Chapters 3 of Hackos and Redish is a description according to Kinneavy’s modes of discourse. It is descriptive because it:
“Report(s) on the reality as if it were not involved in a change.” (7) – The reality is in the form of still shot descriptions of actions to be done during the course of task analysis
In addition, the task analysis chapter allows one “to identify that thing that has been described” (7).It does so by defining what a specific act associated with task analysis is and how it relates to the overall process.
As no one mode is pure, the task analysis chapter incorporates narrative and classification as support for the actions it is describing. Narrative is seen throughout the chapter as italicized examples that work to both display the dynamic nature (moving from potential to actual) of the activities to take place and to move the chapter onto the next subject of description.
Classification is seen in descriptions of the class characteristics that enables “discourse about…individuating characteristics” aka description to be discussed (13).
Chapter 4 of Hackos and Redish works as a narrative in that it allows reality (the user’s environment(s)) to be considered as dynamic. It does so, by demonstrating how the user environment acts upon the process of product design. The narrative is supplemented by description of the different types of environments.
Garret’s “Meet the Elements” chapter works to describe what the elements in the user experience field are with regards to two differently defined sets/categories: that of software interfaces and that of information spaces.
The chapter first depicts a subset of characteristics by which each element can be identified (describing) and then relates it to a larger set of identifiers within either the software interface group or the hypertext info space group (classification).
In addition, it uses narrative to explain the process by which the groups were formed and how ultimately the elements act upon the user’s experience.
Carolyn Miller’s article is one based on the evaluation of specific types of approaches to technical writing. This is seen in its backward looking acts of “narrating” what has been done, assumed, and observed in the field of tech writing in order to show its faults so as to propose a new way of approaching tech writing that requires simultaneous engagement with and critical questioning of non-academic writing curriculum/practices.
In order to carry out her evaluation she uses narrative and description modes to define and problematize her topic area.
Plato's Phaedrus:
Is also based on evaluation though not as overtly as Millers in that quite a bit of it was, as Curtis stated in his post, "overrun with narrative". In addition, it was also quite preoccuppied with description and classification. What we have here is masterful dialectic that requires the wedding of the four modes in a way so as to entertain while instructing.
