VII. Discussion

A. Motivate | B. Halt | C. Give | D. Inform | E. Suggest | F. Re-Envision

F. Re-Envision

In contrast to the localized changes from “Suggest”-type impacts, “Re-Envision” represents an impact that calls for a completely new configuration of pieces on a global level. This tended to be an action especially from editors, who could call for substantial changes to be made to a project’s structure while suggesting a general direction for change. Considering the significant amount of work that can accompany a major webtext design overhaul, this seems appropriate once again to editors’ roles as gatekeepers in the invention process. A consultant’s advice to substantially revise a project might be safely ignored. Whether an author heeds an editor’s “revise and resubmit” feedback, however, likely makes the difference between a project’s acceptance and rejection.

One example of a “Re-Envision”-type impact emerged in Draft MN4:

• Colleague | Re-Envision | Total

In this case, the pieces affected included all the components of the print and webtext review essay documents. These components were influenced at the conceptual, pre-drafting stage, which laid the foundation for the active work of inscape development. Kris Blair extended OSU rhetoric and composition grad students an invitation to review a recent Computers and Composition Digital Press publication. I responded to the invitation, and after several conversations with both Cindy (my advisor at the time) and Kris, the project’s scope was reconfigured from a review of a single publication to parallel webtext and print review essays accompanied by a comparative reflection. The adapted scope proved slightly too ambitious, however, and when the webtext review essay took a meta-reflective turn, I abandoned the separate reflection. This shift in scope across project components on a macro-level helped me to make sense of the unanticipated ways in which the webtext project was developing. Additionally, this shift helped me account for time constraints.

Another example of a “Re-Envision”-type impact emerged in the reflection for Draft RR1:

• Editor | Re-Envision | Total

This impact affected the total components for Draft RR1. This webtext draft was initiated after the first full manuscript was submitted; the editors provided feedback, and I drafted an interface mockup while developing the second essay draft. In this case, I completely reorganized all the sections of the draft in order to respond to the editors’ feedback. This reorganization of alphabetic sections was reflected in the initial section divisions for the webtext draft mockups.

Overall, “Re-Envision”-type impacts played less of a role in the reflection narratives due to the fact that these projects were on relatively short timelines, and I had already established a general set of working practices for webtext composing. However, several of the Inventio and interview narratives foreground significant design reconfigurations for projects with longer invention periods, such as Delagrange and Lauer. These “Re-Envisions” represent major conceptual shifts in a webtext’s implicit design-as-argument, shifts in which an editor’s feedback can play a crucial role for the project as a whole. There are other reasons for reconfigurations, as will be explored more fully in the “Tools” chapter. However, because total reconfigurations require a significant investment of labor and time, as well as represent a new vision or implicitly performed argument, such an impact on a project seems to come more frequently from editors than short-term or less invested roles such as consultants or colleagues.