|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Visible Digital Technologies and
Their Implications for Digital Publishing As the title suggests, the emphasis
of my contribution to these proceedings is on the notion of "visibility"
and what that means for digital publishing. In particular, I hope
to explore critically the implications of claims about invisibility.
My argument, ultimately, is straightforward: We cannot allow digital
technologies to be imagined as invisible, if our goal is to publish
and interact with publications carefully and responsibly. To bring
the importance of technology visibility in more specific relief, I'll
chronicle some of the key developmental moments of Kairos: A Journal
for Teachers of Writing in Webbed Environments, an electronic journal
that Douglas Eyman and I co-edit. Let me begin by exploring the way "invisibility" has been discussed in scholarship, with emphasis on the social implications of the discussions. As associated with various contemporary technologies, the notion of invisibility has been represented by a range of terms, like "naturalization" and "universal access," that seem to suggest that majority adoption of a technology equates to its ubiquity. Little attention is offered to what such representations mean in terms of the current digital divide, and this lack of attention seems problematic on a number of levels, most prominently a lack of social reform and advocacy for those who do not often have access to contemporary technologies. Many scholars have argued that when technologies become popular enough to be mainstream, they can be imagined as naturalized into their environments, thus invisible. A recent example is Bertram Bruce and Maureen P. Hogan's "The Disappearance of Technology: Toward an Ecological Model of Literacy," published as a chapter in the Handbook of Literacy and Technology. Citing the telephone and various writing technologies, they write, "As technologies embed themselves in everyday discourse and activity, a curious thing happens. The more we look, the more they slip into the background. Despite our attention, we lose sight of the way they give shape to our daily lives" (270). The idea here is that the more we use, think about, and talk about any technology, the less visible it is in our lives; we learn to ignore it, seeing it as commonplace and a component of our existing environments, not unique. An interesting element, though, is Bruce and Hogan's citing of the telephone, as it clearly is not ubiquitous now; indeed, as initiatives like Net Day have shown, the telecommunications infrastructures of schools and communities rarely enable computer users to connect to the Internet without additional wiring. Bruce and Hogan's project is ultimately to argue for a situated evaluation of new technologies; they want to know how a technology enters individuals' "value-laden" lives, thus what factors inform the naturalization process. Bruce and Hogan do not argue that technologies themselves should be kept visible, then, only the way these technologies enter into specific environments or scenes and exert influence. This form of invisibility-or disappearance, to use their term-is assumed. A more provocative concept is "universal access," as it implies everyone possesses enough access that the associated technology can be imagined as invisible writ-large. Consider M. Lynne Markus' "Toward a 'Critical Mass' Theory of Interactive Media," published as a chapter in Organizations and Communication Technology. She argues that the concept of critical mass from the natural sciences can show us a way to think about universal access - that once a sufficient number or "critical mass" of individuals in an organization or community have experiences with a technology, it can be considered universal. Markus' principal interest in the chapter is on intra-organizational communication-how announcements can be distributed successfully, for instance - but her perspective resonates more broadly and brings into specific relief the problem with scholars' assumptions of invisibility. Markus does not indicate that it would be a problem for those individuals not in the "critical mass" of an organization or community to feel left out, which seems a very real and telling possibility. And the problem is more serious than these individuals' simply feeling left out: lack of access to technologies may alter their lives at a large scale, limiting their educational and workplace options, for instance. This reality brings into specific relief the critical implications that claims of invisibility can imply. Not surprisingly, corporations have jumped on the "universal access" bandwagon, and their programs further demonstrate that claims of invisibility are extremely problematic. IBM's Global Campus has a "universal access program," for instance. Its description reads,
This construction of universal access focuses, of course, on providing hardware and software alone, not on the way individuals learn to use those components. Lack of attention to social implications is still simple to identify, though: the phrasing that "all members" can "participate and contribute to an on-line educational culture" neglects attention to the hierarchical and other social structures in organizations that may prevent some from participating and contributing. IBM assumes that "access to network resources" equates to "universal access," but they do not address training, for instance. It's almost as though the corporation assumes that everyone has similar experiences with computers, thus can adapt easily to any technology "solution," rather than acknowledging the reality that not everyone can adapt so easily and that this problem will increase any stratification in an organization, not support a more democratic definition of it. Many other corporations have also created programs emphasizing "universal access," and these programs further detail the problems that assumptions of invisibility bring. As reported on Slashdot, the Ford Motor Company provides computers, monitors, and Net access to all of its employees and their families, for instance, and Delta Airlines offers essentially the same deal. Unfortunately, what Slashdot's discussion of these programs also includes is an example of the hype typically associated with claims of "universal access":
Though the author doesn't say so, I suspect Universal Access could also run faster than a steaming locomotive and jump tall buildings in a single bound. It rises somehow to be a sort of super-panacea, rather than something defined socially and in complex fashion. Or perhaps I'm just one of those "clucking . . . moral guardians." I've implied critiques of these perspectives, but not fully articulated the basis for those critiques, so let me do that now. What I need first to explain is that my perspective is that invisibility claims associated with digital technologies are the problem, not necessarily all invisibility claims about all technologies in the world. Or at least claims about other technologies may not have such telling implications. A quasi-philosophical question illustrates this distinction: "Do we walk on the bottoms of our feet, or do we walk on the bottom of our shoes?" The question is about the visibility of shoes as walking technologies, and I'm sure readers will agree with me that the answer is finally not of paramount importance, at least unless they're shoe manufacturers or have sore feet. With digital technologies, much more is at stake. The economic reality alone demonstrates this point. While the difference between Nikes and Zips might be $100, the difference between a top-of-the-line computer and a bottom-of-the-barrel machine can be several thousand dollars. And the reality is more compelling still, even. Bottom-of-the-barrel machines often cannot be upgraded reasonably or even at all, so owners of these products must buy new bottom-of-the-barrel machines when they can earn and dedicate the money, not when they need newer technologies to explore digital publications. Those individuals who can afford top-of-the-line computers can likely afford to upgrade them as necessary, so the cycle perpetuates. Of course, the rich-versus-poor dichotomy I'm describing can be easily problematized, but I'm arguing less about its specific appearance in our lives and more about its general lessons for us. The technologies individuals possess determine in some measure their ability to publish in digital media and to view such publications. Let me offer an analogy to demonstrate this perspective a little more. Imagine several automobiles. While we might parallel the difference between Nikes and Zips to be something like a $18,000 sedan to a $8,000 coupe, the analogy for digital technologies is much more difficult. We're no longer talking about the difference between a V6 and a V4 or the pace at which the sedan and coupe can accelerate the 60 miles per hour. Instead, we're talking about the difference between a V8 and a lawnmower engine. And this difference has implications, as I've tried to argue. Automobiles with V6 and V4 engines should generally be able to support individuals' travel to a location in the same way; one car wouldn't beat the other, really. But automobiles with V8 and lawnmower engines would absolutely arrive at different times, and it's possible, depending on the route and distance, that the automobile with the lawnmower engine may not arrive at all. My point, finally, is that a top-of-the-line computer and a bottom-of-the-barrel machine aren't just getting to the same place at slightly different speeds; they may not even get to the same place, which means some individuals may not be able to create or view digital publications at all. It is not problematic, ultimately, to do the sort of research Bruce and Hogan recommend, but as I hope my analogy shows, careful and responsible thinking cannot start with an assumption of invisibility. Beginning with visible digital technologies and their implications, one can then look at the way they are incorporated into various organizations or communities. But beginning without such visible subjects encourages oversight in the form of inattention to access and other critical issues associated with technology adoption, whether in publishing contexts or not. With digital technologies and their specific implications in view, scholars can think critically about issues like those raised by Markus, exploring what happens to those individuals not in the designated "critical mass," for instance, or considering whether "universal access" can even ever be a realistic expectation or goal. I don't have answers to these complex problems, but I do believe strongly that imagining digital technologies as invisible serves only to mask important critical issues that have considerable bearing on both the way individuals publish with such technologies and interact with associated publications. We need to think more about the relationship between digital publishing and the technologies that enable it, and we can only do that by keeping the technologies visible - in our midst. Keeping Visibility: Kairos in Action I've briefly discussed the importance
of visibility and its relation to digital publishing, but let me now
demonstrate why it's so important in practice. To accomplish this
goal, I will explore the development of Kairos: A Journal for Teachers
of Writing in Webbed Environments (http://english.ttu.edu/kairos),
a leading electronic journal that explores issues of writing, teaching,
and learning. Our mission with Kairos is to provide a forum for such
exploration and to help bridge print and digital publishing cultures
in the humanities. In each issue, we include the following sections: 1. Features: Extended scholarly analyses
of key issues relating to writing, teaching, and learning; Additionally, we just added an Interviews section, so future issues of Kairos will include extended interviews with scholars doing interesting work relating to writing, teaching, and learning. . When the journal was founded in 1996, the editorial staff was seeking to create a concept that took full advantage of the World Wide Web as a publishing technology - literally, full advantage, meaning more or less to utilize every possible design approach/technology. Core elements of the original design were various frames, including the five depicted in the following screen capture (top, bottom, left, right, and middle):
The following language authored by the editorial staff at that time illustrates how such frames were imagined as particularly innovative:
Such language seems quasi-humorous now, probably, in its overt enthusiasm for the extensive use of frames, but use of new technological advances was exciting at the time for these editorial staff members. More importantly, the excerpt above demonstrates attention to the publishing technologies utilized in Kairos; staff members kept the technologies visible both for themselves in creating the design and for readers in authoring the editorial cited above. At the same time the original design was exciting for Kairos staff members, it was also problematic. The frames-heavy interface design confused some readers and exacerbated access issues, making the journal inaccessible for some potential readers. A change was in order, and this time of change marks the first time Kairos shows the sort of perspective I've argued for in this contribution. That is, the editorial staff started with the frames technology, keeping it in view at all times, and then began to look at its influence on authors and readers. The result was an option for readers in viewing Kairos issues: frames or no frames, as the following screen capture demonstrates:
This new design began with volume two, which itself began in the spring of 1997, and the frames or no-frames option was popular, receiving praise from readers. This moment is perhaps when Kairos first connected strongly with its readership, and it could only have been orchestrated by keeping the frames technology visible. Had the editorial staff made assumptions about access to frames technology - perhaps in the sense of naturalization or universal access - then it would not have been able to take this next step. The frame-option design continued through volume three, but editorial staff learned a great deal from authors during that time and began formulating ideas for a more complete re-design, one likewise grounded by keeping publishing technologies visible. In particular, authors demonstrated new and more sophisticated aesthetic ways of reaching readers - not relying on the technology and trying to maximize its capability, but keeping it in view and moving from that base towards an informed aesthetic. Two projects in issue 3.2 were particularly influential. Myka Vielstimmig's "Not a Cosmic Convergence: Rhetoric, Poetics, Performance, and the Web" challenged us to re-think what we knew about discursive creativity, as well as interactions between word and image:
Vielstimmig achieves multi-vocality and innovative visual design without using frames or otherwise attempting to "maximize" the potential of publishing technologies. Likewise, Anne Wysocki's "Monitoring Desire: Visual Desire, the Ordering of Web Pages, and Teaching the Rules of Design" challenged us to think in new ways, perhaps her most immediate contribution to help us realize the seemingly simple can be quite sophisticated graphically and conceptually in interface design:
While Wysocki uses frames, that is, she does so in a more subtle way, not making the frames themselves invisibility, but demonstrating how they can be designed as part of the visual presentation of a project. These were important lessons for us, lessons beginning with the Web as a digital technology and then going beyond. With volume four, Kairos debuted a new look, created by our Interface Editor Jason Cranford Teague. This new look emphasizes the many lessons we learned from talented authors like Vielstimmig and Wysocki and from our own work on the editorial staff in keeping publishing technologies visible and foregrounding them in our discussions of the journal's evolution and trajectory:
The interface still seeks now to make use of the Web's capabilities, but only those capabilities that best support our evolving mission. Right now that mission is to work to bridge the gap between print and digital publication cultures, publishing scholarly works that represent the best of both cultures, instead of choosing sides. To put it simply, that means that we cannot structure Kairos like it was initially structured, seeking to maximize technologies; instead we must be more careful. As an editorial staff, we understand that we have to begin with thinking about the Web as a visible digital publishing technology and that, then - and only then - we can move ahead with related broader issues. Keeping the Web visible, that is, enables us to take on critical issues in careful and responsible ways, informed by experience. Conclusion As I hope I've been able to demonstrate,
keeping digital publishing technologies visible proves an important
element of contemporary digital publishing, at least if that publishing
seeks to be responsible. In order to reach out to more diverse audiences
and generally to span the digital divide, as it's been called, we
have to begin with a sophisticated understanding of the technologies
we are employing. Then we are ready for whatever challenges the future
brings. Bruce, Bertram C., and Maureen P. Hogan. "The Disappearance of Technology: Toward an Ecological Model of Literacy." Handbook of Literacy and Technology: Transformations in a Post-Typographic World. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1999. 269-81. "IBM's Global Campus - Universal Access Programs." Markus, M. Lynne. "Toward a 'Critical Mass' Theory of Interactive Media." Organizations and Communication Technology. Eds. J. Fulk and C. Steinfeld. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 194-218. "Universal Access." Slashdot: News for Nerds-Stuff That Matters. Online. 23 May 1998. Available: http://slashdot.org/features/00/05/09/0915202.shtml (4 April 2001). "Using Kairos." Kairos:
A Journal for Teachers of Writing in Webbed Writing Environments.
Spring 1998. Available:
http://english.ttu.edu/kairos/1.1/index.html (4 April 2001).
|
|
 |
|||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|||||
 |
|||||||||||
