VII. Discussion
<<
>>
A. Rethink | B. Engage | C. Adapt | D. Afford | E. Limit
E. Limit
A final effect that tools had on developing a webtext inscape was “limit," or not being able to work with tools as expected in a way that unavoidably impedes invention.
One example of a “limit”-type impact occurred in RR4; in this case, the pieces affected were primarily navigation, and thus the organization and inscape of the webtext as a whole.
I was working on a web draft suggestion at the same time as the final essay draft submission, as a suggestion for how my essay might be presented and additionally to incorporate more multimodal elements per the editors’ suggestions. I wanted to find a drop-down navigation model I could copy and paste and incorporate easily into my draft; I could code one for myself from scratch, but it would have taken longer and perhaps looked a bit messier. I found a model I liked; however, it was not the easy solution I had initially anticipated. I was able to fill in some basic segments, but it was not the most adaptable system; I couldn’t change it easily to fit the structure of the webtext as a whole as I’d imagined it, which made it much more difficult than expected to edit the piece as a whole. In the end, I kept the navigation system set up with only two active pages rather than a fully coded draft. The main requirement was to have the full essay submitted, which I completed; however, I did not meet the expectations I had set for myself and my own submission. In this case, the tools I was using introduced a set of limitations that significantly impeded my invention process that, due to the combination of time and skills and tools at my disposal, I was not able to work around.
Another “limit”-type influence occurred in Moss’s interview invention narrative.
She noted that although she had co-authored a webtext, this was not the kind of academic composing that she normally undertook, and that she found the technological learning curve daunting. She and her co-authors nevertheless successfully pursued the project by finding technological alternatives, such as collaboration with a web developer; however, she had no interest in developing additional webtext projects. In this case, “limit” refers to a set of tools’ influences not on a specific piece but rather on a webtext’s existence as a total combination of pieces. If the tools involved in designing webtexts are inaccessible in any way, this lack of accessibility functions as a significant limit on the overall webtext invention process.
“Limit”-type effects are important to acknowledge. Invention is very much a process of trial and error and failure, perhaps even more failures than successes (though typically only the successes are publicized). These invisible moments of failure or setbacks are just as much a part of the invention process as breakthroughs and new ideas. They are harder to track than the other kinds of tool-based inventions, harder still even than “adapt”- and “afford”-type influences (which end in some kind of success from the composer’s standpoint, even if a shifted one). Webtext invention requires flexibility in adapting to various struggles and negotiations that accompany design triumphs. Tools’ “limit”-type effects challenge composers to recognize limitations and failures in developing ideas, and to accept ideas in their limited form (or even let them go completely) as the situation requires.
<<
>>
