When I consider the four websites I have created, aside from this one, for public veiwing (the three class sites and The Classical Rhetoric Web-o-graphy), I am able to say that I have lived up to some of the standards I present in the theory nodes of this hypertext. My uses of linking in the Classical Rhetoric Web-o-graphy was highly external. Because I used annotations for the links, I did not draw much on the symbolic aspects of links--that is, I relied upon the node's context to situate the links. Typically, they used only basic Indexical functions, in telling where the user had been, and they did not engage in the status bar, text box, or alert box index functions. I used no iconic functions at all either. In general, the page shows little use of the links' various functions. Coupled with poor use of screen space (it is essentially a long linear text), the low level link functioning leads me to believe that I presented a rather unappealing page. One that is not well designed to help the reader feel in control of his or her reading, and one that does not interact with the reader to present a highly "personable" author.

In the class sites, the ethos varies. On the IHETS 103 page, the linking seems highly facilitating. The site employs the status bar indexical functions throughout. It uses symbolic linking functions in order to avoid being temporally inefficient if we could. The users of that website were distance students, many for whom web interaction of the "academic" or class based sort was new. We tried to make the links clear and to make sure that they all functioned smoothly for the users. In the sidebar frames, we were able to engage the "visited link" indexical function so the students could know where they had been in the site. We also attempted to make the site relatively direct so that there was not too much clicking around before one arrived at the desired destination. Unlike the linking on that site, the linking on the IHETS 104 site is less "aware" of the readers. By that, I mean, the links do not typically engage in much indexical interactive functioning. However, the use of frames makes the "recognition" of the user's clicking clear--when one clicks on a month for the calender, immediate change in a different frame replaces the indexical function usually attached to the clicking. In a sense the changing of the nodes within frames are an index of the clicking on a link; however, because that is more the general nature of links, I did not really focus on it as a mark of difference in the link functions I discussed.

Both the IHETS 103 and 104 sites use screen space better than did my first site; however, the site I designed for my own English 103 on campus course used screen space more efficiently. The links on that page use more variety of the functions in the iconic use of the question mark for "help," the indexical functions of the "news" and "mail" links, and the symbolic functions in the lists of possible nodes. Because the class occured in a well equipped classroom, I was able to ignore the typical time efficiency constraints I dealt with in the distance courses. However, this site does not contextualize very well for the students. The selection boxes full of possible nodes are not detailed for the students; the most contextualization they receive is by the category they fit under: "resources," "The class," "Readings." Because I stood in the class withthe students, I was able to bring the "teacher's ethos" to the page in ways that neither of the instructors of the IHETS classes can.

In that difference, one that distinguishes my pedagogical uses of hypertextual websites in class from my Distance Education colleagues, comes a huge difference in the ethos of my own class website. I know that my own students used the website efficiently, with less trouble, and with more productive exploration than did the distance students, who eventually ended up going to the website for very simple purposes. The in class students using my website were able to rely upon it as a basis from which to begin source exploration. The students knew that if a link of mine was not contextualized, they could ask me where it would take them. If they were lost in another site, they could simply close that window--my in class site became a home base in many ways for the class. My students started there even when they were not in class once they were familiar with it. As for the distance sites, we worked hard on the 103 site to bring a strong ethos to it, but several of the links failed the students early on, some of them confused the students. In all, we did not employ all of the dimensions of the links' functions that we could to help the students navigate it as well as they should have been able to.

In the current hypertext, I have attempted to live up to the ethical standards I set throughout it. I have concluded that there are many more aspects of an on-line ethos--I knew that before I started--that account for the credibility of the source. In my linking, I have found that not all of the functions need to be invoked all of the time, but that typically more than one can be used per link to help the user know what is in store for him or her. Each link has indexical functions available, but every link is either a symbol or an icon in form. Knowing that, I have attempted to use the indexical functions to drive the "dynamic" interaction with the reader. This site has many more nodes than any that I have designed before, but I think it is as easy to navigate, if not more so, as the class websites. In all, it is in the practice of linking that I am seeing the difficulty in developing some theory of it. While I can use the link functions to aid my readers, and to show them that I am a careful composer, I cannot predict exactly where they will sense a need to explore beyond those openings that I have provided.

This hypertext does not engage in the hypersuasion I describe, and I hope that it extends some sense of the New Ethos I am calling for. Certainly this hypertext serves to inform my theory of links through my practice of linking.