In information systems and end-user computer research, ‘using’ appears to encapsulate a range of activities, such as reading, writing, viewing and so on. And yet it is a grossly inadequate descriptor for any of these activities, failing to account for the fact that texts — digital or otherwise — are produced and engaged by humans for a variety of purposes, from study to recreation. The wide adoption of ‘use’ as a descriptor for engagement with hypermedia reflects the challenges inherent in understanding and facilitating interaction with complex multimedia artefacts. It also points to a potential problem with research in this area: do attempts to accommodate the complexity of the digital artefact by devising terms that synthesize the range of literacy processes involved in human—computer interaction deter us from attending to the distinctiveness of those processes? The author takes up this question by considering how notions of reading and writing have been construed in relation to digital media, and whether such notions are in fact useful in furthering understanding of digital literacy.
References
1.
Aristotle (1982) The Poetics (HuttonJ., Trans.) New York: W.W. Norton.
2.
BarthesR. (1974) S/Z (MillarR., Trans.). New York: Hill & Wang.
3.
BernsteinM. (1998) Patterns of Hypertext. Reprinted from ShipmanF.MylonasE. & GroenbackK. (Eds) Proceedings of Hypertext 1998. New York: ACM. http://www.eastgate.com/patterns/print.html (accessed 15 July 2001).
4.
BolterJ.D. (2001) Writing Space: The computer, hypertext, and the history of writing. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5.
ChapmanM. & BarnesJ. (1992) The Reader Writes the Story: Canadian and world short fiction. Scarborough, ON: Prentice-Hall Canada.
6.
DerridaJ. (1976) Of Grammatology. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
7.
DerridaJ. (1981) Dissemination (JohnsonBarbara, Trans.). Chicago: Chicago University Press.
8.
DobsonT. (2001) Reading Literary Hypertext. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Alberta, Edmonton.
9.
DouglasJ.Y. (2000) The End of Books — or books without end? Reading Interactive Narratives. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
GanongW.F. (2003) Review of Medical Physiology (21st edn). New York: Lange Medical Books.
12.
GesellA.L. (1925) Infancy and Human Growth. New York: Macmillan.
13.
The Internet Movie Database (1990–2005) Entry on Pulp Fiction. http://www.imdb.com (accessed 24 May 2004).
14.
HillClifford. To Read is to Write: From oral to literature culture, in ParryK. (Ed.) Proceedings of the 3rd Annual National Conference on English Language Teaching. Kampala, Uganda: Pearl Press. http://www.columbia.edu/∼cah34/ToRead/ToRead.html
15.
IserW. (1978) The Act of Reading: A theory of aesthetic response. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
16.
IserW. (1980) The Reading Process: A phenomenological approach, in TompkinsJ.P. (Ed.) Reader-Response Criticism, 50–69. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. (Original work published 1974).
17.
JacksonS. (1995) Patchwork Girl: A modern monster [Computer software]. Watertown, MA: Eastgate Systems.
KauferDavid & WallerGary (1985) To Write Is to Read Is to Write, Right? in AtkinsDouglas I.G. & JohnsonMichael L. (Eds) Writing and Reading Differently: Deconstruction and the teaching of composition and literature, 66–92, Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
LandowG.P. (1994) Hyper/Text/Theory. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
22.
LandowG.P. (1997) Hypertext 2.0: The convergence of contemporary critical theory and technology (Revised edn). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
23.
MattisonD. (2003) Quickiwiki, Swiki, Twiki, Zwiki and the Plone Wars, Searcher, 11(4).
24.
PlattC. (1994) Why Hypertext Doesn't Really Work, New York Review of Science Fiction, 72(1), 3–5.
PrenskyM. (2001b, November/December) Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants, Part II: Do they really think differently?On the Horizon, 9(6), 1–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424843
27.
RosenblattL. (1938/1968) Literature as Exploration. New York: Noble & Noble.
28.
RosenbergM.E. (1994) Physics and Hypertext: Liberation and complicity in art and pedagogy, in LandowG. (Ed.) Hyper/Text/Theory. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
29.
RubenkingN. & DraganR. (2003) Take Back the Net, PC Magazine, 22(23), 106–108.
30.
SmithFrank (1983) Reading Like a Writer, Language Arts, 60, 558–567.
31.
StotskyS. (1983) Research on Reading/Writing Relationships: A synthesis and suggested directions, Language Arts, 60, 627–643.
TierneyR.J. (1983) Analyzing Composing Behavior: Planning, aligning, revising. Paper presented at the 33rd annual National Reading Conference, Austin, TX, December.
34.
TierneyR.J.SoterA.O'FlahavanJ.F., & McGinleyW. (1989) The Effects of Reading and Writing upon Thinking Critically, Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 134–173. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/747862
