Location: Question Formation and Analysis 9

Discussion: Digital versus Non-Digital TextsReported This is a featured thread

Category: Discussion Forum / General Discussion
Showing 2 posts

jcover
Digital versus Non-Digital Texts
Apr 19 2008, 8:51 PM EDT | Post edited: Apr 19 2008, 8:51 PM EDT
When Warnick talks about the interactivity of MoveOn.org, she mentions that "the site initiates the process by calling for vigils to be held, and then users respond by clicking on a link and finding out how to participate" (79). Is this any different from a reader looking at a poster about an upcoming event and responding by taking one of the little hanging tags with the contact information about it? In addition, she says that "text-based interactivity refers to the presence of various stylistic devices, such as the use of first-person and active voice" (73). Again, there are clearly non-digital texts that employ techniques such as first-person and active voice. Does interactivity vary, then, from a non-digital to a digital environment, and if so how? What definition(s) of interactivity from Warnick is specific to digital environments? Do you find this valuable?    
Keyword tags: None
Megfish
Megfish
1. RE: Digital versus Non-Digital Texts
Apr 23 2008, 2:02 PM EDT | Post edited: Apr 23 2008, 2:02 PM EDT
In this question, Jenny is asking the reader to consider the usability of certain digital and print-based texts and evaluate Warnick’s statement that Moveon.org is a form of promotion that is inherently different from paper promotions. To determine whether this distinction is true, the reader needs to think through the step by step usability of the both Moveon.org and the example of an event poster. Once these differences (if any) have been identified, the reader may broaden these distinctions to Jenny’s larger question of interactivity and environments. Are the specific differences noted ion the first example linked to the medium (digital/non-digital) or are they linked to the content? If the reader determines that interactivity is linked to the medium, she/he must then determine how stable that link is and/or how the link is defined by the medium, which would include a discussion of Warnick’s preexisting definitions of digitally-specific interactivity.

By asking the reader to question the validity of Warnick’s assumption of digitally-specific interactivity, Jenny is arguing against Warnick’s larger claim. By noting “Again, there are clearly non-digital texts that employ techniques such as first-person and active voice.” Jenny is asking the reader to agree with her (which I do) and participate in her critique of the limits of Warnick’s definitions.
 Do you find this valuable?