BIB_07: Skeen, T. (2009). The rhetoric of human-computer interaction. In S. K. Miller-Cochran & R. L. Rodrigo (Eds.), Rhetorically rethinking usability : theories, practices, and methodologies (pp. 91-104). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

In this chapter, drawing on the Foucauldian postmodern take on rhetoric that centers on power play, Skeen examines the connection between the field of rhetoric studies and HCI research. Specifically, he compares the articulation of the relationship between the designer/developer, the user, and technologies in both fields, and argues that a rhetorical approach to HCI addresses the “complex, recursive interplay” of the tripartite relationship (p. 93). Skeen reviews and compares the literature in rhetoric studies and HCI research on the relationships between the users and interface designers/developers, and argue that their relationship is a manifestation of power in a Foucauldian productive sense. Specifically, Skeen compares two articles that examining IT products of similar content in rhetoric and HCI. He concludes that the two fields overlap in the sense that both concern user empowerment, but diverge in their purposes--rhetoric seeks to critique and subvert at both the developer and the user's site, and HCI aims at persuasion and application at the developer's site.

Skeen's comparison between the two fields, rhetoric and HCI, demonstrates value technical communicators can bring to the understanding of the use of technology from their humanistic rhetorical tradition. The rhetorical approach to usability research has long been articulated by many in technical communication, such as Sullivan and Johnson. Drawing on Foucault, Skeen brings in a somewhat fresh perspective at looking at the overlapping and divergence of the two fields. This chapter is also a nice literature review for students who are interested in research in usability in rhetoric and composition or technical communication.

BIB_07: Massanari, A. L. (2010). Designing for imaginary friends: Information architecture, personas and the politics of user-centered design. New Media & Society, 12(3), 401-416.

In this article, Massanari interrogates the notion of "user" in HCI and UCD discourse and three tropes commonly used: the "stupid user," the "user as victim," and the "user as co-creator" (p. 404). He associates the three tropes of the "user" with three approaches to design; the "stupid user" is an assumption of system-centered design, the "user as victim" is associated with user-centered design, and the "user as co-creator" is associated with participatory and activity-centered design. In response to the idea and practice of using personas to understand users, Massanari argues that personas are hegemonic and often reductive in nature. He also points out other researchers' work that indicates that personas cannot always effectively solve the problems of "the elastic user," "self-referential design," and "design edge cases" in the design process in practice (p. 409). In addition, the perceived non-scientific nature of personas in an organization makes it difficult to convince everyone to take them seriously. However, Massanari seems to agree that personas can serve as effective communication tools. Drawing on cultural rhetorical theory, specifically, the Marxian concept of "interpolation" and postmodern idea of "simulation," Massanari argues that personas interpolate the users into what the designers want them to be, and since the personas are simulacra of the real users, they tend to blur the distinction and create an illusion for the designers that they are designing for the real users but actually they are designing for their simulacra. In the conclusion, Massanari points out that the advance of technology and its increasing integration in our life "will likely require new approaches to user research" p. 412).

Massanari's view on personas is challenges the practice increasingly accepted and employed in the IA and technology design industry, partly as established experts such as Alan Cooper's promotion. Using personas in the design process is almost inevitably hegemonic and reductive, yet it is well received in the industry as Cooper indicates in the foreword on his book The Inmates Are Running the Asylum. There certainly connects to what Coppola (2005) has pointed out "a universal drive for utility [that] underlies technical communication research" (p. 263) and beyond. Massanari has briefly touched the topic of Web 2.0 technology in this article, but has not further elaborated on the idea. Nevertheless, the insight this piece offers is still valuable in the context of Web 2.0.