2 This version of WORP is discussed in parts of this article. It relied on a form which was appended to the end of each annotatable text to facilitate annotation. In the left-hand frame of the browser window shown in the figure, an annotation form is appended to the end of the poem "Eyam" by Anna Seward. Users wishing to annotate the poem fill out the form which is then processed by a CGI script that loads a comment form into the right-hand frame.
3 The figure below shows the revised version of the annotation form. The new version of the annotator (an earlier version of the one used in this article) makes use of a pop-up window to provide the forms used to annotate texts. Initially, this seems like a subtle shift; the functioning of the annotation feature is essentially the same--readers type in a line number and a phrase to be annotated and then use a form to compose their annotations.
4 In terms of hypertext design and ease of use, however, the new model has significant advantages. For instance, readers can now arrange the annotation form on their screen to suit their own needs. In the previous version, a reader would have to scroll to the end of the text which was being annotated to reach the form (often losing sight of the original passage to be annotated). In the revised version, she can use the "Annotate" button to call forth the pop-up window. This allows the reader to switch between the text being studied and the annotation form and to maintain visual contact with the passage being annotated as she fills out the form to create the annotation.
5 Our own studies and the literature on hypertext design suggest that this kind of visual presence will benefit the annotation process significantly.(28) Additionally, the revised version relies on JavaScript programming like that incorporated into the revised WORP discussion forums. The JavaScript files provide more immediate feedback when readers do decide to annotate; the scripts now load the original text encoded with the new links to annotations and the new annotations at the same time, providing performance support and feedback which will likely enhance the annotation process.(29)
6 The obvious point is that the design of WORP is iterative and that its development is ongoing. The newer point, however, requires some unpacking. Looking at file creation dates reveals that the sections discussing the old version were still under development in January of 1997. The file creation dates of the newest versions show them to be under development in March of 1997. In just over three months, the electronic text which had been the basis for this research project had been significantly altered. Today, I enter these reflections into an article that relies on an even newer version, making the research outdated even as I type.(30)
7 The Web magazine does little more than suggest Web addresses to readers, but in their January 1997 issue they present a short sidebar that carries significant insight for this discussion. The sidebar is titled "What's That in Dog Years?" and takes the form of a number of quotations from Web developers, a few of which I'll reproduce here:
8 People talk about things happening in 'Internet years'-- which seem to last no longer than about three months. --Michael Miller, in PC Magazine.
One human year is said to equal five Internet years. --American Enterprise Institute research fellow Cynthia Belz, addressing the Reason Foundation.
Long ago (well, almost 2 years ago, but that's like 15 and a half "Web-Years." --Ryan Watkins, director of Web technology, Dimension X, Inc.
If each 'human year' equals seven years in a dog's life . . . a human year like 1996 should count for about 10 years in the life of the Web. --Alan Zisman in Computer Player Magazine.(31)
9 Although the dog-year analogies at first strike a humorous chord, the argument that the very nature of time is being impacted by the development of technologies like the Web has far reaching implications for scholarship. The suggestion is that the developmental cycle associated with the Web and Web-based projects demands that designers assume a forward stance which is clearly focused on ongoing development and reiterations of projects. But if technologists and designers are implored to assume such an attitude, what about scholars who use such technology?
10 As a designer, one of my goals is to incorporate a timeline function into the WORP project. This function has been used on other pedagogical Web projects with significant success. However, in order to produce this text, I've had to forego the implementation of the timeline. To develop this project, I have had to spend an extensive amount of time researching the theoretical articulations which have been made over the years concerning hypertext, gathering information and articles related to hypertext design and cognition, as well as collecting and analyzing data about student interactions with the WORP hypertext. In many ways we can characterize these activities as traditional scholarship and conclude that they demand a definition of research that might read "finding relevant information, reading and synthesizing previous positions, articulating a new or modified position in terms of the previous 'conversation' about the research topic, and presenting evidence that supports that articulation."
11 But how might the rapid pace of development illustrated by the revised annotation feature of the WORP project and the dog-year analogies of Web designers impact a definition of research? For a Web designer and (more important) for a Web teacher or scholar, the definition of research must sometimes read "tracking the most recent developments and capacities of Web technology and experimenting with applications of those developments."
12 Richard Lanham says that technology gives us "an extraordinary opportunity to rethink literary study from the ground up" (Electronic Word, 28). It is tempting to suggest that a new model of research that is more closely aligned with technological experimentation is demanded if projects like WORP are to be fully implemented in the classroom. Perhaps the roles of teachers whose projects require significant development of electronic resources need to be adjusted to coincide with the developmental cycles of technology. But how should those adjustments deal with the more traditional paradigm of research which in many ways might work against a newer definition of research?
13 Even during the construction of this project, it has become clear that the traditional model of scholarship is well-suited to intellectual development and may be necessary for projects like WORP to fully achieve their pedagogical usefulness. The assessment methods which have been refined through the process of analysis and articulation and the expertise which has been developed through exposure to the debates and issues surrounding hypertext suggest that traditional research activities have a valuable role in academic study. This discussion of the various elements of the WORP project could not have been fully undertaken without the comparisons and contrasts that were drawn between both theoretical articulations concerning hypertext and extended readings of other literary hypertexts.
14 So, there is much to be valued in the paradigm of scholarship which is based upon research as immersion with sources and traditional scholarly activities. Still, a paradigm which sees research as development and experimentation is also necessary for literary hypertext projects like WORP to reach their full potential. While there will always be competing demands placed upon any individual, it seems as if, at our current cultural moment, the two approaches to research are impacting each other in ways too powerful to be ignored.(32)
15 Institutions, departments and academic communities that wish to authorize scholarship such as the development of the WORP project will need to balance the competing demands of research as immersion with sources and research as development. If they are able to develop a moderated approach, it will provide an opportunity for scholars to develop a similar balance. Undoubtedly the immersion in the traditional research process benefits the eventual development of hypertexts and experimental hypertexts bring new knowledge into the "canon" of research.