Stine . Hanson . Posner . Prem . Baruch
t . o . c .
White Space is the word processor that will completely change any future competition between word processors. It is a software that allows users to customize their word processor to fit their personal preferences. Our goal is to create a customized software for each user that allows them to write with maximum efficiency. Between cloud-based processors like Google Docs, classic simplistic programs like WordStar, and others with extensive auto-formatting like Microsoft Word, there is a wide array of options available when choosing a word processor. However, with each unique and specific option, something is lost. Why must a user choose between cloud sharing and free formatting? Why must grammar check and spell check be a package deal? White Space provides the user with a buffet of word processing elements that they can pick and choose from to apply to their program. These options are based on already prominent word processing programs, but the ability to mix and match elements, everything from font choices to auto-formatting to internet accessibility during the writing process, makes the program ideal for anyone looking to maximize their writing efficiency. White Space is based on flexibility. With the capacity to adjust its settings at any point in time, a user can use the software to create structured group documents one minute and unformatted, focused fiction prose the next. It is the word processor that every word processing program has led to. Everything until this moment has been a stepping stone toward White Space.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nN9wNvEnn-Q
This video displays the history of the word processor and much of computing in general. It’s quite informative if you can stomach 1980’s British Television. (skip to 12:30 for tape and tape editing and to 23:40 for typical computer engineer behavior)
White Space is the epitome of what Matthew Kirschenbaum describes as a software that stands on the shoulders of giants. Though innovative in its own right, without many of the word processors that came before it, there could be no White Space. Part of what makes our product so special is the ability to recreate much of what has been lost to time. While many early processors became obsolete for valid reasons, implementing some of their features in the present day could open up interesting avenues for content creation. As an example, some of the original word processors like the Tape Editor and Corrector, known as TECO, allowed the user to type without seeing what they were writing. This handicap has many limitations, but with modern technology allowing the option to turn that function on or off, this artificial blindness could lead to more automatic, fluid writing. Another classic limitation of the oldest word processors was the inability to delete anything that had been written, and though this is an obvious drawback as well, creation permanence leads to interesting new ways of writing. By allowing the user to create a document locked with this feature on or have it simply set to toggle, works of poetry and more intentional prose may stand to benefit .
Roy Pea, professor of Learning Sciences at Stanford University’s Graduate School of Education wrote in his 1987 work “Cognitive Technologies for Writing” that, “[word processors] neither offer qualitative advances over previous tools in helping mature writers express or refine their thoughts, nor help novices develop better writing skills,” and we agree that while some progress has been made in these fields, the inclusion of so many unique ways to use a word processor right alongside one another will be the best mode of helping writers young and old to feel confident in their application of the written word. In addition, by allowing users to save their own unique combinations of features and share these templates with the theoretically vast White Space community as a whole, many interesting creations may result.
Much of White Space’s potential lies within its wide range of user accessibility. For instance, if you take a look at computer operating systems, there is a particular gulf between superficial and relatively deep users, those who run the default operating systems of Microsoft Windows and Mac OS X, versus those who want maximum control over their device and run Linux, a free and open-source operating system created by individual users, instead. There is a wide variety of in-between space there, and White Space aims to capture that audience. When it comes to the more casual everyday user, White Space will allow for a great deal of easy-to-access and simple to understand customization. Some may argue that these superficial users do not necessarily always want customization, but in a 1996 study of over one hundred word processor users, 92% were found to have changed their the default layout in some form (Page). In addition, for the 8% who do not want to customize their word processor, several optimized templates will be available from the startup including, if they’re feeling bold, a random template generator.
The same study from 1996 also found that of those selected users, “57.4% had ten or more years of computer experience . . . 50.5% fell between the ages of 40 and 54 . . . 55.4% [were] female and 44.6% [were] male.” This is where the Linux and deep user community come to play. Those who are used to having the utmost control over their software would be allowed to have that same power with White Space. Though not every part of the software will be open sourced, users will be able to create features that they would find useful, and easily integrate them into the program, giving it a similar feel to something as customization friendly as Linux.
Almost everyone uses word processors and thus our audience is everyone, but what about those who don’t? What would persuade users to make the jump from something like Microsoft Word, a product that they are probably content with? Through various marketing techniques, to be further discussed later on this page (see, marketing), our audience will be shown that White Space is able to overcome any problems the user might be facing in their own word processor. Specifically, by paying close attention to what the user-base wants or needs, and enabled by White Space’s uniquely intuitive programmability, the software will quickly accommodate any and all users. Say, for instance, there is a screenwriter who likes typing in a word processor because they find it easier to work with and less constricting than a script writing tool, but when they go to format the final screenplay there is no software to help them in that transition, forcing them to retype the entire document. This kind of circumstance might seem niche, but because of the large amount of screenwriters there is undoubtedly a desire for such a customizable program. While other one-off programs or plugins might be able to assuage this problem, White Space will be able to incorporate such fixes and add-ons with simple, optional or automatic updates, integrated directly into the interface. This rapid adaptability will enable the product to meet the demands of a variety of consumers and spread across a wide audience.
White Space is as much of a blank canvas as the paper it simulates. It’s defining feature is its lack of a rigid structure: the program is entirely customizable to suit the user’s needs. It is at once capable of being extremely simple and undistracting, yet jam-packed with features. In current word processors, customization requires a kind of computer technique that no one should have to master. Writers should be experts at writing, not at working Microsoft Word. White Space aims to break this cycle; the word processor itself can be as complex as the user wants, but the means of making it so are extremely simple.
The program is split into two different “modes,” the customizer and the word processor mode. The customizer takes a feature from a feature list and lets it be placed into the processor as one of two forms: as a widget or as a menu button. Widgets are further customizable to look and act any way the user wants. There are several default layouts that are all radically different from each other. Many of these layouts are designed for particular audiences, such as screenwriters, novelists, and journalists. Each user can build off of these layouts to create exactly what he/she wants. All changes happen in the “customize” mode so that no accidental movements create unwanted changes to the layout. Layout changes can be made while working on a piece. If the user goes into “customize” mode and changes the layout radically the text will be there in the new configuration in exactly the same way it had been in the old. The program is fully hotkey compatible, and each function may be set to whatever key-combination the user wishes. All features not hot-keyed or visible directly on the screen will be accessible through an “other features” menu that the user designates to some space on the screen or hotkey.
As those who have been to “make your own pasta” bars know, If you mix the pesto with the alfredo and the whole wheat pasta and put kale in it, the result is a sloppy inedible mess. An entirely customizable program such as White Space is in danger of falling into the same pattern: sometimes the elements that are thrown together do not make a user friendly experience. Perhaps a user prefers all possible toolbars to be displayed at the top of their screen. How would he/she find anything? White Space makes any configuration work by keeping certain elements steady throughout the design. Important buttons like save, new, font, etc, are color coded in a way that both make navigating any of the infinite configuration possibilities easy. This makes it simple to adjust after radically changing the layout of the word processor. Part of the main purpose of White Space is, after all, to encourage people to experiment with different configurations.
White Space, contrary to its minimalist style, is a full writing experience. It has many options and features like distraction mode, where internet is blocked and notifications are turned off, and collaboration mode, where multiple people can not only work on the same document through internet connection, but are able to see exactly what changes were made and by whom. It is also capable of exporting to any format the user wishes, and can open or export documents of any other text editing software. This will be possible through the power of the internet. Users may download specific features and compatibility modes through a feature browser built in to the word processor itself. There is also a large help community accessible both through external forums and through the word processor itself.
The aesthetic for White Space is very minimalist in design and is centered around the contrast between black and white. The design, layout, advertising, merchandise, mobile components, and all related logos or images will take a similar design. The main characteristics of the White Space aesthetic will be its simplicity and black and white contrast. There is an emphasis on pieces being missing, taken away, or put together in unique ways, as seen in the missing letters in the White Space logo. This reflects the product as a sort of blank canvas for the writer to customize. While the black and white design is visually appealing, it is beneficial for the product to have small splashes of color throughout the various applications of the software. In developing the logo we have created multiple options for small accent colors to be incorporated. Call to action buttons, such as “Submit,” “Save,” and “Log In” will also be in a brighter color to attract the eye to what is most important to the user. One of our strongest candidates for colors is a deep teal color in a bar between the words “White” and “Space” in the logo. This bar could also portray a compilation of word processing symbols, hinting at the many possibilities available to the White Space user. It would look similar to a word web inside the bar. Overall, however, the aesthetic focus of White Space is simplicity, the contrast between black and white, and the utilization of accent colors to reflect the uses of the product and direct the user’s eye.
White Space can and should be used by everyone. Writers, students, educators, and companies alike will all find that the ability to tailor the program to their liking is beneficial to their writing process. Because the product can be as simple or complex as one would like, it is also ideal for students with learning disabilities. Jane Quenneville, director of special education at Alexandria Public Schools, claims that “support technology provides many benefits by facilitating writing for students with learning disabilities who often find the writing process frustrating. When students have the opportunity to accommodate writing challenges, they are more successful in the general education classroom.” Students with learning disabilities would greatly benefit from the customizability of White Space.
At first glance of the logo, the initial word, “w i t e” allows for intentional misinterpretation in that it may be read as both “white”, speaking toward the programs default layout and overall simplicity, or “write”, which is equally as descriptive of the product. On this note, great efforts will be made to have a strong online presence in both ads and in google searches. In order to target this specific audience, we will place banner advertisements on websites that are already popular with each audience group. For example, students will be most likely to see an ad for White Space on websites like SparkNotes and Shmoop to target student writers. There will also be advertisements on websites that are commonly referenced while writing, like research, dictionary, and citation sites. We will include ads in online newspapers and technology websites to target the avid reader who may also enjoy writing. As far as magazine advertisements we will target technology magazines, educational magazines, and magazines for writers as well as literary journals. In targeting schools we will reach out to administrators and schools and attend conferences and trade shows to distribute “swag.” We will also target IT companies and partner with them to use White Space. Trade shows allow us to target many different groups depending on the type of trade show from IT companies to parents. In order to make sure White Space appears when searched on search engines, we will set specific search engine optimization terms. Searches for “white space”, “write space”, and “wite spce” would all lead to the website. We will specifically target the phrases “word processor,” “white space,” “write space,” “wite space,” and “Microsoft Word,” as well as the keywords “white,” “write,” “wite,” “space,” “Pages,” and “word.”
White Space is a one-time purchase product. It will start selling at around $30 for one computer or $85 for 5 computers. The program can be downloaded online for $30 or you can choose between the two prices and purchase a White Space USB drive in stores like Best Buy, Apple, or Staples. We chose to design the product as a flash drive rather than a disc because recently many computers have stopped coming with disc drives and we want White Space to be as easily accessible as possible. With the purchase of the computer download customers also get the mobile version, compatible with iOS 8 and android phones. Since our product specifically targets students and educators, during back-to-school time we will have a discount where our product sells for $25. Through an ad campaign that targets students, educators, and writers, our White Space logo will pop-up on websites such as Facebook, Twitter, online newspapers, and technology websites.
The twitter platform has our mobile logo as its profile image and our entire logo as its header. Our catch phrase or slogan is “the write word processor,” as it evokes the ambiguity between the word right and write, suggesting both aspects of the product. Another slogan idea is “From a blank page to masterpieces-White Space.”
moving forward:
Byfield, Bruce. “Linux.com.” Online Word Processors: A Hands-On Comparison. N.p., 5 Sept. 2006. Web. 22 Nov. 2014. <http://archive09.linux.com/articles/114171>.
Bruce Byfield discusses word processing in his article “Online Word Processors: A Hands-On Comparison.” Bruce Byfield is a computer journalist focusing on free and open source software. He has written over 1,200 articles for a variety of online journals and other websites. His past work includes working at as a university English professor and technical writer, as well as communications, marketing, and design consultant. This article, written for people looking for information and advice on which word processors to use, compares four online word processing applications: ajazWrite, ThinkFree Online, Writely, and Zoho Writer, in the following categories: interfaces, basic formatting tools, advanced formatting tools and unique features, and document export and administration. Byfield outlines how each word processor addresses these word processing needs and compares their performance. At the end of each section Byfield declares a verdict, stating which processor he believes does its job the best in each category. In his conclusion Byfield makes a general comparison the word processors and is quick to point out that online word processors were still in their early stages, as the article was published in 2006. Byfield claims that online word processors were a regression, that their simplicity and reliance on the internet made them less efficient than other word processors. I find myself disagreeing with this claim. While online word processors’ reliance on the internet can be limiting and their development is still in its relatively early stages, I think that cloud-based word processors have the potential to set the standard in the future.
Byfield’s bias in “Online Word Processors: A Hands-On Comparison” is that of a person who is well-versed in word processing technicalities and has expectations for maximum efficiency in the programs he uses. This article has some weaknesses in that it is a short article and does not provide outside resources for the reader to go to to find more information. While its 2006 publishing date could be seen as a weakness because word processing has changed significantly since then, I believe it can be seen as a strength for our project. Seeing reviews of word processors in their early days can be very informative to the creators of White Space as they decide which features people have found most and least appealing in word processors throughout the years. Part of White Space’s goal is to give users the option to revert to a simpler software if needed, and this article provides ample information about older word processors and their relationship with the internet. Use of this source in our research would strongly support White Space’s thesis that the ideal processor takes the best from word processors already available.
Collier, Richard M. “The Word Processor and Revision Strategies.” College Composition and Communication 34.2 (1983): 149-55. JSTOR. Web. 23 Nov. 2014. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/357402?ref=no-x-route:eae95b932ea3538933238188507e6a01>.
In his 1983 article “The Word Processor and Revision Strategies,” Richard Collier outlines a hypothesis about the way using a word processor will affect the editing process for students. The intended audience was fellow educators that were possibly looking to incorporate word processing into their curriculum. Collier predicts the word processing revision process will be difficult for those who are less computer-savvy and that they will stick to smaller revisions and only use the simplest features in the processor. He then tests his hypothesis on four female writers between nineteen and thirty-two years old, asking them to revise handwritten essays on word processors. Collier finds that the revision process was very difficult for those who were less computer-literate, but resulted in more active revisions and slightly longer, more experimental essays. He decides that his hypothesis was wrong because the changes in the essays were not as significant as he had predicted. At the end of the article Collier claims that word processing has a long way to go before it is an efficient process, but if students learn how to use it well they will benefit from it immensely.
Since the article was published by The National Council of Teachers of English, I can deduct that Collier was an English educator. His bias is that of an educator; he wants word processing to be a tool that enhances student writing. One weakness of this article, which basically outlines an experiment in word processing, is that Collier only tested four students, all of which were adult women. This does not provide a wide scope for the way word processing was used by students, it just gives a narrow glimpse into Collier’s classroom. The early article publication, 1983, limited the processing software that Collier could use as well. However, this article gives an interesting insight to the way people expected word processors to develop. In a time when word processors were still very new and had almost no precedent, Collier provides an academic’s goals and wishes for the future of the word processor. For White Space it is essential to go back to the original goals and intentions of word processors in order to find out what is needed to apply to its design.
Kirschenbaum, Matthew. “This Was the First Word Processor Ever Used By a Novelist. It Weighed 200 Pounds and Had to Be Brought in Through the Window.” Slate Magazine. Slate Magazine, 1 Mar. 2013. Web. 21 Nov. 2014.
The author of this piece, Matthew Kirschenbaum, is the author of an upcoming work entitled Track Changes for the Harvard University Press, a book that chronicles much of the history of the word processor. Kirschenbaum also teaches English at the University of Maryland and on occasion Skypes with first year writing seminars. As an author and historian, Kirschenbaum has done extensive research on the word processor and has interviewed dozens of authors, programmers, and scholars of writing and the pedagogical nature of technology. The article is primarily focused with revealing to the reader who the first individual was to use a word processor in writing a novel, citing Len Deighton as the author, with his assistant, Ms. Ellenor Handley as the one to do most of the actual typing. Though the machine they used to create his WWII era novel Bomber (written in the late 60s and published in 1970) looked nothing like the word processors used today, IBM’s Magnetic Tape/Selectric Typewriter (MTST) was able to interpret keystrokes and store them on a magnetic tape and then print the document at 150 words per minute at the users request. Bomber benefited significantly from this technology due to its complex nature and Deighton’s non-linear writing style. Written for Slate Magazine’s website, Kirschenbaum’s audience is a relatively broad, but technologically literate community with readers similar to that of Wired or New York Magazine.
The slant present then, is one of someone who is well versed in these matters writing for an audience who is likewise aware of certain trends in that area. Kirschenbaum himself has also stated that the title of first-author-to-publish-using-a-word-processor can vary dramatically depending on a wide array of criteria. The critical weakness of the article is this grey area of categorization. How do you define word processor? Who actually wrote it, the author, or the typist? What if there was some unknown publisher in a less transparent nation that did it first? However in coming down on one book, Deighton’s Bomber is as good as any. As is apparent from his Kirschenbaum has done the best anyone ma do in this pursuit, including interviewing both Deighton and Handley for the piece. The article supports our project in that it points to the importance of the word processor. That someone would care enough to write a book researching the history of the technology shows its importance, in addition, though discovering Deighton’s use of MTST is not as relevant as George R.R. Martin revealing his use of WordStar, the article remains interesting, after all, everyone uses word processors now. As for its use within the body of this paper, the article serves as a good starting point for the origin of the word processor gaining importance and momentum as big-name authors began to use it.
Kunde, Brian. “A Brief History of Word Processing (Through 1986) / by Brian Kunde.” A Brief History of Word Processing (Through 1986) / by Brian Kunde. Stanford University, Dec. 1986. Web. 22 Nov. 2014.
This article was written by a college student at Foothills college in California. Brian Kunde, the author, worked at the Stanford University library for 26 years and is currently a library specialist. The author wrote this article to take the reader through the history of word processing and demonstrate how the need for a word processor arose. From the first moveable type in the middle ages to the typewriter that arose in 1872 to the more advanced word processors of the 60’s and 70s, Kunde demonstrates the evolution of the word processor. In a non-biased article, Kunde demonstrates to the reader, whom I assume is an educated college student, how the word processor has evolved.
The article is well-written and details many different technologies/examples of the word processor. However, the article could include more detail about technologies such as the invention of moveable type. The information in this article helps our research paper in that it takes us through the development of moveable type. However, the material isn’t as pertinent as it could be since the article was written in 1986. The article is a good starting ground for our research, but we will definitely need to do more.
Page, Stanley R. “User Customization of a Word Processor.” Common Ground (n.d.): 340-46. Web. 3 Dec. 2014. <http://www.sigchi.org/chi96/proceedings/papers/Page/srp_txt.htm>.
The primary author of this paper, Stanley R. Page, worked for Novell Incorporated at the time of writing. Not much was to be found concerning Mr. Page’s current status, however the Novell website is up to date and provides some insight into the author’s background. From their homepage: “Novell supports thousands of organizations around the globe, delivering software that makes the workplace more productive, secure and manageable.” The paper falls in line with this mission statement in that its objective was to find out what and how users change in their word processors. Based on a study of 101 volunteers, the research team tracked on discs what changes users made to the software (WordPerfect 6.0a), responses to a questionnaire, and macro usage files. Put simply, their findings were that, “92% of the participants in this study did some form of customization of the software. The maximum number of changes made by a participant was 54. The mean was 9.1. Eighty-six percent made changes to their general preferences settings. Sixty-three percent made use of custom functionality in macros. Seventy-seven percent customized the software interface to add or change access to their functionality.” Though the piece may be somewhat out of date, in the past eighteen years, not much has changed in word processing outside of cloud storage and a few nifty tricks and features. These numbers are most likely different today, however they are more than likely still representative of general trends in word processor usage.
The researchers’ audience for this study were originally those in attendance at the 1996 Conference of Human Factors in Computing, a conference that is still held today. As the name implies, the conference focuses on how humans and our ever-present computers interact with one another, with an attendance base from across the computing spectrum. The bias or slant present in the paper is minimal. Though the authors are all involved in computing technology themselves, the paper remains easy to comprehend for those less versed in such vernacular. The team set out to find out something they did not know, and were not out to prove anything, they write several times that the fact that 92% of users customize their processors to be surprising.
One of the main reasons this remains such an interesting and relevant study is that within it is contained a sampling of the word processor user demographics. The researchers state that of those sampled, “57.4% having ten or more years of computer experience . . . 50.5% falling between the ages of 40 and 54 . . . 55.4% female and 44.6% male.” In addition the study provides a comprehensive analysis of what users changed and theorizes on why the changes were made. Two of the key reasons cited for the desire to customize the word processor were that the user realized certain patterns or habits they had and wanted to facilitate these changes more, or that the user wanted to retrofit some new piece of software into an older version of the program. These two user desires are key in developing White Space further in that once the user’s wants are more deeply understood, the product may react accordingly. That said, it is important that White Space should do more than just provide users with what they know they want, to stay ahead of competition it is important to try new things, test ideas that have no assured demand, and create inventions that give the user something they didn’t even know they wanted. Apple is a perfect example of this practice. When the iPhone was launched in 2007, there were few if any metrics to depict how a smartphone would sell, but Apple took a chance, and now its product is one of the most widely used devices on the market.
Pea, Roy D. “Cognitive Technologies for Writing.” Review of Research in Education 14 (1987): 277-326. JSTOR. Web. 21 Nov. 2014. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/1167314?ref=no-x-route:a1d99e99512963867a6ea141c96cfd64>.
Roy Pea is one of the foremost scholars in implementing technology in education, he received his D.Phil. (PhD) in developmental psychology form Oxford University in 1978, and is currently a professor of Learning Sciences at Stanford University’s Graduate School of Education. Learning and teaching through technology is what he does, and he does it well. In what begins with an excellent quote from Ludwig Wittgenstein, “It is only the attempt to write down your ideas that enables them to develop,” his piece (written in conjunction with New York University Laboratory for Advanced Research in Educational Technology) focuses on how new writing technologies, specifically the word processor, benefit teaching and learning alike. Pea points out at the time of publication (1987) writing technologies did not necessarily change what people wrote, only how they wrote it. He then proposes, after outlining historical precedents, that with the wild growth of computing could come an increase in “Cognitive writing technologies,” technologies that would help put computing to the best use. Pea is clearly writing for a well read audience, but one that is still learning about this area, and due to its publication in the American Educational Research Association Review, it is safe to assume that he is also writing for his peers. At the time, writing technologies were relatively new for everyone, and Pea keeps the diction from becoming too erudite. As long as the reader knows what “cognitive” means, they will be able to get by.
The slant here comes from the fact that Pea is himself an educator writing for educators. He claims early on that “[word processors] neither offer qualitative advances over previous tools in helping mature writers express or refine their thoughts, nor help novices develop better writing skills,” a point that even then could be argued in a variety of ways. That being said, the whole purpose of the essay is to excite those possibilities and prompt educators and programmers alike to begin changing that statement. Acceptance of the current state of affairs coupled with the drive to change them is a great strength of this piece, the weakness being the fact that it was written over 25 years ago. It’s age does not, however, discredit it it entirely. This piece will be of great use in showcasing how word processing technology has changed, and how White Space will continue to refine it. In a sense, this source is useful as both a support and a counter to our current thesis and in that way solidifies our argument even more.
Joram, Elana, Earl Woodruff, Mary Bryson, and Peter H. Lindsey. “The Effects of Revising with a Word Processor on Written Composition.” National Council of Teachers of English 26.2 (1992): 167-93.JSTOR. Web. 23 Nov. 2014. <http://ezproxy.library.nyu.edu:2100/stable/40171302>.
Elana Joram, Earl Woodruff, Mary Bryson, and Peter H. Lindsey, the authors of this journal, are all professors and a part of the National Council of Teachers of English. As they are all educators, this journal article has the bias of educators; they are looking at the word processor as a way of improving the writing process. The article is very focused on the idea of a word processor versus the traditional pen and paper, and the negative and positive affects of the word processor. Because of this focus, the article seems to have been written by educators, for educators.
This article claims that word processors improve writing by making the revision process easier and simpler. Word processors make surface revision easy- they tell you when you spell something wrong, when your grammar is incorrect, and so on. While they improve writing on the surface, they also discourage creativity. The National Council of Teachers of English composed a study in which they addressed the question of whether word processors improve or detract from written composition. Word processors would either improve composition because make you revise through the writing process, or the revising would interfere with the composing process and detract from the final piece. They predicted, and later found to have predicted correct, word processors would get in the way and detract from the composing process. It was found that students focus more on surface level corrections when writing on word processors, while when they write with paper and pen they are less likely to correct small errors and focus on the piece of writing as a whole. The one weakness of this article, which clearly stood out, is that it is rather contradictory. It starts off saying word processors improve writing, and ends saying that they detracts from the writing process. This aside, this article is still beneficial to the creators of White Space because it highlights positive and negative aspects of the word processor.
Dalton, David W., and Michael J. Hannafin. “The Effects of Word Processing on Written Composition.” The Journal of Educational Research 80.6 (1987): 338-42. JSTOR. Web. 23 Nov. 2014. <http://ezproxy.library.nyu.edu:2116/stable/27540262>.
This article was written based off of a study done by the Journal of Educational Research. Dalton and Hannafin are both professors of educational psychology. Since they are both educators, the piece is heavily focused on how the word processor affects students rather than how it affects humans as a whole. The piece is a a psychology heavy study and was likely written for other psychologists studying education.
The article discusses the idea of how writing skills are approached- holistically or reductively. The holistic approach focuses on the process of writing rather than minute mechanics while the reductive approach focuses on punctuation, syntax, etc. The article claims that the holistic approach is more beneficial for low achievers who tend to be preoccupied on form rather than substance. Word processors have an effect on each of these approaches. In this study, there is a treatment group and a control group. The treatment group used word processors to complete written assignments three times a week while the control group used the traditional method of a pen and paper. The results of the study show that the use of the word processor had little impact on high achieving students, but was effective for low achieving students. I would say the weakness of this study is the date- it was conducted in 1987. However, this can still be helpful to the creators of White Space because the goal is to create a more simple word processor. If we do more research on what the word processor used at this time was, we will be able to see exactly how this affected those that were a part of the study and the benefits and detriments.
Purcell, Kristen, Judy Buchanan, and Linda Friedrich. “The Impact of Digital Tools on Student Writing and How Writing Is Taught in Schools.” Pew Research Center’s Internet American Life Project. Pew Internet, 16 July 2013. Web. 30 Nov. 2014.
This article is based on a survey done by Advanced Placement and National Writing Project teachers to see how today’s digital tools have impacted student writing. Purcell is the director of research at Pew Research Center’s Internet American Life Project and Buchanan and Friedrich are teachers. The teachers saw how digital technologies and social networking greatly affect teen’s personalities and creativity and how it encourages writing in more forms. The survey was given to teachers and is therefore has the bias of educators.
The majority of teachers surveyed believed that digital technologies have been beneficial to student’s writing processes. They believed that these technologies allow students to share their writing with a wider audience, encourage personal expression, and encourage collaboration among students. However, the survey also showed the concerns educators have with students using digital technologies. Since short-form writing has become so prevalent in the live’s of teenagers, this manages to slip into formal writing. Students tend to use informal language in formal writing assignments. Students are also more likely to slip into short-form writing styles if they are multi-tasking, like if they are writing a paper while simultaneously on social media. This study is helpful for the creators of White Space because of the distraction mode feature. The distraction mode shuts off the internet which, according to this study, would improve the writing styles of students.
McAllister, Carole, and Richard Louth. “The Effect of Word Processing on the Quality of Basic Writers’ Revisions.” Jstor. Southeastern Louisiana University, Dec. 1988. Web. 22 Nov. 2014.
This article is based on a study across three college professor’s classes of a combined 102 students. The authors, Carole McAllister and Richard Louth, created and executed the study of the students and analyzed the results. The purpose of the study was to test out the hypothesis that a word processor improves a student’s ability to revise his/her paper. In the end the author claimed that the word processor improved a student’s ability to revise his/her work. The author’s intended audience is other researcher’s interested in word processor’s as well as student’s and teacher’s. The article is quite factual and includes many numbers and deviations that support the findings so there is no slant in the article.
The article has a lot of concrete evidence for its findings and supports its claim very well. At the end of the article, the authors qualify their findings in that the word processor might just create a change in mindset of the students rather than actually help with the writing. I viewed this as a strength of the article to know when to step back and explain to the reader the possible faults with your work. The weakness of the article was, as the author’s claimed, that they did not investigate why the word processor led to an increase in effectiveness for student’s revisions. The research in this article greatly helps our thesis because it shows the benefits of a word processor. Therefore, the article is extremely relevant to our paper and I can see us using the statistics and claims from this article in our final paper.
Morello, Robert. “Five Tips for Marketing to College Students.” Small Business. Houston Chronicle, n.d. Web. 06 Dec. 2014.
Robert Morello is a Columbia graduate, a writer, and professor of travel and tourism. He has also worked in marketing and consulting. This article stems more from his marketing experience. “Five Tips for Marketing to College Students” is a condensed set of ideas for companies of all fields to use in their marketing toward people of college age. The intended audience is small companies looking to market their brand toward young adults and especially college students. The five ideas stated in the article are: “Follow the Money,” focusing on parents that fund college students, “Get Them Involved,” acknowledging the importance of interactivity between the product and the consumer through social media and advertising, “Harness Enthusiasm,” which is essentially playing off of young people’s avoidance of mainstream anything, “Giveaways,” using free swag to get the company’s name out there, and “Responsibility,” associating the company with causes that college students believe in in order to win their moral approval as an establishment. Morello claims that these five advertising techniques are key to marketing toward college students.
This article provides some interesting ideas for marketing techniques, but only gives a general overview of ways to execute the ideas presented. It would benefit the reader more to have included some input from actual college students rather than just present an idea of how they think. The article does have the bias of an author who is thinking primarily of how to generate revenue, which works for making money but can create a superficial tone for the company in my view. The article suggests harnessing student ambassadors to spread the word about the company, but I have seen this happen before and it makes for a weird, kind of forced social exchange between student ambassadors and their peers that makes for a weird image of the company. Overall I think the most useful part of the article is the piece about giveaways. We had considered this before, but in a more restricted way than suggested in the article. Morello provides the idea of giving out living essentials to college students, for example hairbands, toothbrushes, or phone wallets, to keep the company’s name in mind when students are using these items. I think White Space would benefit most from this kind of advertising, making this article relevant to our paper, even if just by this blurb.
Ridling, Zaine. “TABLE OF CONTENTS.” Word Processor Review — DonationCoder.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Dec. 2014.
Zaine Ridling, a well-versed and educated author of documents on word processors, has written for the Word Processor Roundup and runs the Great Software list. Ridling’s article is more informative than anything and seeks to outline and review the new 2007 Microsoft Word interface. The intended audience of the article is students, educators, researchers, and writers and Ridling gives specific tips to each demographic. Throughout the article Ridling inserts his own view into an overview of Microsoft Word’s features and thus presents a slant towards not using Microsoft Word if you are a student, researcher, scholar, or writer.
The biggest strength of this article was its ability to go over so many of the key features of Word. As someone who is working on creating a new word processor, this is helpful to me because it outlines what features currently exists and where they fall short. I also think that since the article is written in a way that the everyday person can understand, the audience becomes wider and broader. I though the weakness of the article was how it attempted to cover so many different word processors in the same article. Ridling tried to go in depth about many word processors, but in the end the reader was left confused or muddled with a wide array of information. The information in this article is very relevant and helps my research because it presents us with many different features of word processors and goes through the pros and cons.