As we argue in another node of this webtext, following Stuart Blythe (1997), we can mediate writing instruction with writing technologies most fully only when we are engaged in technological design. We ask, as Gunther Kress and Theo Van Leeuwen (2001) asked, "what mode for what purpose?" (p. 46). Since their modern inception, writing centers have been rooted in dialogue over and around text; multimodal environments like AVT allow us to self-reflexively engage in the work of design—the self-conscious manipulation of semiotic resources that animates knowing as social exchange. As writing center workers, we need not become programmers to engage in such design; rather, we can become bricoleurs of a sort, testing, choosing, and combining a mixture of technological options into potential practices. Our own process has been a recursive engagement with MS Word, Sightspeed, MSN/Windows Live Messenger, AOL Instant Messenger, Skype, Yahoo Messenger, and Fix8. At the time of this writing, the Center for Writing at DePaul continues to engage new functionalities and their possibilities and limitations, seeking to add application sharing to the mix.

Our richly productive engagement with design as an ongoing practice has produced a resistance to total-solution software like Horizon Wimba, Elluminate, or Adobe Acrobat Connect Pro (formerly Macromedia Breeze). While the exigencies of stable training, uniform support, and the need to present a fixed interface for student users will no doubt push individual writing centers in the direction of turnkey applications, we deliberately avoid here a discussion of "how to" or a list of specific recommendations.

Computer technology's rapid half-life aside, we also realize that individual writing centers have their own specific needs, and any discussion concerning potential AVT technologies must consider that center's available resources, as well as its student requests. At DePaul, our own search for potential AVT software led us to several programs, through which we searched specifically for cross-platform capabilities, higher-end FPS rates, transcript and/or video recordability, and text-chat functions, among other things [PDF].

Our technological decisions, however, worked for our particular center in particular ways at particular times. Viewing AVT technologies as mere tools fails to capture the breadth and potential of AVT integration for learning and literacy. Rather than embrace or endorse one singular product, we encourage you to engage the processes of digital design as you mix and match various applications of technology and the semiotic practices they make available, writing and rewriting the possibilities of the writing center.