I think this method is something that Sullivan steers away from because it doesn't leave much room for multi modality or the collaboration between multiple disciplines. It is more one sided in it's way of collecting and analyzing information and as the author states doesn't take into account the context of the person being observed and their cultural awareness.

I think the author is trying to show how people working in different disciplines can achieve a common goal and that technical writing and communication is evolving to be multimodal. Different skill sets are needed to create the different systems and products in technical communication and also to measure their usability and what is deemed a successful product or message.

It's interesting how Sullivan advocates a broader view of usability but also acknowledges some of the challenges it creates, in this case a flood of information. It also shows the theme of adaption that appears throughout the text, with the author referring to the new fields and positions that this broader view creates from people who research to those that design and test new systems.

Again, the author is raising questions on how usability changes depending on the context and also how the successfulness of writing is reliant also on context and the development cycle. I think it's interesting to think about how adaption and context could also effect what is considered successful. It would definitely be important for a group of coworkers to be in consensus of what a successful outcome to a project would be over a negative one. Without it, their work would have no direction or purpose behind it and would likely go off in different directions.

I think the author is trying to get readers to see computers as a space where many different types of interactions can occur. A job for a technical writer using a computer is different than the task of a engineer or psychologist. The computer is a way for us to create and receive messages that are multimodal, so there are many different ways of thinking about and creating these messages, taking from different disciplines like sociology, psychology and writing. I think this is also why Sullivan stresses the adaption of research methods throughout the article because the computer has always been evolving to be more and more multimodal.

I think this point is important to make because assuming your audience is versed in the rhetoric involving computers can have drastic effects on the outcome of the observations of the researcher. I believe that because technical writing is so multimodal, context and adaption are key because it uses new and quickly changing technologies. Sullivan believes that the discipline through which we view technical communication also determines it's context. I think this is where the adaption that the author is speaking about comes in, the way in which we study technical communication needs to change as fast as the issues and technologies surrounding it.

I agree with my classmates that this method could be too generalized and not user specific and seem to be less effective than a chosen focus group. I think its thought provoking how the author uses sociology to describe a more hands on approach when it comes to measuring usability with a product or technology. I can see the benefits of a more hands on approach and the use of sociology because it provides the researcher with a better opportunity to observe than in a survey type setting where the end user is more separated from the researcher. I think this is also why the sociologists way of thinking about technical communication is better suited for education and office settings where people are interacting with one another.

I think it's important to notice the distinction the author makes between technical review and work in the field, what the author prefers and how some views of usability study prefer laboratory work over field and some the opposite. For example, Sullivan states that a sociology perspective is better studied using field work as opposed to more controlled experiments in a laboratory. I think the traditional method of evaluation focuses more on the end product as opposed to using technical thinking early on during the prototype process. It also less on the analysis of the context in which the message is delivered. Because technical writing is now so multimodal, with people working within many disciplines at once, there are less commonalities among collaborators and more of a need for the analysis of context, Sullivan believes.

I think this touches on the goals we have created for technical writing in this class, emphasizing that the usability of the piece differs depending on the client it's created for. Sullivan uses this goal for the article as a pillar to discuss different ways in which we study usability and the effect that a multitude of different disciplines, like psychology and sociology, can have on the study of usability and technical communication. I think this message is relevant today because of the multimodal forms of communication present in todays world and how new mediums are emerging alongside new technologies.

I believe that seeing technical writing through a sociologist's viewpoint is important because of what the author calls "the context of normal use". Although in the reading and in the other articles it's expressed that making your message too simple or dumbed down is also ineffective, it's important for your message to be user friendly and direct also. I think the most effective way to make your message user friendly would be field studies as opposed to laboratory studies even though this is a relatively new approach to technical writing.