Darn, just when I thought my paper was almost ready to be sent off, I realise the big assumptions that you can make with limited input. I’m going to have to spend the weekend rethinking a section of my paper. The identity of any ‘user’ of a computer system is not defaulted to anything. Why did I assume that is was ‘user’? Could I have been entrenched in the university system for way too long? Could it be that I need to actually buy my own computer and set it up from scratch rather than being given one on a platter (or at least a desk). It’s nice that the uni keeps our computers running’n'all, but sometimes I think I need to become more hands on, particularly with PCs. Macs I’m alright with, although my experience with OSX is limited to when I can get my hands on my daughters (not very often, let me tell you).

But I keep looking at that paragraph thinking how can I fix that? It may not be as bad as I think. But I will really need to rethink the way it’s worded, at the very least.

Consider for a moment, a word processor where we can elaborate ideas and process words that form those ideas. For some people, this is the extent of it. There is an acceptance of the way in which the word processor works that affects the outcomes of word processing. Consider further, the advanced word processing facilities now available, facilities such as grammar checkers, tracking changes and so on. These facilities afford particular ways of working. Part of that interface to the word processor is modifiable, but is rarely modified. The standard setup for Microsoft Word in one of the preferences is that the identity of the user is ‘user’ (often changed to the company name). When inserting comments or changes, MS Word remembers that the comment or change was inserted by ‘user’. In effect, the word processor is appropriating the individual, subsuming their identity to that of ‘user’.

It’s just that last little bit. Maybe I just need to elaborate on the systems I’m used to, that it is often set up by someone else, with the actual user not necessarily aware of the issue. How many times have I seen track changes being done by a company name (or by user)? It’s that issue of novices not being aware of the capabilities of the artefact they use. Which reminds me, there has been discussion recently about removing identifying information from word docs before sending them out. I’ve received a heap of word docs lately where the track changes were still in the document. I thought that the ‘accept’ button was easy to find. Maybe not. Maybe I just need to shift my example a bit.
My brayne hurts.