A

sRbWla©

K

1

r

hppdsamc

8

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Computers and Composition 30 (2013) 211–225

Interactivity and the Invisible: What Counts asWriting in the Age of Web 2.0

William I. Wolff ∗Associate Professor of Writing Arts, Rowan University, United States

bstract

This study asks: what counts as writing in a Web 2.0 environment? How do the vocabularies, functionalities, and organizingtructures of Web 2.0 environments impact our understanding of what writing is in these spaces and how that writing is performed?esults suggest that we, as scholars and teachers, need to pay more attention to, first, the interactivity that is embedded in and affordedy Web 2.0 applications and, second, the processes that are invisible to the composer. Successful compositional engagement witheb 2.0 applications requires an evolving interactive set of practices similar to those practiced by gamers, comics, and electronic

iterature authors and readers. What we learn about these practices has the potential to transform the way we understand writingnd the teaching of writing within and outside of a Web 2.0 ecosystem.

2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

eywords: Comics; Electronic Literature; Gaming; Interactivity; Web 2.0; Writing; Writing Ecologies

. Introduction

In the fall of 2009, as I was recording data for the study I discuss below, NCTE released Kathleen Blake Yancey’seport, Writing in the 21st Century. The report was:

A call to action, a call to research and articulate new composition, a call to help our students compose often,compose well, and through these composings, become the citizen writers of our country, the citizen writers ofour world, and the writers of our future. (Yancey, 2009, p. 1)

J. Elizabeth Clark (2010) argued that Yancey’s call marked a “new era” for our field, “a challenge to articulateow technology is radically transforming our understanding of authors and authority and to create powerful newractices to converge with this new digital world” (p. 27). For Yancey (2009), we have entered a “new era in literacy, aeriod we might call the Age of Composition” wherein “our impulse to write is now digitized and expanded—or putifferently, newly technologized, socialized” (p. 5). Yancey’s and Clark’s calls echoed Selfe’s (1999) culturally andocially situated redefinition of technological literacy (p. 10) and Yancey’s (2004) Conference on College Composition

nd Communication Chair’s address during which she observed the field of composition studies has reached a liminaloment: “Literacy today is in the midst of a tectonic change. Even inside of school, never before have writing and

omposing generated such diversity in definition. What do our references to writing mean?” (p. 298). Indeed. To invoke

∗ Associate Professor of Writing Arts, Hawthorn Hall, Rowan University, 201 Mullica Hill Road. Tel.: +856 256 5221; fax: +856 256 5730.E-mail address: wolffw@rowan.edu

755-4615/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2013.06.001

212 W.I. Wolff / Computers and Composition 30 (2013) 211–225

Dorothy A. Winsor (1992), in the early decades of the twenty-first century—in the age of Web 2.0—what counts aswriting?

In 2007, I started asking my students to think about how Web 2.0 applications facilitate the exchange of informationacross multiple websites. I soon began witnessing the challenges they were having with both conceiving of informationmovement and composing to facilitate it. Since that time, I have suspected that writing in the age of Web 2.0 issignificantly more complex than writing was in the age of print and even in the early years of the visual browser.Inspired by Winsor’s seminal article, “What Counts as Writing: An Argument from Engineers’ Practice” (1992), thestudy I discuss in the following pages was designed to investigate if writing in a Web 2.0 environment is substantivelydifferent from writing in more traditional print-based and computer environments. What, the study asks, counts aswriting in a Web 2.0 environment? How do the vocabularies, functionalities, and organizing structures of Web 2.0environments impact our understanding of what writing is in these spaces and how that writing is performed?

Winsor was chosen to frame the study for three reasons. First, I saw the investigation as similar to Winsor’s; whereshe was thinking about how people were writing in disciplines other than English studies, I was investigating howwriting is happening in a new environment. Second, Winsor challenged three myths we suspected we might haveto confront, as well, namely “that when we really write something, we think it up all on our own and do creative,original, individual work” (1992, p. 338); “that writing requires the direct presence of human beings” (1992, p. 340);and “that writing necessarily involves words” (1992, p. 342). Third, Winsor’s whole discussion suggested that writingis essentially meaning making. That is, regardless of the form, genre, or method of writing, the primary goal of the actof writing is to create meaning for a particular audience in a particular context.

Results from my study confirmed that the Web 2.0 spaces many in our field have been asking our students to composein (blogs, wikis, Twitter, and so on) are, indeed, spaces for writing that, like more traditional print-based writing, havetheir own grammars, styles, and linguistics. More importantly, results also suggest that we, as scholars and teachersneed to pay more attention to, first, the interactivity that is embedded in and afforded by Web 2.0 applications and,second, the processes that are invisible to the composer. Paying attention to interactivity and what is invisible to theuser is something that gamers do (think of using Mario to find hidden coins). Authors and readers of comics (McCloud,2005) and electronic literature (Hayles, 2008) focus on the interactivity and invisibility embedded in their texts. Studyresults suggest that we as a field need to start thinking about how one composes in Web 2.0 environments in termsof the relationships between writing and gaming (Colby & Colby, 2008), writing and comics (Mueller, 2012), andwriting and electronic literature (Grigar, 2005). Too often the theories and practices associated with Web 2.0, gaming,comics, and electronic literature (elit), are discussed separately in our scholarship and in our classrooms (and, in thecase of comics and elit, tangentially, if at all). This can no longer be the case. Web 2.0 is causing these fields and theirassociated user practices to merge. In the twenty-first century, effective and successful compositional engagement withWeb 2.0 applications—Yancey’s “new composition”—requires an evolving interactive set of practices similar to thosepracticed by gamers and comics and elit authors and readers. What we learn about these practices has the potential totransform the way we understand writing and the teaching of writing within and outside of a Web 2.0 ecosystem.

2. Study methodology

This study was designed to catalog the functions and writing spaces within Web 2.0 applications, investigate howthose functions and writing spaces were implemented across Web 2.0 applications, and identify function and writingspace relationships among Web 2.0 applications.1 The study included the following phases:

• Create a master list of English language Web 2.0 applications (September 2008). The master list was created bycataloging and crosschecking Web 2.0 applications from the following websites: Go2Web20 <http://go2web20.net>,

Alexa <http://alexa.com>, and Movers 2.0 <http://movers20.esnips.com/>. Go2Web20 is one of the largest, if notthe largest, directory of Web 2.0 applications. Alexa tracks, ranks, and provides robust data on worldwide websiteusage. Movers 2.0 ranks the top 100 Web 2.0 applications according to their usage by accessing the Alexa API.

1 This study was made possible by a Rowan University Non-Salary Financial Support Grant (2008–2009). Two former Rowan University under-graduate research assistants, Katherin Fitzpatrick and Rene Youssef, played significant roles in data collection and analysis and as such, the Resultssection is written in the plural.

W.I. Wolff / Computers and Composition 30 (2013) 211–225 213

Table 1Purposive Sample and Function Totals.

Web 2.0 Application Total Functions Web 2.0 Application Total Functions

Bebo 40 Meebo 25Blogger 31 Metacafe 29Dailymotion 30 Multiply 44Delicious 24 MySpace 48Digg 26 Ning 46Esnips 33 Orkut 37Facebook 43 Skype 24Feedburner 15 Slide 31Flickr 34 Tagged 34Fotolog 26 Technorati 21Friendster 31 Twitter 30hi5 32 Wikia 26imeem 33 Wikipedia 15Last.fm 29 Xanga 44Linkedin 23 Youtube 38L

•

•

•

3

3

lWaR

AssiaF

ivejournal 37

Generate random and purposive samples (September 2008). From the master list, random samples with 90%, 95%,and 99% confidence intervals were created, as was a purposive sample (random samples were generated for use inpossible later stages of the study). If a Web 2.0 application appeared on the master list, Alexa’s Top 500, and Movers2.0, the application was added to the purposive sample. Other Web 2.0 applications could be added if researchersthought they would create a more accurate survey of activities associated with Web 2.0.

Analyze the purposive sample (September 2008–August 2009). One of the challenges faced when analyzing Web2.0 applications is that the applications are constantly changing by adding, removing, or altering core and minorfunctions. As a result, we developed a Reflexive Cataloging Methodology as a means to capture and record changesover a period. In a Reflexive Cataloguing Methodology, a researcher or group of researchers catalogs data from thesample population at set points over a period of time, checking to see if the population has changed in any way. Inour study, we cataloged and then met to discuss data from the purposive sample once a month for twelve months.

Consider whether functions can be considered writing (June 2009–July 2009). Researchers assessed each of thefunctions identified and tagged in terms of Winsor’s (1992) descriptions, theories, and conclusions in “What Countsas Writing? An Argument from Engineers’ Practice” to determine whether a particular function could be considereda kind of writing.

. Results

.1. Create a master list of English language Web 2.0 applications and create sample populations

As of September 2008, Go2Web20 contained 2,663 Web 2.0 applications in their database. We identified 89 Englishanguage Web 2.0 applications in the Alexa Top 500 list that were not on the Movers 2.0 list, and 25 English language

eb 2.0 applications on the Movers 2.0 list that were not on the Alexa Top 500 list. When all three lists were combinednd 36 duplicates removed, the resulting list contained a full population of 2,741 English language Web 2.0 applications.andom populations of 368 (90% CI), 491 (95% CI), and 750 (99% CI) were generated.

We generated a purposive sample of 29 applications by identifying applications that appeared in the full population,lexa’s Top 500, and Movers 2.0 (Table 1). Two applications, Blogger and Delicious, were added to the purposive

ample because we thought it important that blogging and social bookmarking be represented, and they were the leadingites in those areas. In September 2008, Alexa ranked Twitter the 972nd most popular website and Movers 2.0 ranked

t the 39th most popular Web 2.0 application. By March 2009, however, Alexa ranked Twitter at 80 (a 92% increase)nd Movers 2.0 ranked it at 10 (a 74% increase). NielsonWire reported Twitter use had increased 1,382% betweenebruary 2008 and February 2009 (McGiboney, 2009). In short, Twitter could no longer be ignored. We opted to add

214 W.I. Wolff / Computers and Composition 30 (2013) 211–225

Twitter to the purposive sample and remove MyYearBook—a site with a target population younger than college-agedstudents.

3.2. Analyze the purposive sample

Between September 2008 and August 2009, we identified 69 unique functions associated with the Web 2.0 applica-tions in the purposive sample (Table 2). Each of the functions was tagged with a particular name and given a definition,creating a unique vocabulary, or “collabulary,” for our tagging, archiving, and research purposes. Only two functions(creating an account and user-generated content) were found in all 31 Web 2.0 applications (Table 1). MySpace wasidentified as having the most functions (N=48), followed by Ning (N=46), Multiple and Xanga (N=44), and Bebo andFacebook (N=40). Wikipedia (N=15) and Feedburner (N=15) had the fewest. In other words, results suggested that fora user to use MySpace effectively, they needed to know how to identify, understand, and use 48 unique functions; touse Facebook effectively, 40; and so on.

Identifying and defining functions resulted in many challenges, especially because similar terms (e.g., Groups,Communities, Networks) were used across applications but were often implemented in different ways (see also boyd,2006). Consider Groups, which the majority (61%) of the applications in our sample had. We define Groups as multipleusers who have gathered for a specific interest or purpose. Most applications labeled their groups Groups, and theirgroups functioned in ways that informed the definition we created. Others, however, did not. Xanga labeled their groups“Blogrings.” Wikia called their groups “Wikis”; Orkut, Esnips, and Livejournal, labeled their groups “Communities.”

We, however, define a Community as a user-created space within which other users can create groups. Fewerapplications (23%) in our sample had that kind of community. As Wolff, Fitzpatrick, and Youssef (2009) have writtenelsewhere:

[T]he Esnips homepage labels as communities what other sites might label as groups. LiveJournal announcesthat it has a “true sense of community” where users can “join user-created communities centered around [their]interests to share information and meet new friends. From art to zombies, if you can think of it, there’s probablya community about it” (“Quick Tour”). LiveJournal, then, itself embodies the idea of community and also allowsusers to create and to join specific communities that explore a specific topic that in turn contribute to the site’sproclaimed community feel. Ultimately, LiveJournal communities are quite similar to other sites’ groups.

Further challenging our ability to create definitions, many applications (e.g. Flickr, Last.FM, YouTube) refer to them-selves as Communities in their Terms of Service. This self-definition as a Community confronts what people typicallyrefer to Web 2.0 application as: Networks. We define Networks as a group of people organized by location, a definitionthat must be differentiated from SocialNetworks (groups of people connected online that for the most part knew eachother in person prior to online) and SocialNetworking (groups of people connected online that for the most part did notknow each other in real life beforehand)—definitions informed in large part by danah m. boyd and Nicole B. Ellison(2007).

3.3. Consider whether functions can be considered writing

Results of our analysis suggest 73.9% (51 of 69 functions) of what users do in a Web 2.0 environment counts aswriting (Table 2). These functions include more traditional forms of writing that use words and sentences, such asblogging, forum writing, chatting online, and composing in wiki spaces composition. But, they also expand what canbe considered writing to include, for example:

• customizing the layout of personal space in application (tag: designlayout)• controlling who has access to content one creates (tag: contentsecurity)

• updating constantly of user activity within application (tag: newsfeed)• subscribing to another’s content in order to receive updates (tag: subscription)• adding to one’s account games and other apps for entertainment or other purposes (tag: application)• embedding media within a page, post, or other writing space (tag: embedding)

W.I. Wolff / Computers and Composition 30 (2013) 211–225 215

Table 2Web 2.0 Function and Characteristic Tags, Definitions, and whether Tag Activity Counts as Writing.

Function / Characteristic Tag Function Definition Date Added (DefinitionRevised)

Count as Writing or aWriting Space? (Y/N)

account The ability to become a member of the site orapplication.

9.24.08 Y

ageappropriatesetting The ability to designate age appropriateness ofcontent.

11.17.08 Y

applications The ability to add to one’s account games andother apps for entertainment or other purposes(such as Facebook apps).

9.24.08 (7.21.09) (8.9.09) Y

applicationdesignedplugin Plugins that were designed by an application(and not a third party) that can be added toanother application (and not the toolbar).

7.30.09 N

applicationspecificcurrency Applications that have created their ownmonetary currency that must be purchased bythe user in order to purchase certain things onthe site.

11.19.08 N

avatar The ability to upload a visual representation ofone’s self.

9.24.08 Y

blogspace An area for expanded writing of a personalnature.

9.27.08 Y

categories The ability to create topics that organize content. 10.13.08 Ychat Real-time P2P messaging involving two people. 9.24.08 Ycomments Public critique or the space for such. 9.24.08 Ycommunities A user-created space within which other users

can create groups.10.20.08 (11.12.08)

contentsecurity The ability to control who has access to contentone creates.

11.17.08 Y

createcommunities The ability to design social network-likecommunities.

11.12.08 Y

creategroups The ability to create groups within socialnetworks.

11.12.08 Y

createnetworks The ability to create social networks. 2.18.09 Ycustomelayout The ability to customize the layout of personal

space in application.10.13.08 Y

directapplicationconnection The application connects directly with externalapplications to help users share content orconnect with other users (such as when sitesconnect users to YouTube so they can embedvideo).

10.13.08 N

downloadapplicationtodesktop The ability to download desktop application thatwill interact with online application.

11.19.08 N

downloadapplicationtophone The ability to download applications to cellphone that will interact with online application.

11.19.08 N

drawingspace The ability to draw sketches or pictures in aspecifically designated space and make thempublic or private.

11.17.08 Y

embeddable The ability to have content from this siteembedded in another site. This is not the same assharing.

6.2.09 Y

embedding The ability to embed media within a page, post,or other writing space (not to be confused withuploading content)

9.24.08 Y

exportcontent The ability to save content to the desktop. 10.13.08 (11.19.08) Yfamily The ability to classify someone as a family

member.7.21.09 Y

followers Those who are following content but who’scontent is not necessarily followed in return.

7.21.09 N

forums The ability to post to discussion/message boardsthat are often divided by topic.

9.24.08 Y

216 W.I. Wolff / Computers and Composition 30 (2013) 211–225

Table 2 (Continued)

Function / Characteristic Tag Function Definition Date Added (DefinitionRevised)

Count as Writing or aWriting Space? (Y/N)

friends Other users with an ostensible relationship toyou that you reciprocate.

9.24.08 N

groupchat Real-time P2P messaging involving more thantwo people.

10.9.08 Y

groups Multiple users who have gathered for a specificinterest/purpose.

9.24.08 N

htmluse The ability to use HTML when generatingcontent.

10.13.08 Y

importbookmarks The ability to import bookmarks from anotherapplication.

10.13.08 Y

messaging Private electronic mail within a Web 2.0application.

9.24.08 Y

microblog Succinct update of occurrences or personalstatus.

9.24.08 Y

network A group of people organized by location. 2.18.09newsfeed A constant update of user activity within

application.9.24.08 Y

notes Comments about an item written to providefurther information about the item (should bedistinguished from comments).

10.13.08 Y

openID Connects with users’ OpenID login information. 10.13.08 Nplugins The ability to add extras to a site to increase its

functionality and the users experience.7.21.09 (8.9.09) Y

premiumaccount The ability to upgrade to a most robust accountthat has certain features, such as storage space.

10.29.08 (7.21.09) Y

profile The ability to create a space to disclose limitedpersonal information.

9.24.08 Y

profilesecurity The ability to control access to one’s profile. 11.17.08 Ypublicmessaging Public messaging. 9.24.08 (7.21.09) Yrating A quantified judgment of content. 9.24.08 YRSSfeed An application provides the opportunity to

update others of new content sent via RSS.9.24.08 Y

search The ability to search the site or application. 9.24.08 YsearchableAPI The application has opened its API for outsiders

to search.7.21.09 Y

searchemailforotherusers The application integrates with users Google,Hotmail, Yahoo! or other email account to helpuser connect with others they may know.

9.24.08 N

seefollowers The ability to see who is following your content. 10.13.08 (7.21.09) Nshare The ability to send content to users/other people

often via external application.9.24.08 Y

slideshow The ability to create a slideshow of photographs. 7.21.09 Ysocialnetwork Groups of people connected online that for the

most part knew each other in person prior toonline.

10.13.08 N

socialnetworking Groups of people connected online that for themost part did not know each other in real lifebeforehand.

10.13.08 N

subscription The ability to subscribe to another’s content inorder to receive updates.

10.13.08 (7.21.09) Y

suggesteduser Suggestions that the application gives the user asopposed to searching the email for it.

8.8.09 N

tagging The ability to label various texts using keywords. 9.24.08 Ytagline The ability to compose a tagline for a specific

space.11.12.08 Y

timeline A public list of activities organized over time. 7.21.09 Y

W.I. Wolff / Computers and Composition 30 (2013) 211–225 217

Table 2 (Continued)

Function / Characteristic Tag Function Definition Date Added (DefinitionRevised)

Count as Writing or aWriting Space? (Y/N)

toolbarembed The application has toolbar that embeds in webbrowser to ease interaction with the site.

9.27.08 N

translation The ability to translate site to into one or moreforeign languages.

10.29.08 Y

uniqueID An ID that provides access to multiple areaswithin a particular application. Not the same as alogin ID or Open ID.

10.29.08 N

uploadcontentviaemail The ability to add content to an application viaemail.

10.13.08 Y

uploadcontentviacellphone The ability to add content to an application viacell phone.

10.13.08 Y

uploaddocs The ability to upload media documents otherthan video, photo, and music.

10.13.08 Y

uploadmusic The ability to post your own music content. 9.24.08 Yuploadphoto The ability to post your own photo content, not

including avatar photos.9.24.08 Y

uploadvideo The ability to post your own video content. 9.24.08 Yusergeneratedcontent Content made by users of application rather than

the creator/moderator of the application.9.24.08 Y

widget A box that holds applications, often able to bemoved around the page.

10.29.08 N

wikispace An online writing space that can be edited by 9.27.08 Y

tmh

4

srs.twfd(aBccCedwi(

more than one user.

Each of the functions identified as a form of writing, or characteristic identified as a writing space, plays a role inhe creation of meaning for the writer and/or a specific audience. Further research needs to be conducted in order to

ore fully understand the various processes associated with these new forms of writing, which we suspect involve aost of rhetorical, practical, and ethical decisions.

. Writing in the age of Web 2.0

Dale Daugherty and Tim O’Reilly invented the term “Web 2.0” to “capture the widespread sense that there’something qualitatively different about today’s web” (O’Reilly, 2005). Bradley Dilger (2010) has provided a thorougheview of the origination of and subsequent controversy over the definition of Web 2.0 (on the topic of controversy,ee also Jarrett, 2008; Scholz, 2008; Silver, 2008; Zimmer, 2008). He suggested “to truly understand Web 2.0 style.. we should seek to understand the relationships between truth, presentation, writer, reader, thought, and languagehat Web 2.0 embodies” (p. 17). Others have also suggested we can better understand Web 2.0 and how to teachriting within it by considering how it affords relationships among teachers, students, and texts. Stephanie Vie (2008),

or example, advocated for the integration of social networking sites in the composition classroom to reduce “theeepening digital divide” (p. 11) between composition instructors and their students. Brian Jackson and Jon Wallin2009) and Geoffrey V. Carter and Sarah J. Arroyo (2011) discussed the importance of YouTube for teaching studentsbout rhetorical and social opportunities afforded by participatory composition. James Purdy (2009) and James J.rown, Jr. (2009) suggested Wikipedia is a space where students can problematize traditional ideas about authority,ollaboration, and revision (Purdy) and intellectual property (Brown). Dànielle Nicole DeVoss and James Porter (2006)onsidered how file sharing affected writing instructors and challenges us to re-think traditional plagiarism policies.hristopher Schmidt (2011) applied the cartography metaphor to writers who are composing in multimodal new medianvironments. Kevin Brooks (2002) proposed a genre-based pedagogy for teaching creative hypertext because “ouriscipline is, for the most part, still trying to figure out ways to encourage innovative and sophisticated means of

riting on the Web” (p. 337). Jeff Rice (2005) suggested a “pedagogy of the home page” after questioning, “What is

t about the home page that makes it a form of writing? Where does the home page belong in writing instruction?”p. 61). Complicating the rhetorical, theoretical, and pedagogical concerns discussed in the previous small sample

218 W.I. Wolff / Computers and Composition 30 (2013) 211–225

(see also Day, McClure, & Palmquist, 2009) are, as study results suggest, the pragmatic challenges users face whenusing Web 2.0 applications. These include, but are certainly not limited to, learning new vocabularies, recognizing thecharacteristics of new writing spaces that contain multiple symbiotic genres, conceiving of the relationships amongmultiple applications, and being able to transfer knowledge of functionality and style from one application to the next.

In order to grasp the implications of these findings, I suggest we go back to O’Reilly and Daughtery’s (O’Reilly,2005) observation that Web 2.0 is inherently different from the Web prior to Web 2.0—what some have labeled Web1.0. Web 1.0 was the time of hypertext—a series of online documents connected by hyperlinks. Linking, however, wasprimarily site-specific. That is, major news and business websites did not link out to other websites, nor did usabilitytheories encourage them to do so. Indeed, the field of usability emerged from a website designer’s desire to find the bestway possible to encourage readers to stay within a particular domain; if they were able to navigate a site successfully,they would not purchase products or consume information elsewhere:

Simply stated, if the customer can’t find a product, then he or she will not buy it. The Web is the ultimatecustomer-powering environment. He or she who clicks the mouse gets to decide everything. It is so easy to goelsewhere; all the competitors in the world are but a mouseclick away. (Nielsen, 1999, p. 9)

(It is important to note that although Jakob Nielsen defines usability in terms of market rhetoric, and virtually all ofhis examples are commercial, not all websites’ primary goals are making money and keeping users within a particulardomain. Course websites, for example, often contained links to other websites).

It is easy to forget what the typical web page looked like in 1999, the year Nielson published his seminal DesigningWeb Usability (and, coincidentally, the year Blogger was launched). Layouts were sparse, heavy with links to otherparts of the site, light on images, and formatted for 15-inch monitors. Video was rarely used; YouTube would not launchfor another six years. Users came to expect different domains would have different navigations, and though some basiclink names like “home” and “news” would be familiar from one news site to the next, there was no expectation ofoverlap from one site to the next. Users learned how to navigate sites individually, learned how to click on their linksand read their chunks of text, and then move along. Nor was there significant linking from major news sites to websitesrelated to that news. For example, in 1999, one did not see and did not expect there to be links from a New YorkTimes article about the Lewinsky scandal to The White House website (Figure 1). Websites were silos. Like VCRs,books, and CDs, websites were discrete entities within a larger media system. Each hard-to-navigate website, like eachhard-to-program VCR and each confusing microwave, was its own individual product. This is the great irony of Webusability theory: it encouraged isolation within a system designed for interactivity.

Flash-forward a decade. Websites now employ multiple cognitive artifacts (Norman, 1991), writing spaces, and,possibly, burgeoning genres. In the age of Web 2.0, successful sites facilitate the exchange of information between andamong other sites. This stands in stark contrast to the siloed websites of Web 1.0 and the isolationist criteria that informtraditional usability theories. They are Interactive Domains—spaces in which users engage not only to read what is onthe screen, but to compose, communicate, create, share, and so on. Each of the 69 Web 2.0 functions and characteristicsidentified in the study are examples of or facilitate that interaction in one way or another. This is why it is so difficultto know what descriptor to use when discussing Web 2.0. Are they websites or applications or, perhaps, we shouldjust call them platforms? Perhaps they are ecologies in Margaret A. Syverson’s (1999) sense of the word, or evengenre ecologies (Spinuzzi, 2002). With all of the interactivity afforded by Facebook, MySpace, and YouTube, callingthem websites seems archaic, anachronistic, and not completely correct. The phrase Interactive Domains borrows fromGee’s (2007) semiotic domains and hints toward their ecological screen-scapes. In semiotic domains, “words, images,symbols, and artifacts have meanings that are specific to particular ... contexts” (p. 25). They have “design grammars”:“principals and patterns in terms of which one can recognize what is and what is not acceptable or typical content ina semiotic domain” (p. 28). The ecosystem that exists within the role-playing game, Zelda, for example, is a semioticdomain filled with artifacts users need to decipher within the game’s context and grammars. So, too, is Super MarioBros., Ms. Pac Man, Galaga, even Pong. Each game ecology, like each Web 2.0 ecology, has to be read, learned, andunderstood within its particular context and informed by a user’s prior gaming experience and knowledge.

Consider the issue of website vocabularies—the terms and names used for a site’s organizational structures and

interactive features. Usability theory has shown that naming portions of websites well, such as navigation menu items,is vitally important for users to have a successful experience with a particular website. As such, the organizationalstructures, the classification systems that lead to them, and the link names users click on to navigate them are not benignwebsite window dressing. Rather, they are rhetorical constructs that structure and shape a user’s experience with a

W.I. Wolff / Computers and Composition 30 (2013) 211–225 219

Figure 1. The New York Times and The White House websites in 1999.T

put““wi

uTPcpoewwFoaficwtT

his figure represents the layout of websites in 1999 and also highlights the lack of direct linking between websites.

articular site—for better or worse depending on a user’s prior knowledge and web experience. The interactive andser-generated features of Web 2.0 have brought users the new challenge of understanding new vocabularies withinhe context of particular sites. These vocabularies can, for example, consist of familiar words, such as “Feed” andPost,” which mean something quite different from their traditional, off-line meanings. Other familiar words, such asGroups” or “Communities,” as discussed above, become challenging because they are often employed in differentays on different sites. Or, there are new, acronym-heavy terms, such as, HTML, RSS, and API, that might hold little,

f any, prior meaning for users.Many of these terms are associated with a user’s interaction. For example, in the blog application, Wordpress, a

ser can click on an HTML tab in the Add New Post blog post screen (Figure 2) and compose using HTML tags.he HTML tab is just one of many functions that present composing opportunities and challenges in the Add Newost screen. The area has multiple symbols (a chain link, a musical note, a filmstrip) and terms (post, tag, html) thathallenge users to define in praxis and, as study results suggest, provide multiple avenues for writing. The chain linkrovides the opportunity to create a hyperlink (tags: usergeneratedcontent, htmluse); the musical note provides thepportunity to upload music (tags: uploadmusic, embedding). The filmstrip provides the ability to embed video (tags:mbedvideo, embedding). Posting (tag: blogspace), tagging (tag: tagging), and HTML (tag: htmluse) are all forms ofriting. Users also need to become familiar with the medium of blogging (tag: blogspace), the many genres associatedith blogging, as well as the functionalities and authorial implications of using the blog writing space (Rettberg, 2008).urthermore, users should be aware of how blogs interact with other Web 2.0 applications via RSS (tag: RSSfeed) andther programming languages (for example, tag: searchableAPI) to facilitate the movement of content between andmong applications, and an understanding of how to use them within the context of a particular action, such as:nding, retrieving, storing, and re-accessing a certain bit of information. Each Web 2.0 application (domain, ecology)hallenges users in a similar way by asking them to learn new terms, comprehend new symbols, engage with newriting spaces, recognize relationships among multiple applications, and transfer knowledge from one application to

he next—all of which contribute to the interactive complexities of what it means to write in this new environment.hese interactive complexities are almost identical to those found in video games, as Edmund Y. Chang (2008), citing

220 W.I. Wolff / Computers and Composition 30 (2013) 211–225

Figure 2. Wordpress Add New Post Screen.This figure shows the varied writing spaces, symbols, and functionalities on the Wordpress blog AddNew Post screen.

Alexander Galloway (2006), argued, “Writing, then, must also be action. Writing must also be both object and process.”Galloway continues:

Without action, games remain only in the pages of an abstract rule book. Without the active participation ofplayers and machines, video games exist only as static computer code. Video games come into being when themachine is powered up and the software is executed; they exist when enacted. (p. 2)

Similarly, without action, writing would only remain in the abstract, in the mind, in the rules of grammar, genre, andcomposition. Without the active engagement of writers (also with machines), writing exists only as ideas, outlines,brainstorms. Writing comes into being when the mind is powered up, critical thinking and language routines executed;writing, too, only exists when enacted, when pen is put to paper, idea turned into word. Writing cannot only be learnedby reading or by hearing or by rote rules and lines but by doing, practicing, revising, and rewriting.

One of the important consequences of the ubiquity of active interaction is that sites that have not been consideredWeb 2.0 are taking on some of these interactive qualities. Consider, for example, the 2010 New York Times online article“Hydraulic Leak Cited as Possible Cause of Spill” (Figure 3). Immediately to the right of the opening paragraph, amenu bar asks users to choose from the following options: sign in (tag: account), recommend the article (tag: rating),post to Twitter (tag: share), add comments (tag: comments), email the article, send to your iPhone, print, get reprints,and, share (tag: share). If you click on Share, you see options for LinkedIn, Digg, Facebook, Mixx, MySpace, Yahoo!,Buzz, and permalink. When a user clicks on the Twitter link, a Post to Twitter window appears just to the right. Thewriting space contains the title of the article, a nyti.ms shortened URL, and space for the user to add more information(tag: microblog, usergeneratedcontent). The user then clicks Post and the tweet is sent to the user’s Twitter streamwhere their followers will see it and, perhaps, click on the link to see the article. The cycle can then continue.

Traditional websites are not the only spaces that are becoming interactive domains. Dynamic toolbars, toolbarbuttons, and plugins are making the web browser itself an interactive domain that can be manipulated, organized,and customized. The browser can be composed. For example, a user can install a toolbar (tag: toolbarembed) for thesocial bookmarking and annotating service, Diigo <http://diigo.com>, that links their actions to their Diigo account

(tag: account) (Figure 4). When on a web page users would like to bookmark (tags: share, importbookmarks), theycan click on the toolbar button that reads Bookmark. This results in a popup window that contains writing spaces forthe web page URL and Title (tag: usergeneratedcontent); space to enter a Description (tag: usergeneratedcontent):

W.I. Wolff / Computers and Composition 30 (2013) 211–225 221

Figure 3. 2010 New York Times website with Post to Twitter Functionality.This figure illustrates the processes of posting to Twitter and highlightsthe interactive features of a more traditional website.

Figure 4. The Visibility and Invisibility Associated with Bookmarking a website.Tsh

sitepR

his figure depicts the processes associated with bookmarking a website, including which parts of the process are visible and invisible. It alsouggests that some of the processes are forms of writing. (Eye and Eyelid image from Scott McCloud’s Understanding Comics. Pencil icon fromttp://library.thinkquest.org/J001156/pencil2.gif).

pace to enter Tags (tags: usergeneratedcontent, tagging), Used Last Time, and Recommended Tags; check boxes tondicate privacy settings (tag: contentsecurity); Save, Save and Send (tag: share), and Cancel buttons; and the option toweet your bookmark (tag: microblog, usergeneratedcontent), Add to a List, or Share to a Group (tag: groups). After

ntering their information, they choose Save and Send. The information is sent to their Diigo account where, if set toublic, other Diigo users will be able to read it. Further, if someone subscribes to the user’s bookmark’s RSS feed (tag:SSfeed), the information for the new bookmark is sent to and will appear in the latter person’s RSS feed reader.

222 W.I. Wolff / Computers and Composition 30 (2013) 211–225

Though seemingly simple as we look at the figures and read the narrative descriptions, the processes are really quitecomplex, employing multiple signs (Hall, 2007), requiring a significant amount of prior knowledge and familiaritywith multiple Web 2.0 application functions (more, it should be pointed out, than were even identified by studying thepurposive sample). Users need to know what Twitter and Diigo are and must have an account already set up. They haveto know what a browser toolbar is and that toolbars can be edited. They need to know how to install toolbar buttonsand how to work effectively within the constraints of the provided writing space. They need to know what socialbookmarking is, how tagging works, and what happens to the information when it appears on Diigo and another’s RSSfeed reader.

Web 2.0 constantly challenges users’ abilities to engage with and conceive of the invisible. When users postsomething to Twitter or Facebook from within a third-party page or create a Diigo bookmark from an embeddedtoolbar, they must have a conception of what is going to happen with their data after they click Send. In other words,users must be thinking about what is not seen while interacting with what is in front of them. This visible/invisibledyad is similar to what Scott McCloud (1994, 2005) observed about the role of the gutter in comics. The gutter “playshost to much of the magic and mystery that are at the very heart of comics! Here in the limbo of the gutter, humanimagination takes two separate images and transforms them into a single idea” (McCloud, 1994, p. 66). Within thattransformation is a:

Balance between the visible and the invisible.... Comics is a kind of call and response in which the artist gives[the reader] something to see within the panels, and then gives [the reader] something to imagine between thepanels. (McCloud, 2005)

The visible/invisible dyad is at work in video games, like Super Mario Bros., when users have to conceive of hiddencoins to reveal; and, in Zelda, where users have to grasp the goals of the quest and find hidden objects without an aideother than the ecosystem itself. When websites were silos, little was hidden; the links, text, navigation were all there ona user’s screen, and link addresses were visible in the status bar and/or by viewing the page source. Users knew therewere other websites to go to, but they did not have a significant impact on how users used the site they were currentlyon.

Web 2.0 interactivity and information sharing; however, requires users to conceive constantly of what is not there,in front of them, on their screen, at that time. When users click the Bookmark button in an embedded Diigo toolbar,they must have an awareness of the events that will take place that are invisible to them: that the bookmark will appearin their Library and possibly the RSS feed of someone who subscribes to their bookmarks (Figure 4). That is, they needto have (if not an understanding of how information can move between websites) an awareness that information doesmove between websites and which applications will help facilitate that process more effectively for their rhetoricalgoals and practical needs. These more complex computational characteristics of Web 2.0 greatly expand compositionalpossibilities and have the potential to help students become more digitally sophisticated writers.

N. Katherine Hayles (2008) observed:

Literature in the twenty-first century is computational.... The computational nature of twenty-first century litera-ture is most evident... in electronic literature. More than being marked by digitality, electronic literature is activelyformed by it. For those of us interested in the present state of literature and where it might be going, electronicliterature raises complex, diverse, and compelling issues. In what sense is electronic literature a dynamic interplaywith computational media, and what are the effects of these interactions? Do these effects differ systematicallyfrom print as a medium, and if so, in what ways? How are users embodied interactions brought into play whenthe textual performance is enacted by an intelligent machine? (pp. 43–44)

Replace the phrase “electronic literature” with “Web 2.0” and the singular word “literature” with “writing,” and webegin to see the overlap between questions raised about elit and those raised here in response to Web 2.0. In whatsense is Web 2.0 “a dynamic interplay” among humans and semiotic domains and semantic databases? How are users’utterences (in, for example, spaces like Facebook and Twitter) “brought into play” when their writing is enacted bysemiotic domains and semantic databases? What makes the processes described above so complex (especially for

students who for the most part are not technologically sophisticated) is that users do not see the movement on theirscreens; this is not like entering a URL into an address bar and seeing the web page emerge before your eyes. Rather,the movement of data—the computation—happens behind the scenes, facilitated by various programming languagesand computer processes. According to Hayles, “[c]omputation is not peripheral or incidental to electronic literature

W.I. Wolff / Computers and Composition 30 (2013) 211–225 223

FT

bW

5

r

••••

•

•

OatWaacgwwai

WhFa

igure 5. An Ecology of Composition in a Web 2.0 Ecosystem.his figure shows the ecosystem of complex, overlapping, and evolving interactivities that are writing in the age of Web 2.0.

ut central to its performance, play, and interpretation” (p. 44). Computation is also central to writing in the age ofeb 2.0. And we need to know much more about it and how to incorporate it into our writing pedagogy.

. Conclusion

Writing in the age of Web 2.0 exists within an ecosystem of dynamic, overlapping, and evolving interactivities thatequire the following from each user (Figure 5):

An understanding of new terms and signs in context (feed, module, page, widget). An understanding of the functionality of the space (what happens when text is entered and button clicked). Prior knowledge of multiple applications, how to install them, and how they work across platforms. The ability to recognize when applications have changed and how to adapt to those changes (e.g., Facebook Terms

of Service). The ability to recognize when to use what applications in context of a particular action (such as, finding, retrieving,

storing, and accessing information). An understanding of when to use which mode of composition (image, video, audio, alphabetic text, code)

Web 2.0 applications require a sophisticated, reflective, elastic, semiotic, aural, eco-spatial, electratic (Rice &’Gorman, 2008; Ulmer, 2002), evolving information [interactivity]. I place square brackets around the word inter-ctivity because it is too soon to name a term that encapsulates all of what I have described above. But whateverhat term might be, I strongly suspect it will be grounded in theories and ideas in the areas of gaming (Bogost, 2008;

ardrip-Fruin & Harrigan, 2006; Wark, 2007), comics (Groensteen, 2007; McCloud, 1994; Varnum & Gibbons, 2007),nd electronic literature (Hayles, 2008; Dene, 2005). Web 2.0 applications are interactive computational ecosystems,nd within them, I find Yancey’s “new composition”—a composition that has more in common with video games,omics, and electronic literature than traditional print-based alphabetic texts and hypertext. If we as a community areoing to more fully understand the compositional implications of this new composition—of the diverse and evolvingays students write in, interact with, and think through Web 2.0 (not to mention the radically different dimensions textill embody as touch screens, 3D, and 4D become ubiquitous)—we need to shift our perspective from seeing them

s spaces that afford multiple writing genres to seeing them for their visible and invisible diversity, complexity, andnteractivity. For this is what counts as writing in the age of Web 2.0.

illiam I. Wolff is an Associate Professor of Writing Arts at Rowan University, where he teaches courses on visual rhetoric, new media, and theistory and technologies of writing. Find him on Twitter @billwolff. He would like to thank his former undergraduate research assistants, Kathleenitzpatrick and Rene Youssef, for their dedication to and work on this study. He would also like to thank the blind reviewers for their close readingsnd insightful suggestions.

224 W.I. Wolff / Computers and Composition 30 (2013) 211–225

References

Bogost, Ian. (2008). Unit operations: An approach to videogame criticism. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.boyd, danah m. (2006). Friends, friendsters, and MySpace top 8: Writing community into being on social network sites. First Monday, 11(12).

Retrieved July 21, 2010, from http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue11 12/boyd/boyd, danah m., & Ellison, Nicole B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communi-

cation, 13(1). Retrieved March 15, 2009, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/br.ellison.htmlBrooks, Kevin. (2002). Reading, writing, and teaching creative hypertext: A genre-based pedagogy. Pedagogy, 2(3), 337–356.Brown, James J., Jr. (2009). Essjay’s ethos: Rethinking textual origins and intellectual property. College Composition and Communication, 61(1),

238–258.Carter, Geoffrey V., & Arroyo, Sarah J. (2011). Tubing the future: Participatory pedagogy and YouTube U in 2020. Computers and Composition,

28(4), 292–302.Chang, Edmund Y. (2008). Gaming as writing, or, World of Warcraft as World of Wordcraft. Computers and Composition Online. Retrieved from

http://www.bgsu.edu/cconline/gaming issue 2008/Chang Gaming as writing/index.htmlClark, J. Elizabeth. (2010). The digital imperative: Making the case for a 21st-century pedagogy. Computers and Composition, 27(1),

27–35.Colby, Richard, & Rebekah Shultz Colby. (2008). Reading games: Composition, literacy, and video gaming [Special issue]. Computers and

Composition Online. Retrieved from http://www.bgsu.edu/cconline/gaming issue 2008/ed welcome gaming 2008.htmDay, Michael; McClure, Randall. & Palmquist, Mike. (2009). Composition in the freeware age: Assessing the impact and value of the Web 2.0 move-

ment in the teaching of writing [Special issue]. Computers and Composition Online. Retrieved from http://www.bgsu.edu/departments/english/cconline/Ed Welcome Fall 09/compinfreewareintroduction.htm

Dene, Grigar. (2005). The challenges of hybrid forms of electronic writing. Computers and Composition, 22(3), 375–393.DeVoss, Dànielle Nicole, & Porter, James. (2006). Why Napster matters to writing: Filesharing as a new ethic of digital delivery. Computers and

Composition, 23(2), 178–210.Dilger, Bradley. (2010). Beyond star flashes: The elements of Web 2.0 style. Computers and Composition, 27(1), 15–26.Gee, James P. (2007). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. Second Edition: Revised and Updated Edition (2nd ed.). New

York City: Palgrave Macmillan.Groensteen, Thierry. (2007). The system of comics. Jackson, MS: University Press of Mississippi.Hall, Sean. (2007). This means this, this means that: A user’s guide to semiotics. London: Laurence King Publishers.Hayles, N. Katherine. (2008). Electronic literature: New horizons for the literary (1st ed.). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Jackson, Brian, & Wallin, Jon. (2009). Rediscovering the “back-and-forthness” of rhetoric in the age of YouTube. College Composition and

Communication, 61(2), W374–W396.Jarrett, Kylie. (2008). Interactivity is evil!: A critical investigation of web 2.0. First Monday, 13(3). Retrieved July 14, 2010, from

http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2140/1947McCloud, Scott. (1994). Understanding comics: The invisible art. New York City: Harper Paperbacks.McCloud, Scott. (2005). Scott McCloud on comics. Retrieved August 15, 2010, from http://www.ted.com/talks/scott mccloud on comics.htmlMcGiboney, Michelle. (2009, March 18). Twitter’s tweet smell of success. NielsonWire. Retrieved July 17, 2010, from http://blog.nielsen.com/

nielsenwire/online mobile/twitters-tweet-smell-of-success/Mueller, Derek. (2012). Tracing rhetorical style from prose to new media: 3.33. Kairos Praxis Wiki. Retrieved February 17, 2012, from http://kairos.

technorhetoric.net/praxis/index.php/Tracing Rhetorical Style from Prose to New Media: 3.33 WaysNielsen, Jakob. (1999). Designing web usability (1st ed.). Indianapolis, IN: Peachpit Press.Norman, Donald A. (1991). Cognitive artifacts. In John M. Carroll (Ed.), Designing interaction: Psychology at the human-computer interface (pp.

17–38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.O’Reilly, Timothy. (2005). Not 2.0? Retrieved March 7, 2009, from http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2005/08/not-20.htmlPurdy, James P. (2009). When the tenets of composition go public: A study of writing in Wikipedia. College Composition and Communication,

61(2), W351–W373.Rettberg, Jill W. (2008). Blogging. Cambridge: Polity.Rice, Jeff. (2005). Cyborgography: A pedagogy of the homepage. Pedagogy, 5(1), 61–75.Rice, Jeff, & O’Gorman, Marcel. (2008). New media/New methods: The academic turn from literacy to electracy. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.Schmidt, Christopher. (2011). The new media writer as cartographer. Computers and Composition, 28(4), 303–314.Scholz, Trebor. (2008). Market ideology and the myths of Web 2.0. First Monday, 13(3). Retrieved July 14, 2010, from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/

cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2138/1945Selfe, Cynthia L. (1999). Technology and literacy in the twenty-first century: The importance of paying attention. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois

University Press.Silver, David. (2008). History, hype, and hope: An afterward. First Monday, 13(3). Retrieved July 14, 2010, from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/

cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2143/1950Spinuzzi, Clay. (2002). Modeling genre ecologies (pp. 200–207). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: ACM Press.Syverson, Margaret A. (1999). The wealth of reality: An ecology of composition. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Ulmer, Gregory L. (2002). Internet invention: From literacy to electracy. New York City: Longman.

Varnum, Robin, & Gibbons, Christina T. (2007). The language of comics: Word and image. Jackson, MS: University Press of Mississippi.Vie, Stephanie. (2008). Digital divide 2.0: “Generation M” and online social networking sites in the composition classroom. Computers and

Composition, 25(1), 9–23.

WWW

WYY

Z

W.I. Wolff / Computers and Composition 30 (2013) 211–225 225

ardrip-Fruin, Noah, & Harrigan, Pat. (2006). First person: New media as story, performance, and game. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.ark, McKenzie. (2007). Gamer theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.olff, William I., Fitzpatrick, Katherin, & Youssef, Rene. (2009). Rethinking usability for Web 2.0 and beyond. Currents in Electronic Literacy,

Retrieved August 17, 2010, from http://currents.cwrl.utexas.edu/2009WolffFitzpatrickYoussefinsor, Dorothy A. (1992). What counts as writing? An argument from engineers’ practice. Journal of Advanced Composition, 12(2), 337–347.

ancey, Kathleen Blake. (2004). Made not only in words: Composition in a new key. College Composition and Communication, 56(2), 297–328.

ancey, Kathleen Blake. (2009). Writing in the 21st century. Retrieved February 10, 2012, from http://www.ncte.org/library/

NCTEFiles/Press/Yancey final.pdfimmer, Michael. (2008). Preface: Critical perspectives on Web 2.0. First Monday, 13(3). Retrieved July 14, 2010, from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/

cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2137/1943