I am still going to say that for something to be considered multimedia writing, some sort of writing must be going on. I don’t mean writing in the sense of process of creating, or whatever people like to say to stretch definitions. When I say writing, there must be some text. Sure there can be pictures to accompany the text, but what the writing actually is, is the text itself. I really don’t have much else to say that hasn’t already been said over and over in this class, so I’m not going to ramble on about it.
What is a Multimedia Text? When you say text, I assume you mean text in the way that a book is a text (otherwise the argument is pointless, text is written word). This topic is closely related to the “what is multimedia writing” question. I don’t think tacking the word “Multimedia” to the front really accomplishes anything. I’m guessing it is an attempt to expand the definition of text to include images and videos. I don’t buy it. A text, much like the writing issue, must be focused around text, the written word. A text, even a “multimedia” text, is mostly written (by the conservative definition of writing). Just like multimedia writing, the written word on the text may be accompanied by pictures or whatever else that can add to the information conveyed, but the written word must be what conveys the majority of the information. There really is no difference between multimedia writing and multimedia text. Multimedia writing is what appears on a multimedia text, which, by my conservative definition, must be focused on the written word. Although, next we will find out that some people think “written word” can mean pictures as well and the pointless debate will continue. Can we please move on now?