 |
|
|
[cont.] |
|
|
|
During the course of my research, I began to conceptualize my interpretations as a visual schematization of the recurring commonalities among my informants. This image represents a new process model of writing—one specific and particular to hyper-writing. I do not imagine for a moment that this process model is definitive or prescriptive. Writing is a highly individual yet complex activity and reducing it to a single model is always a gross oversimplification. Furthermore, as my research and that of others evolves, new ways of seeing the hyper-writing process will undoubtedly emerge. The value of any model, however, is that it allows researchers a concrete point of reference from which to question and conceptualize further. Here is how I would describe the hyper-writing process as it is represented in the "new model" presented above: The "typical" hyperwriter appears to hold in mind and make key decisions about many elements of a given writing task at the same time. Some of these elements are typical of a traditional print-based writing space (e.g., audience, purpose, words); many elements are entirely new or variations of traditional considerations (e.g., multi-media, hyperlinks, technical considerations). Because of the number of diverse elements the hyperwriter appears to have to consider both simultaneously and sequentially, it seems logical that different levels of consciousness may be involved. Moreover, the hyperwriter must consider both the macro level (e.g., navigational system, style templates) and the micro-level (e.g., page layouts, content) simultaneously as they impact on each other in an electronic environment that is always in a kind of inter-dependent controlled motion rather than frozen on a printed page. To accomplish this multi-faceted procedure, the hyperwriter likely processes these elements internally at different levels of consciousness both simultaneously and sequentially, while at the same time representing these elements and their evolution externally on either paper or—more likely—by using web authoring software. These external representations appear to be highly graphical in nature as compared to the traditional writing process which is constituted largely by words. It is my intention that this model, when considered holistically, embodies what may be the most crucial distinction between traditional and hyperwriting—as most of my informants noted in various ways—there is just so much more to deal with all at the same time! I present this process model as an aid to envisioning my interpretation of the experiences my informants described in words. I hope, at the very least, it captures the essence of my interpretations in much the same way a single snapshot might capture the essence of a series of events. As Annette Markham observes, "All of us make sense of our experiences and tell the stories of our lives in self-centered and self-understood ways. Truth is an elusive term in any context" (210). Thus, the more perspectives from which we can view the findings of this study, the closer we are likely to come to the elusive truth contained therein. My process model is also, perhaps, an example of the principle "a picture is worth a thousand words," a principle that many of my informants grappled with as they composed in a new writing space that could so easily include images. They often questioned how to represent a particular idea or set of ideas: Should I include an image? Is the image sufficient by itself? Does it need an explanation in words? If so, how many? Should I animate the image? Should I add some sound to emphasize a point? These are the kinds of questions hyperwriters must deal with at every turn in the process. I ask you now to consider, to what extent did you really need all the words I used to describe the image of the "new hyper-writing model" at the top of this page? Do you think my process model would be more effective if it were animated to show some kind of dynamic flow? Would you require fewer words and would your understanding be enhanced if I developed the model as an image map in which you could click on a particular part of the model for any further explanation of that aspect of the process? These are the kinds of new and complex questions writers must face when composing in an electronic hypertextual writing space. Perhaps the reasons these decisions seem so difficult is that our thinking is rooted in a kind of print-hypertext binary. This is likely inescapable for those of us whose primary textual experiences are rooted in Gutenbergian print; that is, those of us who approach the screen from the perspective of the book. Researchers will have to be patient until a generation emerges that is schooled more evenly across a range of media that includes hypertext to better understand the nature of this print-hypertext tension. Perhaps as writers come to regard the hypertextual writing space not as something new and different but as just another writing space among many, this binary will cease to be problematic and the process will seem less a struggle than it did to so many of the informants in this study.  Implications
|
