Modeling document-mediated interaction

ACM SIGDOC Annual International Conference on Computer Documentation, Proceedings

Volumn , Issue , 2002, Pages 60-71

  Hart Davidson, William ^a  

^a RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

Activity Theory; Document Modeling; Human Computer Interaction; Technical Communication

Indexed keywords

HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION; HUMAN ENGINEERING; HYPERTEXT SYSTEMS; MATHEMATICAL MODELS;

DOCUMENT-MEDIATED INTERACTION;

PROGRAM DOCUMENTATION;

EID: 0037628138     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/584955.584965     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (33)

1. Mirel, B. 1993. Beyond the monkey house: Audience analysis in computerized workplaces. In R. Spilka (Ed.) Writing in the workplace: New research perspectives. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois UP. 21-40.
2. Bist, G. 1996. Applying the object-oriented model to technical communication. IEEE transactions on professional communication 39.1 49-57.
3. Johnsen, L. 2000. Document (re)presentation: Object-orientation, visual language, and XML. Technical communication 48.159-65.
4. Price, J. 1998. Complexity theory as a way of understanding our role in the world-wide web. Proceedings of the 45th Annual Society for Technical Communication Conference. Arlington, VA: Society for Technical Communication. 207-209.
5. Applen, J.D. 2002. Technical communication, knowledge management, and XML. Technical communication 49.3 301-313.
6. Moser, M. & J.D. Moore. 1996. Toward a synthesis of two accounts of discourse structure. Computational linguistics 22.3 409-419.
7. Bernhardt, S. Seeing the text. College composition and communication 37 66-78.
8. Heba, G. 1997. Digital architectures: A rhetoric of electronic document structures. IEEE transactions on professional communication 40.4 275-283.
9. Olsen, D.R. 1998. Developing user interfaces. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
10. Odell, L. & J. Swarts. 2001. Rethinking the evaluation of writing in engineering courses. Proceedings of the IEEE Frontiers in Education conference. Reno, NV: IEEE. http://fie.engrng.pitt.edu/fie2001/papers/1283.pdf
11. Mann, W.C. & S.L. Thompsen. Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text 8.3 243-281.
12. Bazerman, C. 1988. Shaping written knowledge. Madison U of Wisconsin P.
13. Van Wijk, C. & T. Sanders. 1999. Identify writing strategies through text analysis. Written communication 16.1 51-75.
14. Phelps, L.W. 1985. Dialectics of coherence: Toward an integrative theory. College English 47.1 12-31.
15. Faigley, L. & S. Witte. 1981. Coherence, cohesion, and writing quality. College composition and communication 32 189-204.
16. Vande Kopple, W. 1986. Given and new information and some aspects of the structures, semantics, and pragmatics of written texts. In C.R. Cooper & S. Greenbaum (Eds.) Studying writing: Linguistic perspectives. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. 72-111.
17. Halliday, M.A.K. & Hassan, J.R. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
18. Van Dijk, T. 1976. Text and context: Explorations in semantics and pragmatics of discourse. London: Longman.
19. Gunnarson, B.L. 1997. The writing process from a sociolinguistic viewpoint. Written communication 14.2. 139-188.
20. Geisler, C. 2001.Textual objects: Accounting for the role of texts in the everyday life of complex organizations. Written communication 18.3 296-325.
21. Engestrom, Y. Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engestrom, R. Miettinen, and R. Punamaki (Eds.) Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. 19-38
22. Johnson, R. 1997. Audience involved: Toward a participatory model of writing. Computers and composition 14 361-376.
23. Suchman, L. 1987. Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
24. Brown, J.S. & P. Duguid. 1999. The social life of information. Cambridge, MA: Harvard business college press.
25. Vande Kopple, W. 1982. Functional sentence perspective composition, and reading. College composition and communication 33 50-63.
26. Smith, F. 1982. Writing and the writer. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
27. Colomb, G.C. & J.M. Williams. 1985. Perceiving structure in professional prose: A multiply determined experience. In L. Odell & D. Goswami (Eds.) Writing in nonacademic settings. New York: Guilford Press.
28. Derrida, J. 1977. Signature, Event, Context. Glyph 1 172-197.
29. Miller, C.R. Genre as social action. Quarterly journal of speech 70 151-167.
30. Prior, P. 1998. Writing/disciplinarity: A sociohistoric account of literate activity in the academy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
31. st century. Bainbridge Island, WA: Macro VU.
32. Roberts, D., Berry, D., Isensee, S., & Mullaly, J. Designing for the user with OVID: Bridging user interface design and software engineering. Indianapolis: Macmillan Technical Publishing.
33. Spilka, R. 1990. Orality and literacy in the workplace: Process and text-based strategies for multiple audience adaptation. Journal of business and technical communication 4.1 44-67.