Digital Rhetoric as it Relates to HCI
In the “Human Computer Interaction (HCI)” section of Chapter One, “Defining and Locating Digital Rhetoric,” of his book, Digital Rhetoric: Theory, Method, Practice, Douglas Eyman goes about “locating digital rhetoric” as it relates to other fields. There are two fields in particular that Eyman has chosen as examples for this framework. The first is human-computer interaction (HCI). The second is critical code studies. According to Eyman, these fields were chosen “because they come from very different disciplines and perspectives.” However, they are both “closely related to digital rhetoric,” as both “methods and objects of study.” This correlation is not surprising, when considering the previously mentioned nature of Digital Rhetoric. That nature being to encompass a wide range of various disciplines.
Digital Rhetoric as it Relates to Rhetoric Code Studies
This reminds me of Kevin Brock’s “rhetorical code studies.” The exploration of the relationships within the field are an inherent part of the field itself. Rhetorical code studies operates around there being rhetorical, persuasive, and meaningful “relationships between code, language, software, and procedure.” According to Brock, rhetorical code studies “can potentially address multiple kinds and modes of rhetorical activity and interaction, including communication reflecting complex relationships such as among developers, between developers and users, between developers and technologies, and also users and technologies.” He further emphasizes the impact of “the rhetorical activity of developer-to-developer communication… on subsequently triggered sites of activity, such as in how technological interfaces communicate particular arguments to their users.” Similarly, Eyman quotes from Human-Computer Interaction that HCI “is, put simply, the study of people, computer technology, and the ways these influence each other.”
Reflection
What I found most interesting is the term “born- digital.” In Eyman’s critique of digital humanities, he writes “What’s missing here is the development of collections of new cultural materials that are ‘born- digital’ and the development of methods and methodologies for both studying and producing these new forms.” He then argues that the field of digital rhetoric is well-equipped to “participate in and contribute to the digital humanities” once these “new forms” are accounted for.
Leave a Reply