRR's lack of refereeing threatens the quality of reports
deposited, that the database is far from comprehensive in scope, that no sound,
permanent financial basis has been provided to continue long-term CoRR service,
and that lack of version control could easily confuse prospective users of
deposited material. He urges prompt repair of all four problems, before they
cause CoRR's "premature death." Note: [commentary] | |||
| A response to the commentaries on CoRR | | BIBAK | PDF | 72-77 | |
| Joseph Y. Halpern | |||
| This paper responds to specific comments on, suggestions about, and analysis
of ACMs Computing Research Repository (CoRR), agruing that CoRR is both viable
and suitably placed amid current online publishing alternatives. Keywords: archiving, collaboration, copyright, journal policies, preprints | |||
| Nardi and O'Day's information ecologies: using technology with heart | | BIB | PDF | 78 | |
| Robert R. Johnson | |||
| Confessions of a Gardener: A Review of Information Ecologies | | BIBA | PDF | 79-84 | |
| William Hart-Davidson | |||
| In this first of three commentaries on Nardi and O'Day's Information
Ecologies, Hart-Davidson places the text and its prime metaphors (ecology,
keystone species, environmental "gardening") in the mediating tradition that
seeks a middle ground between rigid technological determinism and indifferent
value neutrality. This biological approach to situated computer use makes
interesting reading, but the stories may not be compelling evidence that users
really can shape technological change from the local level. Note: [book commentary] | |||
| At the Heart of Information Ecologies: Invisibility and Technical Communication | | BIBA | PDF | 85-90 | |
| Frances Ranney | |||
| In this second of three commentaries on Nardi and O'Day's Information
Ecologies, Ranney notes how the authors's ecology metaphor provides a useful
supplement to other ways of describing the interaction of people with
technology. However, it fails to recognize the key role of professional
technical communicators (in surprising contrast with librarians) in such
human-computer interactions. Note: [book commentary] | |||
| A Review with Applications of Information Ecologies | | BIBA | PDF | 91-102 | |
| Dickie Selfe; Dawn Hayden | |||
| In this third of three commentaries on Nardi and O'Day's Information
Ecologies, Hayden notes how well their biological approach also fits with
articulation theory (in rhetoric), since both encourage spelling out
alternatives and consequences so as to avoid oversimplified choices about the
technology we use. Selfe reviews the relevance of their case studies to
promoting suitable technological improvements in K-12 education and finds
concerns (about adequate social rewards and sustainability) along with
promising parallels. Note: [book commentary] | |||
| Introduction to this classic reprint and commentaries | | BIB | PDF | 105-106 | |
| Bob Waite | |||
| The Measurement of Readability: Useful Information for Communicators | | BIBA | PDF | 107-121 | |
| George Klare | |||
| This classic reprint (with permission) reproduces chapter 1 of George R. Klare's influential overview of readability studies and formulas. This chapter summarizes the strategic lessons from the larger book for both writing readable prose and assessing it afterward. Four open commentaries immediately follow this reprint. | |||
| Readability and Computer Documentation | | BIBA | PDF | 122-131 | |
| Gretchen Hargis | |||
| In this first of four commentaries on Klare's reprint, Gretchen Hargis
argues that traditional readability concerns are alive and well, but subsumed
within several more recent documentation "quality" efforts. For example,
concerns with interestingness and translatability for global markets, with
audience analysis and task sufficiency, and with other broad improvements in
reader appropriateness of technical text all incorporate readability features,
but often in ways not easily measured by any formula. Note: [commentary] | |||
| Readability Formulas Have Even More Limitations Than Klare Discusses | | BIBA | PDF | 132-137 | |
| Janice Redish | |||
| In this second of four commentaries on Klare's reprint, Janice (Ginny)
Redish offers a literature review that reveals many technical weaknesses of
readability formulas (when compared to direct usability testing with typical
readers): they were developed for children's school books, not adult technical
documentation; they ignore between-reader differences and the effects of
content, layout, and retrieval aids on text usefulness; they emphasize
countable features at the expense of more subtle contributors to text
comprehension. Note: [commentary] | |||
| Readability Formulas in the New Millennium: What's the Use? | | BIBA | PDF | 138-140 | |
| Karen Schriver | |||
| In this third of four commentaries on Klare's reprint, Karen Schriver
contents that while readability formulas were intended as a quick benchmark for
indexing readability, they are inherently unreliable: they depend on criterion
(calibration) passages too short to reflect cohesiveness, too varied to support
between-formula comparisons, and too text-oriented to account for the effects
of lists, enumerated sequences, and tables on text comprehension. But
readability formulas did spark decades of research on what comprehension really
involves. Note: [commentary] | |||
| Klare's Useful Information is Useful for Web Designers | | BIBA | PDF | 141-147 | |
| Kristin Zibell | |||
| In this fourth of four commentaries on Klare's reprint, Kristin Zibell shows
the many ways in which the writing principles that Klare recommended 37 years
ago to promote high readability scores still apply to web-site design. Behind
the pursuit of readability lies audience analysis, a concern with the
intellectual level, previous experience, motivation, and reading goals of one's
intended audience. Suitably adjusted to take account of online interactivity,
those same concerns should guide design work on web structure and interfaces
today. Note: [commentary] | |||
| Readable Computer Documentation | | BIBA | PDF | 148-168 | |
| George Klare | |||
| Klare's retrospective look at his book and the commentary on it shows
earlier advice still relevant to both predicting and producing readable
writing. For prediction, refined readability formulas with stronger criterion
passages and updated familiar-word lists have appeared, although the
computerization of readability tests sometimes encourages misapplying or
misinterpreting them when screening text. For production, attention to sentence
construction, word characteristics, and information density remains relevant to
both drafting and revising computer documentation for readability, especially
since reading speed and reader preference often interact with comprehension in
practical settings. Note: [commentary response] | |||
| Genre Ecologies: An Open-System Approach to Understanding and Constructing Documentation | | BIBA | PDF | 169-181 | |
| Clay Spinuzzi; Mark Zachry | |||
| Arguing that the current approaches to understanding and constructing
computer documentation are based on flawed assumptions, Clay Spinuzzi and Mark
Zachry unfold an alternative approach. Using two historical case studies, they
describe how viewing texts and their contexts as "genre ecologies" provides
needed new insights into the complex ways that people use texts related to
computers. This framework helps both users and writers take account of
contingency, decentralization, and stability in the use of computer
documentation. Three helpful heuristic tools arise from this genre-ecologies
perspective: exploratory questions, genre-ecology diagrams, and organic
engineering. Note: [awareness essay] | |||
| Product, Process, and Profit: The Politics of Usability in a Software Venture | | BIBA | PDF | 185-203 | |
| Barbara Mirel | |||
| By recounting her often dramatic personal adventures for two years as usability manager at a small start-up software firm, Mirel shows how social and political forces ("leadership conflicts, factional disputes, renegade efforts, alliances and betrayals") can overwhelm intellectual forces in influencing the adoption of usability improvements. Three open commentaries immediately follow Mirel's paper. In the first, Patricia Carlson (204-212) places the problem of usability adoption into the larger context of current work-place trends. In the second, Clay Spinuzzi (213-219) argues that the inadequacy of the traditional threefold rhetorical framework (of audience, purpose, and context) lies behind the usability failures that Mirel recounts. In the third, Eric Wiebe (220-226) looks at broader issues of group dynamics, leadership, values, and what he calls "deep reality." | |||
| Information Technology and the Emergence of a Worker-Centered Organization | | BIBA | PDF | 204-212 | |
| Patricia Carlson | |||
| In the first of three commentaries on Mirel, Carlson places the problem of
usability adoption into the larger context of current work-place trends. She
sees a shift from technology-centered to user- and consumer-centered products
(such as groupware and networked information) that indirectly promotes
"cognitive facilitation" and hence usability in the long term. Note: [commentary] | |||
| Exploring the Blind Spot: Audience, Purpose, and Context in Products, Process, and Profit | | BIBA | PDF | 213-219 | |
| Clay Spinuzzi | |||
| In the second of three commentaries on Mirel, Spinuzzi argues that the
inadequacy of the traditional threefold rhetorical framework (of audience,
purpose, and context) lies behind the usability failures that Mirel recounts.
He suggests sociologically broader approaches (activity theory, distributed
cognition, actor-network theory) as better alternatives. Note: [commentary] | |||
| Deep Realities: The Fit of Usability in Business | | BIBA | PDF | 220-226 | |
| Eric Wiebe | |||
| In the third of three commentaries on Mirel, Wiebe revisits the way
individuals interact with their (work-place) organization, and he uses parts
from Mirel's story to illustrate the effect of group dynamics, leadership,
values, and what he calls "deep reality." Note: [commentary] | |||
| Participating from the Sidelines, Online: Facilitating Telementoring Projects | | BIBA | PDF | 227-236 | |
| Judith Harris; Candace Figg | |||
| Drawing on cases from their long-running Electronic Emissary project in
Texas, the authors explain how facilitated, e-mail, remote (and hence
asynchronous) mentoring of classroom teachers and students by professional
"subject matter experts" can yield benefits for all involved. The roles and
duties of the online facilitators in enabling successful e-mail mentoring
exchanges get detailed and thoughtful analysis. Note: [awareness essay] | |||
| Metaphor in Theory and Practice: The Influence of Metaphors on Expectations | | BIBA | PDF | 237-253 | |
| Anne Hamilton | |||
| Hamilton surveys the pervasiveness of metaphor and the sweep of current
metaphor theory in this helpful literature review. She then focuses on recent
work in human-computer interface metaphors and discusses an exploratory study
of the impact of metaphor on attitudes toward online commerce. Note: [awareness essay] | |||
| A Conversational Commentary on From Millwrights to Shipwrights | | BIBA | PDF | 254-259 | |
| Jack Jobst; Robert R. Johnson | |||
| In this extended book commentary on Brockmann's From Millwrights to
Shipwrights, the authors offer in dialog form a series of seven questions and
answers about the audience, goals, assumptions, impact, and educational value
of R. John Brockmann's 1998 history of technical communication in the United
States. Note: [book commentary] | |||