Hi David,
My assumption is that you would be looking in the HCI literature (also called CHI in the US), but I see your problem of taking the phenomenological approach. So look at the approach taken by Bibby regarding user/computers as interacting, and understanding each other's *intentions* and perhaps spin that out from computers -> interacting with the online space. At least Bibby understands that the relationships are cognitively based, but derived from practice (and assumptions) which I think is the point of HCI. It's a tough one, I often go back to Nardi: Nardi, B., Ed. (1996). Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press. (also A Small matter of programming) and Suchman, L. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Feel free to laugh, but a little gem I found in this area (in the cognitive literature) is: Bibby, P. (1992). "Distributed knowledge-in the head, in the world, or in the interaction?" In: Models in the mind: theory, perspective and application. (Eds)Y. Rogers, A. Rutherford and P. Bibby. London, New York, Academic Press: 93-99. Here is Bibby's take on the interactional nature of the user/computer screen relationship: p. 96-97 "Payne argues that in order to understand the nature of display-based interaction with computers we have to adopt an analysis of the interaction as conversation, with the user and the computer both taking turns and making contributions (Clark and Schaefer, 1987; 1989). A contribution has two components: a presentation and an acceptance. A presentation is an utterance which carries the content of the the contribution and acceptance follows with both participants establishing through collaboration that both have understood. Presentations and acceptances can take several turns and the overall function of these operations is to achieve a mutual grounding: the agreement that the communication of mutual beliefs has been achieved. Payne extends this analysis to include computers as possible participants be arguing that both the user and the computer generate "accounts" of the interaction. It is these accounts that establish the mutuality of the interaction. The computer's accounts are established through the feedback that the computer gives the user about its present state. This analysis suggests that much of the interaction between the user and the computer cannot be said to rely simply on what the user knows but also on what the machine understands about the user's intentions. In this sense, it is with the conversation with the computer that meaning is established. In at least one way, the knowledge necessary to interact successfully with a computer is socially distributed." David - if I have misunderstood your question and put you into another arena, my apologies - Denise Denise N. Rall, PhD Southern Cross University, Lismore NSW 2480 AUSTRALIA Tues: Room T2.17, +61 (0)2 6620 3577 Mobile 0438 233 344 http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/esm/staff/pages/drall/ Virtual member, Cybermetrics Group, University of Wolverhampton, UK http://cybermetrics.wlv.ac.uk/index.html Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage. http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/unlimitedstorage.html