1.Robert R. Johnson's 1998 book User-Centered Technology is an oft-quoted (and often punned or homaged) source for technical communication rhetorical theory that refigures the "ends" or telos of technology. Johnson critiques what I have called Control by pointing out that the telos of techology in the last hundred years has been in the interest of

• developers hoping to profit,
• disseminators hoping to profit, or
• developers who could care less about what happens

as a result of the technology (21). Johnson hopes to shift the focus of technology and its ends away from designers and their tendency to Control for profit and toward users, those humans (virtually all of us) who interact with various technologies [...] on a daily basis in our public and personal lives (21).

2.At least part of what I mean by Control is well-articulated by Johnson's system-centered model of technology (25). Johnson even asserts that the system-centered view is so embedded in Western cultural ways of thinking about technology that even the best user-centered design approaches can unwittingly fall victim to the system-centered ideology (29). He goes on to critique Norman's model of user-centeredness. While Norman advocates composition or design that keeps the user in mind and makes things easy, his model still perpetuates design as dissemination, and ultimately as Control--though a kinder, gentler Control. Norman is telling designers (rhetors) to compose with the audience in mind, and make it easy for them to receive information (29-30).

3.Johnson wishes to reposition or reinvent the process of design as a dialog (or even conversation) between user and designer. He acknowledges that users should not be the only or even primary forces in technology development, but that they should take part in a negotiated process of technology design, development, and use (32, emphasis Johnson's). While he makes this statement, he also repositions users at the center (hence the name of his book) of a triangle graph based on Kinneavy's rhetorical triangle. Where Kinneavy places reader, writer, and reality at the points of the triangle (based on the work of I. A. Richards) and puts text in the center (35), Johnson changes these relationships be redefining terms in the following fashion:

4.Johnson then moves the artifact/system (text) to a point of the triangle, and moves the users (reader) to the center (35-36). He finishes his graph with two concentric rings surrounding the triangle. The inner ring gives the context for user activity, learning, doing, and producing; the outer ring constrains the use of technology in a context of human interaction, disciplines, institutions, and communities; and just beyond this outer ring lie culture and history (38-39).

5.Even if designers do consult with their user base or do usability testing, there's little to no chance that a Consensus will emerge. Obviously, some users will prefer (for example) the all-in-one approach of a client suite that allows both the checking of POP email and surfing the Web. Many may even want the apparent seamlessness of having these features built into the GUI OS from the start. Many users, though, may want every component separated, as they rarely surf the Web, or use Web-based email like HotMail or Yahoo.

6.With such a cacophony of voices asking for features (or asking for their removal), the designer is left with the difficult task of filtration and implementation. Many designers will simply choose to implement every suggestion. Interoperability between components is a useful thing, but the desire to turn every product into a Swiss Army Knife leads to problemsfootnote 1. The Melissa virus of 1999 exploited this type of interoperability by using the Outlook email client to disseminate a message containing Word macros that connected back to Outlook and replicated the message for transmission to all entries in the infected computer's address book. (see Dilger's discussion in note 12 of "The Ideology of Ease")

7.Though a grossly oversimplified version of Johnson's model, the "Swiss Army Knife syndrome" run amok is what I fear about Consensus. At the very least, Consensus seeks user imput, which Control does not. But Johnson's positioning of community and culture at the outer fringes of the user-centered rhetoric model gives me pause. The website you are reading is a good case study for examining how this model could run amok, and the need for an alternate model, of informed Compromise.

footnote 1. I often use the metaphor of "Swiss Army Knife syndrome" when describing the practice of jamming lots of features into what ought to be a simple piece of software (or equipment, etc.). I have found other similar usage of "Swiss Army Knife syndrome" on the Web, most notably Norby's PowerPoint slides (irony, no?) to accompany a talk on accessibility in the European Union's telecommunications network, and to a lesser extent McGovern's creative nonfiction article detailing "A Day in the life of an information worker."Another term for this is "creeping featurism," as detailed by Donna Maurer.