University of Michigan needs your feedback to better understand how readers are using openly available ebooks. You can help by taking a short, privacy-friendly survey.
Since the late 1990s, writing process research has often treated the tools of writing as an invisible variable or idiosyncratic choice. For example, writing process research might examine how a writer develops ideas or moves through drafts, but it often omits the role of tools: a favorite fountain pen, a trusty yellow memo pad, or a mobile notetaking app. Writing Workflows: Beyond Word Processing uses the concept of the "writing workflow" to bring attention to those seemingly invisible tool choices. Through a type of reflection that the authors call "workflow thinking," writers can look at their processes and ask how tools shape their habits—and how a change in tools might offer new ways of thinking and writing. Similarly, the book also introduces a practice the authors call "workflow mapping," which helps writers trace their tool preferences across time. Through workflow mapping a writer can better see how their tool preferences have accrued over time and imagine how new technologies might fit in. Ultimately, the book offers these new theories to help researchers better understand how writing process shapes the tools of writing, and how the tools of writing, in turn, also shape writing process.
Fig39. The workflow map helps us to see how the writer moves across a number of composing spaces and technologies as she moves toward a complete draft.
Fig40. Here the writer adds the DevonThink database application (noted through the app’s icon of a blue nautilus shell) as a digital commonplace book. The map helps her see where the database might fit into her process, and the faded remnants of a notebook help her see how past practices inform new ones. There’s also a minor shift in the arrows marking movement across technologies. Although the database facilitates preservation and recall, the map shows how it might limit flexibility.
Fig41. In making this workflow map, the writer sees movement between MS Word and Google Docs (represented here by their application icons) but isn’t sure how to think about file management and backup.
Fig42. This simple workflow map, showing the movement from a Scrivener file (represented by its app icon) to an advisor, points to challenges with the Scrivener file format. How will the writer share the document? Does the advisor use Scrivener, or will the writer need to export to a different file format? And how will the writer incorporate feedback and notes into her copy of the Scrivener document?
Fig43. The writer has decided that she will export her Scrivener project to a Word file for advisor feedback. This solves the sharing part of her workflow, but the new map signals a possible point of friction: how will she bring the Word comments back into the Scrivener file?
Fig45. Instead of saving new files every day, I moved on to using version control software. These tools let writers create a descriptive log of each meaningful change in a file and store the additions and deletions along with that log message.
Fig46. This workflow map depicts the roadblocks I encountered with various combinations of tools. First, I was not able to take advantage of version control features while using Word files. Next, I was not able to collaborate with coauthors while using Scrivener. Lastly, I have found that I can use the Atom text editor, along with the Git version control system, to write with a coauthor while meeting all of my technical and affective writing requirements.
x
This site requires cookies to function correctly.