DIGITAL MEDIA

Transformations i n Human Communication

E D I T E D B Y

Paul Messaris & Lee Humphreys

PETER LANG New York Washington, D.C./Baltimore Bern

Frankfurt am Main Berlin Brussels Vienna Oxford

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Digital media: transformations i n human communication / edited by Paul Messaris, Lee Humphreys.

p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index.

1. Multimedia systems. 2. Digital media. 3. Human-machine systems. I. Messaris, Paul. 11. Humphreys, Lee.

QA76.575.D5383 302.23'1-dc22 2005022905 ISBN 0-8204-7840-7

Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche Bibliothek. Die Deutsche Bibliothek lists this publication in the "Deutsche

Nationalbibliografie"; detailed bibliographic data is available on the Internet at http://dnb.ddb.de/.

Cover design by Lisa Barfield Cover art Adam Finkelstein

The paper i n this book meets the guidelines for permanence and durability of the Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity

of the Council of Library Resources.

O 2006 Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., New York 29 Broadway, New York, NY 10006

www.peterlangusa.com

All rights reserved. Reprint or reproduction, even partially, i n all forms such as microfilm,

xerography, microfiche, microcard, and offset strictly prohibited.

Printed i n the United States of America

C H A P T E R T H I R T E E N I

Barbara Wamick I Rhetoric on the Web1

Since the initial appearance of hypertext and Web-based communication, the study and practice of rhetoric have evolved to suit the new media environment. This chapter will consider how Web text has developed and changed over the last ten years, and it will describe how website authors and users have altered their writing and reading practices in the Web environment. After explaining why some aspects of traditional rhetori- cal theory are inadequate for studying persuasive discourse on the Web, the chapter provides some examples of how traditional theories of tex- tual criticism have been adapted to the analysis of the distributed, net- worked, modular text found on the World Wide Web

Like other coininunicatioi~ researchers, rhetorical theorists and critics have been chal- leilgecl during the past decade by the rise of the World Wide Web and the new forms of communication found there. I11 the period since the public Web sphere began to take shape, hypertext, website structure, and the tech~~ologies of website construction have changed dramatically. F u r t h e r ~ ~ ~ o r e , the modalities in which people produce and con- sume meclia content on the Web have moved from the desktop computer and now include portable computers and cellular phoi~es.

'1'11e present study will coilsider how the appearance of Web-based communication has enconraged LISC of new or altered models of rhetorical expression. By "rhetoric," I am referring to the for111s of infIriencc in colnmunication and the ways in which audiences are acltlressecl and resljond to l~ostecl discourse. Because this essay is situated in a collec- tion where other authors describe video and visual communication, I will foc~is prii~la- rily, hilt not cxclusivel y7 on verhal cxprcssion.

Early writers on hypertext emphasized its differences from conventional print-hased expression. When it first tooli shal)e in the early 1 990s7 the puhlic We11 was highly clis- orgal~iz,ed, unstructured, and eclectic in its content. Users could enter the Web at any given point and choose their own pathways of narrative development, and authors were said to lose control over the narrative and their readers' point of view (Landow 1997; --. ' n 1 . - - 1 - - - 7 -.-J -v;+;~;crn nrn~lndpd i n npnc]assical rlletoric seemed

to 1)e poorly suited to stlidyillg Web-based expression because classical theory often con- cerned itself with the author as the source of the message and with linear, l l ~ o n o l o ~ i ~ , stal~ilizcd forms of co~lliilu~licatioi~.

Al~othcr way to think of this woultl be to co~lsidcr liolailcl Harthcs7 distinction I~ctwccir " h ~ c work" and "tcxt." 'I111c Web is coinpi-iscd of tcxts that arc distri1)uted in a linked nctwork, through corporate arltl~orship, collstantly rcvised, often bar- rowed, and frequently parasitic on thc othcr tcxts to wllich they arc linked. In its inter- tcxtuality, pcrfori~lative forlns, and indetcri~lilracy, thc Web tcxt is morc like an organism than like a "work." As Barthes noted, on this view "tlle inetapllor of the 'I'ext is that of the ~zetwork; if the E x t extcncls itself, it is as the result of a coml)inatory systci~lic" (1977, 161).

' n ~ e shift to thinking of what one finds on the Web as "text" rather than as ''work"

1 4 U

has i~n~~licatioils for the study of both consumption and production. On the consump tioil side, website users appear to be less inclined to dense, tightly structured, sec~uencecl discourse. 'l'lley tend to l ~ c restlcss (hrkas and Farkas 2002). Kaplan (2000) describes Web reading, not as deficient, but as different fro111 reading print text. Since there is no precleter~r~ined next node in the reading process, readers must coirtinually choose what to read next. Therefore, they by weighing alternatives, coilstructing fore- casts as they reacl, and tllen nroclifying their expectations. The link cue, then, is not sim- ply "a local occurrence (or annoyance) but is a requisite part of a larger structural

R H E T O R I C O N T H E W E B

a

pattern, a pattern visible only as it elmerges through each reader's sl~ccessive acts of choosing" (Kaplan 2000, 228). Kaplan's view is that readers read Web text with height- ened attention, partially because they are coilstailtly making micro-decisions about where to go next and what to read next while they are reading.

Another implication of these reading patterns, of course, is that the Web text is de- centered and, often having no point of origin in a particular author, becomes what Barthes calls a writerly text. If a Web text is not unitary, sequential, and locatable as a whole, then it emerges as the product of the reader's action. The Web text thus becomes "a multi-dimensional space in which a variety of writings, none of them original, blend and clash. The text is a tissue of quotations drawn fro111 innuinerable centres of culture" (Barthes 1977, 146). The reader becomes a scripter, creating the text she reads as she reads it. Thus, visitors to large websites usually each reacl a different text in a different order froin other visitors to the site; the very idea of an identifiable or single meaning for a given "text" becomes hard to imagine. Furthermore, there is always the possibility of leaving the site entirely, or jumping between sites even to the point of disorientation. The fre- quent indeter~~linacy and variability of the texts that readers read has considerable impli- cations for how persuasion and influeilce might occur on the Web as coillpared with how they usually occur in more structured, author-centered environments, and I will return to this later.

My pronlise to later return to an afore~nei~tiolled topic presupposes that you, the read- er, are reading this essay as a co~ltinuous document, so I can include a cross reference to later content here. This idea can lead us to consider the process of producing Web con- tent. In regard to the verbal text, that nlealls writing for the Web, and, like reading, it is often different on the Web than in inany other writing contexts. In advice 011 Web writ- ing, some sr~ggestions are comi~lonplace. For example, writers are advised to write for easy sca~~ning, because website readers do not read word for word. Liberal use of white space, short sentences, concisei~ess, simple sentence structure, highlighting, bullets, and num- bered lists are all recommended (Nielsen 11.~1.; Farkas and Farkas 2002). Readers are

B A R B A R A W A R N I C K 1 141

advised to use a "pyramid scl~eme,~' ancl to place the illost important content "above the fold" 011 a page, followed by content that is coiuparatively less important. Such placement is advised because users have been shown to be in likely to scroll down on the page unless they becolne initially interested in site content (Lynch and Horton 2001). Furthermore, writers are encouraged to express content in "chunks" or inclependei1t modules that stand alone. Modular writing enables readers to access content at any point a i d still understand it without needing further context (Farkas ancl Farkas 2002). Finally, writers are cliscoor- aged froin inserting "out links" into the iniddle of a narrative or discourse because they create the possibility that users will leave the site or get clisoriei~tecl.

Having considered patterns of production ancl consumption called for in a nodal, net- worked discursive system, one inight also note in contrast the extent to which the system itself has become progressively more structured and organized duriilg the past ten years. As is the case in many i~lstailces of coinmuilication, there are tensioi~s between centripetal and centrifugal forces in website texts. Centripetal (centralizing) forces are those forces that regularize and constrain speech diversity, whereas centrif~igal forces are those that spill away from orderecl, monologic speech (Bakhtiit 1981). O n the Web, centripetal forces can be thought of i l l terms of the pyramid scheme for content placement, pre- scribed conventions for page design, search-ei~gine protocols, site maps, ancl writing guides such as those referenced in the preceding paragraph. Centripetal factors are at work aloi~gsicle of and in tension wit11 ceiltrifugal forces that conduce to speech diversi- ty. Centrifugal expression includes parody, punning, language play, graffiti, slang, and disorclerecl speech. These forms tend to deconstruct hegemonic, ordered speech by exposing internal contradictions in text or behavior, violating speech norms, ancl provicl- ing cominentary. Such forills are used in all langtlage environi~lents, but the Web is par- ticularly well suited to their use.

As the Web has become more of a co~nmercial platform, it has beco~ne more struc- tured and illore influenced by commercial forces. Consumers expect to be able to fiilcl what they need quickly and easily and to have their questions readily answered. The use of large search engines, Internet portals, advertising, networked links, hosting services ancl other resources has reintroclucecl hierarchy illto the Internet environment. To work within the constraints of website structure and usal~ility, authors must be strategic and deliberate in posting their sites, attracting visitors, ancl keeping them interested. The results of their efforts were well described by llavid Kesnick when he said that websites are designed "to inforin, influence, and persuade those who log onto them" (1997,48).

'I'hc ways in which We11 rhctoric works, thcn, are clepenclent on the purpose and con- text of the discourse in usc. Vcrbal rhctoric on an advertising or commercial sitc might observc slich conventions as innking the most of the space above the fold on the home page, clisplaying visiblc, clearly fornlatted link tablcs, and strategic ad placemcitt. Rut vcr- bal rhctoric in an artistic 0 1 - cxpcrinici~tal enviro~inrcnt may opc11 with an intentio~rally disoricnting 11ut intrigl~ing entry page that invites readers to lilrgcr and appreciate what is clisltlaycd. 'l'hc comnicrcial sitc thus l~ron~otcs case of nsc, rapid tiscr 1-csponsc, and cffi- cicncy, while thc artistic sitc cncoriragcs bricolage, cxperinlc~itatio~l, curiosity, antlior artis- tic apltreciation. 'l'hc artistic sitc prcsents texts that arc dispersed and dcsigncd to 11c exl~riciicctl rather tlran to provide closr~rc. 'l'lrc extent to wlrich ccntril~ctal aiid ccntl-ifu- gal forccs shape rlscl- cxlxricnce thus varies with thc ilahirc of the sitc itself.

1':vcn as collsilnrl~tioi~ and 1,rotluctioll of Wcl~ tliscourscs havc changctl dllrilig tlrc past tlecade, so have the critical inodels used to stutl!; Wcb-11ascd rhctoric. Authol-5 of prc-

Internet monologic and print-l~asecl messages often co~ilcl assume that their listeners ancl readers would tolerate and even appreciate linear development, sustained arguinent, ancl carefully reaso~~ccl proofs. Klictorical critics and arg~umcnt tlicorists could thcrcforc attend to how a speaker or writer advanced a thesis, sequenced the clai~ns that support- ed it, ~lsed logical structures, and selected supporting evidence to 1)uild a case (l'crelnlan ancl Olbrechts-'l'yteca 1969; l.:emercn, Grootenclorst, and Henkcmans 2002). Because the modularity ancl disco~lti~liiity of website texts 11ow generally do not lend thcinselvcs to l~ersuasion l~asecl on logical structure, rhetorical critics may ncccl to focus on discur- sive structures that lie outside the real111 of traditional logic.

New inocles of textual appeal call for new forius of rhetorical critical analysis. Critics of online texts have studied how the afforclances of new ineclia have been used for rhetor- ical purposes. For example, devices such as "Web rings" and other fornls of structural or

142

content-oriented reciprocity can be studied to ascertain how web authors ancl readers establish credibility based on textual cues and how they construct and shape their audi- ences through strategic use of shared beliefs ancl preinises (Mitra 1999). '1'1lis for111 of crit- icisill is partially predicated on the idea that "the glue that holcls the Internet together is the text exchanged by different users of the Internet7' (Mitra ancl Cohen 1999). Gurak

R H E T O R I C ON T H E W E B

(1997) studied forms of online group protests in a text-only environment where partici- pants used nlessage forwarding, group petitions, e-mails addressed to power agents, and other text-based actions to agitate for their cause. In a follow-up case study, Gurak and Logie (2003) reported on how group protest had migrated to the Web. Participants used their own Web pages to set up a linked network for resistive action, including a boycott of the offending agent, downloadable protest graphics, alteration of protest-created Web content, and use of the Web to attain offline media coverage to achieve their aims. Gurak and Logie7s case study illustrated how rise of the Web has enhanced text-based protest, making it more immediate, efficient, and effective.

In many genres of online websites, the whole of rhetorical action has changed. As Lev Manovich has observed, user-centered design on the Web emphasizes drawing users into a site and encouraging return visits. He notes that "the goal of corn- mercial Web design is to create 'stickiness' (a measure of how long an individual user stays on a particular Web site)" (2001, 161). In contrast to writing for a print-centric mediui11 where authors can presume readers who will stay with the text and follow intricate chains of reasoning and linear development, the aim of much of the website text is to keep the reader on the site.

This desire to draw users into the site has also inspired producers to develop texts that work Inore like puzzles to be solved than like one-to-many appeals. Intertextuality, in which an already-familiar text is invoked or played upon in a new textual context, is a driv- ing force on many parodic sites. The hypertextual environment, the ease of cut and paste, the potential for using someone else's 11t1111 code, and other factors make it easy for web- site producers to play one text against another. In a recent study (Warnick 2002), I explained how Web paroclists in the 2000 Bush/Gore campaign used various forms of intertextuality to carve out an "in the know" audience of return visitors. By ~~ixtaposing parodic speech with candidates' original speech, altered sites with candidates' official sites, and candidate actions with candidate worcls, parodists made the experience of visiting their sites like playing a game or solving a puzzle. Their strategy was to create uncertain- ty and suspense, followecl by play and excitement. This in itself was a rhetorical process with a rhetorical outcome-users who had learned about candidate foibles, personal his- tories, ancl backgrounds.

B A R B A R A W A R N I C K 1 143

Like offline parody, intertextuality engages audiences because it calls upon them to supply the missing links or text and give meaning to what they are reading. By einbed- ding subtle allusions recognizable only to readers who are savvy about a given topic, Web authors can deploy intertextuality very strategically to hold their audiences7 attention and get their point across. They can, in effect, create an audience of repeat visitors by estab- lishing background knowledge about the topic in question, circulating a stable of com- monplaces (ideas and examples used as discursive resources), and then exploiting these through textual cross references and embedded hyperlinks. In so doing, they create a com- munity of interest through and by means of the text itself. Frequently, these textual devices are coinpleinented by other graphic and visual elements such as splash pages, altered images, multimedia downloads, blogs, and message boards that are likewise designed to keep the reader on the site or encourage him or her to return.

Designers and authors of online messages seek to appeal to the user both as a mem- ber of a group with a group identity and as an individual. The appeal to the individual has led to website customization and personalization in the form and content of Web communication (Burnett and Marshall 2003). T h e mass audience has been disaggregat- ed. Design and content are often based on information about the user gleaned through use of cookies, click-through information, online registration forms, and other means. Different users see different displays of the same content: media adapted to user band- width, font and images controlled by user browser settings, and pages generated on the fly based on users7 past inputs to the host site. O n many commercial sites, careful analy- sis of user behavior, responses, and interests means that website content can be careful- ly and strategically tailored for maximum effect.

Another mode of appeal that can emanate from the verbal text grows out of text-based interactivity. Interactivity is a highly contested term in the research literature concern- ing online com~nunication (Kiousis 2002; McMillan 2002 ). While it can be discussed in terms of the interaction between the user and the system (e.g., clicking on hyperlinks, customizing site features), user-to-document (e.g., user-contributed comments, discus- sion boards), or user-to-user (e.g., online chat, instant messaging), it can also be consid- ered as a rhetorical dimension of the website text (Endres and Warnick 2004). Studies of online interactivity have understandably focused on interactive features unique to new media, but features of the text itself, such as the use of first person, active voice, first-name reference, and direct address, can engage users and increase their sense of the presence and immediacy of the message source. A recent, unpublished study of website users indi- cated that they stayed on political sites longer and had better recall of issue positions when candidate views were expressed in vivid, direct language accompanied by alt-tagged photographs than they did wllen candidate views were expressed impersonally with fewer unlabeled photographs (Warnick et al. 2004). 'l'hese findings suggest that, when researchers analyze website characteristics such as site features, visual design, use of images, and multimedia downloads, they inight consider as well the forms of verbal and stylistic exprcssion found in the text itself.

A final area of traditional rhetorical theory, that call be retooled so as to copc with rhetoric in Web-based environments, is ethos, or source credibility. During the Web's early years, the convci~tional approach to onlinc ethos was to advise users to judgc the credi- bility of a site based 011 t l ~ e expertise, credentials, and/or institutional affiliation of its author or the organi~ation that created it (Fritch and Cronlwell 2001; Schlein 2003). More recently, however, Web sources have become progressively less likely to identify +17n n r n e ; c n e n l 1 r P P c AF their i n f n r r n a t i n n :>*A tn rli~rlnw infonn~tion about authorship and

crecIentials.' Conve~ltional rhetorical theory views cthos as emanatiilg from the speaker or writer who produces the text ancl as a quality of the text that disposes audicncc mcm- bcrs to bclievc and trust what is said. It thus bccolllcs onc of the available nlcans of per- suasion that a rhetor can use to gain acceptance for his or her message. As an author or speaker-centered construct, however, conventional cthos docs not always tratrsfer well to a distributecl textual environment such as the Web. b'urtl~cr~llorc, srirveys a i d obscrva- tion of Web users reveal that they rarcly use a~~thorship as the priinary criterion for jnclg- ing websites. Instead, they look to such factors as sitc dcsig~l, ease of use, and wllether the site offered what they were looking for (Fogg, Soo1100, ancl Danielson 2002).

I11 a recent essay (Warnick 2004), 1 suggested that, instead of looking to authorship credentials, users nlay look to a nuinber of other factors, taken together, to make juclg- ~nents about ethos. rl 'l~ese can include recency of content, coincidence of information with other sources, site design ancl usability, inission statements, ancl information oseful- ness. I noted the significance of Nicholas Burbules) idea of "clistril~utecl credibility" for judging online content (Burbules 2001). Wehsite users often do not judge texts as free- standiilg units, instead, they make field dependent, comparative judgments based on

They tend to view the credibility of any textual artifact as tied-in wit11 the larg- er networked system of which it is a part. A rhetorical critic could therefore consicler the credibility of an online site in ternls of the knowledge systenl of which it is a part and the criteria that einanate from that knowledge system. In particular, the factors used to gauge reliability and believability of an online source within the field where the discourse is located should be draw11 on, rather than consistently relying on authorship or expert- ise as the central means for judging ethos.

Much of the apparatuses of Euroceiltric classical rhetorical theory-rhetorical log- ics, sequential disposition, and specific strategies for audience adaptation - were formu- lated as ancient Greek society moved from an oral to a literate culture. As Walter 1. Ong observed, the era of electronic co~n~nunication in the late 20th and early 2 1st centuries has returned us to a state of "secondary orality" (1982, 135), and online and other forms of inediated discourse have colne to resemble the primary orality of preliterate cultures. These expressive forms enact orality in their participatory mystique, their fostering of a communal sense, their co~~centration on the present moment, and their use of textual formulae. Secondary orality is the most recent development in how influence process- es change as their communication environnlents develop.

Like the colnmunication technologies and contexts that preceded it, the WWW requires rhetorical practitioilers and critics to consicler how conventional inocles of appeal can be adjusted to new fornls of text and context. This chapter has noted Web- based challenges to conventional rhetorical expression, such as clisconti~~~ious reading by users, networked, episodic text, and dispersed authorship. In many cases, these eilviron- mental factors render conventional iuodes of print-centric composition, logic, and source credibility less suitable for the production and study of persuasion on the Web. The chapter has described soiue alternate illeans that Web authors have successfillly used to meet these challenges. These include modular writing, strategic content placement, intertextual allusion, and personalizatio~l of the inessage to the user. The chapter has also suggested that Internet researchers should consicler rhetorical dimensions of verbal expression as a form of interactivity, since language use a i d the creation of rhetorical pres- ence appear to be factors in audience responses to Web-based messages. Finally, rhetor- ical critics might consider ethos as a distributed, field-clepenclent construct for evaluating

144 R H E T O R I C O N T H E W E B

site interactivity rather than as one centered in the credentials and expertise of the mes- sage source. As imobile access to the Web and availability of iilxnersive Web-based envi- ronme~tts increase, comm~~nication researchers will continue to track how chailges in the tecl~ilolo~ical context affect the foril~s of rhetorical expression that occur within it. Rhetoric's malleability and ubiquity will nonetheless continue to make it a phenomenon of interest in the future.

B A R B A R A W A R N I C K

N O T E S

145

1. Portions of this essay are taken from the at~thor's article "1,ooking to the Future: Electronic 'Texts and the Deepening Interface," to be published in Technical Corninunication Quarterly and are lised with pwn~ission.

2. li'or example, a 2002 study of 460 websites in 13 countries by Consumers Intemational found that 35% of health sites and 75% of finance sites failed to provide information about the atithority and credentials of the people behind the site (Consumers International 2002). More than one-third of the sites in the study provided no address or phone number, and one-quarter provided no infonna- tion abo11t ~ v h o owned them.

R E F E R E N C E S

Bakhtin, M. M. 1981. T l ~ e dialogic inzagination: Four essays, ed. by M . Holquist; trans. by C. E~nerson and M. Holqt~ist. A~~s t in : University of Texas Press.

Barthes, R. 1977. Ii~zage nzusic text. New York: Noonday Press.

B ~ ~ r b ~ ~ l e s , N. C. 2001. 13aracloxes of the Web: ?'he ethical dimensions of credibility. Library Treizds 49 (3):441-454.

Bllrnett, R., and P. D. Marshall. 2003. Web tlzeonl: Aiz itztroduction. New York: Routledge.

Consumers Intemational. 2002. Credibility 011 tlze Web: An intertzutioi~al study of tlze credibility of cotz- sumer iilfo177zatioiz 01.2 tlze Intenlet. l~~~://www.coiisumersintematioi~al.org/doc~~~~~ei~ts~as~~/searcl~cloc- ~i1nent.as~~?DocI1~=509&rcgio11i~l= 1 3 5&langid= 1 (accessed December 5, 2004).

Ecmeren, I< H. van, K. Crootendorst, a ~ i d A. Francisca Snoeck Henkelnans. 2002. Argunzeiztatioiz: Ai~ulysis, evdl~l(ttion, presenttttioil. Mahwah, Nj: li,rlba~lrn.

Ii,nd~-es, I]., a ~ i d 13. Wariiick. 2004. 'Text-based interactivity in ca~iclidate campaign Web sites: A case study froiii tlic 2002 clcctions. Wester~z ]ozirizul of Conz~iluiiicatioiz 68 (3):322-342.

Kirkas, 11. K., and J . 13. Ii'arkas. 2002. Pritzciples of Web desigiz. Ncw York: 1,ongman.

I.i)gg, 13. J., C. Soolioo, 13. llaniclsoii. 2002. I Iow clo ]~eoplc evaluate a Wcb si tc's crcdil)il ity? Iies~tlts from a large st~~tly. I i t t p : / / w w w . c o 1 ~ s 1 1 1 i ~ c r w c 1 ~ w a t c 1 1 . o ~ ' I ' L ~ ~ al,strc1ct.l~tin (acccsscd 13ccc1iihci- 5, 2004).

I~ritcli, J . W., ,liid 11. 1 ,. C r o ~ i i ~ c I l . 2001. 1~:valuatiiig Intcnict rcsolliccs: Identity, affiliatioli, and cog~ii- tivc aiithority i i i a ~ictworkcd uloi-ld. Jot~rizcrl of At1zericcri1 Society for fizfori~zutioiz Science (117d 'li.chr~olog)~ 52 (0):40C)-507.

(:lirdk, 1 ,. J . lCl07. I'ersi~~rsrot~ u i ~ d { ~ r ~ ~ ~ u e y 1 1 1 cyherspoce: ' ]he ot~liize protests over Intzrs MtrrlzetPlcrcc uizcl ihe c1rppc.r chi i~ . NCM 1 I ~ ~ V C I I : Y<ilc IJiiiv~isit), i'1*~5s.

K,lplaii, N. 2000 I ,itcr<icy I)c!:oiid I,ool\s: Ilcatliiig 11.11cii all tllc \voilcl's a wcl,. I11 '!'he World Wide Weh triid co~iteiiipor~~r;\t ctrltr~rtrl theon,, cclitccl 1)) A I Iciiiiaii aiicl '1' . S~viss N ~ M J York: Itolitlctlgc.

I .,li~tlo\i, (; 1'. 1997. I lypertext 2.0: 'I'lze cot~~~ergetice of co~~teti~porury crit1c~11 t l ~ e o n utzd tech11010g)l. 13,1ltiiiio1e: '1'11c Jolins I Iol~kiiis IJni\rer~ib P r e s

Lynch, P. J., a ~ l d S. Iiorton. 2001. Web style gz~zde, 2nd ctl. New Ilaven: Yale IJ~livcrsity Press.

146

Ma~lovich, I,. 2001. '['he language of new rnedia. Calnbriclge: 'I'he M1'1' Press.

R H E T O R I C O N THE W E B

McMillan, S. J. 2002. b:xplori~lg n~odels of i~itcractivity fro111 11111ltiple rcscarcli traditiolls: IJsen, clocu- ~ncnts, and systcms. In ?Ile haizclhook of ilew inediu, edited by I , . l,icvrol~w and S. Iiviugstone. 'I'liousa~ld Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mitr'i, A. 190C). Characteristics of the WWW text: ' l i a c i~~g cligcl~rsive strategies. /ourizcll of Coi-rzputer- Medicited Conliilzriziccitioii 5( 1 ). 11 tt~~://www.asc~~sc.org/jci~~c/vO 1 5 / i s 1 i i I . t i (accessed l)eccnil~er 5, 2004).

Mitra, A., and K. Coheri. 1999. Analyzirig tho MI> : llirectio~ls ancl challe~iges. In Doiizg Iiztemet research: Criticcll issues uizd ~rzethods f;,r ex~liizli2iizg flze Net. ' l ' l ~o~~sa r~d Oaks, CA: S'lge.

Nielso~i, J . n . (1. Writing for the Web. l~~p:llwww.useit.co~~i/~~;~~~ers/webwriti~gl (accessed llecember 5, 2004).

Ong, W. J. 1982. Orcflity and literacy: The techizologiziiig of the worcl. London: Methuen.

Perelman, C., and 1,. Olbrechts~lyteca. 1960. ?'Ize izew rhetoric: A treatise on arguiizentcition, translated by J. Wilkinson and P. Weaver. Notre llame: IJiiivcrsity of Notre Dame Press.

Resnick, 11. 1997. Politics on the Intertlet: ?'he nornialization of cyberspace. New Politicul Science 41-42 ( 1997):47-67

Schlein, A. M. 2003. Find it oizliiie: The complete guide to oizliize research. 'l'empe, A%: Facts on Demand P ress.

Warnick, B. 1998. Rhetorical criticism of public discourse on the Internet: Theoretical ilnplications. Rhetoric Society Quarterly 28:7 3-84.

Warnick, B. 2002. Critical literacy in a digital era: Technology, rhetoric, and the public interest. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Warnick, B. 2004. From substantiation to representation: Ethos on the World Wide Web. Paper present- ed at the Rhetoric Society of America conference, in A~~stin, Texas.

Warnick, B., M. Xenos, D. Endres, and J. Gastil. (In Press). Effects of ca111paign-to-user and text-based interactivity i11 political candidate campaign Web sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication.