This case study investigates how a group of novice technical communicators used appeals to support their design decisions during group meetings. The results of this ethnographic study suggest that although these technical communicators were well acquainted with user-centered design (UCD) concepts and claimed to actively practice UCD, their appeals often did not reference data collected within user-centered research and instead referenced designer-centric appeals to support their claims. This group’s overall use of appeals to support their design decisions suggests that more empirical study into UCD theory and practice as well as students’ argumentation skills is warranted.
About STC. (2007). Retrieved January 16, 2007, from http://www.stc.org/about/
2.
Ahmed, S., Wallace, K.M., & Blessing, L.T.M. (2003). Understanding the differences between how novice and experienced designers approach design tasks. Research in Engineering Design, 14, 1-11.
3.
Aiga. (2006). AIGA/Aquent Survey of Design Salaries 2006. Retrieved January 16, 2007, from http://designsalaries.org/
4.
Allen, M., & Preiss, R.W. ( 1997). Elaboration likelihood model: A methodological and conceptual assessment of definitions. Communication Theory, 3, 72-82.
5.
Allen, N., & Benninghoff, S.T. (2004). TPC program snapshots: Developing curricula and addressing challenges. Technical Communication Quarterly, 13, 157-185.
Atlas, M. ( 1981). The user edit: Making manuals easier to use. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 24, 28-29.
8.
Atlas, M. ( 1998). The user edit revisited, or ‘‘if we’re so smart, why ain’t we rich?’’Journal of Computer Documentation, 22, 21-24.
9.
Auld, F., & White, A.M. ( 1956). Rules for dividing interviews into sentences. Journal of Psychology, 42, 273-281.
10.
Baesler, E.J. ( 1997). Persuasive effects of story and statistical evidence . Argumentation and Advocacy, 33, 170-175.
11.
Baesler, E.J., & Burgoon, J.K. ( 1994). The temporal effects of story and statistical evidence on belief change. Communication Research, 21, 582-602.
12.
Barnum, C.M. ( 2002). Usability testing and research. New York: Longman.
13.
Berger, A.A. ( 1997). Narratives in popular culture, media, and everyday life . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
14.
Berlin, D. ( 2009, May 22). ‘‘User-centered’’ is so passé. OTOinsights. Retrieved from http://www.onetooneinteractive.com/
15.
Beyer, H., & Holtzblatt, K. (1998). Contextual design: Defining customer-centered systems. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
16.
Bowman, D. ( 2009, March 20). Goodbye, Google. Message posted to http://www.stopdesign.com/
17.
Buchanan, R. ( 2001). Design and the new rhetoric: Productive arts in the philosophy of culture. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 34, 183-206.
18.
Cacioppo, J.T., Petty, R.E., & Morris, K.J. ( 1983). Effects of need for cognition on message evaluation, recall, and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 805-818.
19.
Cooper, A. ( 1999). The inmates are running the asylum. Indianapolis, IN: Sams.
20.
DeVoss, D., Jasken, J., & Hayden, D. ( 2002). Teaching intracultural and intercultural communication: A critique and suggested method. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 16, 69-94.
21.
Dong, A. ( 2005). The latent semantic approach to studying design team communication. Design Studies, 26, 445-461.
22.
Dumas, J.S., & Redish, J. ( 1999). A practical guide to usability testing (Rev. ed.). Exeter, England: Intellect Books.
23.
Endsley, M.R., Bolté, B., & Jones, D.G. ( 2003). Designing for situation awareness: An approach to user-centered design. London: Taylor & Francis .
24.
Fisher, W.R. ( 1985). The narrative paradigm: An elaboration. Communication Monographs, 5, 347-367.
25.
Gould, J.D., & Boies, S.J. ( 1983). Human factors challenges in creating a principal support office system: The speech filing system approach. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, 1, 273-298.
26.
Gould, J.D., & Lewis, C. ( 1985). Designing for usability: Key principles and what designers think. Communications of the ACM, 28, 300-311.
27.
Grosse, C.U. ( 2002). Managing communication within virtual intercultural teams . Business Communication Quarterly, 65, 22-38.
28.
Hatfield, J.D., & Wieder-Hatfield, D. (1978). The competitive utility of three types of behavioral units for interaction analysis. Communication Monographs, 45, 44-50.
29.
Howarth, J., Andrew, T.S., & Hartson, R. ( 2007). A structured process for transforming usability data into usability information. Journal of Usability Studies, 3, 7-23.
30.
Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. ( 1980). Structure of conversational argument: Pragmatic bases for the enthymeme. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 66, 251-265.
31.
Johnson, R.R. ( 1990). User-centeredness, situatedness, and designing the media of computer documentation. ACM SigDoc Asterisk Journal of Computer Documentation, 14, 55-61.
32.
Johnson, R.R. ( 1998). User-centered technology: A rhetorical theory for computers and other mundane artifacts. Albany: State University of New York Press.
33.
Jong, M. de. ( 1998). Reader feedback in text design: Validity of the plus-minus method for the pretesting of public information brochures. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
34.
Karat, J. ( 1997). Evolving the scope of user-centered design. Communications of the ACM, 40, 33-38.
35.
Karat, J., Atwood, M.E., Dray, S.M., Rantzar, M., & Wixon, D.R. ( 1996). User centered design: Quality or quackery?Paper presented at CHI’96 ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Vancouver, Canada.
36.
Kieras, D.E. ( 2003). Model-based evaluation. In J. A. Jacko & A. Sears (Eds.), The human interaction handbook: Fundamentals, evolving technologies, and emerging applications. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum .
37.
Kitalong, K.S. ( 2000). Usability testing and user-centered design in technical communication programs: Current and emergent models. Paper presented at the Council for Programs in Technical and Scientific Communication , Menomonie, WI.
38.
Kreyche, R.J. ( 1961). Logic for undergraduates. New York : Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
39.
Kuhn, D. ( 1991). The skills of argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.
40.
Landauer, T.K. ( 1995). The trouble with computers: Usefulness, usability, and productivity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
41.
Landis, J.R., & Koch, G.G. ( 1977). An application of hierarchical Kappa-type statistics in the assessment of majority agreement among multiple observers. Biometrics, 33, 363-374.
42.
Lannon, J.M. ( 2006). Technical communication (10th ed.). New York: Longman.
43.
Lee, E., & Leets, L. ( 2002). Persuasive storytelling by hate groups online: Examining its effects on adolescents. American Behavioral Scientist , 45, 927.
44.
Lipset, S.M., Trow, M., & Coleman, J. ( 1956). Union democracy: The internal politics of the International Typographical Union. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
45.
Lucaites, J.L., & Condit, C.M. ( 1985). Reconstructing narrative theory: A functional perspective . Journal of Communication, 35, 90-108.
46.
Markel, M.H. ( 2007). Technical communication (8th ed.). Boston: Bedford/ St Martin ’s.
47.
McCarthy, J., Miles, V., & Monk, A. ( 1991). An experimental study of common ground in text-based communication. Paper presented at the CHI’91 ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, New Orleans, LA.
48.
Moggridge, B. ( 2007). Designing interactions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
49.
Molich, R., Jefferies, R., & Dumas, J.S. ( 2007). Making usability recommendations useful and usable. Journal of Usability Studies, 2, 162-179.
50.
Norman, D.A. ( 1988). The psychology of everyday things. New York: Basic Books.
51.
Norman, D.A., & Draper, S.W. ( 1986). User centered system design: New perspectives on human-computer interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum .
52.
O’Keefe, D.J. ( 2002). Persuasion: Theory and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
53.
Olson, G.M., & Olson, J.S. ( 1991). User-centered design of collaboration technology. Journal of Organizational Computing, 1, 61-83.
54.
Ominsky, M., Stern, K.R., & Rudd, J.R. ( 2002). User-centered design at IBM consulting. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 14, 349-368.
55.
Petty, R.E., & Cacioppo, J.T. (1984). The effects of involvement on response to argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 46, 69-81.
56.
Petty, R.E., Harkins, S.E., & Williams, K.D. (1980). The effects of group diffusion of cognitive effort on attitudes: An information-processing view. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 81-92.
57.
Polanyi, M. ( 1958). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
58.
Polanyi, M. ( 1967). The tacit dimension. London: Routledge & Paul.
59.
Reinard, J.C. ( 1988). The empirical study of the persuasive effects of evidence: The status after fifty years of research. Human Communication Research, 15, 3-59.
60.
Reynolds, R.A., & Reynolds, J.L. (2002). Evidence. In J. P. Dillard & M. Pfau (Eds.), The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 427-444). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
61.
Rubin, J. ( 1994). Handbook of usability testing: How to plan, design, and conduct effective tests. New York: Wiley.
Schriver, K.A. ( 1991). Plain language through protocol-aided revision. In E. R. Steinberg (Ed.), Plain language: Principles and practice (pp. 148-172). Detroit, MI : Wayne State University Press.
64.
Schriver, K.A. ( 1992). Teaching writers to anticipate readers’ needs: A classroom-evaluated pedagogy. Written Communication, 9, 179-208.
65.
Spender, J.C. ( 1996). Competitive advantage from tacit knowledge? Unpacking the concept and its strategic implications. In B. Mosingeon & A. Edmondson (Eds.), Organizational learning and competitive advantage (pp. 53-73). London : SAGE.
66.
Spinuzzi, C. ( 2002). Toward integrating our research scope: A sociocultural field methodology. Journal of Business and Technical Communication , 16, 3-32.
67.
Starke-Meyerring, D. ( 2005). Meeting the challenges of globalization: A framework for global literacies in professional communication programs. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 19, 468-499.
68.
Sugar, W.A. ( 2001). What is so good about user-centered design? Documenting the effect of usability sessions on novice software designers. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33, 235-250.
69.
Sullivan, P.A., & Porter, J.E. ( 1990). How do writers view usability information? A case study of a developing documentation writer. ACM SigDoc Asterisk Journal of Computer Documentation, 14, 20-35.
70.
Swaney, J.H., Janik, C.J., Bond, S.J., & Hayes, J.R. ( 1981). Editing for comprehension: Improving the process through reading protocols (Tech. Rep. No. 14). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University, Document Design Project.
71.
Toulmin, S. ( 1958). The uses of argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.
72.
Tufte, E.R. ( 1983). The visual display of quantitative information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.
73.
Van Eemeren, F.H., Grootendorst, R., & Henkemans, F.S. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory: A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments . Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
74.
Vredenburg, K., Mao, J.-Y., Smith, P.W., & Carey, T. ( 2002). A survey of user-centered design practice. Paper presented at CHI’02 ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Minneapolis, MN.
75.
Wagner, R.K., & Sternberg, R.J. (1985). Practical intelligence in real-world pursuits: The role of tacit knowledge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 436-458.
76.
Winograd, Terry ( 2007). Who killed design? Addressing design through an interdisciplinary investigation. Interactive panel at CHI’07 ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, San Jose, CA.
77.
Wolf, T.V., Rode, J.A., Sussman, J., & Kellogg, W.A. ( 2006). Dispelling ‘‘design’’ as the black art of CHI. Paper presented at CHI ‘06 ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Montreal, Canada.
78.
Yin, R.K. ( 1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed., Vol. 5). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
