[Sigia-l] Findability is dead, Long live ummm... Meaning?

[Jim Kauffman]

Reader-Response theory is not very useful, because it makes a common-sense
notion academic. Most fiction writers and almost all poets hate being asked
what their work "means," because meaning resides in what we geeks would call
"the user experience." Well-known authors who receive lots of feedback from
readers say they're often impressed (and sometimes appalled) by what their
readers say a novel, story, or poem "means." Sometimes the readers see an
influence that the author long ago absorbed and had forgotten about.

-Jim K.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: sigia-l-admin at asis.org [mailto:sigia-l-admin at asis.org]On Behalf Of
> Surla, Stacy
> Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 11:42 AM
> To: 'sigia-l at asis.org'
> Subject: RE: [Sigia-l] Findability is dead, Long live ummm... Meaning?
>
> I wonder if Reader-Response theory might offer further thinking/talking
> points for IA at this stage.  This school of literary criticism suggests
> that meaning takes place -- NOT in the intention of the author,
> NOR in some
> immutable "realness" embedded within the words or structures of
> the text --
> but in the experience of the reader while in the act of reading.  A fellow
> named Stanley Fish came up with this theory.  The possible usefulness of
> this model could include... a focus on the user and the "interpretive
> communities" or audience of a site to find out what happens to generate
> understanding when using the web; and a shifting of focus from the website
> as the important object to the dynamic thing that happens between website
> and user.
>
> Is this actually useful?  I don't know.  I always tended towards the
> semiotic view of things (the science of signs)... Anyone interested in
> further discussion?