Warnick's reception and source principles.

In this enlightened age of technology and information superhighways, the age-old practice of rhetorical criticism has been turned on its heels. Much like characters of literature, texts have evolved from being a flat, linear mode of recording and disseminating information to a dynamic, nonlinear complexity that cannot be readily defined. Barbara Warnick takes a closer look at the differences in these two methods of writing and contends that “a medium-specific set of resources for the rhetorical study of online texts” is necessary (26). She examines five principles of communication development—reception, source, message, time, and space—to consider how and why online texts must have their own set of standards for discourse analysis. However, this reader has a couple questions about the underlying assumptions behind the reception and source principles.
Reception refers to the user’s response to online messages. These messages come in many forms, such as text and graphics. A user “constructs” meaning by “interacting” with the website. Furthermore, “As they read, they proceed by weighing alternatives, constructing forecasts, and then continually modifying their expectations” (29-30). Assuming that users are always cognizant of the messages they are receiving and interacting with them seems overstated. For example, turn up the volume and take a quick look at this HEMA website. Welcome back. How long did it take to figure out that the mouse didn’t work on this website? No clicking, no thinking, no interacting, just being visually led wherever the author wants; the user is completely unable to interact with this message.
Source refers to the author or authors of the message. Warnick states “…users’ readiness to trust source credibility in gauging the quality and accuracy of message content seems to have loosened” (34). She cites a study which found that users are more apt to judge website credibility based on visual distinctiveness rather than informational arrangement and worth. Is this truly a change from print-based information? There has always been an essentially unquestioned belief of authority and truth in print-based documentation. For instance, which companies produce and sell encyclopedias? If one goes to the library or perhaps even a bookstore, the assumption is that the encyclopedias are legitimate and that all facts have been checked so there is no need to discriminate between encyclopedia companies (hence, the probable inability to name any company other than Encyclopedia Brittanica). One might look inside and then judge which volume is worthy of purchase based on how it “looks” or is organized. Therefore, what one uses to assess a print-based text will naturally become the same criteria to judge an online text. The difference for users today is the lack of critical thinking skills to question the texts put before them on the World Wide Web.
Barbara Warnick’s view that a medium-specific set of standards is necessary to analyze online texts is well-documented and defended. Two other elements that may need to be considered are the site author’s (authors’) ability to lead users visually without them interacting or constructing a pathway through the material as well as the possibility that online users are not changing the way they assess material, rather they are following the system prearranged to distinguish a credible print-based source.