Abstract
Suggests that current theories about how even the simplest elements of graphical design function in professional communication do not adequately convey the complexity of the element's actual role in communication. By showing how producers of computer interfaces rely on the possibility of multiple interpretive trajectories in the use of any sign and how users of such signs respond in ways that are far from being totally predictable, we argue that it is best to think of the communication act not as a simple exchange of information between two minds (producer and user) but rather as a field of possibilities that requires flexibility and an experimental attitude from both the producer and the user. Examining theoretical developments in the history of physics and cognitive science, we contend that the dominant paradigms of understanding communication-the old cognitive (or computational) model and the social constructionist model as currently employed in the fields of composition and technical communication-fall short of accounting for even fairly straightforward exchanges of information. In place of the communication triangle that both of the old models rely upon, we offer a new model that uses the concept of "consensual domains" as the basis for a general theory of rhetoric. As a starting point for our investigation, we present the history of a still evolving sign-the trash-can icon in the user interface of the Macintosh operating system-from the perspective of a single (also still evolving) human user.