Readercentric Writing for Digital Media

Theory and Practice

David Hailey

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781351864718
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: Mental Health in Psychology
• Index: Psychology

This book presents an altogether new approach to writing and evaluating writing in digital media. It suggests that usability theory provides few tools for evaluating content, because usability theory assumes only one kind of writing on the Internet. The author suggests three models: user-centric (usability model), persuasion-centric (encouraging the reader to linger and be persuaded--Canon camera ads), and quality-centric (encouraging the reader to linger and learn or be entertained because of the quality of the writing--NASA.gov and YouTube). Designed for professional writers and writing students, this text provides a rubric for writing in digital media, but more importantly, it provides a rubric and vocabulary for identifying and explaining problems in copy that already exists. The Internet has become a pastiche of cut-and-paste content, often placed by non-writers to fill space for no particular reason or by computers with no oversight from humans (e.g., Amazon.com). Because these snippets are typically on topic (but often for the wrong purpose or audience), professional writers have difficulty identifying the problems and an even harder time explaining them. Finding an effective tool for identifying and explaining problems in digital content becomes a particularly important problem as writers increasingly struggle with growing complications in complex information systems (systems that create and manage their own content with little human intervention). Being able to look at a body of copy and immediately see that it is problematic is an important skill that is lacking in a surprising number of professional writers.

Section II
Application

Chapter 6
Proposing a New Approach to Content Evaluation

In the previous chapter, I suggested that user-centered design, while valid, is incomplete. In this chapter, I propose a new rubric. This becomes the focal chapter in this book. Until now, I have presented arguments about things that work and don't work (focusing largely on the ones that don't), and I have presented theories about how websites are constructed, how language works, what genres are, and so on. The arguments and theories are all important, but from my point of view they are not meaningful until they come together to present solutions. Earlier, I argued that it is better to describe a genre than name it. If you can define it in terms of its exigencies, urgencies, purposes, audiences, appropriate rhetorical stance, and its physical structure, you have a tool you can use to evaluate it in detail. In this chapter I introduce that tool.

Evaluating Existing Content

Content evaluation poses problems entirely different from writing original copy. If you are writing, you are probably working within a framework of exigency, urgency, purpose, audience, rhetorical stance, and textural structures (EUPARS) that you should already have identified subconsciously as you prepared to write. Previously existing content is different. In evaluating already existing content, the first thing you need to do is go back and establish these relationships forensically. If an old text is being copied into a new document, you need to make sure it will still work there. To see if an existing text still works, you have to identify the original EUPARSs, which may be quite old, and compare them to the EUPARSs that might now be very different. Once you have figured out these things, you will be in a position to say, "This still works," or "This no longer works."

Problem of Single-Sourcing and Multi-Sourcing

An important problem arises because copy being single-sourced or multi-sourced tends to be relocated automatically with no oversight. Examples of flawed copy being inappropriately pasted into complicated and complex documents abound on the Internet. Amazon.com, for example, depends on its vendors for product descriptions. The quality of copy depends entirely on the vendor, and it can sometimes be laughable. Given the opportunity to sell its product in a product description of any length it wants, Cobra Electronics uses a full nine well-written paragraphs with expandable photos, subheads, and bullet points fully describe one of their 12VDC to 120VAC inverters in persuasive terms. In contrast, given the same opportunities, Scosche describes its fuse holder as "Scosche EWFH Single ANL Fuse holder," giving no indication of how it works, what it is used for or why anyone should buy it (Amazon.com, 2011a). Scosche simply repeats the title line for the page.

Like Cobra, Tripp Lite manufactures an inverter. This is how they market it in their product description on Amazon:

TrippLite APS750 750-Watt DC-to-AC Power Inverter with 20A Charger Tripp Lite's APS750 3-function DC-to-AC inverter with automatic line-to-battery transfer and integrated charging system serves as an extended run UPS, a standalone power source or an automotive inverter. Supplies up to 750 watts of continuous 120V AC power to 2 AC outlets from any 12V battery or automotive DC source. When AC cable is connected to a live wall socket, commercial power passes through to connected equipment and the battery set is recharged via 3 stage, 20 amp charging system. Supplies up to 960 watts of continuous 120V AC bypass power. In UPS mode, the APS system responds to blackouts and brownouts with an uninterrupted transfer to battery-derived AC output. Includes a set of high current DC input terminals for simple installation (user supplies batteries and cabling). Reliable transformer design, with efficient PWM sine wave output and frequency control, powers resistive electronic loads or large in. (Amazon.com, 2011a)

The description comes in a single dense block of rambling sentence fragments that sometimes end mid-sentence and sometimes end with a period. Problematical texts such as these are not aberrations in Amazon; they are common. In contrast, the NASA collective of websites is spread around the world and covers every scientific topic imaginable, yet I have never seen a comparable error there.

Adorama.com, a site where I get many of my photographic tools, usually has excellent content, which they often get by parsing the copy produced by manufacturers. In one case, however, they say,

• 1080/60p Recording: With its transfer rate of 28 Mbps, 1,080/60p recording (Full-HD, 1,920 x 1,080, 60 progressive recording) conveys about twice the information of 1,080i (interlace) recording
• Interlaced Scanning (1080/60i): Only half of the image data is reproduced in each picture. Fabric patterns run together and moire patterns appears
• Progressive Scanning (1,080/60p): Reproduces all of image data in a single picture. Patterns in fabric are crisp and clear with no color bleeding. (Adorama Cameras, 2011, n.p.)

There are three identifying characteristics for this camera. First, the description points out that this camera records in progressive format. Second, there is a sentence that points out that interlaced scanning is a weakness in a digital camera. Finally, the copy points out that progressive scanning is better for fabrics. There is a small mechanical problem in the second sentence, but more interestingly, although the second sentence describes a weakness in cameras, it is presented in a list of positive features for the video camera being marketed. In the original copy, it was presented as a defect common in other cameras. What happened appears to be this: The features are generated by someone (apparently not a writer) pulling the original narrative apart sentence by sentence and putting the sentences behind bullets. In the original copy, a negative feature of other cameras was introduced in a sentence designed to lead to a next sentence saying the progressive scanning in this camera is the better option. Instead, in the new copy, the negative feature is listed as a positive feature. The difference, I believe, is lack of oversight. With no careful oversight on automated cut-and-paste processes, errors such as this abound on the Internet.

In short, careless errors abound on the Internet. Most of these errors occur because someone moved material from one page to another without knowing the genres of the content they were moving. Many more of these occur because computers mine content from a variety of resources with no oversight from qualified writers. It might be an exaggeration to claim that there are more pages with errors than without, but I suspect it's not much of one.

Applying Practical Theories to Finding Problems in Writing on the Internet

In the first four chapters, I spent a great deal of time presenting theories that can be applied to evaluating old content or writing new content, but those theories were generalized. In this chapter, I will attempt to make them specific enough to use as tools. The guidelines for evaluating web content are relatively straightforward—figure out what the text is supposed to do and see if it does that. With the right tools, that task is actually as simple to do as it sounds. Once you have the tools, evaluating text is much easier than writing it.

Dissecting Genres

You may have noticed that as I have described texts in this book, I have almost never named a genre. There are two reasons for that. First, most genres you will find on the Internet have never been named. In fact, most genres on the Internet have never even been noticed. Secondly, naming the genre will not get us what we need for evaluating. Instead, we need to dissect the genres. Only when we are looking at the genres' parts are we able to see if the individual parts work. Instead of saying that a genre is a kind of digital poster, we can break it down into its EUPARS components and examine them. This might seem like an arduous task, but it is not. Most of the time we can do most of the steps subconsciously. Still, later in this chapter, I will introduce a form that may help. But my point is this: you do not want to name the genre, you want to describe the genre, and to do that, you dissect it.

Difference between Content and the Site That Contains It

It is common for usability theorists to suggest you consider the genre of the site. This comes from confusion over the differences between purposes and genres. Actually, there is no such thing as a site with a unique genre. The very fact that any site has both navigation and content proves that the fewest genres a site can have is two: at least one menu plus at least one other genre. I will discuss this at much greater length later in this chapter, but for now let me suggest that when evaluating content, you are concerning yourself with the individual texts in the site and not the site as a whole. An excellent site is equal to more than the sum of its parts, but it is made up of those parts, and when evaluating the writing, your focus should be on those parts. The appropriate question is not, "Why did we need this site?" but "Why did we need this particular text?"

Keep in mind that in this chapter I am not addressing effective writing; I am discussing assessing values for texts that already exist—particularly texts being moved from old sites to new, or being single-sourced or multi-sourced for a variety of different purposes. I suggest that for evaluating these texts, we break the process into seven steps:

1. Identify the exigencies and level of urgency. That is to say, why is the text needed and how badly?
2. Identify the purpose. What is the text supposed to do?
3. Identify the audience. With whom are you trying to communicate?
4. Identify the appropriate rhetorical stance.
   1. What are the audience needs and expectations?
   2. What do you hope to do with the reader?
   3. What is the appropriate stance to accomplish these goals?
5. Identify the appropriate structure. Should the text be bulleted, numbers, narrative?
6. Evaluate. Imputing a value to the text based on the knowledge you glean from the first four steps.
   1. What was the text originally supposed to do?
   2. Does the text now do that?
   3. What rhetoric is appropriate for the task?
   4. Does the text have the appropriate rhetorical stance?
7. Justification. Explaining the value you place on the text.

It only takes a little practice to be able to do these things well. I have produced a table I can use, but I do not need it to do the evaluation (see Table 1). I use it to show others if I need to persuade them that a text has problems. The table permits me to do the seventh step—justification.

This is the first and simplest of several similar rubrics I will recommend. The urgency section is optional. The urgency actually comes from the exigency, and if you understand the exigency, you also understand the urgency.

As you look at the table, imagine the following. You are the communications director for a company that has shown astonishing losses over the past quarter. This is an exigency that demands communications, but what communications? The exigencies are clear enough, as is the urgency. The options include "cook the books" and report false results, write a series of press releases that clarify the problems and solutions, stonewall the media, engage in a series of internal discussions with the board and senior officers that will perhaps lead to a best path, leak the problem to the press, etc. Each of these communicative models can be evaluated in the form. Suppose you decide to lie (see Table 2).

In this case, the largest problems seem ethical, but they are also practical. We have all seen that lying seldom does anything but dig the corporation into deeper trouble and often bankruptcy. So while the problems with dishonesty are

Table 1. Sample Form that Can Be Used for Evaluating Existing Texts

	Description	Valuation
EXIGENCY	Why is the text needed?	Valid? Yes, no, maybe
URGENCY	How badly is the text needed?	Badly? Yes, no, maybe
PURPOSE	What is the text supposed to do?	Appropriate? Yes, no, maybe
AUDIENCE	Who is the audience?	Appropriate? Yes, no, maybe
RHETORIC	What is the rhetorical stance?	Appropriate? Yes, no, maybe
STRUCTURE	What is the structure?	Appropriate? Yes, no, maybe

Table 2. Simple Application of the Form

	Description	Valuation
EXIGENCY	Just suffer...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Dedication
• Introduction
• SECTION I: Theory
• SECTION II: Application
• SECTION III: Practice
• Index