Visual-rhetoric ethics: Beyond accuracy and injury

Technical Communication

Volumn 53, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 195-211

  Manning, Alan ^a   Amare, Nicole ^b  

^a BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH ALABAMA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33745023860     PISSN: 00493155     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (33)

1. Adams, R., and S. Babbitt. 1994. The ethics of electronic image manipulation. Proceedings of the STC Annual Conference. Arlington, VA: Society for Technical Communication, p. 458.
2. Allen, N. 1996. Ethics and visual rhetorics: Seeing's not believing anymore. Technical communication quarterly 5: 87-105.
3. Bryan, J. 1995. Seven types of distortion: A taxonomy of manipulative techniques used in charts and graphs. Journal of technical writing and communication 25:127-179.
4. Caricato, J. 2000. Visuals for speaking presentations: An analysis of the presenter's perspective of audience as a partner in visual design. Technical communication 47:496-514.
5. David, C. 2001. Mythmaking in annual reports. Journal of business and technical communication 15:195-222.
6. Doumont, J-I. 2005. The cognitive style of PowerPoint: Slides are not all evil. Technical communication 52:64-70.
7. Dragga, S. 1996. "Is this ethical?": A survey of opinion on principles and practices of document design. Technical communication 43:255-65.
8. Dragga, S., and D. Voss. 2001. Cruel pies: The inhumanity of technical illustrations. Technical communication 48:265-74.
9. _. 2003. Hiding humanity: Verbal and visual ethics in accident reports. Technical communication 50:61-82.
10. Elliot, D., and P. Lester. 2002. Visual communication and an ethic for images, http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/lester/writings/imageethic.html.
11. Farkas, D. 2005a. Understanding and using PowerPoint. Proceedings of the STC Annual Conference. Arlington, VA: Society for Technical Communication, pp. 313-320.
12. _. 2005b. Explicit structure in print and onscreen documents. Technical communication quarterly 14:9-30.
13. Horn, R. E. 1998. Visual language: Global communication for the 21st century. Bainbridge Island, WA: MacroVU.
14. Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers. 2005. IEEE code of ethics, http://www.ieee.org/portal/site/mainsite/menuitem. 818c0c39e85ef176fb2275875bac26c8/index. jsp?&pName=corp_level1&path= about/whatis&file=code.xml&xsl=generic.xsl.
15. Johnson, R. 1998. Complicating technology: Interdisciplinary method, the burden of comprehension, and the ethical space of the technical communicator. Technical communication quarterly 7:75-98.
16. Keller, K. and B. Shwom. 2003. "The great man has spoken: Now what do I do?": A response to Edward R. Tufte's The cognitive style of PowerPoint. Communication insight 1(1): 1-16. http://www.communipartners.com/ documents/ComlnsV1._000.pdf
17. Kress, G., and T. van Leeuwen. 1996. Reading images: The grammar of visual design. New York, NY: Routledge.
18. Kostelnick, C., and D. Roberts. 1998. Designing visual language: Strategies for technical communicators. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
19. Lester, P. 2003. Visual communication: Images with messages. 3rd ed. South Melbourne, Australia: Thomson Wadsworth.
20. Manning, A. D. 1989. The semantics of technical graphics. Journal of technical writing and communication 19:31-51.
21. Newton, J. 2005. Visual ethics theory. In Handbook of visual communication research: Theory, methods, and media, ed. K. Smith, S. Moriarty, G. Barbatsis, K. Kenney. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 429-443.
22. Microsoft. 2005. Have a great idea? Make a persuasive pitch. Microsoft Office online. http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/assistance/HA010838371033.aspx.
23. Peirce, C. S. 1978. Ideas, stray or stolen about scientific writing, no. 1. Philosophy and rhetoric 11:147-155.
24. _. 1935. Collected papers. Vol. 1-6, ed. C. Hartshorne and P. Weiss. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
25. _. 1958. Collected papers. Vol. 7-8, ed. A. Burks. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
26. Richards, A., and C. David. 2005. Decorative color as a rhetorical enhancement on the World Wide Web. Technical communication quarterly 14:31-48.
27. Salvo, M. 2001. Ethics of engagement: User-centered design and rhetorical methodology. Technical communication quarterly 10:273-90.
28. Society for Technical Communication. 1998. Ethical principles for technical communicators, http://www.stc.org/policyStatements_ethicalPrinciples. asp.
29. Stroupe, C. 2000. Visualizing English: Recognizing the hybrid literacy of visual and verbal authorship on the web. College English 62:607-632.
30. Tufte, E. 2003. The cognitive style of PowerPoint. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.
31. Walsh, T. 1998. Illustrations in oral presentations: Photographs. IEEE transactions on professional communication 41:209-212.
32. Weber, J. 1995. Ethics in scientific and technical communication. WISENET journal 3:2-4. http://www.jeanweber.com/about/ethics.htm.
33. Zachary, M., and C. Thralls. 2004. An interview with Edward Tufte. Technical communication quarterly 13:447-462.