This article offers a content analysis of technical and professional communication articles related to user experience (TPC-UX) published between 2013 and 2022 in six TPC scholarly journals. This analysis reveals that TPC-UX primarily focuses on product and process topics and illustrates the terminological comingling of user experience and usability. Specific TPC-UX topics identified include theory, multimodality, health and medicine, localization, web design, mobile applications, accessibility, and content strategy. These topics suggest that TPC-UX's key affordances are its attunement to networked power dynamics, its theoretically rich treatment of multimodality, and its strategies for navigating contextual complexities.
AcharyaK. R. (2022b). Exploring localized usability implementation in mHealth app design for healthcare practitioners in the Global South context: A case study. Technical Communication, 69(4), 44–63. https://doi.org/10.55177/tc885177
2.
AcharyaK. R. (2022a). Promoting social justice through usability in technical communication: An integrative literature review. Technical Communication, 69(1), 6–26. https://doi.org/10.55177/tc584938
3.
AgbokaG. Y. (2013). Participatory localization: A social justice approach to navigating unenfranchised/disenfranchised cultural sites. Technical Communication Quarterly, 22(1), 28–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2013.730966
4.
AgbokaG. Y. (2014). Decolonial methodologies: Social justice perspectives in intercultural technical communication research. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 44(3), 297–327. https://doi.org/10.2190/TW.44.3.e
5.
AgbozoG. E. (2022). Localization at users’ sites is not enough: GhanaPostGPS and power reticulations in the postcolony. Technical Communication, 69(2), 7–17. https://doi.org/10.55177/tc041879
6.
AltamiranoA.StephensS. H. (2022). Experience report streamlining complex website design using a content audit selection heuristic. Communication Design Quarterly, 10(1), 14–23. https://doi.org/10.1145/3507454.3507456
7.
ApplenJ. D.StephensS. H. (2018). Digital humanities, middleware, and user experience design for public health applications. Communication Design Quarterly, 5(3), 24–34. https://doi.org/10.1145/3188173.3188176
8.
ArduserL. (2018). Impatient patients: A DIY usability approach in diabetes wearable technologies. Communication Design Quarterly, 5(4), 31–39. https://doi.org/10.1145/3188387.3188390
BachaJ. A. (2018). Mapping use, storytelling, and experience design: User-network tracking as a component of usability and sustainability. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 32(2), 198–228. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651917746708
11.
BaradK. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning.Duke UP.
12.
BoettgerR. K.FriessE. (2016). Academics are from Mars, practitioners are from Venus: Analyzing content alignment within technical communication forums. Technical Communication, 63(4), 314–327. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44809468
13.
BoettgerR. K.LamC. (2013). An overview of experimental and quasi-experimental research in technical communication journals (1992–2011). IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 56(4), 272–293. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2013.2287570
14.
BoettgerR. K.PalmerL. A. (2010). Quantitative content analysis: Its use in technical communication. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 53(4), 346–357. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2010.2077450
15.
ButtsS.JonesM. (2021). Deep mapping for environmental communication design. Communication Design Quarterly, 9(1), 4–19. https://doi.org/10.1145/3437000.3437001
16.
CampbellJ. L. (2022). Identifying digital rhetoric in the telemedicine user interface. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 53(2), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/00472816221125184
17.
CardinalA.GonzalesL.RoseE. (2020, October). Language as participation: Multilingual user experience design. In Proceedings of the 38th ACM International Conference on Design of Communication (pp. 1–7). https://doi.org/10.1145/3380851.3416763
18.
CarradiniS. (2022). The ship of theseus: Change over time in topics of technical communication research abstracts. In SchreiberJ.MelonçonL. (Eds.), Assembling critical components: A framework for sustaining technical and professional communication (pp. 39–68). The WAC Clearinghouse; University Press of Colorado. https://doi.org/10.37514/TPC-B.2022.1381.2.02
19.
ClarkD. (2016). Content strategy: An integrative literature review. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 59(1), 7–23. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2016.2537080
20.
ClinkenbeardM. (2018). Multimodal conversation analysis and usability studies: Exploring human-technology interactions in multiparty contexts. Communication Design Quarterly, 6(2), 103–113. https://doi.org/10.1145/3282665.3282675
21.
ColtonJ. S.HolmesS. (2018). A social justice theory of active equality for technical communication. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 48(1), 4–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047281616647803
22.
CookD. (2022). Affordances. In ThamJ. C. K. (Ed.), Keywords in design thinking: A lexical primer for technical communicators and designers (pp. 51–53). UP Colorado. https://doi.org/10.37514/TPC-B.2022.1725.2.07
23.
CoxM. B. (2019). Working closets: Mapping queer professional discourses and why professional communication studies need queer rhetorics. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 33(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651918798691
24.
CraneK.CookK. C. (eds) (2022). User experience as innovative academic practice. The WAC Clearinghouse; University Press of Colorado. https://doi.org/10.37514/TPC-B.2022.1367
25.
DilgerB. (2006). Extreme usability and technical communication. In ScottJ. B.LongoB.,, & WillsK. (Eds.), Critical power tools: Technical communication and cultural studies (pp. 47–69). SUNY Press.
26.
FriessE.BoettgerR. K. (2021). Identifying commonalities and divergences between technical communication scholarly and trade publications (1996–2017). Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 35(4), 407–432. https://doi.org/10.1177/10506519211021468
27.
GallagherJ. R.HolmesS. (2019). Empty templates: The ethical habits of empty state pages. Technical Communication Quarterly, 28(3), 271–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2018.1564367
28.
GettoG.FlanaganS. (2022). Localizing UX advocacy and accountability: Using personas to amplify user agency. Technical Communication, 69, 97–113. https://doi.org/10.55177/tc914783
29.
GettoG.St. AmantK. (2015). Designing globally, working locally: Using personas to develop online communication products for international users. Communication Design Quarterly, 3(1), 24–46. https://doi.org/10.1145/2721882.2721886
30.
GettoGuiseppeFlanaganSuzan (2022). Localizing UX Advocacy and Accountability: Using Personas to Amplify User Agency. Technical Communication, 69(4), 97–113. https://doi.org/10.55177/tc914783
31.
GonzalesL. (2019). Designing for intersectional, interdependent accessibility: A case study of multilingual technical content creation. Communication Design Quarterly, 6(4), 35–45. https://doi.org/10.1145/3309589.3309593
32.
GonzalesL.TurnerH. N. (2017). Converging fields, expanding outcomes: Technical communication, translation, and design at a non-profit organization. Technical Communication, 64(2), 126–140. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26464442
33.
GonzalesL.ZantjerR. (2015). Translation as a user-localization practice. Technical Communication, 62(4), 271–284. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43748910
34.
GreenM. (2021a). Risking disclosure: Unruly rhetorics and queer(ing) HIV risk communication on Grindr. Technical Communication Quarterly, 30(3), 271–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2021.1930185
35.
GreenM. (2021b). Resistance as participation: Queer theory’s applications for HIV health technology design. Technical Communication Quarterly, 30(4), 331–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2020.1831615
36.
GriesLaurie. (2020). Still life with rhetoric: A new materialist approach for visual rhetoric. Utah State UP.
37.
HaaksmaT. R.de JongM. D. T.KarremanJ. (2018). Users’ personal conceptions of usability and user experience of electronic and software products. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 61(2), 116–132. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2018.2795398
38.
HarawayD. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599. https://doi.org/10.2307/3178066
39.
Hart-DavidsonW. (2012). What are the work patterns in technical communication? In Johnson-EilolaJ.SelberS. (Eds.), Solving problems in technical communication (pp. 50–73). University of Chicago Press.
HayhoeG. F. (1998). The academe-industry partnership: What’s in it for all of us?Technical Communication, 45(1), 19–20. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43089941
42.
HayhoeG. F. (2004). Inside out/outside in: Transcending the boundaries that divide the academy and industry. In Kynell-HuntT.SavageG. J. (Eds.), Power and legitimacy in technical communication: Strategies for professional Status (pp. 101–114). Routledge.
43.
HocksM. E. (2003). Understanding visual rhetoric in digital writing environments. College Composition and Communication, 54(4), 629–656. https://doi.org/10.2307/3594188
HutterL.LawrenceH. M. (2018). Promoting inclusive and accessible design in usability testing: A teaching case with users who are deaf. Communication Design Quarterly, 6(2), 21–30. https://doi.org/10.1145/3282665.3282668
46.
JohnsonR. (1998). User-centered technology: A rhetorical theory for computers and other mundane artifacts.SUNY Press.
47.
JonesJ.GougeC.CrilleyM. (2017). Design principles for health wearables. Communication Design Quarterly, 5(2), 40–50. https://doi.org/10.1145/3131201.3131205
48.
JonesN. N. (2016). Narrative inquiry in human-centered design: Examining silence and voice to promote social justice in design scenarios. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 46(4), 471–492. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047281616653489
49.
JonesN. N. (2017). Rhetorical narratives of Black entrepreneurs: The business of race, agency, and cultural empowerment. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 31(3), 319–349. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651917695540
50.
JonesN. N.MooreK. R.WaltonR. (2016). Disrupting the past to disrupt the future: An antenarrative of technical communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 25(4), 211–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2016.1224655
51.
KascakL.RebolaC. B.BraunsteinR.SanfordJ. A. (2013). Icon design to improve communication of health information to older adults. Communication Design Quarterly, 2(1), 6–32. https://doi.org/10.1145/2559866.2559867
52.
KatzS. B. (2020). Sonic rhetorics as ethics in action: Hidden temporalities of sound in language(s). Humanities, 9(1), 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/h9010013
53.
KesslerM. M.BreuchL.-A. K.StamblerD. M.CampeauK. L.RigginsO. J.FeedemaE.DoorninkS. I.MisonoS. (2021). User experience in health & medicine: Building methods for patient experience design in multidisciplinary collaborations. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 51(4), 380–406. https://doi.org/10.1177/00472816211044498
54.
KirksceyR. (2021). Mhealth apps for older adults: A method for development and user experience design evaluation. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 51(2), 199–217. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047281620907939
55.
KynellTeresaTebeauxElizabeth (2009). The association of teachers of technical writing: The emergence of professional identity. Technical Communication Quarterly, 18(2), 107–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572250802688000
56.
LaniusC.WeberR.RobinsonJ. (2021). User experience methods in research and practice. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 51(4), 350–379. https://doi.org/10.1177/00472816211044499
57.
LauerC.BrumbergerE. (2016). Technical communication as user experience in a broadening industry landscape. Technical Communication, 63(3), 248–264. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44809502
LazardA. J.MackertM. S. (2015). E-health first impressions and visual evaluations: Key design principles for attention and appeal. Communication Design Quarterly, 3(4), 25–34. https://doi.org/10.1145/2826972.2826975
60.
LiQ.de JongM. D. T.KarremanJ. (2021). Getting the picture: A cross-cultural comparison of Chinese and western users’ preferences for image types in manuals for household appliances. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 51(2), 137–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047281619898140
61.
LoorbachN.KarremanJ.SteehouderM. (2013). Confidence-increasing elements in user instructions: Seniors’ reactions to verification steps and personal stories. Technical Communication, 60(3), 190–204. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43095460
MelonconL.St. AmantK. (2019). Empirical research in technical and professional communication: A 5-year examination of research methods and a call for research sustainability. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 49(2), 128–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047281618764611
67.
MelonconL.WarnerE. (2017). Data visualizations: A literature review and opportunities for technical and professional communication. 2017 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference (ProComm), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1109/IPCC.2017.8013960
68.
MelonconL. K. (2017). Patient experience design: Expanding usability methodologies for healthcare. Communication Design Quarterly, 5(2), 19–28. https://doi.org/10.1145/3131201.3131203
MerryS. E. (2016). The seductions of quantification: Measuring human rights, gender violence, and sex trafficking. Chicago UP.
71.
MooreK. R.RichardsD. P. (2018). Posthuman praxis in technical communication. Routledge.
72.
MuellerD. N. (2017). Network sense: Methods for visualizing a discipline. WAC Clearinghouse.
73.
NeuendorfK. A. (2016). The content analysis guidebook (2nd ed).). SAGE Publications.
74.
NielsenJ. (1993). Usability engineering. San Francisco: Academic Press.
75.
OppegaardB. (2020). Prototyping and public art: Design and field studies in locative media. Communication Design Quarterly, 8(2), 16–27. https://doi.org/10.1145/3394264.3394266
76.
OppegaardB.RabbyM. K. (2022). Gamifying good deeds: User experience, agency, and values in play during a descriptathon. Technical Communication, 69(4), 27–43. https://doi.org/10.55177/tc124312
77.
OswalS. K. (2019). Breaking the exclusionary boundary between user experience and access: Steps toward making UX inclusive of users with disabilities. Proceedings of the 37th ACM International Conference on the Design of Communication, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1145/3328020.3353957
78.
PasseraS.HaapioH. (2013). Transforming contracts from legal rules to user-centered communication tools: A human-information interaction challenge. Communication Design Quarterly, 1(3), 38–45. https://doi.org/10.1145/2466489.2466498
79.
PottsL.SalvoM. (2017). Introduction. In PottsL.SalvoM. J. (Eds.), Rhetoric and experience architecture (pp. 3–13). Parlor.
80.
QianZ. C.ChenY. V.PengY. P. (2014). A comparative approach to enhance information interaction design of visual analytics systems. Communication Design Quarterly, 2(3), 28–33. https://doi.org/10.1145/2644448.2644455
RedishJ. (2010). Technical communication and usability: Intertwined strands and mutual influences. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 53(3), 191–201. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2010.2052861
RichardsD. (2015). Testing the waters: Local users, sea level rise, and the productive usability of interactive geovisualizations. Communication Design Quarterly, 3(3), 20–24. https://doi.org/10.1145/2792989.2792992
85.
RichardsD. P. (2018). Not a cape, but a life preserver: The importance of designer localization in interactive sea level rise viewers. Communication Design Quarterly, 6(2), 57–69. https://doi.org/10.1145/3282665.3282671
86.
RichardsD. P. (2019). An ethic of constraint: Citizens, sea-level rise viewers, and the limits of agency. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 33(3), 292–337. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651919834983
RiveraN. K. (2022). Understanding agency through testimonios: An indigenous approach to UX research. Technical Communication, 69(4), 8–26. https://doi.org/10.55177/tc986798
RobinsonJ.LaniusC.WeberR. (2018). The past, present, and future of UX empirical research. Communication Design Quarterly, 5(3), 10–23. https://doi.org/10.1145/3188173.3188175
91.
RoseE. J.RacadioR.WongK.NguyenS.KimJ.ZahlerA. (2017). Community-based user experience: Evaluating the usability of health insurance information with immigrant patients. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 60(2), 214–231. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2017.2656698
92.
RoseE. J.SchreiberJ. (2021). User experience and technical communication: Beyond intertwining. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 51(4), 343–349. https://doi.org/10.1177/00472816211044497
93.
RoseE. J.TenenbergJ. (2018). Poor poor dumb mouths, and bid them speak for me: Theorizing the use of personas in practice. Technical Communication Quarterly, 27(2), 161–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2017.1386005
94.
RudeC. D. (2009). Mapping the research questions in technical communication. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 23(2), 174–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651908329562
95.
SalvoM. J. (2001). Ethics of engagement: User-centered design and rhetorical methodology. Technical Communication Quarterly, 10(3), 273–290. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15427625tcq1003_3
96.
Shivers-McNairA.San DiegoC. (2017). Localizing communities, goals, communication, and inclusion: A collaborative approach. Technical Communication, 64(2), 97–112. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26464440
97.
SiebenhandlK.SchrederG.SmucM.MayrE.NaglM. (2013). A user-centered design approach to self-service ticket vending machines. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 56(2), 138–159. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2013.2257213
SimmonsW. M.ZoeteweyM. W. (2012). Productive usability: Fostering civic engagement and creating more useful online spaces for public deliberation. Technical Communication Quarterly, 21(3), 251–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2012.673953
100.
SlotkinA. (2020). Along the cow path: Technical communication within a Jewish Cemetery. Communication Design Quarterly, 8(3), 16–25. https://doi.org/10.1145/3410430.3436989
101.
SmagorinskyP. (2008). The method section as conceptual epicenter in constructing social science research reports. Written Communication, 25(3), 389–411. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088308317815
102.
SmithA. W. (2022). Everyone is always aging: Glocalizing digital experiences by considering the oldest cohort of users. Technical Communication, 69(4), 64–78. https://doi.org/10.55177/tc674376
103.
SmithE. O. (2000). Points of reference in technical communication scholarship. Technical Communication Quarterly, 9(4), 427–453. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572250009364708
104.
SonkaK.McArdleC.PottsL. (2021). Finding a teaching A11y: Designing an accessibility-centered pedagogy. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 64(3), 264–274. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2021.3091190
105.
St. AmantK. (2016). Introduction to the special issue: Cultural considerations for communication design: Integrating ideas of culture, communication, and context into user experience design. Communication Design Quarterly, 4(1), 6–22. https://doi.org/10.1145/2875501.2875502
St. AmantK. (2017b). Of scripts and prototypes: A two-part approach to user experience design for international contexts. Technical Communication, 64(2), 113–125. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26464441
108.
St. AmantK. (2018). Reflexes, reactions, and usability: Examining how prototypes of place can enhance UXD practices. Communication Design Quarterly, 6(1), 45–53. https://doi.org/10.1145/3230970.3230976
109.
St. AmantK. (2021). Cognition, care, and usability: Applying cognitive concepts to user experience design in health and medical contexts. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 51(4), 407–428. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047281620981567
110.
St. AmantK.MelonconL. (2016). Addressing the incommensurable: A research-based perspective for considering issues of power and legitimacy in the field. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 46(3), 267–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047281616639476
111.
StraussA. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists.Cambridge UP.
112.
SullivanP. (1989). Beyond a narrow conception of usability testing. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 32(4), 256–264. https://doi.org/10.1109/47.44537
113.
SullivanP.PorterJ. (1993). Remapping curricular geography: Professional writing in/and English. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 7(4), 389–422. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651993007004001
114.
SunH. (2012). Cross-cultural technology design: Creating culture-sensitive technology for local users. Oxford UP.
115.
SunH.GettoG. (2017). Localizing user experience: Strategies, practices, and techniques for culturally sensitive design. Technical Communication, 64(2), 89–94. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26464437
116.
TeddlieC.TashakkoriA. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating qualitative and quantitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Sage.
ThamJ. C. K. (2021). Engaging design thinking and making in technical and professional communication pedagogy. Technical Communication Quarterly, 30(4), 392–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2020.1804619
119.
ThamJ. (ed). (2022). Keywords in design thinking: A lexical primer for technical communicators and designers. WAC Clearinghouse.
120.
ThamJ.HowardT.VerhulsdonckG. (2022). Extending design thinking, content strategy, and artificial intelligence into technical communication and user experience design programs: Further pedagogical implications. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 52(4), 428–459. https://doi.org/10.1177/00472816211072533
121.
ThompsonI. (2001). Collaboration in technical communication: A qualitative content analysis of journal articles, 1990–1999. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 44(3), 161–173. https://doi.org/10.1109/47.946462
122.
Valino KohJ. T. K.ZhuK.KarunanayakaK.PolydorouD.PeirisR. L.NakatsuR. (2013). Characterizing the analog-like and digital-like attributes of interactive systems. Communication Design Quarterly, 1(2), 8–36. https://doi.org/10.1145/2448926.2448928
123.
VerhulsdonckG.HowardT.ThamJ. (2021). Investigating the impact of design thinking, content strategy, and artificial intelligence: A “streams” approach for technical communication and user experience. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 51(4), 468–492. https://doi.org/10.1177/00472816211041951
124.
VerhulsdonckG.MeltonJ.ShahV. (2019). Disconnecting to connect: Developing postconnectivist tactics for mobile and networked technical communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 28(2), 152–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2019.1588377
125.
VerhulsdonckG.ShalamovaN. (2020). Creating content that influences people: Considering user experience and behavioral design in technical communication. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 50(4), 376–400. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047281619880286
126.
WaltersS. (2014). Rhetorical touch: Disability, identification, haptics. South Carolina UP.
127.
WaltonR.MaysR. E.HaselkornM. (2016). Enacting humanitarian culture: How technical communication facilitates successful humanitarian work. Technical Communication, 63(2), 85–100. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44809636
128.
WaltonR.MooreK.JonesN. (2019). Technical Communication after the social justice turn: Building coalitions for action. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429198748
WhiteK.RumseyS. K.AmidonS. (2016). Are we “there” yet? The treatment of gender and feminism in technical, business, and workplace writing studies. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 46(1), 27–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047281615600637
131.
WileyK.GettoG. (2015). A UX workflow for building awesome applications. Communication Design Quarterly, 3(3), 49–52. https://doi.org/10.1145/2792989.2792996
132.
WilliamsJ. (2022). Day or night at the museum: A UX analysis of virtual exhibits. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 52(2), 166–181. https://doi.org/10.1177/00472816221074101
133.
WilliamsonB.KowalewskiS. J. (2018). Cultivating a rhetoric of advocacy for usability studies and user-centered design. Communication Design Quarterly, 5(3), 35–47. http://doi.org/10.1145/3188173.3188177
134.
ZhouQ. (2014). “That usability course”: What technical communication programs get wrong about usability and how to fix it. Communication Design Quarterly, 2(3), 25–27. https://doi.org/10.1145/2644448.2644454
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
