Context of Online Communication: A Communicative Dilemma

2007-07-05 19:57 | ,

Now that we are reassured to rely on the written text for communication on the Web (see the previous posting), we may move towards another important aspect that Web authors must be aware of. Kana et al. (2003) have described a communicative dilemma of Web texts (and written text in general) that represents THE competitive challenge in writing for the Web.

Since man was able to produce written texts, interpersonal communication became somewhat independent of space and time, that is, independent of face to face exchange of information at one single moment in time, being the only way to communicate. The achievement of any media (from early stone tablets to modern online documents) is exactly this independent access to information without direct contact between recipient and sender. The Internet added a global dimension to the advantages of nowadays’ media. Theoretically, huge amounts of electronic information can be transferred to any place in the world as long as a user can access the Web via any telecommunication service, stationary or even mobile. At the same time, the message can be presented in different languages. The Internet also tremendously shortened the time between the production of the information and the use of it. In about a few seconds, Web texts are transferred to a Web server and immediately become accessible for clients from all over the world.

However, we would not consider writing texts and Web texts particularly a special issue if this would be without problems. One difficulty, according to Kana et al. (2003), can be seen in the separation of text and context within written communication.

Usually, when two people communicate verbally without a medium involved1 – imagine a customer in a record store talking to the shop assistant – the context of the discourse between the two is clear. Possibly, the customer would not have entered the store if he would not know what he is looking for. He can easily recognize that he really entered a record store because of all the records around. It seems also clear that the person behind the counter is the one to ask for a particular artist or release. Communication between the two would probably not happen if the shelves in the store would be filled with shirts and jeans.

As the access to written information is rather independent of space and time whereas verbal communication is not, the same context cannot be provided per se (see Kana et al. (2003), see also Fowler 1986). The context in which a text shall be understood must be given in the text. Making a text work – that is, communicating a message – is every writer’s challenge, equally for writing books, letters, reports, or Web texts.*

Moreover, the context of the reader often differs very much from the context of the author. It is the degree of difference that makes Web sites problematic. In case of a Web text that is applicable to e.g. a corporate blog, an article about a local project shall be read by global users, too. The message must be universal and relevant for all, and it must be understandable from any context that a user might have. He could be just rummaging about the company’s services, searching for information about a particular product, or just visiting the Web site by chance, without any intention – just surfing. One can easily imagine that a user would quickly become unsatisfied if he could not get any message from the information that is on the screen, as he might have a totally different context in this highly communicative situation. Probably, he would thus leave the Web site – surely an unwanted reaction for any commercial intention which Web enterprises use to have.

Common mistakes within Web content that may have been caused by not being aware of this communicative dilemma have been identified by Johnson (2003). He has described sixty common mistakes on the Web (‘bloopers’) and how to avoid them. You are invited to read about it in the next posting.

1 This is meant in a technical sense. In fact, a media theoretical approach would even consider face-to-face communication as ‘medialised’, since vocals and gestures are irreplaceably involved in human oral communication. Thus, orality is seen as the most widespread medium (see Sauer in: Handler 2001).

Published by Christian Kuhn

Comments

No comments.

Post a comment

Commenting is closed for this article.


Add to Technorati Favorites

Favourite Web writing resources

Recommended surfing